Oral Answers to Questions

Bernard Jenkin Excerpts

Thursday 27th February 2020 Commons Chamber

[Michael Gove]

I am grateful to the hon. Lady for raising that question. Civil servants must of course abide by the civil service code, and we deprecate the leaking of any Government information. I will reflect hard on the point behind her question.

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

I declare an interest as a vice-president of Combat Stress. May I point out that Combat Stress is facing a crisis because the Government are withdrawing funding for the 1,200 or so veterans who use its services every year? There is now an instance of a veteran taking their own life because they were refused treatment by Combat Stress and referred back to their GP. This is a very serious situation. Will my hon. Friend please ensure that Combat Stress gets the funding it needs to deliver the care to the veterans it looks after?

[Johnny Mercer]

I pay tribute to my hon. Friend and his work with Combat Stress. The reality is that Combat Stress is facing challenges at this time, and not exclusively because of issues with Government contracts. These challenges are reflected across the third sector because mental health care is changing. We must always be driven by the evidence about what works when it comes to accessing and treating more and more people, as the awareness of mental health goes up. I have met Combat Stress a number of times, and I have met my hon. Friend to discuss this issue. I am happy to continue meeting to find a solution to this very difficult problem, the answer to which is not always throwing money at it and hoping that it gets better.

Debate on the Address

Bernard Jenkin Excerpts

Thursday 19th December 2019 Commons Chamber

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

I could not find the result as I listened to the closing remarks of the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull East (Karl Turner), but I think the Brexit Party received substantially more votes than the margin of his majority—do correct me if I am wrong—so he was saved, if you like, by a split in the Brexit vote. I hope that he will reflect on how little his voters respected the Labour party’s position on Brexit.

Mr Deputy Speaker, I congratulate you on your sudden elevation, and may I also congratulate Mr Speaker on his election? I also congratulate the Prime Minister not just on achieving a stunning outturn to a difficult election, but on striking such a sensible and moderate tone at the moment of victory. He humbly accepted the responsibility, and his comments were far from the triumphalism that he might have indulged in and that, in fact, is not part of his character.

There has been much speculation about the long-term significance of this result. Is 2019 going to be like a 1945, 1979 or 1997 watershed? It is far too soon to be certain about that, but it is rightly the Government’s ambition to make it a watershed by changing the nature of the Conservative party, with its new intake and the new constituencies that we represent, ensuring that we deliver in constituencies that have not been represented by the Conservative party for a very long time, if ever.

It is certain, however, that this is a watershed moment in our relationship with the European Union. I still hear among many of the comments a reluctance, perhaps, from the Opposition parties to accept this, but the election result represents a substantial consolidation of what was decided in the referendum. Incidentally, the effect of leaving the European Union will be far less about economic and social matters. It is far more significant in terms of its political and constitutional intent. It is about the intent of the British people and a signal of our national determination to be a self-confident country, to take control of our own affairs, to make our own laws, and to navigate our own way in the world, as the sixth largest economy in the world is perfectly capable of doing. Yes, there will be problems of transition, but most countries are not in the EU and they are absolutely fine. We will find our way out of the European Union probably in a manner that most people in this country will not even notice in terms of immediate policy effects, but they will understand that they voted for us to be a self-governing nation.

The election converted the direct mandate of the 2016 vote to leave into a clear representative mandate, and that was always going to have to happen, because direct democracy does not sit comfortably in our system of representative government. This election represented that transition: not just to leave the EU in principle, but a mandate to deliver the deal negotiated by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister. The election decided how we are going to leave the EU, as set out in our manifesto.

Incidentally, we are leaving with a deal. It is quite extraordinary that a narrative is developing that we will somehow leave without a deal in a year’s time. We might leave without a free trade agreement, and the Prime Minister has made it absolutely clear that we are leaving at the end of 2020 come what may, but that puts us in a far stronger negotiating position than we would be in if our hands were still being cuffed by a House of Commons determined to inflict defeat on the Government at any cost and to subvert the referendum result and the election result. We are now in a position to negotiate more effectively than we have ever negotiated before and, with the experience of the previous negotiation, is it not apparent that there has been a sea change in the attitude of the other members of the European Union? They want to get this done. They are not against free trade. They are not in favour of protection for its own sake. They are not in favour of inflicting some kind of vengeance Brexit on the United Kingdom. They will want their exporters to benefit just as much as our exporters will benefit, and we are in a strong position to achieve that.

