Parliamentary Commission for Administration and Health Service Commissioner for England

Bernard Jenkin Excerpts

Monday 18th July 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Bernard Jenkin (Harwich and North Essex) (Con)]

I do not intend to detain the House for long. However, with my colleagues’ permission, I would like to place one or two points on the record. In particular, I would like to join the tributes paid to the existing ombudsman, who has done such a fantastic job over so many years. Ann Abraham has stamped her authority on the office of the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman. In particular, she fought a gallant battle over the Equitable Life issue. I am pleased that in the end it was resolved amicably between her and the Government. No one can say that she did not change the course of history on that question, as she has on so many minor issues that are equally important to the people concerned.

Ann Abraham will continue in office until the end of this year. She gallantly gave notice in good time that she wished to step down to give us time to decide not just to appoint a successor but how to appoint one. Traditionally, under legislation, the appointment is made by Her Majesty the Queen on the recommendation of the Prime Minister and with reference to a resolution of both Houses of Parliament. However, traditionally, the appointment process has been handled entirely by the Cabinet Office. Quite early in the process, the Public Administration Committee made it clear that we thought that this was no longer a process that reflected the present times and that Parliament should be much more at the forefront of this procedure. I am grateful that the Government readily conceded this point and handed the whole process over to the House of Commons.

I am extremely grateful to those who took part in the appointment process, notably the Principal Clerk of Select Committees, the permanent secretary at the Department of Health, Una O’Brien, who was the Government nominee on the panel, Professor Alice Brown, who is a former public service ombudsman in Scotland, David Prince, who was the external assessor appointed by the Appointments Commission, and myself. I am pleased to tell the House that we reached a unanimous decision in favour of Dame Julie Mellor. We had a strong field of acceptable candidates from which to choose and many of them were capable of doing the job, but Dame Julie Mellor has an outstanding record of achievement in the public and private sectors.

In particular, Dame Julie Mellor excelled as chairman of the Equal Opportunities Commission between 2005 and 2009. I can assure the House that we are fortunate to have her. That judgment was confirmed by the pre-appointment hearing conducted by the PAC on 6 July, which was chaired by a colleague on the Committee, the hon. Member for Luton North (Kelvin Hopkins). I absented myself as I had served on the panel and therefore had a conflict of interest. I wanted to ensure that the Committee had a free run in making its own judgment about the ombudsman. Again, she received unanimous approval from the PAC, and I am sure that the House will wish her well in her appointment.

Perhaps the more important issue to raise, however, is the ombudsman’s remuneration. As the hon. Member for City of Durham (Roberta Blackman-Woods) pointed out from the Opposition Front Bench, we have slipped into the habit of aligning the ombudsman’s salary with that of a High Court judge, which was appropriate, because, like a High Court judge, the ombudsman has the right to summon persons and papers to resolve the issues before her. However, in the interests of pay restraint, and with the Prime Minister’s salary in mind, the Government have set about trying to re-evaluate the correct salary for quite a large number of public appointments.

The Committee was, shall I say, distressed that the ombudsman’s salary was caught up in that general process. The difficulty that we had in arguing for the status quo was that the Parliamentary Commissioner Act 1967 makes no reference to a High Court judge; rather, it says that the salary should be fixed to that of a permanent secretary. Unfortunately, unlike in 1967, when the legislation was passed, the salary of a permanent secretary is a moveable feast these days. Their salaries extend from a little over—or even a little under—£100,000 to well over £200,000. Fixing the salary to that of a permanent secretary has now become an arbitrary process, although we did not feel it right for the Government simply to take the matter into their own hands. The Government were determined that we should advertise the post with a salary range that we describe in our report on the remuneration as “arbitrary”, and we are distressed that we were left in that position.

The current ombudsman has been clear that de-linking the ombudsman’s salary from that of a High Court judge leaves the office vulnerable to the charge that it is being downgraded by the Government. The office used to be analogous to that of the Comptroller and Auditor General, who now earns a significantly higher salary than the ombudsman. At some stage this matter will have to be addressed, but, as the hon. Member for City of Durham said, the most invidious part of the process is that the ombudsman, having been approved by the panel and agreed by the Government in principle, then had to negotiate her salary within the range offered by the Government, which was between £152,000 and £172,753. We did not feel it right that someone who will be responsible for holding the Government to account on behalf of complainants should have to negotiate her remuneration with the very Government whom she should be regulating. Having discussed the matter with one of two others in prominent public positions who had found themselves in the same situation, I can state that the Committee is entirely right to have concluded that this is an entirely unacceptable basis on which to proceed.

