Business of the House
Bernard Jenkin Excerpts(1 week ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Sir Alan Campbell
I certainly join my hon. Friend in condemning the action. I reiterate our continued and unwavering support for Ukraine during Putin’s illegal invasion. He is right to raise the Reform party’s exceptionally poor record on these matters; its candidate in Makerfield said that the Russians were “within their rights” to invade Crimea. Lowering the flag of Ukraine appears to be part of a pattern.
Sir Bernard Jenkin (Harwich and North Essex) (Con)
First, I add my voice to the tributes to Sir Alex Younger, who died so young and is such a great loss to the nation.
What consideration are the Government giving to re-establishing a European Scrutiny Committee? The dynamic alignment that the Government are proposing is bound to give rise to a large number of regulations coming into force in the UK. As they will have direct applicability and direct effect, they should at least be scrutinised properly. I draw the Leader of the House’s attention to the report published today by the Select Committee on Statutory Instruments, which I Chair. It gives an example—the Customs (Northern Ireland) (EU Exit) (Amendment) Regulations 2026—of how badly the Government can handle such legislation. The regulations were laid very late, and they are being changed while they are being renegotiated with the European Union. Is this a portent of things to come, and does it not underline the need for a European Scrutiny Committee, which could look much further ahead than the Standing Orders governing my Committee allow?
Sir Alan Campbell
It is a portent of things to come. The hon. Gentleman knows the Government are to introduce the EU reset Bill, and central to the discussion of that realignment will be how best to scrutinise it. As he knows, I am giving thought to how best to achieve that scrutiny. We do not need to go back to how things were, but we do need an appropriate arrangement to deal with the challenges that clearly will arise in the future, and to hold decision makers to account.
Business of the House
Bernard Jenkin Excerpts(4 months, 4 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Sir Alan Campbell
I agree, and I can absolutely confirm to my hon. Friend that the purpose of the change is to get the Bill right. There is no watering down; it is about getting it right. The only difference is that we need a slightly longer time period to do that, so that when the Bill comes out it commands support and delivers justice for those who have campaigned on these matters for such a long time.
Sir Bernard Jenkin (Harwich and North Essex) (Con)
Given the existential importance of the subject of Ukraine, and presuming that the Prime Minister will be in the House tomorrow to answer Prime Minister’s questions, will he be staying on to lead the debate, as would seem to be appropriate? Will the Leader of the House also explain what is happening to the Chagos Bill—the British Indian Ocean Territory (Sovereignty and Constitutional Arrangements) Bill—as there was a motion to regret yesterday—
Business of the House
Bernard Jenkin Excerpts(6 months, 4 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Sir Alan Campbell
Yes, I do. I said in an earlier answer that the Government take SEN reform very seriously indeed, because the system is broken. However, it is even worse where local authorities have a responsibility to do better and they do not do it. Typically of Reform, it over-offers and underachieves. I hope it gets the powerful message that my hon. Friend has delivered today.
Sir Bernard Jenkin (Harwich and North Essex) (Con)
I thank my right hon. Friend the shadow Leader of the House and others for pressing the case for a Backbench Business debate on Ukraine. I also thank the Leader of the House for considering the matter favourably. May I just emphasise the importance of having a motion on the Order Paper for such a debate that raises particular issues such as the missing children, the atrocities, the need for long-range weaponry and the need for increased sanctions? The conflict is at a tipping point and a clear, united statement of solidarity with Ukraine would be an important message to send from this House to Ukraine, to our allies, and to our adversaries.
Sir Alan Campbell
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for the way he raises this matter. I will give a commitment that if we are able to find time for this debate, I will speak to him and those on his Front Bench to ensure that if the House agrees to the motion in that debate, which I suspect it will, it will be one of unity across the House.
Business of the House
Bernard Jenkin Excerpts(11 months, 4 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lucy Powell
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. As I said earlier, the lack of investment in many of our northern towns and cities has really held those communities back. I am well aware of the challenges in Rossendale and Darwen and how much his constituency could flourish if it had better rail and road connectivity, and I look forward to working with him on that.