In this election, people also voted for this rather mobile concept of “one nation”. Actually, one nation, as somebody recently reminded me, was a term coined not by Disraeli but by Baldwin. Disraeli talked about the two nations—the rich and the poor—but Baldwin fused it into a political philosophy about forging one nation, so that the divide does not exist. My right hon. Friend was right to emphasise that that has always been the role of successful Conservative Governments. In fact, poverty has generally declined under the Conservatives, and inequality tends to increase under Labour Governments, because they try to tax people too much and, in the end, the taxes fall on those least able to pay.

This election result was not about those who made the biggest promises. If the party that won the election was always the one that made the biggest promises, we would never win an election. The fact is that some of the Labour party’s promises, as my hon. Friend the Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton) was saying earlier, were irresponsible. They were not credible, and they looked cynical. Those kinds of promises do not work. People vote for a track record. There has never been a Labour Government that did not leave office with a higher rate of unemployment than they inherited from their Conservative predecessors. That is a fact, and people remember that. The election reflected the fact that common sense prevailed over the temptation to allow extravagance that the nation could not afford and over a continuation of the institution-breaking paralysis that a hung Parliament had inflicted on the Government at this particular juncture in our history.

This election result is a defeat for the idea that we should somehow move to a more proportional voting system. The advantage of our voting system is that it distils a decision so that hung Parliaments are rare. This election demonstrated that the nation does not like hung Parliaments. It likes decisive government. The nightmare possibility of a continuing state of paralysis encouraged people to vote tactically and make a judgment about how they wanted the political deadlock to be broken. They did not want it to be left to a lot of politicians on lists filling smoke-filled rooms and stitching things up for themselves. It was not just that period of government that was unpopular, because the coalition between 2010 and 2015 turned out not to be very popular in the end.

I welcome the Gracious Speech. The withdrawal agreement represents a compromise Brexit, which we now all must live with, and all can do so because it is a good compromise. There has been much speculation about the European Research Group, which I do emphasise is primarily a research group, and about whether we should rename ourselves the “manifesto support group” because we are not at loggerheads with the Prime Minister. We are not holding him to ransom. We supported his deal before the election. It was remainers who were trying to destroy his Government before the election, and they will now hopefully lay down their arms and sue for peace, because this has been resolved. That is what our voters expect.

I am just as interested in the proposals in this Queen’s Speech for a constitution, democracy and rights commission, which will have a large agenda after a period of constitutional strain in which so many of the norms and conventions of our constitutional settlement were just simply thrown aside in the battle over Brexit. The Select Committee on Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs, which I chaired before the election, has looked at electoral law, the Fixed-term Parliaments Act 2011, the role of the Electoral Commission—maybe we should look more at that role—constituency boundaries, the royal prerogative and the Supreme Court judgment, alongside the nature of our civil service. I am pleased the Prime Minister is considering how the effectiveness of Whitehall can be improved.

Now we have a mandate and a majority to address all these matters, we need a careful and consensual approach so that we do not make the mistake of previous changes, like the Fixed-term Parliaments Act. That Act was a rather grubby deal to try to cement the coalition into office, and it had all sorts of unintended consequences. We must legislate on the constitution very carefully to avoid making such mistakes in future.

[John Spellar (Warley) (Lab)]

The hon. Gentleman mentions the redistribution of boundaries. There was a strong feeling in the previous Parliament that it would be a huge mistake to reduce the number of Members of Parliament and the number of constituencies from 650 to 600. Does he think that ought to be revisited?

[Sir Bernard Jenkin]

I certainly do. On Second Reading of the Parliamentary Constituencies (Amendment) Bill, the private Member’s Bill introduced in the last Parliament, I spoke in favour of the compromise that seemed to be emerging for a variation of 7.5% instead of 5%, so as not to corral constituencies into artificial shapes, and for 650 seats instead of 600. Overwhelmingly, the objective should be to re-establish consensus on boundaries through the usual channels. Boundaries should not have become a politicised issue. We could not get any boundary changes through because it had been politicised—another clumsy mistake by the coalition Government.

We have to recognise that this cavalier fiddling with the constitution and this period of paralysis have left the public with much less confidence in our political institutions. There has always been cynicism about politics, but never about Parliament as an institution. The public were becoming very jaundiced about Parliament as an institution, and this majority Government is an opportunity for all sides to recognise what the rules are and to make this place work for the benefit of our constituents, whether we are in opposition or in government.

I also welcome the emphasis on the national health service in Her Majesty’s Gracious Speech. I was at a roundtable at Conservative conference a couple of years ago to discuss the staffing crisis in the NHS—this was before the staffing crisis had moved up the political agenda—and I asked who is accountable for workforce planning in the NHS. A variety of opinions came from the various professional bodies around the table and, actually, some of us persuaded the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care that he should make himself accountable.