[Charlie Elphicke (Dover) (Con)]

It is a great pleasure to serve on my hon. Friend’s Committee. I would like to hammer home the point that the function of the ombudsman is analogous to that of a High Court judge, in that the ombudsman acts as a large-scale arbiter and provider of justice. As such, it is right and proper that the ombudsman’s salary should be on a level equivalent to that of a High Court judge. Does my hon. Friend agree that the appropriate course is for the Minister to listen to this debate, go away and reconsider the matter?

[Mr Jenkin]

I have great sympathy with my hon. Friend’s comment, but the Committee concluded that it would be wrong to upset the arrangements that the new ombudsman had negotiated with the Government. To her credit, she did not argue the toss. She simply said, “I want this job, I want to serve Parliament” and decided that, for her, the remuneration was not significant. However, it is instructive to quote what she told the Public Administration Committee during her pre-appointment hearing. On whether it was right to downgrade the job and to negotiate her own salary, she said:

“I have to say that I do not think it has been a satisfactory process, and I have found myself making the principled argument…around what the criteria should be for determining the pay, and I do not think as an individual I should have been put in that position.”

The Government, having accepted that principle, are addressing the matter, but I have spoken about this matter with such force because it raises questions about every single public appointment that the Government make, and the independence of the appointments is at stake.

I am bound to tell the Minister that, on the advice of the Public Appointments Commissioner, we shall return to the way in which public appointments are made in a future inquiry, because we think that the use of the Prime Minister’s salary as an arbitrary benchmark for salaries for positions such as these is neither a scientific nor a reasonable basis for making such appointments.

[Robert Halfon (Harlow) (Con)]

Like my hon. Friend the Member for Dover (Charlie Elphicke), I served on the Committee that interviewed Dame Julie Mellor, and I agree that she gave an outstanding interview. Will my hon. Friend the Member for Harwich and North Essex (Mr Jenkin) acknowledge that she is taking a substantial pay cut to take on the job of ombudsman?

[Mr Jenkin]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Since Dame Julie ceased to be chair of the Equality and Human Rights Commission, she has been working in the private sector and earning substantially more than she could ever hope to earn in the public sector. For that reason, she felt that she was going to take a pay cut anyway, and the differences that were being argued about were not worth any suggestion of compromising her independence. She has argued, however, that she should never have been left in that position. This also has a lesson for other appointments—particularly, perhaps, that of the chair of the United Kingdom Statistics Authority. In that instance, with a more limited field of candidates, the Government’s preferred candidate has withdrawn her name, so we shall have to go through a reappointment process. Perhaps if the right salary and conditions had been set at the outset, rather than being arbitrarily cut by the Government, we would not now be facing that situation.

I wish to be charitable to the Government, however. I thank them for addressing this matter, and they have agreed in principle that these things should be done differently next time. They have agreed that the salaries should be decided between the Chair of the Public Administration Committee and the Prime Minister before the recruitment process starts, so that when the position is advertised there is no question of the candidate having to arbitrate his or her salary after the appointment has been made.

In closing, I invite the Minister to recognise that this is the system that is effectively being put in place for the Comptroller and Auditor General, and that the salary should be agreed between the Chair of the Public Accounts Committee and the Government. Should not this also be reflected in the legislation for the ombudsman? The “Open Public Services” White Paper, which was published last week, suggests that the Government will amend the powers of the ombudsman in respect of tendering for public services, and there might well be other changes to the office of the ombudsman in the next year or two, particularly with regard to public access to the ombudsman, which at the moment is not general but is confined to health service complaints. Does the Minister agree that it would be preferable for stability in the salary to be reflected in legislation, to protect the independence of the position in future, rather than relying on horse trading between a Select Committee and the Government, which is how we have to proceed at the moment? I invite the Minister to give us some assurances on those points this evening.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Jones]

There is—and quite rightly. Because of previous Governments’ and this Government’s pegging of MPs’ pay, many people, even some quite low-level local government workers, are earning considerably more than us. In terms of the process that we are addressing however, it is important that the ombudsman is independent of, and cannot be influenced by, Government. We have a slightly different relationship with the individuals to whom the hon. Gentleman has referred.

