Oral Answers to Questions

Bernard Jenkin Excerpts

Wednesday 21st February 2018 Commons Chamber

[Oliver Dowden]

Public sector workers are among the most talented and hard-working people in our society, and they should be fairly rewarded. In respect of the Cabinet Office, the Chancellor’s Budget statement confirmed that we are moving away from the 1% average public sector pay award, and proposals will be issued later this year.

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

I wish my right hon. Friend every success in his forthcoming meeting with the Scottish and Welsh Governments this week. Will he bear in mind that he is being compromising and open, and will he invite them to be the same?

[Mr Lidington]

My hon. Friend is right to point to the importance of all parts of the United Kingdom working together to deliver an orderly, smooth Brexit. We want to work in partnership with the Scottish and Welsh Governments to deliver a big increase in the powers devolved to their Parliaments and Governments.

Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee

Bernard Jenkin Excerpts

Thursday 25th January 2018 Commons Chamber

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

It is the role of the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee to oversee the UK’s changing constitution and the efficacy of the civil service and the machinery of government. Within that, PACAC covers matters of ethics and propriety in Whitehall, overseeing the work of the Committee on Standards in Public Life, the ministerial code, the special advisers code, the civil service code and the work of the Advisory Committee on Business Appointments, which oversees the rules governing departing Ministers and Crown servants when they take up outside appointments.

PACAC has defined its overriding purpose as being

“to conduct robust and effective scrutiny in order to help create conditions where the public can have justified confidence in public services/government.”

In that context, just before the election, in April 2017, PACAC published a new report on ACOBA, entitled “Managing Ministers’ and officials’ conflicts of interest: time for clearer values, principles and action”. That followed a report published in 2012 by our predecessor Committee, which recommended replacing the existing business appointment rules with a statutory system. The main recommendations of that report, and of our more recent 2017 report, have been flatly rejected by the Government. I am afraid that many people believe that to be hopelessly complacent. PACAC is therefore announcing in its supplementary report, published today, that we intend to hold a further inquiry into these matters.

The way we manage conflicts of interest arising where former Ministers and Crown servants leave the Government to take up jobs elsewhere really matters. There is a constant stream of embarrassing stories in the media about the so-called revolving door between employment in the public and private sectors, suggesting that people misuse the advantage of a job in Government to get lucrative jobs outside. Although many of these stories may be unfair, the situation is deeply corrosive of public trust in our system of democracy and Government because the present system of oversight fails to provide adequate assurance.

For example—I will name only one Department as an example, but this includes every Department—a constant flow of Ministry of Defence civil servants, and of senior officers from the armed forces, finish up working in the defence industry. A similar situation occurs in other Departments. No one should assume that there is automatically anything wrong with that, but there needs to be an adequate system of assurance that there is, indeed, nothing wrong, and that we are not fostering an over-permissive attitude. The expectation of many people—even of some Ministers—is that this is the new normal and that everybody does it.

We acknowledge, and I pay tribute to, the hard work of the ACOBA board—the chair and the secretariat—but PACAC’s 2012 and 2017 reports can be described only as excoriating. In 2017, PACAC concluded:

“ACoBA, in its current form is a toothless regulator which has failed to change the environment around business appointments.”

That is because ACOBA lacks power and resources, and its remit is much too limited. It is not a regulator—it is merely advisory, with no sanctions for non-compliance—and there are regular instances of the business appointment rules being ignored.

Furthermore, serious gaps exist in ACOBA’s monitoring process, so while we know about some high-profile cases, we have little idea about the scale of non-compliance. That has got worse since the Government removed ACOBA’s responsibility to monitor and report applications from Crown servants below SCS3 in 2010. Departments are meant to post half-yearly data on their websites to show when advice has been given to applicants at SCS2 and 3 levels, but this data has become patchy. We just do not know how many civil servants below SCS3 level who have performed important roles in respect of policy formation and commercial relationships end up in a position to draw on inside information or their Government contacts after they leave the civil service.

In the period between PACAC’s two reports, the challenge has escalated, with increased numbers of public servants and Ministers moving between the public and private sectors. There have also been a number of high-profile cases, leading to declining public trust in a system that was designed to promote public confidence. A personal observation is that the magazine Private Eye, from which we took evidence, frequently appears to do a better job of policing the business appointment rules than does the advisory committee itself.

It is essential that steps are taken to ensure that the ACOBA system is swiftly improved. In PACAC’s more recent report, we set out a number of new recommendations in relation to how that could be done without resort to statute, although we recommend that a cost-benefit analysis of statutory regulation should be conducted. The Government have rejected statutory regulation on the basis that it would be too costly, but they refuse to do the cost-benefit analysis.