We then got an interim people plan for NHS England that was extraordinarily thin on numbers and analysis, so I welcome the breakthrough into numbers that appeared in our manifesto. I am a little sceptical about how easy it will be to achieve 50,000 more nurses, and I immediately pressed the Secretary of State to explain exactly what 50,000 more nurses means and how it will be achieved. That is yet to be fleshed out in hard policy detail, but we have set ourselves the challenge and we have to deliver it.

[Karl Turner]

It is made up.

[Sir Bernard Jenkin]

No, I promise that it is not made up, but it would be fair to say that a great deal of work needs to be delivered to make it happen, and it may well cost more than the Government expect. We have to deliver it, and I hope the hon. Gentleman supports the objective, even if he criticises how it will be achieved.

Although the Health Service Safety Investigations Bill, which had its Second Reading in the House of Lords at the end of the previous Parliament, was not specifically mentioned in the Gracious Speech, I have had it confirmed that the Bill is in the Government’s programme for a later date. The Bill would introduce a new healthcare investigations body to establish the causes of clinical incidents in the NHS without blame by using a safe space so that people can speak freely without fear of prosecution or attack, in the same manner as the air accidents investigation branch of the Department for Transport. An independent body is required, and it requires legislation. The Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee, which I chaired, made that proposal, which the Government accepted. I chaired a pre-legislative Committee in the last Parliament, and we have the draft legislation we want. All we are waiting for is for the Government to introduce the Bill, and I hope it comes quickly.

Our greatest challenge in this Parliament is to restore faith in our House of Commons, our Parliament and our democracy. I hope the Gracious Speech will contribute to addressing that, but it depends on our attitudes and our behaviour with each other. I hope we move past previous animosities and rediscover some of the consensus that makes this place work. I look forward to working with colleagues on both sides of the House to that end.

--- Later in debate ---

[Neil Gray]

Absolutely. I am about to make the point that what is good for the goose is good for the gander, and my hon. Friend makes that point well.

Our case is made stronger because of the nature of the election campaign we just had in Scotland. Jackson Carlaw, the acting Tory leader in Scotland, said the Union was on the ballot paper. Annie Wells MSP said that if Nicola Sturgeon and the SNP win, “they get their referendum.” I am yet to see a Tory leaflet in Scotland that did not have opposition to a second referendum at the heart of it. The SNP manifesto and all my literature talked about Scotland’s right to choose. I was clear, even with prospective voters who were undecided on voting for me but opposed to independence, that I would campaign for a second referendum if I was re-elected.

The result in Scotland was clear—even clearer than here in the rest of the UK. The Tories lost half their seats in Scotland. Their share of the vote went down and the SNP won more than 80% of the seats we contested. We have a higher share of the vote than the Prime Minister enjoys. In response to my intervention, the former Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May), suggested that because we achieved only—only!—45% of the vote in Scotland our mandate can be ignored. She has not really thought that through, has she? Extend that logic to the fact that the Prime Minister achieved only 43% of the vote in the rest of the UK. Nobody is denying the Prime Minister his democratic right to govern, and they should not be denying Scotland’s right to choose any longer.

[Sir Bernard Jenkin]

rose—

[Neil Gray]

I look forward to hearing from the Tory Benches the democratic case for how Scotland can be denied its say.

[Sir Bernard Jenkin]

The fact is that nobody in Scotland can possibly have voted without the knowledge that the Government of the United Kingdom were not going to agree to a referendum, so they could vote for whichever protest party they liked in the full knowledge that the hon. Gentleman’s promise would not be delivered in any case. Also, as was pointed out earlier, the SNP got fewer seats than it got in 2015. Why this result is regarded as a great triumph when the SNP has been going backwards, I do not know.

[Neil Gray]

The Union was on the ballot paper. No clearer campaign message came from the Scottish Conservatives than that, and it was wholeheartedly and comprehensively rejected by the people of Scotland. It would be wise of a so-called leader—one who aspires to statesmanship—to listen not just to those who voted for him, but those who voted against him, and to listen to the second largest member of this Union, which whole- heartedly rejected the manifesto that he put forward at the general election.

In her entertaining speech, the hon. Member for Chatham and Aylesford (Tracey Crouch) suggested that the Prime Minister was oven ready. Well, I say that what is good for the goose is good for the gander. Tory Members and the right hon. Member for East Antrim (Sammy Wilson) say that the SNP does not respect the results of democratic events. Well, in 2014 we respected the result of the referendum. Scotland did not become independent against the wishes of the people of Scotland. In spite of the even greater victory in 2015—the general election that saw us return 56 SNP MPs—we did not push in the first part of that Parliament for a second referendum. Then Brexit completely changed the offer of the Union voted on in 2014. In 2017, we lost seats, although we still held a majority of seats in Scotland. We won the election in Scotland, but there was contrition and our campaign for a second referendum after the 2017 general election took a step back.