These measures were all brought in on the basis of pay restraint. A lot has been said about trying to cut senior salaries. I have already mentioned the Auditor General’s pay, and there seems to be some inconsistency across Government about where this restraint should apply. If we are going to make exceptions, I cannot see why things were changed here, as opposed to, say, for Bernard Gray who was appointed Chief of Defence Materiel at the Ministry of Defence by this Government on a salary of £250,000 a year, plus a potential bonus of £30,000. I know that that is a very important job; it delivers equipment to our armed forces. I have no objections to Bernard, either; I know him well, and he is a very fine individual. However, if the decision was taken to break the principle of the Prime Minister’s salary being the ceiling in that case, I do not understand why the Government have intervened in that way in this other case.

The Prime Minister’s letter of 21 June reveals a lot about the attitude to pay restraint policy. I do not think he has understood the process. What we are doing here is going away from quite a well-thought-out system to one that has now brought into doubt whether not only current Ministers and Governments, but others too, could influence these areas in future.

[Mr Jenkin]

I think that the hon. Gentleman will find that when he served as a Minister, civil servants received performance-related pay and quite substantial salaries. Indeed, larger salaries were probably offered to public officials than the current Government are offering. I am therefore not quite sure what his complaint is. Does he now recognise that the Government have conceded the principle of what he is arguing in the wording of their motion, in that in future the salary will be agreed between whoever holds my office of Chair of the Select Committee on Public Administration and whoever is Prime Minister

“in advance of the recruitment process”

starting, so there will be stability in the salary at the outset of the recruitment process? I am therefore not quite sure what the hon. Gentleman is arguing with the Government about now.

[Mr Jones]

The hon. Gentleman has not won a great victory here, because he has no powers of determination now in respect of the existing salary, unless he is going to be able to go back and negotiate—be the shop steward—on behalf of the ombudsman each year to increase her salary. A mechanism would be better.

What is the difference between this instance and the cases of other individuals—such as the MOD example that has been given—in terms of the pay restraint policy that the Government are introducing? Another problem is where to start in terms of the salary band. As the motion says, the individual would get an increase, but that will be forgone at the moment.

[Mr Jenkin]

Is the hon. Gentleman seriously suggesting that we should have come back to the House of Commons, with the new ombudsman having negotiated and agreed her salary at the current level, demanding that the House of Commons vote for a higher salary than she has agreed? In these straitened times I think that the British public would have found that difficult to understand. Starting from now, we have come up with a much better solution to sort this out for the future without embroiling the new ombudsman in a silly controversy that would have distracted from the seriousness of her office.

[Mr Jones]

The hon. Gentleman cannot have it both ways. He cannot say that he is objecting to the arrangement and that he has obtained some kind of victory for the future when he has not. I am sorry to say that what was wrong was the fact that the Government intervened by imposing an arbitrary cap and then saying to the ombudsman, “Sit down and negotiate your pay.” He has obtained something for the future but it is not going to affect the starting salary or the situation now. He is asking whether it would have been wrong for his Committee to have suggested something, but it could have proposed a mechanism that would have possibly increased a larger salary. If it is okay for Bernard Gray at the MOD to be paid £250,000 a year plus bonuses, why are the Government not having consistency across the board? This is a very important job, as it involves independence from the Government and from Parliament, and it is wrong for the Government to be interfering.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Peter Bottomley (Worthing West) (Con)]

The hon. Member for North Durham (Mr Jones) has spoken in a way that has interested the House. If I say that he has managed to say in 23 minutes what he might have said in three, I hope he will take that as a compliment.

The essential point of the second motion is that the pay of the parliamentary ombudsman should be set in advance. There is a lack of clarity about whether that will be done before the appointment is advertised. Today, if the motion goes through, I shall be voting for the first time in 36 years for something that I think is seriously wrong. It is wrong to advertise a post and then negotiate with the person who is chosen and reduce the pay after the appointment has been offered. That is wrong. One can understand why the Government might have done it, but that does not make it right. Controlling spending is necessary, but to do it after an appointment has been offered is wrong.