Sir Bernard Jenkin (Harwich and North Essex) (Con)
May I remind the Leader of the House that when I referred to the prayer tabled by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition against the Mauritius treaty, in early-day motion 1398, she was unable to give an undertaking that this will be debated within the 21-day period laid down by the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010?
[That the Agreement, done at London and Port Louis on 22 May 2025, between the Government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the Government of the Republic of Mauritius concerning the Chagos Archipelago including Diego Garcia, should not be ratified.]
However, in a subsequent answer to the hon. Member for Brent West (Barry Gardiner), she made it clear that the global ocean treaty would not be ratified until the necessary legislation had been passed. Can we take it that the Mauritius treaty will not be ratified until the House has approved the legislation providing for the very substantial expenditure that it involves?
Lucy Powell
I thank the hon. Gentleman for raising that with me again. I have looked at these issues closely since he and others raised them with me last week. As he will be aware, with the Diego Garcia agreement and the global ocean treaty, ratification depends on this Government implementing many of the commitments that are made in that treaty. That is why the CRAG process, as well as legislation, is required in both cases. There will be a Bill brought forward on the Diego Garcia agreement, and therefore this House will have ample opportunity to debate its merits and vote on it.
Business of the House
Bernard Jenkin Excerpts(1 year ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lucy Powell
I am really sorry to hear about that distressing case. I am sure the whole House will join me in sending our thoughts to Beth’s husband Luke and her two young children at this awful time. I am pleased to hear that the Minister has been working with her. I will ensure that that continues and that she is kept constantly updated.
Sir Bernard Jenkin (Harwich and North Essex) (Con)
I thank the Leader of the House for the Government’s assurance that the Chagos islands treaty will be debated in the House. May I draw her attention to the prayer of early-day motion 1398, tabled by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition and others?
[That the Agreement, done at London and Port Louis on 22 May 2025, between the Government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the Government of the Republic of Mauritius concerning the Chagos Archipelago including Diego Garcia, should not be ratified.]
Compliant with the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010, a debate is required within 21 sitting days of laying a treaty before the House. The treaty was laid on 22 May. Will the Government give an assurance that the motion will be debated in Government time before the expiry of those 21 days so that the House gets a proper opportunity to decide whether the treaty should be ratified?
Business of the House
Bernard Jenkin Excerpts(1 year, 4 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lucy Powell
I thank my hon. Friend for mentioning the issues raised with her on her recent school visit. PE not only plays a vital role in ensuring our young people have access to a broad curriculum that can help them better succeed in education, but is critical to mental and physical health and to our preventive work, and the Government are committed to that. I am sure that the subject would make a good debate were she to apply for one.
Sir Bernard Jenkin (Harwich and North Essex) (Con)
The Deputy Prime Minister’s announcement yesterday is widely believed to herald not just the widespread cancellation of democratic elections, but the introduction of far more powers for Government to centralise decision making and impose it on local authorities, as well as a massive reduction in the number of councillors representing local people in local authorities and the abolition of whole tiers of local authorities for which the Government have no electoral mandate—and that is on the basis of putative savings for which there is no proof, so the chaos of that reorganisation will have to be paid for by cuts in public services. When will the Government provide a full day’s debate on the proposals for devolution and local government reorganisation across the country on a scale that we have not seen for some 50 years? Certainly, that merits a full day’s debate and a vote at the end of it.
Lucy Powell
I am sorry the hon. Gentleman does not welcome our real commitment to devolution, ensuring that local communities have more power over the things that affect them, such as their local services, transport, economic development, and joining that up in a way that provides strategic benefit to those areas. I respect the hon. Gentleman, but I gently say that under the Government that he supported, local government was absolutely hollowed out after years and years of austerity, with local council after local council going bankrupt, month after month. We have given a record, long-term settlement to local government and alongside that we are unashamedly pushing power out to communities. We have had several statements to the House already. There will be a Bill forthcoming that enacts many of the measures, and ample time for debate, but I will ensure that the House is kept fully up to date.