It is the Tories now who wish to ignore the people and ignore the people of Scotland, but make no mistake: we now have a mandate from four consecutive parliamentary elections, and the result last week is unarguable by any democrat. It is for the Prime Minister to explain in a reasoned way why he would deny Scotland the right to have our say. It is he who now has to justify his unsustainable position. If he continues to refuse our right as the second largest nation in the Union to choose, he will be judged as the one nation Prime Minister he so desperately craves to be. He will continue to be judged as the vote leave, little Englander Prime Minister, and that will not serve him well in Scotland.

Prime Minister's Role in Creating a Safe Environment

Bernard Jenkin Excerpts

Thursday 26th September 2019 Commons Chamber

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

There is already a danger of these exchanges turning into a “holier than thou” competition. We should reflect on how much unhappiness and anxiety there is among Members of the House and that this is going to be expressed in various ways. People are going to use robust and emotive language to express their views, and that is entirely understandable. May I just make one request, Mr Speaker—that we no longer invoke the name of any person who has been a victim of attacks in order to try to make political points because—[Interruption.] Well, there we are. It is simply used as an opportunity to shame other Members of this House. I do not think any of the exchanges and mentions of Jo Cox yesterday were particularly fair on her family.

[Kevin Foster]

It is always useful to benefit from my hon. Friend’s experience in this House over many years. He is right to say that we can have robust, emotive debates. The issues settled in this Parliament are of great concern across the nation, and people will rightly get passionate about them, but we should not do so with disrespect, and I know, of course, that if that happened, it would be dealt with.

Early Parliamentary General Election

Bernard Jenkin Excerpts

Wednesday 4th September 2019 Commons Chamber

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

I think every Member in this House respects the passion and bravery of the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas), but will she at least recognise the irony that she is calling for the revitalisation of democracy at the same time as speaking against renewing the representative mandate of this House? I would invite the House to consider—[Interruption.] I am going to be very brief. The irony also extends to those crying for a people’s vote who will vote against the people having a vote about the future of this House.

The British public have watched this House of Commons decline into almost a zombie Parliament—one that is incapable of deciding anything and is still dominated by remain thinking and remain attitudes even though the British people clearly voted leave in the referendum. Yesterday, I spoke about the problem of us having created conflicting representative and direct mandates. The legitimacy of this House was unquestionably as a House of representatives, but we qualified that as we introduced the concept of referendums into our constitution. The representative mandate is unalterably qualified by the fact that we had a referendum and said that we would implement the result.

However, this House has failed to implement that result. We therefore must ask ourselves: how is that going to be resolved? It will not be resolved by continuing to put off decisions, yet the Bill, which so many of the remain-supporting Members of this House are so pleased with, does no more than invite the European Union to put off its decisions. What is going to be gained by putting off decisions again? What kind of respect will this House gain by putting off decisions at the same time as avoiding a general election, which would make us accountable to our electors?

[Mrs Anne Main (St Albans) (Con)]

Does my hon. Friend share my puzzlement? Opposition Members are looking at a Government who have lost their majority, cannot get their business through and are offering the chance of a general election. An election will be about more than just Brexit. There are other things that matter to my constituents and they will still want to renew the mandate and give a Government a mandate to deliver on those things. A Government without the ability to deliver need to have a general election. I would have thought that any Opposition Member would have accepted that.

[Sir Bernard Jenkin]

I agree with much of what my hon. Friend says, but I return to the question: how is it going to be resolved? Supposing the Opposition are successful, the Bill goes through and the Prime Minister is obliged to go and seek an extension and to accept an extension to, say, 31 January, or whatever date the European Union decides to offer—

[Graham P. Jones (Hyndburn) (Lab)]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Sir Bernard Jenkin]

I am not going to give way.

What will happen after that? A definition of madness is to repeat the same thing again and again expecting a different outcome. The longer this goes on, the more that Members of Parliament will fear holding a general election because, out there, faith in the established political parties—

[Graham P. Jones]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Sir Bernard Jenkin]

I am not going to give way.

The voters’ faith in the established political parties is not being improved by what is going on; it is being further undermined. The last thing I want is for the whole of British politics to be realigned around the question of Brexit, but that is what will happen the longer we carry on putting off this decision.