PACAC recommended that the Government provide ACOBA with the powers and resources necessary to actively monitor and enforce compliance with the rules. There should also be a substantial increase in transparency regarding ACOBA’s decisions, and that should be done by Department. Applications should be published on receipt and not just when they are approved. That might reduce a lot of ACOBA’s unnecessary workload.

Most importantly, the business appointment rules should be fundamentally changed. A system to manage conflicts of interest needs to be more than just a code of rules and declarations. A principles-based system, if it is effectively taught by leaders and learned by everyone so that it is intrinsic to public service, would create a new and different expectation that individuals will act with integrity, encouraging people to regulate their own behaviour and attitudes according to those principles.

Our report recommends a substantial change of emphasis in the ministerial code and the civil service code to highlight the values and principles that should guide attitude and behaviour. We need to instil an expectation of integrity in individuals’ decisions. That, combined with independent checks, could effectively foster a substantial improvement in attitudes and behaviours. Evasively, the Government responded that the essence of those principles and values is already embedded in the code, but they are not explicit enough. We need a change of heart, and we need a stronger system—otherwise public confidence will continue to be eroded.

[Christian Matheson (City of Chester) (Lab)]

I thank the hon. Gentleman and his Committee for their powerful report and for the statement he has just made. The Opposition are committed to bringing this issue to the top of the political agenda and to seeking reform, as not a week seems to go by without the exposure of some conflict of interest in the heart of Government. Bearing in mind his statement and his report, does the Chair of the Select Committee agree that the report raises serious questions of governance and confirms that this is a Government of the few, by the few and for the few?

[Mr Jenkin]

I will leave aside the soundbite that came at the end of the hon. Gentleman’s question, but the substance of his remarks is correct. The system is inadequate and needs to be strengthened and reformed, and I am delighted that Her Majesty’s official Opposition are taking an interest in the matter.

[Alison Thewliss (Glasgow Central) (SNP)]

It is very good to see you in the Chair, Mr Deputy Speaker.

I thank the hon. Member for Harwich and North Essex (Mr Jenkin) for his statement. The SNP agrees that the business appointments rules should be strengthened, and we are disappointed with the Government’s response to the report. As Burns might have said, “I wad na gie a button for it.” Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the public and the press, specifically Private Eye, recognise that the Government’s response to the evident revolving-door problem smacks of complacency and self-interest? Does he agree that the actions of the former Chancellor demonstrate how little respect there is for ACOBA? Does he also agree that, if the Government and this House do nothing to strengthen the business appointments rules, we risk further undermining trust and integrity in politics?

[Mr Jenkin]

Our report mentions George Osborne in two respects. First, we state that it was striking and startling that ACOBA appeared to give the former Chancellor a blank cheque in allowing him to join BlackRock on an inflated salary so shortly after he left his office. Secondly, George Osborne also completely bypassed the appointment rules prior to accepting his appointment as editor of the Evening Standard. We regard that as a glaring example not necessarily of any particular dishonour by any particular individual, but of how the system absolutely fails to command public confidence.

[The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Chloe Smith)]

I join others in welcoming you back to your place, Mr Deputy Speaker, and I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Harwich and North Essex (Mr Jenkin) for his work in bringing these affairs to the House’s attention today. If Members present have not already taken a look at the Government response to the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee report, I encourage them to do so. We clearly state that the Government are committed to maintaining the highest standards of conduct for Ministers and civil servants, including special advisers, and we believe that the rules and procedures in place are proportionate and adequate. We look forward to working with the Committee to do more, however, and I put on the record my willingness to work with its Chair to do so.

[Mr Jenkin]

I welcome my hon. Friend back to the Front Bench in her new position at the Cabinet Office, to which she brings considerable experience, including of this issue. However, I have to express my disappointment at the Government’s response. Some minor amendments were accepted, but it regards the system as the highest example of regulation and openness when it simply does not deliver the public confidence that we want. I appreciate that this is a vexed issue and that we do not want to deter people from coming into the public service for fear of being treated unfairly on the way out, but the present arrangements are inadequate. The response even refused to put more explicitly into the ministerial code words such as

“You must… take decisions in the public interest alone”

and

“You must… never allow yourself to be influenced in contracting, procurement, regulation or the provision of policy advice, by your career expectations or prospects if you leave the public service”

and

“You must not… take up any post outside the public service in businesses or [commercial] organisations operating in areas where you have been directly responsible”.