Business of the House
Bernard Jenkin Excerpts(1 year, 6 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lucy Powell
Community pharmacies play a vital role in ensuring that healthcare is delivered and is based in our communities. I will ensure that the Department of Health and Social Care has heard my hon. Friend’s question today. It would make a good Backbench Business or Westminster Hall debate, as I know there is a vacancy for them.
Sir Bernard Jenkin (Harwich and North Essex) (Con)
Will the Leader of the House provide time for a debate about free trade and how best to approach the incoming American Administration to secure a free trade agreement? Will she remind her right hon. and learned Friend the Prime Minister that we already have a free trade agreement with the European Union, but we do not with the United States, which is our single biggest national trading partner? Such an agreement would be greatly to our advantage, rather than aligning with the EU, which might see the United Kingdom subjected to the American tariffs applied to the EU. That would be very much to our disadvantage.
Lucy Powell
As the Prime Minister made clear the other evening in his speech at the Guildhall, we do not see this as an either/or. Both are crucial partners, and we will pursue the best free trade agreements we can get with the United States and with others, just as we have one already with the EU. These things are a delicate balance, and I am afraid that too many of the trade deals signed by the previous Government signed away many of our farmers in this country. Perhaps that is something the Conservatives should consider.
Business of the House
Bernard Jenkin Excerpts(2 years, 3 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Penny Mordaunt
First, may I join with all those who have paid tribute to Alexei Navalny? In the wake of an assassination attempt, he returned to stand with his fellow countrymen against Putin’s tyranny, knowing full well what that might mean for him and his family. He put his country and his countrymen before himself.
I remind the House that the Government will again outline our position on the very serious matter of Israel and Gaza in a written ministerial statement soon.
I join the hon. Lady in her thanks to the security services, particularly those of the House authorities, for keeping us safe. I point to our record on adapting legislation to cope with the evolving nature of some pretty awful protests that not just MPs but the general public have been putting up with. There is also the work we have been doing in the House on social media, the new services in the House of Commons Library and the defending democracy taskforce. It would be nice to have the Opposition’s support on those matters, in particular on the legislation that we will bring forward.
I want to say that this House will never bow to extremists, threats or intimidation. It has not, it will not, it must not. I ask all Members not to do this House a further disservice by suggesting that the shameful events that took place yesterday were anything other than party politics on behalf of the Labour party.
Let me bring the House up to date. Two significant things happened yesterday, and I am not sure all hon. Members have clocked them. First, it fell to those on the Government Benches to defend the rights of a minority party in this House. If the hon. Lady cannot bring herself to reflect on the appalling consequences of her party’s actions yesterday—if she cannot rise above the narrow and immediate needs of her weak and fickle leader to fulfil her duties to this House as its shadow Leader—perhaps she might like to reflect on the damage her party has done to the office of the Speaker. I would never have done to him what the Labour party has done to him.
Secondly, we have seen into the heart of Labour’s leadership. Nothing is more important than the interests of the Labour party. The Labour party before principle; the Labour party before individual rights; the Labour party before the reputation and honour of the decent man who sits in the Speaker’s Chair; the Labour party before fairness, integrity and democracy; in Rochdale, the Labour party before a zero-tolerance policy on antisemitism; and—many of us knew this about the Labour leader; I saw it in his frustration at our country getting the best deal possible when we left the EU—the Labour party before country.
I must tell the hon. Lady that the people of this country do not have a copy of the Standing Orders of this House lying around their home, and they have not been chatting about parliamentary procedure over their cornflakes this morning, but they value fairness and they want the rights of all to be protected. They cannot abide bullies and cheats. They cannot abide people who trash our nation or fail to defend its interests, or the institutions that protect them. Government Members often rightly criticise the former leader of the Labour party, the right hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn), for the things he stood for and for being wrong on matters, but I will say one thing about him: at least he thought he was right on them. The current leader of the Labour party is quite happy to do what he knows to be wrong. He puts the interests of the Labour party before the interests of the British people. It is the Labour leader who does not get Britain, and the past week has shown that he is not fit to lead it.