Like so many of my voters and so many colleagues in this House, I long to move on to the questions beyond Brexit, but that requires us to respect the decision that has been taken. It requires respect for the fact that there is a Government in office with a responsibility to conduct the negotiations as they see fit, or it requires those who do not have confidence in the Government to table a motion of no confidence to resolve that question.

That brings me back to the Fixed-term Parliaments Act 2011, from which the motion we are debating this evening arises. It has turned out to be a recipe for this paralysis, which would never have arisen but for the Fixed-term Parliaments Act.

[Mr Kevan Jones (North Durham) (Lab)]

You voted for it.

[Sir Bernard Jenkin]

I beg your pardon. The right hon. Gentleman says that accusingly, but I certainly did not vote for it. I remember walking through the No Lobby on Second Reading with remarkably few people, and I said to them, “Don’t worry. This House will rue the day that it passed this piece of legislation.” We should now be rueing the day, because that legislation has put this House in a position where it can endlessly wound a Government but avoid killing them.

If the Leader of the Opposition has so much contempt for how this Government are conducting their affairs, and this Government no longer have a majority, why does he not table a motion of no confidence? It is because there is fear in this House about facing the consequences of a general election because of how this House has conducted the whole Brexit affair for the past three years.

I asked how this will be resolved, and I can tell the House that putting it off again and again will not make the political outcome of the eventual general election any easier for a great many colleagues. The Prime Minister, in his inimitable style, is showing leadership and courage at last. He is trying to resolve this issue.

“Leave” and “remain” were the words on the ballot paper. There was no reference to deal or no deal, but the Prime Minister of the day made it quite clear that we would leave the European Union, and this House has conspired again and again to delay that happening.

People in the constituencies of Opposition Members, particularly in remain-voting constituencies, should ask themselves what mandate they have for putting off this decision again and again. It is democracy in our country that is paying the price, and it is the rise of far more extremist parties that will be the result if this House carries on putting off the decision.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Prime Minister]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I note that the Leader of the Opposition is once again not in his place, in what I think is a slightly symbolic way. Forty-eight hours ago, he was leading the chants of “Stop the coup and let the people vote,” and now he is saying, “Stop the election and stop the people from voting.” There is only one solution: he has become, to my knowledge, the first Leader of the Opposition in the democratic history of our country to refuse the invitation to an election. I can only speculate—[Interruption.] I can only speculate as to the reasons behind his hesitation. The obvious conclusion is, I am afraid, that he does not think he will win. I urge his colleagues to reflect on the unsustainability of this position overnight and in the course of the next few days.

[Sir Bernard Jenkin]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Is there some way of tabling a motion “That this House has no confidence in Her Majesty’s Opposition”?

[Mr Speaker]

I note—

Oral Answers to Questions

Bernard Jenkin Excerpts

Wednesday 10th July 2019 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lidington]

I have been very clear in a number of public statements that I believe that a disorderly no-deal exit from the European Union would not only cause significant economic harm in all parts of this country, but place further strain on the Union. I believe it is in the interest of everybody in every party in this House and in every part of the UK that we deliver on the referendum result of 2016, but do so in an orderly fashion that protects jobs, investment and living standards.

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

My right hon. Friend told The Times last week that he feared that what he called “English indifference”, if I recall correctly, was something of a threat to the Union. The reports that my Committee has produced about devolution and Brexit have called, with the support of the Scottish and Welsh Parliaments, for much more concrete machinery to exist between the Government of the United Kingdom and the devolved Governments, and for there to be inter-parliamentary machinery. I must say that I have found the response of the Government to be slow and somewhat indifferent. I appreciate that he is battling on many fronts at the moment, but can he speed up his enthusiasm for dealing with these issues?

[Mr Speaker]

And in the process, we will try to ensure that the hon. Gentleman’s Committee’s reports become bestsellers. That is the ambition.

Interserve

Bernard Jenkin Excerpts

Monday 18th March 2019 Commons Chamber

[Oliver Dowden]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his questions. As he knows, I have great respect for him, but he rather overstates the case in respect of Interserve. Let me go through some of the points he raised. First, he asked whether checks were performed on the company before contracts were awarded. Yes, of course those checks were performed.

Rather than trading rhetoric around, let us look at the facts. Interserve issued a profit warning in September 2017, after which no major central Government contracts were awarded to Interserve until it completed its refinancing in April 2018. Since that refinancing, two such contracts have been awarded: one in August 2018 for facilities management for the Foreign and Commonwealth Office in Europe, where Interserve was the incumbent supplier, so it was essentially a continuation of that service; and secondly, a contract with Highways England was awarded in September 2018 for a £12 million bridge over the A63. Of course, contracts are being awarded across the wider public sector but, in respect of the contracts awarded by central Government and for which Ministers are responsible, those are the major contracts that were awarded in the relevant period.