I do not understand why those things cannot be put explicitly in the ministerial code so that they are talked about and understood, which would begin to change the attitudes that unfortunately pervade many of the Ministers, special advisers and civil servants in Whitehall.

[Paul Flynn (Newport West) (Lab)]

The Government’s conduct in responding to the report reinforces the public’s view that we here are acting in our own private interests, not in the public interest. Is it not significant that a Prime Minister who did not lift a finger during his period in office in answer to pleas for reforms to jam the revolving door has now taken advantage of that period of office to take a job in China, with which he worked when in Government? Will the Chair of the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee explain to us why George Osborne did not come to the Committee to explain why he had five meetings with BlackRock, why he altered the law in its favour and why, after losing office, he took a job with them on £650,000 a year for one day’s work a week? If that is not an egregious example of the abuse of the revolving door, it is hard to see what is. We have a shameful record, and perhaps the Chair will agree that the public will rightly regard us with contempt and as unfit to police our own affairs.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Jenkin]

Sadly, I agree with the hon. Gentleman. As a member of my Committee, he has been instrumental in drawing the Committee’s attention to these issues. I would almost describe him as the conscience of the Committee on the issue, and long may he continue to encourage us in this work. As he knows, it is not the practice of the Committee to prosecute individual cases, and we should resist that because it would divert attention from the substance of the work that we need to undertake. I am actually quite pleased about how obviously carefully drafted the Government’s response is to our report because the points we are making in our report are having a telling effect. We have a long way to go, however, and that is why the hon. Gentleman has been one of those encouraging the Committee to continue pursuing the subject with a further inquiry. I thank him for his work for the Committee.

Oral Answers to Questions

Bernard Jenkin Excerpts

Wednesday 6th December 2017 Commons Chamber

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

May I commend to my right hon. Friend the most recent report of the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee, which was published last week, on inter-institutional relations in the UK? Will he accept that there is a strong consensus that devolution arrangements are not finished and we need far stronger institutional underpinning of the relations between the four parts of the UK, and that this is an opportunity to achieve that?

[David Mundell]

Of course I have seen my hon. Friend’s excellent report, and the Government are continuing to consider it. Obviously I believe that intergovermental institutions and relations can be improved, and we must continue to work on that.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Prime Minister]

If the hon. Gentleman had listened to the answer I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Lichfield (Michael Fabricant), he would have heard how we are supporting the automotive industry—crucially, supporting the future of the automotive industry. We recognise its importance for the west midlands and its importance for the United Kingdom. That is why we are very clear in our industrial strategy that it is one of those sectors that we will be supporting so that we can support these jobs and its prosperity for the future.

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

Will my right hon. Friend confirm that she is aware of the very strong enthusiasm for free trade deals with the UK from countries like Canada, Japan, the United States and Australia, and even for UK participation in the Trans-Pacific Partnership? But none of these opportunities will come our way if we remain shackled to EU regulation after we have left the EU.

[The Prime Minister]

I am very happy to say to my hon. Friend that I do recognise the enthusiasm out there around the rest of the world for us to do trade deals with other countries. I am happy to say that my right hon. Friend the International Trade Secretary was recently in Australia discussing just these opportunities. When I go around the world, I also hear the same message from a whole variety of countries—they want to do trade deals for us in the future. We want to ensure that we get a good trade deal with the European Union and the freedom to negotiate these trade deals around the rest of the world.

European Union (Withdrawal) Bill

Bernard Jenkin Excerpts

Committee: 4th sitting: House of Commons
Monday 4th December 2017 Commons Chamber

[Ian Murray]

We have just had a bombshell there; the hon. and learned Lady has just told us that she wants to stay part of the UK. That is what we can surmise from that intervention, and I completely agree with her that the best way for Scotland, and Wales, to thrive is to stay part of the UK. Indeed, in my view, the best way for the UK to thrive is to stay part of the single market and customs union of the EU, and all of these issues would therefore fall away, because we would not need clause 11, because we would not need the framework in place to be able to put UK frameworks together, because we could stay within the frameworks that are already in place. It is strange that we will spend a significant amount of time in this Chamber, in the Committee Rooms of this House, and in all the devolved Administrations discussing frameworks that we already currently have.

The Government strategy is that they want every benefit they currently have from the EU while not being a member of the EU. I suggest that if the Government want to achieve that, they should stay in rather than wrench themselves out. That would resolve all the problems, and would have saved the Prime Minister lunch this afternoon, because they would have had a very straightforward solution to their problem.