Sir Bernard Jenkin (Harwich and North Essex) (Con)
May I suggest that the priority of the House should be to command the confidence of our voters? I do not think that they, or indeed a majority in the House, feel that we resolved anything on the question of Gaza and Israel yesterday, so may I suggest to my right hon. Friend that the Government take up the suggestion made by the shadow Leader of the House and hold a debate on the subject in Government time, on a Government motion, so that the motion and every amendment can be considered? That would draw a line under this matter.
Penny Mordaunt
I thank my hon. Friend for his suggestion. It is sad that what happened yesterday with regard to the Speaker happened when the SNP was trying to hold an Opposition day debate on the most serious of issues. I heard what he said, and will be speaking to business managers.
Liaison Committee
Bernard Jenkin Excerpts(2 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Sir Christopher Chope
That is a very good point. The Committee is specifically calling for written evidence. Normally, when Select Committees call for written evidence and that evidence comes in, they decide that the most compelling evidence should probably be supplemented by oral evidence from those who have submitted the written evidence. It is, I presume, implicit in the fact that the Committee has invited written evidence that it will also receive oral evidence and will cross-examine, or question, some of the people who have submitted that written evidence, whether it be from Members of the Australian Parliament, the Canadian Parliament or the Hungarian Parliament. Who knows, but I imagine that they will be holding oral evidence sessions. As the right hon. Member for Warley (John Spellar) implies, if an oral evidence session is not within the remit of the one of the specific Sub-Committees of the Liaison Committee, to which I referred earlier, there will be a need for a quorum and for people to be there paying close attention to the evidence.
Where are we going? This is essentially a new Select Committee that is being expanded to cover everybody else’s areas of responsibility so that it can have a grandiose role. It is not sufficient for it to be able to hold the Prime Minister to account and allocate questions to the Prime Minister among Liaison Committee members—now we are getting into the whole area not of the role of Select Committees in holding the Government to account on their strategic challenges, but of the strategic challenges in toto.
In summary, what I am really saying is that I despair. I despair that this proposal has reached the stage it has. I look forward to hearing an explanation from the Leader of the House about why she thinks this is a good move. I hope that she will be able to explain how our fears and concerns about dangerous precedents can be allayed. Strategic thinking is perhaps just the start of a takeover bid by the Liaison Committee of almost all the other subjects that are the remit of individual Select Committees at the moment. Who knows? In the absence of any contribution from the Chair of the Liaison Committee himself, we depend on the knowledge that the Leader of the House has gained from the briefing that she has no doubt received, as I did, from the Liaison Committee.
I am all in favour of strategic thinking and of scrutinising the Government’s strategic thinking, but I do not think that this is the right way forward.
Sir Bernard Jenkin (Harwich and North Essex) (Con)
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. May I, through you, apologise for not having been present from the start of these proceedings? I was not expecting this business to be debated this evening; I should have been more alert, as my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Sir Christopher Chope) has been, to the possibility that it would be.
I would not consider it appropriate to try to catch your eye to make a contribution to this debate, Madam Deputy Speaker—unless you deemed it appropriate.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
I did say that if the right hon. Gentleman wanted to make a contribution, he should have been here at the beginning. May I clarify whether he was told that he would be referred to in the debate?
Sir Bernard Jenkin
I do not think we need to make an issue of that, Madam Deputy Speaker.
Madam Deputy Speaker
I was going to say that if the right hon. Gentleman had not been told, it would be perfectly reasonable for him to make a contribution. In the circumstances, I am prepared to allow him to make a one-minute contribution.
Sir Bernard Jenkin
I am most grateful, Madam Deputy Speaker; I appreciate the courtesy being extended to me.
First, I should reiterate that there is support among all the Select Committee Chairs for the inquiry. Secondly, the issue is about the effectiveness of Select Committee scrutiny. Many Select Committees find it difficult to obtain information about long-term challenges facing this country, particularly if they are cross-departmental issues. The Select Committee’s inquiry will be concentrating on that. Thirdly, there is ample precedent for Liaison Committee inquiries into the effectiveness of the Select Committee system. That is what the Liaison Committee exists to do and it is firmly within its remit. We are confining ourselves to that.