I could say that many more times, but the fact is that this decision is one thing the House has done that is equivalent to what happened when Elizabeth Filkin was chosen to be the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards. Her number of days was reduced, her pay was reduced, her appointment should have been renewed because in those days it was not a non-renewable appointment, and in her last week this House agreed to pay her the £30,000 she had been underpaid during her years of service. If I may make a remark about a former holder of the office of Chair, when the former Speaker said in her memoirs that she did not approve of the commissioner or of some action, I thought that was wrong as well.

[Mr Jenkin]

I feel compelled to intervene on my hon. Friend because I do not think it is accurate to say that the Government cut the salary after the post had been advertised. They notified the House of Commons that they did not wish to pay as much as the existing salary and the recruitment panel was left in the invidious position of wondering how to advertise the post. The strong advice we received was that we should advertise a fixed salary, but the Government would not allow us to do so. We advertised based on the existing salary, but that was qualified and the candidates were informed during the recruitment process that it was subject to alteration. It was not a satisfactory process, however, so the spirit of what my hon. Friend is saying is absolutely right.

[Sir Peter Bottomley]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend and I congratulate him and the Government business managers on finding a motion that could get through the House. The essential point remains however—I think I am right in saying this—that the salary negotiation took place after the person had been chosen, and that is wrong. Although I was not part of the process, I understand that the candidates were strong and that almost any of those who were well-qualified to be chosen could probably have decided to take the job at no pay if it had been advertised at no pay because it is an important position of public service to the people of this country and, indirectly, to improve the government of the country. The essential point is that we should never again start negotiating with someone who has been offered a job in competition by saying, “At what level will you do it?”

My hon. Friend the Member for Harwich and North Essex (Mr Jenkin) referred to the UK Statistics Authority, whose report was published today. The report rightly says that its aims, with the Office for National Statistics, are respect—I do not think that aim has been met in this case—and working together to make a difference, which is true. Another of its aims is being proud of what has been done and always trying to do it better. In terms of trying to do things better I am not sure that, without a framework, it is correct for the Prime Minister and the Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee to decide rates of pay. We need to have a framework and then we can say, “This is what it would appear to be—it should be up or down on that.”

I ought to have started by saying that I approve of the selection of Dame Julie Mellor and that I would have approved of the selection of any of those on the shortlist because I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Harwich and North Essex that any of those who got to the shortlist could have been appointed with honour and distinction. However, let me make a less important point. Motion 9, which is being taken with the lead motion, refers to the rate of pay which is

“subject to (a) any relevant increase for Permanent Secretaries recommended by the Senior Salaries Review Body and (b) after the end of the current pay freeze, 1 per cent. annual uprating in lieu of performance pay”,

and it goes on to things we have discussed already. I do not think those conditions are right. We ought to say that the rate of pay for someone holding that office should not change at all, as with Members of Parliament between general elections. We ought to say that, although there might be some inflation or even deflation, the rate of pay for someone holding a position that goes from appointment to a point at the end of service, or, as for us, from one general election to another, should remain the same. I do not think that 1% in lieu of performance pay dignifies the office, is necessary or makes sense, but that is not to be amended.

[Mr Jenkin]

I share my hon. Friend’s concern about this but the problem is the legislation, which allows the salary to be determined only in relation to that of a permanent secretary. That is why I invited my hon. Friend the Minister to give an assurance that we will, at the earliest opportunity I hope, update the legislation.

[Sir Peter Bottomley]

I shall conclude my remarks by joining in the praise for Ann Abraham and the way she has fulfilled the job, and I look forward with anticipation to Dame Julie Mellor’s doing the same.