I will not press my amendment to a vote if those on my Front Bench are going to press amendment 42, because they are very similar in nature. My Front-Bench colleagues’ amendment is much more technically efficient than my proposal, and we know that technically ineffective amendments tend to be criticised. I will therefore support my Front-Bench colleagues’ proposal, and finish by saying that the simple solution for Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales would be to stay in the single market and the customs union.

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

Sir David, thank you for calling me at this stage of the debate.

To be fair to the hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh South West (Joanna Cherry), I think she was chafing against the Act of Union, which, as she correctly described, established a unitary market. The Act of Union banned tariffs between Scotland and England and established the free movement of goods.

I commend the use of the word “trust” by the hon. Member for Edinburgh South (Ian Murray), which he used regularly, but I question whether he is in fact doing much to promote trust, as this debate needs to do. He talked about heading into a constitutional crisis, but I think he did so to create a sense of distrust.

I was also disappointed when the hon. Gentleman questioned the motives of my hon. Friends who represent Scottish constituencies. One could suggest that people in glass houses should not throw stones. I do not know which part of the Labour party he represents, but they come in diverse characters these days. Is he in that part of the party that supports its leadership, or the part that is trying to get rid of it? Is he part of Momentum or against it? I do not know whether he is living in fear of deselection. The one thing we do know about him, however, is that he is subject to the Labour Whip. It is not unusual for members of a governing party to be subject to a single Whip, but I think he undervalued the highly significant speech made by my hon. Friend the Member for East Renfrewshire (Paul Masterton).

My hon. Friend made it clear that his support for the Government on this issue “should not and must not be taken as an acceptance of clause 11 as it stands.” That demonstrates the fact that, while my hon. Friends representing Scottish constituencies take the Conservative Whip, they demonstrate an independence of mind and work with their colleagues in the Scottish Parliament, whom I met recently on a visit to the Scottish Parliament, along with Scottish Conservative and Scottish National party Members, to discuss clause 11. My hon. Friend also made it clear that the legislative consent motions might not be granted for clause 11 as it stands.

We all accept that the Gina Miller case made it clear that the requirement for legislative consent motions in the devolved Parliaments would not effectively block the passage of the legislation in this House, but it has created some constitutional tension. My hon. Friend pointed out that the progress of the Bill is likely to be somewhat impeded by the absence of legislative consent motions from Holyrood and Cardiff, and from Northern Ireland if the Assembly is operating there. This is an important message. It demonstrates that the devolution that Labour said it was promoting when it gave us devolution has turned into a very different constitutional reality—

[Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West) (Lab)]

There was a referendum. It was the will of the people.

[Mr Jenkin]

I am sorry, I did not realise that I was saying anything particularly provocative—[Interruption.] Yes, there was a referendum, but the constitutional reality has turned into something much more federal in character than the proponents of the original legislation told us it would be.

I do not want to detain the Committee for long. I have chosen to speak in the debate because I am the Chair of the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee, which is looking at the relationships between the four Governments and Parliaments of the United Kingdom. We issued a report on inter-institutional relations earlier this year, in the previous Parliament, and we issued an interim report just last week on clause 11. That followed meetings that we held in Edinburgh, which will be followed by further meetings in Cardiff and Edinburgh, and if we can get to Northern Ireland, we will. What was striking about the meetings in Cardiff and Holyrood was how little this kind of interchange takes place, how slenderly we know other individuals in other Parliaments throughout the United Kingdom, and how there are no formal mechanisms for proper exchange between the four Parliaments of the United Kingdom. What a shortage that is!

This debate is less about leaving the European Union and more about devolution. It is about reconciling competing narratives of what devolution in the United Kingdom has come to mean, and about dealing with the lack of trust we have inherited from the present devolution settlement. The debate about clause 11 reflects that.

Usually, when devolved powers are going to be legislated for in this House, there is a great deal of discussion, large numbers of papers are produced in all parts of the United Kingdom and eventually, a piece of legislation emerges with a degree of consensus around it. This Bill emerged in much shorter order. We are told that there was very little discussion about the contents of clause 11. This underlines how, under strain, the reflex of our constitutional habits is not to consult. We in the United Kingdom Parliament, and those of us who support United Kingdom Governments, in the plural, have to recognise that there is a serious gap in our capability to discuss, explore, befriend and understand each other throughout the United Kingdom.

[Ian C. Lucas (Wrexham) (Lab)]

I am interested in the point the hon. Gentleman is making, but is it not the case that the UK Government consulted very little with Members of all parties across the House during the preparation of this Bill after the referendum? Does he agree that that was a massive mistake?