The hon. Gentleman asked whether we will nationalise the company. The point here—indeed, the point about all the contingency—is that there is no need to invoke the contingency. Contingency is used if a company collapses —if it goes into liquidation—whereas in this case the companies that deliver services for the Government are entirely unaffected. All that has changed is the ownership by the parent company. Indeed, what has changed is that the company has got stronger—it has £100 million more on its balance sheets and fewer debts because of the restructuring—so there is absolutely no need to invoke the contingency preparation.

The hon. Gentleman talked about a few major companies winning Government contracts; let me tell him the figures: more than 5,000 companies bid for and win Government contracts. We have set a demanding target of a third of all business going to small and medium-sized enterprises.

If the hon. Gentleman is worried about contracts going to Interserve, perhaps he should speak to a few of his colleagues. For example, a £10 million contract was awarded to Interserve in June 2018—by Labour-run Southwark Council. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman could have a word with Labour-run Wales, which awarded a contract to Interserve just in December.

I really have to say to the hon. Gentleman that at this time when employers, suppliers and public service workers are seeking calm heads and reassurance, we are absolutely clear that they are completely reassured. I would have thought the hon. Gentleman would have done better.

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

Does my hon. Friend recall the inquiry and report by the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee, which I chair, on the collapse of Carillion? We found that in this sector there was a habit of companies taking on far too much risk without sufficient compensation from contractors, and we found over-optimism on the behalf of Government that they could transfer risk at unrealistic prices. Is this not another example of a company that is paying that price? Should we not be more optimistic that the company has been put into a pre-pack administration in a much more responsible fashion, with lenders taking a much more responsible view? Is there not also a lesson that shareholders must accept that this is not a sector that lends itself to high risk and high return? We do not want to trust our public services to such a risky model.

[Oliver Dowden]

I thank my hon. Friend for his question; as a former member of his Committee I know about his considerable expertise in this field. Indeed, the expertise provided by his Committee helped to frame the Government’s response post-Carillion. For example, that is why I launched the outsourcing playbook a couple of weeks ago. It deals with exactly this point, and is a guide to how Departments should allocate risk as between the Government and the private sector.

My hon. Friend is absolutely right about the overall approach that should be taken. I have been clear, as has my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, that outsourcing companies that provide services to the Government should expect reasonable but not excessive rates of return. Through the programme of reforms we have introduced, we are moving towards a new model for outsourcing.

UK’s Withdrawal from the European Union

Bernard Jenkin Excerpts

Thursday 14th March 2019 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

Order. Resume your seats. Order. I have given a ruling on the matter which seems to me to be entirely reasonable. The right hon. Gentleman made it clear that although he was seeking clarification he was not presuming to argue the toss with the Chair, and I think it reasonable in the circumstances, with very significant numbers of Members wishing to speak in the debate, that the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster and Minister for the Cabinet Office, the right hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr Lidington), should be called to move the motion that stands in his name.

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

On a point of order, Mr Speaker.

[Mr Speaker]

I hope the hon. Gentleman is not going to argue the toss, but I am very happy to hear his point of order briefly if he wishes to raise it.

[Sir Bernard Jenkin]

There might be some concern, Mr Speaker, that the selection of amendments does not reflect the will of the House, because the will of the House cannot be expressed on an amendment, as you have said previously, until there has been a vote on that amendment. Therefore, given that amendment (b) expresses different matters that you have chosen not to select, what are we to conclude from your own views on these matters?

Oral Answers to Questions

Bernard Jenkin Excerpts

Wednesday 6th February 2019 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lidington]

As the hon. Gentleman knows, Parliament agreed to change the law late last year to give Ministers in the Northern Ireland Office greater powers in giving directions to the Northern Ireland civil service, but the answer is for the political parties in Northern Ireland to come together so that we can see the Executive and the Assembly restored. That is the way to give effective representation for effective decisions to be taken.

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

My right hon. Friend will be aware that there is no formal machinery for the Parliaments of the United Kingdom to work together and to scrutinise the work of the Joint Ministerial Committee and the Executive functions that work together. The Interparliamentary Forum on Brexit again met in January and called for this. Will he support this Parliament and provide it with the necessary resources so we can institute proper interparliamentary machinery in the United Kingdom?

[Mr Lidington]

We are very open to proposals from my hon. Friend’s Committee and from others in this House and the House of Lords. We are working together with the devolved Parliaments and Assemblies. If Parliament will lead, the Government will support it.