I do not think anyone in the House thinks it was the Minister’s idea to get us to this position, although he might have helped us out of a difficulty. I hope that he will say to ministerial colleagues that it would be better to get my hon. Friend the Member for Harwich and North Essex, as Chairman of the Public Administration Committee, and others together to create a framework so that we avoid any possibility of dropping ourselves into such a mess again. I leave aside the fact that Dame Julie Mellor is female and that the House has a record of saying to people, “We’re going to change the terms of the job and a woman will do it.” There are other times when I may be more explicit about such things, but there is an opportunity to say here, with approval for Dame Julie Mellor and disapproval for the way we got ourselves into this fix, that we expect the Government to take on their responsibility and, with others, find a way of resolving it for the future.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Hurd]

That leads me on to my next remark. The Government have reviewed the way the process was conducted and have been quick to accept the Public Administration Committee’s recommendation that for future appointments to the role, the remuneration arrangements should be agreed between the Prime Minister and the Chairman of that Committee before the start of the recruitment process. This commitment is reflected clearly in the Government’s motion.

My hon. Friend has raised the possibility of using any legislation coming out of the Government’s recently published open public services White Paper to enshrine these new arrangements in statute. As he knows, the Government’s proposals in relation to the ombudsmen set out in that White Paper are at an exploratory stage, and it is too early to know what may be required in terms of legislative reform, but the crucial point is that the Government are committed to these new arrangements going forward and that commitment is clear from the terms of the motion. Subject to the outcome of that debate, should a suitable legislative opportunity arise in the future, the Government will give serious consideration to enshrining the new appointment and remuneration arrangements in statute.

[Mr Jenkin]

rose—

[Mr Hurd]

I am grateful to hon. Members for their contributions to the debate about this important role. I commend the motions to the House.

Public Bodies Bill [Lords]

Bernard Jenkin Excerpts

Tuesday 12th July 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Bernard Jenkin (Harwich and North Essex) (Con)]

I am most grateful for the opportunity to speak at this stage in the debate.

The Bill is significant by any standards and represents the Government’s plans to implement their reform of public bodies as a result of the review they carried out in the second half of last year. The Select Committee on Public Administration, which I chair, inquired into the review at the time and published a report last January. Somewhat to my surprise, the report was more controversial than I had anticipated, but I emphasise that it was unanimously agreed by all members of the Committee of all political parties.

We expressed concerns at the time about the way the review was conducted, and we have heard some of them in the Chamber this afternoon. We found that the tests determining whether a public body should be retained or reformed were poorly designed and not applied consistently, and that Ministers had failed to consult adequately about them. The Government have suggested that they intend to hold triennial reviews of non-departmental public bodies and I urge them to reconsider the tests to see how they can be reviewed.

The tests in the Bill are different from the tests applied in the review. I invite the Minister to explain why that is so. As the Minister for the Cabinet Office and Paymaster General pointed out earlier, there are effectively four tests in the review: the first is existential; the second is whether the body concerned carries out a highly technical activity; the third is whether it is required to be impartial; and the fourth is whether it needs to act independently to establish facts. That is a good stab at the tests required, but funnily enough those are not the tests in the Bill. Clause 8, entitled “Purpose and conditions”, gives four tests: “efficiency”; “effectiveness”, which is a very broad term and is not defined; “economy”, which we presume means value for money; and

“securing appropriate accountability to Ministers”.

Again, I do not know what “appropriate accountability” is, and these are very subjective tests to have in legislation.

Clause 8(2) suggests that any reform of a non-departmental public body should

“not remove any necessary protection”,

whatever that means, and should not

“prevent any person from continuing to exercise any right or freedom”,

which is quite specific and probably an important protection. In our report, we suggested in paragraph 23:

“There should be a single set of tests that covers: whether a function needs to be performed”—

the existential test—

“whether it is appropriate for it to be performed independently by a public body”,

which is surely the impartiality test,

“and how it can be delivered most cost-effectively (value for money).”

I hope that that recommendation might be better reflected in the Bill. Perhaps the Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office, the hon. Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner (Mr Hurd), could address that later.

The Committee also considered the Government’s claim that abolishing bodies and transferring their functions back to Departments would improve accountability, and I submit that the Government are applying a rather narrow test of what constitutes accountability. Of course, Ministers want to retain influence over decisions for which they are ultimately accountable, but our conclusion was that to focus exclusively on that traditional form of ministerial accountability ignores other ways in which bodies are held to account. In particular, we are all aware of how stakeholder groups and civil society play an important role in providing challenge and criticism to public bodies from day to day so long as they have a clearly identifiable focus for that challenge. I do not wish to denigrate civil servants in any way, but a civil servant in a Department is a far more anonymous entity than a named public body. The Committee proposed that converting public bodies into executive agencies could ensure that Ministers remained responsible for clearly identifiable bodies within their departmental responsibilities without losing that public focus.