[Mr Jenkin]

The hon. Gentleman has been in this House for quite some time, and he should be used to that by now. That is the way in which Governments have tended to behave. Yes, we have tried to improve things. We now have pre-legislative scrutiny, for example. I did not vote for the Lisbon treaty, which put article 50 into the treaties. I did not vote to have a two-year time limit on the negotiations on leaving the European Union. I suspect that the hon. Gentleman did vote for the Lisbon treaty, however, so I think he should take more responsibility than I should for the time constraints under which we are now operating.

[Ian C. Lucas]

What is unusual about this Bill is that it followed a referendum that means we are going to leave the European Union, and there are splits in both the major parties on this issue. The right approach would have been for the Government to consult much more widely on how this legislation should be taken forward. The reason that it is in such a mess at the moment is that the Government are allowing a small coterie to dominate the conduct of the process, rather than consulting the House as a whole.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Jenkin]

I do not accept that the Bill is in any kind of a mess. I think that we ought to keep the effects of clause 11 in proportion. From the perspective of the Government—and, in reality, from the perspective of what actually happens in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland—the clause is a status quo measure. The powers, while not reserved by the Scotland Acts, were reserved by virtue of our membership of the European Union, so there is no power grab. If the hon. Gentleman wants me to, I can quote from the evidence that the Committee received from Mr Nigel Smith. He was the chairman of Scotland Forward, which ran the pro-devolution campaign in 1997. He stated:

“Nobody who voted for the Scottish Parliament exactly twenty years ago need worry—there is no ‘power grab’ underway.”

We did receive countervailing evidence. Incidentally, the report we published last week is an interim report. We produced no conclusions or recommendations, but we wanted to surface and discuss many of the pieces of evidence that we have received and make them available for this debate.

--- Later in debate ---

[Pete Wishart]

The main conclusion of Alan Page’s work, with which I am sure the hon. Gentleman is more than familiar, is that clause 11 proposes a hierarchical version of devolution whereby this place has all the central powers. I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman does not know that, because that was the main conclusion. Clause 11 creates a hierarchy of devolution under which, for the first time, this place has control in asserting its sovereignty, and Scotland would fall far under the radar. I am surprised that he is not familiar with that work.

[Mr Jenkin]

The hon. Gentleman will be surprised no longer, because my next point is that the manner of clause 11 reflects a lack of sensitivity on these matters. Clause 11 suggests that there will be no time limits on the retention of powers and no process for the discussion of how powers should be handed over. There is only consultation through the JMC, which meets sporadically, and there is no statement of long-term aims for where the powers should eventually lie.

Returning to the hon. Member for Edinburgh South and his comments about trust, we should be asking how we can build some trust. The great gap in the devolution settlement, as it exists, is that it is based on a binary notion of what devolution means: power is either reserved or devolved. In fact, most decentralised systems of government have shared competences. The EU itself operates substantially on the basis of shared competences and, paradoxically, it is leaving the EU that is exposing the flaws in the devolution settlement. There are so few mechanisms for dealing with shared competences—virtually none.

[Martin Whitfield (East Lothian) (Lab)]

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that one of the functions or strategists that can deal with this matter is the Joint Ministerial Committee?

[Mr Jenkin]

I do agree, but the number of times that the JMC and its sub-committees have met formally is few. Months can go by with no meetings, and then a Whitehall Minister will say, “Ooh, we should have one.” That does not inspire confidence. Perhaps the JMC should have fixed diarised formal meetings every year, because there would be things to discuss whether or not a Minister of the Crown here actually thinks there might, and that would give people an opportunity to get to know each other better.

[Martin Whitfield]

Does the hon. Gentleman also agree that diarised meetings and more interaction might lead to confidence and agreement between the Governments?

[Mr Jenkin]

I could not agree more, but I hope that the hon. Gentleman will acknowledge—I am not being accusatory—that this has been a failure of previous Governments as well as this one. When the Select Committee visited the Welsh Assembly and the Welsh Government during the 2010 Parliament, First Minister Carwyn Jones actually complained to us, perhaps with more rhetoric than was justified, that he had been trying to get a meeting with Prime Minister David Cameron for months and months—more than a year—but had not been allowed to have one. We need fewer excuses for people who want to be destructive and more confidence that meetings will take place and that they are valued by all parties.

[Stephen Kerr]

Is it my hon. Friend’s view that the mechanisms that determine such communication should be established by statute?