Sir Christopher Chope
I am delighted to hear from my hon. Friend that the Liaison Committee will confine itself to that but, in that case, why are the terms of reference calling for written evidence by 15 September so widely set that they cover—I will not repeat all those points, Madam Deputy Speaker—which Governments around the world demonstrate best practice in strategic thinking? There are also references to strategic thinking about Select Committees—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
Order. I want to call the Leader of the House, so I do not want the hon. Gentleman to read out a list.
Sir Bernard Jenkin
I am most grateful to you, Madam Deputy Speaker, and to my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Sir Christopher Chope), who is talking about the context of the inquiry. How can we conduct the inquiry in a vacuum, without reference to what happens in other countries, what other Parliaments are doing to scrutinise long-term strategic thinking, and what other Governments are doing in response? There is a strong public interest in this, and I have held a very close interest in the subject matter, which he generously acknowledges.
This is not a threat to Select Committees. The Chairman of the Defence Committee, on which the right hon. Member for Warley (John Spellar) sits, has supported this inquiry, and I hope he will take part. We do not imagine that we will have a great number of oral evidence sessions, because Select Committee Chairs are so busy. Much of this will be conducted on a desktop basis through written evidence, rather than through oral evidence sessions.
I hope that clarifies it for the House, and I am most grateful to you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for allowing me to make a contribution under these circumstances.
Business of the House
Bernard Jenkin Excerpts(3 years ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Penny Mordaunt
I thank the hon. Lady for her kind remarks about Karen and the other remarks she made.
I admire the hon. Lady’s consistency in her lack of situational awareness. She mentioned management of budgets, and I remind the House that the SNP Government have mismanaged their budget; despite cutting £1.2 billion of spending on public services, they had a £100 million overspend. I remind her to compare our record on caring for children, where we have 400,000 fewer children in absolute poverty than when we took office in 2010.
As I mentioned in my remarks to the shadow Leader of the House, we have also had good news of improving life opportunities for children in England, with the good news that English schools have dramatically improved our reading performance for nine and 10-year-olds. We are fourth best in the world, having inherited a situation where, in 2012, only 58% of six-year-olds were able to read fluently.
In contrast, in Scotland, both on health and education the SNP is letting the children of Scotland down. We have the worst-ever gap between the richest and poorest pupils, thanks to botched reform; literacy rates were falling before the pandemic and they have dropped dramatically further still. The only thing the SNP has managed to increase in education is the tax burden on teachers.
The hon. Lady raises the very serious matter of the infected blood inquiry. I have had the privilege of meeting many of those who were infected and affected by that appalling scandal, and I went to hear some of the evidence that they gave at the inquiry. It may fall to us in this place, on our shift, to put that right, but we must put it right. There is not just the original injustice that was done to those people, many of whom were children at the time, but the further layers of injustice that have happened with regard to their financial resilience, as many of them lost their homes and were not able to work, facing the appalling stigma and hardship that came with that. We have to put that right. That is why this Government set up the compensation scheme review to run concurrently with that inquiry, because we very much wanted, when that inquiry reported, to be able to make amends for that scandal. It would be an excellent topic for debate and I know that many Members in this House would want to attend if a debate was secured.
Sir Bernard Jenkin (Harwich and North Essex) (Con)
When are the Government planning to hold another debate on the situation in Ukraine? Does my right hon. Friend not agree that it is an important opportunity for the nation’s representatives to state their support for the Government’s policy—also supported by His Majesty’s Opposition—as a clear act of will that we are determined to see the Ukrainians reach a satisfactory outcome to this conflict, which means recovering all their territory? Will she consider having a debate on a motion setting out the Government’s policy for approval by the House?
Penny Mordaunt
I thank my right hon. Friend for raising that matter. I think all Members of this House will want to continue to show our resolve in supporting the people of Ukraine. There are clearly big decisions being taken at the moment in various international forums, including at NATO. I know many Members of this House have engagements with those international forums and would want to express the contribution they are making on the Floor of this House. I will certainly raise the request with my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister.