Prime Minister’s Adviser on Ministers’ Interests

Debate between Bernard Jenkin and Robert Halfon

Tuesday 17th July 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Jenkin]

I imagine that any Minister who pressed the Prime Minister for referral should be granted one; however, it might be granted or it might not be—it is a matter for the Prime Minister. That is that. I do not know what a Minister who wanted to be referred would do if the Prime Minister refused that; I think he would just have to lump it.

[Robert Halfon (Harlow) (Con)]

It is a privilege to serve under my hon. Friend’s chairmanship on the Public Administration Select Committee. Will he confirm that, although the report recommends that the Prime Minister’s adviser should be independent in making the decision, he will nevertheless operate under a clear set of guidelines to help him make that decision?

[Mr Jenkin]

I think the guidelines are the ministerial code, and it should be for the adviser to determine his own process, but it is perfectly reasonable for the Government and the Prime Minister to insist that the adviser has a quick process to establish prima facie cases and decide whether they are worthy of further investigation rather than go into the full process straight away. I can understand the Prime Minister being reluctant to refer cases to Sir Philip Mawer, who had established a very long, tortuous and indisputably fair process, but not one that could be quick under the pressure of political events as required.

United Kingdom Statistics Authority

Debate between Bernard Jenkin and Robert Halfon

Tuesday 13th December 2011 Commons Chamber

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

I am grateful for the support of the official Opposition for this appointment, although I wondered whether the hon. Member for Barnsley East (Michael Dugher) was going to declare an interest during his remarks. He might have forgotten—it is a failing of us all, I suppose—but if he looks at the inside cover of the report from which he quoted, he will see that he is still a member of the Public Administration Committee. He has very honourably absented himself ever since he joined Labour’s Front-Bench team, but I hope that he will involve his party in putting forward a new nominee for the Committee, because it would be of great service to the Committee and the House. I make no personal criticism of him whatsoever.

When he appeared before my Committee last week for his pre-appointment hearing, Andrew Dilnot was invited by the hon. Member for Newport West (Paul Flynn) to reflect on a statement that he made in 2007 during the passage of the Statistics and Registration Service Act 2007. Andrew Dilnot confirmed that he still held the view that he held then: that the passage of the 2007 Act, which set up the UK Statistics Authority, was

“a turning point. It has made possible something that otherwise was not possible, which is the recovery of a sense of independence and integrity for statistics…This Act gives the control and management of statistics back to Parliament…I think that was a very, very important step.”

I shall briefly remind the House of what the 2007 Act did. It established a new authority, now known as the UK Statistics Authority, with the statutory objective

“of promoting and safeguarding the production and publication of official statistics that serve the public good.”

To many of my right hon. and hon. Friends, that might seem rather a dry subject, but the public good in this instance is defined as

“informing the public about social and economic matters”

and

“assisting in the development and evaluation of public policy.”

This is serious stuff. The authority has the statutory duty

“to promote and safeguard the quality of official statistics, good practice in relation to official statistics and the comprehensiveness of official statistics”.

In this respect, “quality” means the “impartiality, accuracy and relevance” of official statistics and their coherence with other official statistics.

[Robert Halfon (Harlow) (Con)]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way, and for the chance to serve under his chairmanship when approving the appointment as head of the UK Statistics Authority of this excellent candidate. He mentioned the importance of informing the public about statistics. Does he agree that one of the main priorities for Mr Dilnot will be to improve the website to make it accessible to the public, to make it easy for them to use and to allow them to give some feedback on how statistics are presented?

[Mr Jenkin]

I am most grateful to my hon. Friend for raising that point, which he raised in the pre-appointment hearing and to which Andrew Dilnot responded favourably. I think he sees the potential of improving public access to statistics and the public’s ability to understand why they appear as they do, what value they offer and, therefore, how they can influence the democratic process. This goes to the heart of so much of what we do in this place, and the way in which we try to engage our public. Technology, particularly the internet, enables us to do that in an unprecedented way. There is no reason why every citizen cannot have access to the same information that we have—the information that informs the decisions that we make in this Parliament. We should therefore involve the public much more in that. Indeed, we have an obligation to ensure that what the Government and the Opposition say is objective, truthful and properly informative, rather than otherwise; we all know what Disraeli said about damned lies and statistics. We need to ensure that the quality of the numbers and the data that the Government produce genuinely informs the debate, rather than just advancing the partisan interests of those producing them.

Parliamentary Commission for Administration and Health Service Commissioner for England

Debate between Bernard Jenkin and Robert Halfon

Monday 18th July 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Jenkin]

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

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

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

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

[Robert Halfon (Harlow) (Con)]

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

[Mr Jenkin]

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

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

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

Publication Administration Committee Report (Smaller Government)

Debate between Bernard Jenkin and Robert Halfon

Thursday 10th March 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Jenkin]

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. We need to remember that right hon. and hon. Members are paid, first and foremost, to be Members of Parliament. I will come to the whole role of the payroll vote in a moment.

[Robert Halfon (Harlow) (Con)]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[Mr Jenkin]

I give way to my hon. Friend, who is also a member of the Committee.

[Robert Halfon]

I congratulate my hon. Friend, having served on his Committee on this report. Does he agree that the big society is all about transferring state power to people power—power to the people—and that we can therefore reduce the number of Ministers because the state will be smaller?

[Mr Jenkin]

I certainly think that that is an opportunity, and I will come to it later in my remarks.

We must acknowledge that Ministers are busier than ever in Parliament, with more Select Committees, Westminster Hall and other new procedures that bring them before us. However, we believe that Parliament must stop holding Ministers accountable for matters which no longer fall within the remit of Whitehall Departments or, indeed, have never fallen within their remit. The habit of grilling Ministers on every local detail militates against devolution, decentralisation and localism. On the big society, which my hon. Friend the Member for Harlow (Robert Halfon) mentioned, we ask what the post-bureaucratic age will mean for Whitehall Departments and ministerial responsibilities. Presumably, Ministers will become less directly responsible and have fewer decisions to make about things that happen in this country.

By how much could the number of Ministers be cut? Numbers are currently limited by two statutes: the House of Commons Disqualification Act 1975, which limits to 95 the number of Ministers who can sit and vote in the House of Commons; and the Ministerial and other Salaries Act 1975, which constrains to 109 the number of ministerial salaries that can be paid.