--- Later in debate ---

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

May I point out to my right hon. Friend that the House has already had some indicative votes? The House did not like the withdrawal agreement as it stands and would prefer not to leave without a withdrawal agreement at all, and the whole Government voted to replace the backstop. What progress is being made in the discussions led by a remarkable alliance of my right hon. Friend the Member for Loughborough (Nicky Morgan) and my hon. Friend the Member for North East Somerset (Mr Rees-Mogg)? They are promoting what is known as the Malthouse compromise, which would replace the backstop with a perfectly viable scheme to secure an open border in Northern Ireland under all circumstances. What is holding it up?

[Mr Lidington]

There is no attempt to hold anything up. The Government are very determined that we need to make progress, not least because of the two-year deadline under article 50 and the importance to our businesses of leaving the EU in an orderly manner with a withdrawal agreement. The group to which my hon. Friend refers has been meeting my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union. Those talks continue.

Leaving the European Union

Bernard Jenkin Excerpts

Monday 21st January 2019 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

It is important that we deliver on the vote that took place in the referendum in 2016. We will continue to talk to the Irish Government because I believe that the best way forward for all of us is to be able to leave with a deal. We recognise the commitments that we have made to the people of Northern Ireland for no hard border. I would hope we will be able to find a way through that can secure the support of the House and the European Union, such that we are able to leave with a good deal.

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

I thank my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister for her statement and for her willingness to engage with those who are willing to engage with her. I congratulate her on the vote last week that she won, namely the vote of confidence, which she won on the basis that she would not engage in preparations for a second referendum, and on the basis that we either negotiate a successful deal for which the House of Commons votes or leave on World Trade Organisation terms.

Will the Prime Minister take the advice of J.P. Morgan, which stood side by side with remain in the referendum, but which now warns that the extension of article 50 would be the worst of all possible worlds and

“death by a thousand cuts”

for the British economy? Will she ensure that we avoid that extension?

[The Prime Minister]

I had not seen that comment from J.P. Morgan, but I have been clear that it is important that we deliver on the referendum vote and leave the European Union on 29 March.

Exiting the European Union: Meaningful Vote

Bernard Jenkin Excerpts

Tuesday 11th December 2018 Commons Chamber

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

I will return to one or two of the points raised by the right hon. Member for Leeds Central (Hilary Benn).

To overcome the present paralysis, we must all face some truths that perhaps even a majority of the House are finding difficult to face. I would have voted against the withdrawal treaty, because it is the very antithesis of taking back control, but the truth we have to face is that the result of this referendum was not some “exotic spresm,” as expressed by the right hon. Member for Twickenham (Sir Vince Cable), or any other kind of freak accident. It was the logical expression of the accumulation of decades of resentment about how this country has become subject to an out-of-touch political elite who have become happy to subjugate national democratic accountability to an unelected, unaccountable group of commissioners and judges in the EU. That is what the referendum was about.

Now I hear some Members, like my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr Grieve), openly arguing for remaining in the EU, as though the referendum could somehow be ignored. That way madness lies for our country. It would be a final vindication of those who would argue that votes never count and democracy can change nothing.

[Mr Dominic Grieve (Beaconsfield) (Con)]

If my hon. Friend listened to what I am arguing, he would realise that I have said repeatedly that I think we are embarked on an exercise in self-mutilation, but that I recognise that, if that is what people want now that the self-mutilation is so apparent, then that is what they will indeed have. What I am not prepared to do, as a Member of this House, is to carry it out myself without going back and asking them if that is what they really want.

[Sir Bernard Jenkin]

Let us now dispose of the dangerous idea that there can be some disingenuous second people’s vote to try to force remain back on to the agenda. Who with any authority suggested in 2016 that the question would be only a dry run?

[Mr Pat McFadden (Wolverhampton South East) (Lab)]

Boris.

[Sir Bernard Jenkin]

No, he did not.

The House of Commons voted by 544 votes to 53 to give a clear choice of remain or leave to the voters. The 2016 referendum was the people’s choice. Before there is a fresh motion, I gently remind the House, as one who campaigned for and voted leave and on behalf of the majority who voted in the referendum, that we voted leave and we want leave. Despite all the false warnings that a leave vote would wreak havoc on the economy, a majority of us voted to leave. We represent at least 400 of the constituencies represented in this House. We also represent a broad cross-section of society.

[Dr Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)]

Is part of the problem not that a lot of the people in charge of these negotiations do not accept the result of the referendum? Michel Barnier has been heard recently to say that negotiating with the British is like negotiating not with a country that is trying to leave the EU but with one that is applying to join it. I wonder why he feels like that.

[Sir Bernard Jenkin]

Because too many people leading these negotiations do not have sufficient faith in the people, economy and future of this country. Who gave a mandate to this House to set itself above the people? Nothing could be better calculated to sow despair and cynicism about politics and politicians, or about this House, or about the credibility of our democracy, than for this House to fail to understand what the word “leave” means; to argue that leave voters must have their motives dissected and psychoanalysed; or to try to prove that we really did not mean leave, that we were voting about something else or that it was all too complicated for the little minds of the voters. There is no ambiguity in the word “leave” which this House placed on the ballot paper.

When we resume the debate, let us share ideas about what kind of relationship the UK might have with the EU after we have left, but leaving the EU means, at the end of it, becoming once again an independent sovereign state. “Leave” does not mean bringing back the same treaty, costing billions for nothing in return, that installs the EU Court of Justice in some superior position over the agreement or that holds the UK hostage to what the EU might decide about our future; or remaining in a single customs territory or subject to an EU rulebook.

The prospect of bringing an acceptable withdrawal treaty to this House is also about making it clear that the UK is preparing and will be prepared to leave the EU on 29 March without a withdrawal agreement, to trade on World Trade Organisation terms. The only alternative is to lie down and submit to the will of the EU, which seems to be the policy of an increasing number of people in this House

[Antoinette Sandbach (Eddisbury) (Con)]

rose—

[Sir Bernard Jenkin]

I am not giving way. Everyone can see that most countries are outside the EU and, do you know what, they are absolutely fine. Our overriding duty should be to work together to implement the decision and to forge a new consensus about the future of this great nation which reflects the way in which the vast majority of the constituencies in this House voted. The UK is a resilient nation, which has faced far greater challenges to our survival, prosperity and independence than the short-term practical and administrative challenges of leaving the EU. This is not an economic crisis like the 1970s oil shock or the 2008 banking crisis. This will not cause rampant inflation or leave people wondering whether the ATM will deliver their cash. This is not a decision to go to war. It is not a terrorist attack. What this House needs to show is more faith in the people and the way they voted, and more faith in the future of this country. If we sell ourselves short in this House, we are selling the British people short.

--- Later in debate ---

[Geraint Davies (Swansea West) (Lab/Co-op)]

We are in a painfully predictable situation. We all knew, when article 50 was triggered, that there was a time limit. That is why I voted against it. We all knew that there would be French and German elections that would get in the way of negotiations, and then the Prime Minister called her own election, so there was less and less time. The then Brexit Secretary said that everything would be fine and that we would easily negotiate a deal that would give us exactly the same benefits as we have.

Here we are, two and a half years after the referendum and the deal is not yet cooked, so we are putting it back in the oven for a few more days, with a bit of salt and sugar, hoping it will come out and everyone will eat it. However, the reality is that some people want more salt and others want more sugar. The deal, whatever it is, will not be agreed in this place. The hard Brexiters—the loony-tunes, let’s-Brexit-without-a-deal people—will never agree it. The hardcore remainers will not agree it, saying that we are better off with what we have.

I believe that Brexit is a betrayal of Conservatism because it gets rid of the best trading model in the world. It also gets rid of the United Kingdom Union because if we exit without a deal, there will necessarily be a hard border, otherwise there will be nothing to prevent migration. It will simply not work.

Brexit is a betrayal of socialism because, inherently, it will mean a smaller economy—a smaller cake to be divided more equally by a future Labour Government. It will mean that a subsequent Tory Government could reduce workers’ rights and environmental rights beneath EU standards, and socialists should oppose it.

[Sir Bernard Jenkin]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Geraint Davies]

No, I will not. Other people want to speak.

The Prime Minister is trying to kick this into the long grass, but the area of long grass is getting smaller and smaller because the lawn mower of article 50 means there are only a few weeks left. The reality is that any Brexit will mean we have less money. We will not have the £350 million a week. We will have to pay the divorce bill. We will have less trade. We will have fewer jobs. We will have less control because of Henry VIII powers and because we will have to obey EU rules. There will be just as much immigration but from different places.

The ECJ has decided that we can now revoke article 50. If we do not have a deal by 21 January and we face no deal, we should revoke article 50 and stay in the EU. If we have a deal, any sort of deal, we should put it to the people by deferring article 50 so that they can decide whether they want the deal on the table that the EU will accept, because we will not agree it here. If they do not want it, and if they find it better to stay in the EU, we should stay in the EU. I very much hope we stay in the EU, as we would be stronger, fairer and more united, and there would be a better future for all our children.