We also considered a number of other topics that we felt were important to make the reforms a success, including how Departments sponsor their public bodies and how the transition should be managed. The Government’s response was somewhat critical of parts of our analysis, particularly the comments on cost savings, and I was glad to hear ministerial clarification earlier this year of how cost savings will be made. To the Government’s credit, they accepted a number of our recommendations, including the conversion of some public bodies into executive agencies.

This is a controversial Bill, because we do not have an Armed Forces Minister or a Justice Minister at the Dispatch Box to answer all these problems. It is that shortcoming in the Bill that led the other place to make substantial amendments to it. It is much improved and much more acceptable and I shall certainly support it, but we could make improvements to ensure that these controversial changes to bodies that were, after all, brought into being through primary legislation are not simply ticked off by Ministers with a stroke of the pen.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Hurd]

It is obviously the responsibility of the Government to consider all the costs, but the right hon. Gentleman is ignoring the role of the Lord Chief Justice. I come back to the point that the Government recognise, as we all do, the need for reform; the question is how those reforms can be delivered in the most cost-effective way. That is the debate that will roll through Committee and beyond. Clearly, feelings run high on the issue in this House and the other place.

[Mr Jenkin]

My hon. Friend is making an emollient and helpful speech, but the real question is not how these issues will be dealt with during the passage of the Bill, but how they will be properly debated and adjudicated on by Parliament after the Bill is on the statute book. Will he give the House a general undertaking that these contentious issues concerning bodies that were established by primary legislation will be the subject of proper and reasonable consultation and debate when the orders come before Parliament, and that there will be an opportunity for Parliament to exercise the influence it would have exercised had we been confronted with primary legislation?

[Mr Hurd]

My hon. Friend’s question goes to the heart of the debate about how the Bill is structured. He understands that if this enabling Bill is enacted, it will be the responsibility of Ministers to come to this place with orders, having consulted where that remains appropriate, and make their case, with appropriate safeguards in terms of scrutiny and the capacity of the House to require the enhanced affirmative procedure. There was no serious discussion of this during the debate, but, with reference to the safeguarding procedures, I think we are in a much better place than when we started and when his Committee examined the Bill.

Open Public Services White Paper

Bernard Jenkin Excerpts

Monday 11th July 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Letwin]

Yes, in the sense that this White Paper sets out a programme not to enforce diversity of provision, but to enable it. If the community wishes to leave a particular service that is provided by only one provider where it is, that will be for the community to judge. If the community believes that in some cases it is worth having a diversity of suppliers, that is what the community will be able to do. I am speaking now about areas that are mainly devolved, as the hon. Gentleman said; hence, I am speaking about England. I leave it to him and his colleagues to deal with those in Scotland. In the case of the Work programme, there is a diversity of suppliers; indeed, there had to be, in order to create competitive pressure to ensure that those who succeed also succeed in being paid, and that those who do not succeed are quickly replaced by those who will, because it is a payment-by-results programme and the aim is to get people back to work. We want the providers that are best at getting people back to work to be those that remain in business.

[Mr Bernard Jenkin (Harwich and North Essex) (Con)]

I welcome my right hon. Friend’s statement and the excellent White Paper, which lays such emphasis on choice for individuals in the type of public services they wish to have. Does he agree that we cannot say that we are in favour of choice and then insist that a particular service be run by a monopolistic local authority? Nor can we say that we are against competition if we are also complaining about too much public procurement going to large private sector companies that were in favour of more competition, not less.

Afghanistan

Bernard Jenkin Excerpts

Wednesday 6th July 2011 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

The hon. Gentleman makes a good point about the capacity of the Afghan Government and the scale of the Afghan security forces, which is improving all the time. The point I would make is that there has been rather unfair press about the hotel. In fact, the Afghan security forces were able to clear it of insurgents rapidly. There was of course a regrettable loss of life, but the operation was fast and effective. They drove the insurgents on to the roof, where they were effectively taken out with the assistance of NATO. We saw a similar attack on a hotel in Mumbai, and we have seen suicide attacks in other countries. All I can say is that people who are pretty tough nuts, such as General Petraeus and Lieutenant-General Rodriguez, were very impressed by what the Afghan security forces did. We should be talking that up, not talking it down.