[Mr Jenkin]

I have an open mind on that, and I have fiddled around with my amendments, which have not appeared on the order paper today, to see whether we can find a way of doing that. I do not know whether this is the right Bill through which to do that—probably not—but such things are statutory in other decentralised systems. There clearly needs to be something much more formal, but we should perhaps experiment without statute first to see whether it is necessary. My Committee took evidence from one civil servant and a former Speaker’s Counsel who said, “It has worked very well for the past 300 years, so why do we need statute?” but that does not recognise that we now have competing political centres with, I repeat, competing narratives about what the constitution actually is. SNP colleagues talk about the natural sovereignty of the Scottish people, but the legal constitutional reality is that the Queen in Parliament in Westminster is still absolutely sovereign. Those things need to aired, discussed and understood.

[Deidre Brock]

Further to that point, the Scottish Government have consistently made it clear that they cannot support the Bill as it stands, so if the UK Government do not vote for amendment 72 tonight, would that not render the Sewel convention completely pointless and not worth the vellum it is written on?

[Mr Jenkin]

I hear the hon. Lady’s impatience, but we need to be more patient. We are not completing the consideration of this Bill this evening, and I am encouraged by the work done by the First Secretary of State, who chaired the last meeting of the Joint Ministerial Committee and seemed to be drawing people together around some agreed principles for how joint frameworks might be approached. We all want to see that, so let us hope that that work will continue.

[Kevin Brennan]

The hon. Gentleman was mildly critical of the Welsh First Minister for using rhetoric, but the rhetoric in that relationship came from Prime Minister David Cameron, who said that he wanted to follow a respect agenda but then failed even to have a meeting with the First Minister. May I also correct the hon. Gentleman on something? Ministers actually know each other very well at the moment and met extremely frequently prior to the introduction of this Bill. The problem is that UK Ministers ignored the advice that they were getting from both Scottish and Welsh Ministers, which was that something like clause 11 would be utterly unacceptable.

[Mr Jenkin]

The better we know each other, the more we will forgive each other for the rhetoric. That is what I found when my Committee went to Edinburgh on a semi-formal visit. The hon. Member for Inverclyde (Ronnie Cowan) and I, as Chairman, had some open and frank discussions about some difficult issues with people I had never even met before, but we of course found that there was lots of common ground.

My next point is that there are no inter-parliamentary arrangements. We had to scrabble around for a bit of budget to do the trip. We found it in the end, but there needs to be a habit of people in this Parliament interacting much more openly and frequently with our counterparts in the other Parliaments. For example, the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee and the Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy Committee have competences that are shared by Committees in different Parliaments. Those Committees should be meeting regularly together. Another suggestion worthy of consideration is that there should be some formal inter-parliamentary council in the United Kingdom to allow representatives of all four Parliaments to meet on a regular basis on some kind of neutral ground.

[Vernon Coaker]

The Good Friday/Belfast agreement set up many inter-parliamentary institutions, both east-west and north-south. The hon. Gentleman talked about trust. How does he think that trust has been helped by what we saw this morning, with the Government saying there would be a deal on the border in Ireland and the Prime Minister then having to come out of lunch because the DUP either had not been consulted or had not agreed to the arrangements? What does it do for both Unionism and nationalism in Ireland when such things happen? Frankly, it looks as though the Government are in chaos, do not know what they are doing and, in pursuing it, are undermining the whole peace process in Northern Ireland.

[Mr Jenkin]

Sir David, am I to be tempted to enter a debate on today’s negotiations, or should we wait until tomorrow, when perhaps someone will come to tell the House something about what has been going on?

A formal inter-parliamentary council that meets on a regular basis would be another opportunity for parliamentarians to understand each other better.

[Kevin Brennan]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Mr Jenkin]

I must press on, but I will give way once more.

[Kevin Brennan]

Does the hon. Gentleman acknowledge that there is an inter-parliamentary council? The British-Irish Parliamentary Assembly, which obviously includes the Government of the Republic of Ireland, provides an opportunity for parliamentarians to get to know each other. Perhaps it would be useful if, as the Chair of the Select Committee on Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs, he were to be a member of that Assembly. On today’s issues, does it not show that we have a Prime Minister who is in office but not in power and a DUP that is in power but not in office?

[Mr Jenkin]

I am endeavouring to raise the tone of this debate, and obviously I am not succeeding with certain Opposition Members.

My final suggestion goes to the heart of what clause 11 is about. I mentioned that, in previous discussions about devolution, there has always been a Silk commission or a Calman commission. There has always been a body that has deliberated, drawn out the more controversial politics and tried to make the discussion more objective. I wonder whether there is a case for the Government convening some kind of standing commission, under the scrutiny of a joint group of parliamentarians, to dispassionately look through the powers returning from the EU that intersect with the devolved Parliaments and Assemblies in order to determine what powers should lie where, both immediately as we leave the European Union and in the longer term.

At the moment, I am afraid my criticism of clause 11, as it stands, is that it does not give any assurance about process or much assurance about consultation, time limits or sun-setting. It just sets out this static proposal.

[Gerard Killen (Rutherglen and Hamilton West) (Lab/Co-op)]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Mr Jenkin]

I will not give way again. I have said everything I want to say.

My Committee is continuing its inquiry. If any right hon. or hon. Member wants to have their say, they can always submit evidence to our Committee.

[Chris Bryant]

On a point of order, Sir David. I am not sure whether you were in the Chamber earlier, but Mr Speaker made it clear when asked that the Prime Minister intended to make a statement to the House tomorrow about the negotiations and discussions she has been having with the DUP and Europe.

I gather that Downing Street is notifying the press, not this House, that there will be no such statement tomorrow and that the Prime Minister does not intend to make a statement. Is there any way you can make sure that Mr Speaker is aware of this and, for that matter, that Downing Street is fully aware that if we are taking back control—I thought that was the whole point—this House should be kept fully and appropriately informed of the negotiations at every stage?

--- Later in debate ---

[Anna McMorrin]

I am afraid the Chair disagreed with the hon. Gentleman. [Interruption.] Well, the hon. Gentleman should speak to the Chair and to other Conservative Members about that.

The situation is further complicated by the fact that, in a number of EU policy areas, the UK Government are in fact acting as the Government of England.

[Mr Jenkin]

I am most grateful to the hon. Lady for giving way—I know she is trying to get on with her speech.

Yes, we published the conclusions of the last Joint Ministerial Committee in our report because they, I think, do show the good faith of the Government. However, I also understand why people have doubted the good faith of the Government—because clause 11 is so bald, if I may say so. We need reassurances around clause 11 that do not necessarily change the substance of it but give assurance that there will be a process and a timetable. That would certainly be a good step.

Oral Answers to Questions

Bernard Jenkin Excerpts

Wednesday 22nd November 2017 Commons Chamber

[Chris Skidmore]

We believe that we need a democracy that works for everyone, which is why we are determined to introduce a democratic engagement strategy, which will be published in December. When it comes to those on the electoral register, a record 46.8 million people are now registered to vote. Actually, since the introduction of individual electoral registration, 30 million people have registered to vote, 75% of them using the online system. That is a remarkable success.

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

What measures are the Government taking to make sure that people do not vote twice in general elections?

[Chris Skidmore]

Any form of electoral fraud will be taken extremely seriously by this Government. We have already stated that we intend to implement a number of recommendations made by Sir Eric Pickles’s report, “Securing the ballot”. Double voting is obviously a crime and we encourage anyone who has evidence of it to report it to the police. I recently met the Electoral Commission and the National Police Chiefs Council, and we will meet every six months to look at a strategy for tackling double voting. By introducing future reforms to postal voting, we hope that we will be able combat the issue.

Oral Answers to Questions

Bernard Jenkin Excerpts

Wednesday 25th October 2017 Commons Chamber

[David Mundell]

I am disappointed that the SNP is here in Westminster adopting this sort of pantomime approach to the very important issue of powers rather than engaging in a constructive way. Fortunately, it appears that the Scottish Government are adopting a more responsible approach, which is why there are substantial discussions between the UK and Scottish Governments.

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

12. May I draw my right hon. Friend’s attention to the new inquiry on devolution and Brexit launched by the Select Committee on Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs? As well as promoting discussion among the governments of the United Kingdom, we want to promote discussion among the parliamentarians in the four parliaments of the United Kingdom in order to resolve these very difficult issues.

[David Mundell]

I very much welcome the contribution to the debate of my hon. Friend’s Committee. Of course, it is very important that there is engagement across Parliaments, and I will be appearing before both the Culture, Tourism, Europe and External Relations Committee and the Finance and Constitution Committee of the Scottish Parliament in the next couple of weeks.

European Council

Bernard Jenkin Excerpts

Monday 23rd October 2017 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

It is very important that all sides are clear that we must ensure that the Belfast agreement is put into place, recognised and respected in its entirety. It is also important that we ensure that the peace programmes that have been possible through our membership of the European Union can continue. When it comes to resolving the issue of the border between Northern Ireland and the Republic, it will be for us to work with the Republic of Ireland Government and the European Union more generally to find a solution that we all want to see, whereby there is no physical infrastructure at the border and no return to the borders of the past.