[Mr Bernard Jenkin (Harwich and North Essex) (Con)]

Although my right hon. Friend, and indeed President Obama, are under all kinds of pressures to speed up the withdrawal from Afghanistan, and although that would be the wrong reason to withdraw, may I commend my right hon. Friend on setting a timetable, because that is how to accelerate the political process in Kabul and make President Karzai sit up and engage in the some of the talks that are already taking place? I also agree with my right hon. Friend that it would be quite wrong to internationalise that process. It must be done through the tribal structures and Loya Jirgas in Afghanistan, by and for Afghans. It is not something that we can supervise from the UN.

[The Prime Minister]

I thank my hon. Friend for his question; perhaps I can adjudicate between the two poles in the House. The process must be Afghan led. We do not want a bad, tribal, poorly thought-through carve-up that will lead to future instability. Clearly, there must be a proper reconciliation process, but what I have seen—a timetable has perhaps assisted with this—is a very positive engagement from Afghanistan in Pakistan on their shared future. We can push, encourage and work with those two countries, but in the end they must make decisions together on how they will be more secure.

House of Lords Reform

Bernard Jenkin Excerpts

Monday 27th June 2011 Commons Chamber

[The Deputy Prime Minister]

The contributions of Lord Whitty and Baroness Quin were, indeed, excellent, and I look forward to hearing support for the ideas that they set out last week from Labour Front Benchers today.

Turning to the second key reason for change, if we do not modernise the other place, a question mark will continue to hang over our second Chamber. We have passed the point of no reform, and to come this far and give up is to condemn our upper House to enduring doubt about its legitimacy. Yes, Lords reform has been debated for a century and, yes, our second Chamber has evolved over that time, but the other place cannot afford another 100 years in limbo. Reform is overdue, and it is time to bring this chapter to an end.

[Mr Bernard Jenkin (Harwich and North Essex) (Con)]

I must confess that I think the House of Lords has done a pretty good job over the past 100 years, and I am glad that the Deputy Prime Minister acknowledges that it does, indeed, do a good job. I invite him to consider that House of Commons Library figures show that the average Member of Parliament costs the British taxpayer about £257,000 a year, whereas the average unelected appointed peer costs well under £100,000. Is now the right time to start demanding that we spend more money on more politicians, more expenses, more secretaries and more office space, when the House of Lords is doing a perfectly good job as it is?

[The Deputy Prime Minister]

I agree with my hon. Friend that the other place is oversized—it is far too large. That is why one of the centrepieces of the proposals worked up by the cross-party Committee, which I chaired, was that we radically cut the number of politicians in the other place right down to 300, so it would be less than half the size of this Chamber.

[Mr Jenkin]

On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. Will you look into the House’s sound system? I distinctly heard the right hon. Gentleman the Deputy Prime Minister refer to the size of the House of Lords, when my intervention made no mention of that whatever, so he must have misheard me.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

That is not really worth responding to.

Oral Answers to Questions

Bernard Jenkin Excerpts

Wednesday 15th June 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Maude]

If the coalition Government had not inherited the biggest budget deficit in the developed world, we might not have to be taking these steps. I remind the hon. Gentleman that a civil servant on median pay—about £23,000—who retires after a 40-year career, which is not untypical, will have a pension that would cost £500,000 to buy in the private sector. No one in the private sector now has access to such pensions.

[Mr Bernard Jenkin (Harwich and North Essex) (Con)]

May I commend my right hon. Friend for his determination to engage to the maximum with the public sector unions to try to avoid industrial action? He has made it clear, however, that he does not rule out legislative changes. May I plead with him, on behalf of the Public Administration Committee, that we make changes in an orderly fashion, and that perhaps he should publish a Green Paper to consult on what changes should be made, so that we can have a proper debate about them rather than find ourselves propelled into legislative changes in an emergency?