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

May I reassure my right hon. Friend that anyone who is suggesting that she is weak is seriously underestimating her, seriously underestimating the Conservative party, which supports her, and underestimating the importance of the referendum mandate and the fact that she obtained more votes than any other Conservative leader for 30 years? Will she stick to her guns, follow through and have confidence that the only people undermining her on the Conservative side are those who, unfortunately, are threatening to go into the Lobby with the Labour party?

[The Prime Minister]

I thank my hon. Friend for the confidence that he has shown in me. I am sure that all members of our party want to ensure that we get the best possible deal for the United Kingdom. That is what the Government are working to, and I look forward to everyone on the Conservative Benches supporting us.

UK Plans for Leaving the EU

Bernard Jenkin Excerpts

Monday 9th October 2017 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

The right hon. Gentleman is absolutely correct that we want the right resolution to the issue of the border between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland. As I have said, we are all clear that we do not want physical infrastructure on the border or a return to a hard border or the borders of the past. I am interested in his approach, however, as I seem to remember that at one stage the Liberal Democrats were actively promoting the idea of a referendum on EU membership. Now we have had one, they do not seem to want to accept it.

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

Will my right hon. Friend simply point out to people complaining that the negotiations are going too slowly that after the referendum on 23 June last year the EU refused to negotiate until we had triggered article 50; that even when we had, it refused to discuss the long-term relationship it wanted with the UK; and that even after her emollient and conciliatory speech, it is still refusing to discuss that long-term relationship? When does she call time?

[The Prime Minister]

My hon. Friend is right that it was clear early on that we had to trigger article 50 before the negotiations could start. We waited to do that until we had done considerable work in government to prepare us for triggering article 50, which we did, and the extent of that work has now been shown in the negotiations and position papers we published over the summer. On his last point, I simply say, as I have said before, that public pronouncements are of course sometimes made about the negotiations, but we are in a negotiation, and very often our discussions behind the scenes in private are more positive and constructive than some of the public pronouncements suggest.

European Council

Bernard Jenkin Excerpts

Monday 26th June 2017 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

There is no “extreme Brexit” that we have been talking about. There is no hard Brexit and there is no soft Brexit; what we want is the right deal for the United Kingdom. I remind the right hon. Gentleman that over 80% of people who voted in the recent election voted for parties that were committed to taking the United Kingdom out of the European Union. We have made a fair and serious offer; I believe it is a generous offer. There is one way in which it is different from the offer that the European Union has made, and that is in relation to the jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice. When people voted in the referendum last year, they voted to ensure that we stopped the jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice here in the UK.

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

I congratulate my right hon. Friend on the comprehensive offer that she has made to secure the rights of EU citizens in our country, in a bid also to secure the rights of UK citizens in the EU. The next time she meets the Heads of Government in the European Union, can she explain to them that there are rather a lot of remainers in this country who would prefer the Leader of the Opposition to become Prime Minister, but that he says that he would scrap our nuclear weapons in six months, removing part of Europe’s vital defensive shield provided through NATO? Will she make clear the danger of that to them?

[Mr Speaker]

That was very tangentially related to the matters on which the Prime Minister is reporting to us, but we are grateful to the hon. Gentleman for what I think I will charitably call a cerebral meander.

Grenfell Tower

Bernard Jenkin Excerpts

Thursday 22nd June 2017 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

That work is already being undertaken. First, local authorities and housing associations have undertaken the testing work of their blocks, and we encourage private landlords to do that, too, to ensure the fire safety. We encourage everybody to send in samples so that we can undertake this checking by lab testing. Local authorities are immediately informed if the material is combustible. They will then be looking, with their local fire services, at ensuring the safety of those buildings. That will be done in a number of ways, but of course there is a responsibility to ensure that people are housed safely, and the Government are working with local authorities to ensure that.

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

I commend my right hon. Friend’s statement and the extraordinary degree of personal responsibility she is taking in this response. Have she and her officials had the opportunity to look at reports by the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee and its predecessor Committee under Dr Tony Wright, which repeatedly recommended that the House of Commons should have more of a role in the setting up of such inquiries? Will she consider asking the House to establish a special Select Committee very quickly, to look at the terms of reference, to have a pre-appointment hearing of the chair of the inquiry, and to set the budget and the timetable, and make sure this public inquiry has cross-party and public confidence, which so many public inquiries have failed to have?

[The Prime Minister]

My hon. Friend raises an important issue about inquiries, and of course we always look carefully at the reports of the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee and its predecessor Committee. What is important is that that we get this inquiry up and running with appropriate speed and, most importantly to me, that the residents affected have confidence in it. Ensuring that the residents feel this inquiry is genuinely going to get to the truth for them is key.