House of Lords Reform (Draft Bill)

Bernard Jenkin Excerpts

Tuesday 17th May 2011 Commons Chamber

[The Deputy Prime Minister]

Of course I accept that many issues that we discuss in the Chamber, and many issues with which any Government must deal, may not resonate on the doorsteps, but they may none the less be significant and important to our national life. I think we all agree that it is important for world trade rules to work properly, but that is not an issue that is raised with me on the doorstep very often. It is important for us to get local government finance right, and that too is not raised on the doorstep very often, but it is none the less significant and important. The fact that an issue is not raised with us by our constituents does not mean that it is not worthy of debate. If that is not the case, I cannot imagine why Government after Government have debated this very issue for nearly a century

[Mr Bernard Jenkin (Harwich and North Essex) (Con)]

Is this not yet another tatty roadshow brought to us by the same people who thought that the British people wanted the alternative vote? If the Deputy Prime Minister really believes that the British people want this reform—and I note that he makes no criticism at all of the way in which the House of Lords currently does its job—why does he not submit these proposals to a referendum, and let the British people decide?

Counter-terrorism

Bernard Jenkin Excerpts

Tuesday 3rd May 2011 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

Of course we consider all those things very carefully, but Pakistan has lost thousands of soldiers fighting extremists in south Waziristan and the Swat valley, where they are trying to root out a similar sort of Taliban to the one we are fighting in Afghanistan. We have to understand when we are talking to President Zardari that he lost his wife to extremist terrorists. Of course we must be careful in all that we do, but working with the Pakistanis so that they can combat extremism in their own country is clearly in our national interest.

[Mr Bernard Jenkin (Harwich and North Essex) (Con)]

May I commend my right hon. Friend’s tone towards Pakistan and his saying that we should deal with that country constructively and co-operatively? Should we not bear in mind what President Zardari himself has pointed out—that only 11% of the population of Pakistan has ever voted for radical Islamic parties, and that 85% is explicitly opposed to al-Qaeda? On that basis, there should be common interest and common cause between our two countries.

[The Prime Minister]

My hon. Friend is entirely right. Indeed, we need to co-operate not just on combating terrorism, but on the other matter we have been discussing today—combating the narrative of extremism. The same problem as the one we have been dealing with in our country exists in parts of Pakistan, albeit in a larger and different way.

Oral Answers to Questions

Bernard Jenkin Excerpts

Wednesday 27th April 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Letwin]

Social enterprises can take a wide range of different forms, but the common feature is that they do not seek to make a profit for shareholders. I think there is a widely understood definition of voluntary and community sector groups, and the big society bank will be organised in such a way that it can identify those and make sure that the funds that it is providing to social investors and social lenders go only to those groups.

[Mr Bernard Jenkin (Harwich and North Essex) (Con)]

May I commend the intellectual ideas behind the whole concept of the big society? May I also commend to my right hon. Friend an article by Tim Montgomerie that appeared on ConservativeHome earlier this week entitled, “Conservatives can win the poverty debate but not if the Big Society is our message”? Is the big society more accurately described as a label for a collection of policies rather than a policy itself?

[Mr Speaker]

I hope that the Minister will answer with particular reference to private sector applications and the big society bank.

Libya/European Council

Bernard Jenkin Excerpts

Monday 28th March 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Bernard Jenkin (Harwich and North Essex) (Con)]

My right hon. Friend has rightly been commended for the way he has averted a humanitarian catastrophe, but will he say a little more about what will mark the end of this conflict? Ideally we would like to see Gaddafi step down, but is it possible that he could comply with the terms of the no-fly zone and the UN Security Council resolution while remaining in office and keeping the country divided, rather like a new Cyprus?

[The Prime Minister]

My hon. Friend asks the extremely difficult and very good question, because it is unclear what will happen next. People did not predict the rush to Benghazi, and nor did they predict the rush back from Benghazi. They did not predict that the rebels would be so effective at knocking the Gaddafi regime out of all those coastal towns, including the key oil installations, so it is difficult to have an absolutely clear picture of what will happen next. I think that what we should hold true to is the very strong UN Security Council resolution that is about a no-fly zone, about protecting civilians and about getting humanitarian aid in. To comply with that, Gaddafi must comply with all the things in the resolution and with what the President of the United States set out in his statement. I see no sign of that happening and, as that is not happening, we are right to go on enforcing the resolution.