Committee on Standards: Members’ Code of Conduct Review

Debate between Bernard Jenkin and Steve Baker

Thursday 3rd February 2022 Commons Chamber

[Sir Bernard Jenkin]

It is meant to be light duties, and I thought I could combine it with other things, but I have given up other things to stay on this Committee, because I think the work we are now doing on the revision of the code is so important.

I could touch on some of the points the hon. Gentleman made. I think he is right about the key being the transparency of conflicts of interests. We should not be denigrating people in this House who have outside interests. Some of them are unavoidable and some of them are by choice, but I firmly believe that this House is enriched by having people who stay on in Parliament, particularly later in their career, while involved with other interests. Being a senior barrister, for example, may take a Member away for weeks on end on very important cases, but having such people in this House means that we have such resources at our disposal much more readily than if these people felt they were squeezed out and were not welcome here. So I agree with him about the time point, and I agree with him about respectfulness.

I actually joined this Committee because I wanted to be involved in the revision of the code. This is ongoing work, and it has been going on for a very long time—since the previous commissioner first started work on the revision of the code. It is meant to happen every three years, but it has been delayed and delayed. So the report we are discussing actually incorporates the results of a great number of hours of work and thought.

The sad thing is that, if we just look at the Chamber today, we see there are a couple of handfuls of hon. Members here who are engaged with this debate. It has always been the biggest problem, in my view, that people only start engaging with the code when they are accused of something, they are worried about being accused of something or they are trying to steer clear of falling foul of the rules. There is not nearly enough discussion, reflection and understanding of why the code exists, of the principles and values behind the code, or indeed of how we should learn to talk about how we aspire to those principles.

I have always believed that the adjudication process is wanting. The compromise between handing the whole thing over to some independent judicial panel and leaving things as they are is to have an appeal akin to the independent expert panel that we have for the ICGS, but even that would have to be advised by a Member especially appointed for the purpose in serious and contested cases, to advise on how Parliament works and on the moral hazards of being a Member of Parliament.

I was mocked last week for suggesting that Members of Parliament need to learn more about this, but every profession in the world has training programmes to educate lawyers, doctors and other professional people on the moral hazards they will encounter in their career and how they should think about them. The General Medical Council website has a section on how to be a good doctor, and it sets out the principles. They are taught these things.

The problem we have in this House is that, culturally, we consider ourselves to be Members of a sovereign Parliament and to be beyond regulation and beyond question. Article 9 states that everything else is subsidiary to us. If anybody dares question us, well, we are elected, nobody dares gainsay us, and it is up to our voters. I am afraid no other profession in the country operates on that basis.

[Mr Steve Baker (Wycombe) (Con)]

My hon. Friend will know that the old military theorist Clausewitz said that war is the continuation of politics by other means. I have often turned that on its head: politics is war minus the shooting. There should be chivalry and absolute civility in the way we conduct ourselves. Although I agree with my hon. Friend, it is often missed that our profession is not like other professions. We are, in a sense, at war without weapons in here. We should remember that and make sure our code of conduct is appropriate to the task that faces us.

[Sir Bernard Jenkin]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that intervention. The problem is that, when we sit in the Tea Room, we talk about rules; we do not talk about values and principles. People wonder what the rules mean and how to stay within them—“That is allowed, but this is not allowed.” We see it in financial regulation. When banks and financial services operate on the basis of what the rules are, they get around the rules. The rules are gamed, so they constantly have to adapt.

There is no discussion about whether something is a good and honourable thing to do, or whether it is something about which we should feel uncomfortable. The rules are meant to be a fallback. Actually, we should be talking to each other about why we are in politics, what our personal priorities are, what our personal morality is and how we navigate it.

I have very little time and there is much I could say, but I will not address all the proposals. Members complain about the code of conduct and about the commissioner, but this House voted for the code and the commissioner. This House is to blame for the system we have. If Members do not engage with the system at a moment like this, they have nobody to blame but themselves if they fall foul of it. To cry foul and say how it is all a fix and all a conspiracy does nobody any good.

On that point, because engagement tends to be low, the Committee will have to think much more about how we support those who are accused of falling foul of the code. I can think of cases—I will say no more than that—where if the individuals concerned had been taken aside by the right person and given the right advice, and if they had not run for their lawyers, got into a conflict with the commissioner and then questioned the whole system, their life would have turned out very different. Somehow, we need an independent system of support and advice—it cannot be the Whips—to make sure Members have the right advice.

On closing, I wish to draw attention to a particular piece of evidence that the Committee received. It has not had much attention, but I feel that it is by far the most useful thing that we have received. It is a response to our original issues and questions paper from Dr Claire Foster-Gilbert of the Westminster Abbey Institute. She was addressing the first question, “What values, attitudes and behaviours should the Code of Conduct for MPs seek to encourage or discourage?” She notes that the code reads as a document that first began as a response to financial misconduct. She said:

“It is cast as a regulatory instrument, which implies it is a set of rules which can be kept or broken.”

It is now a mixture of rules, guidance and principles. She points out that no one can perfectly embody those principles; that would be impossible. Let us take, for example, selflessness, to which the hon. Member for Rhondda referred. Nobody can be totally selfless, least of all in politics. Our efforts in that regard can never be completely successful. Dr Foster-Gilbert points out:

“For MPs, faced with difficult choices on a daily basis, the task is to learn how to retain their integrity and behave selflessly, even while making those choices”—

about power, about competition with others, and about competition of ideas.

I will wind up now, but I really recommend that people read this particular piece of evidence, because our next inquiry will be much more about training and promotion of the code. People bridle against training, but we need to engage people in the conversation about what the code is for much more than we do.

European Union (Withdrawal) (No. 5) Bill

Debate between Bernard Jenkin and Steve Baker

Monday 8th April 2019 Commons Chamber

[Hilary Benn]

The Prime Minister will accept an extension because she has asked for one. It is the existence of this Bill that has led her, in advance of the Bill being approved by the House, to write to the President of the European Council seeking an extension, because twice, much to the unhappiness of certain Members on the Government side of the House, she has been faced with this choice: either to take the country over the edge of a no-deal cliff, or to apply for an extension.

The reason I think some Members are very cross about that—I accept that they are cross—is that on both occasions the Prime Minister, facing both this Bill and a revolt by her Ministers, decided to act in the national interest by making that application. I hope very much that on Wednesday the European Council will grant more time, because whatever one thinks about the Prime Minister’s deal, one thing is clear: a no-deal Brexit would be disastrous for our country. That is why I hope the House will vote for the Bill tonight.

[Mr Steve Baker (Wycombe) (Con)]

May I begin by saying how pleased I was to learn, when my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Sir William Cash) mentioned the European Union (Notification of Withdrawal) Act 2017, that so many Opposition Members voted for that Act on the basis that they took on trust the success of a Conservative Prime Minister? I am pleased that they have so much confidence in us. When they voted for that Act, they either did or did not know the terms of article 50. If they did know the terms, then they voted to leave the European Union potentially without a withdrawal agreement; and if they did not, then clearly they were ignorant of one of the most important matters of the moment. Perhaps instead they were just voting for short-term political expediency. In any event, it is not very credible for Members now to be panicking and seeking to overturn what they previously legislated for, with great care and over a considerable period of time.

I turn my attention to Lords amendment 5, which I find rather surprising, because it seeks to restore the prerogative to the Government, provided they seek a long extension. Of course, this House resoundingly defeated the Government on that very point. I am therefore very pleased that my hon. Friend the Member for Stone has tabled amendment (a) in lieu of Lords amendment 5, to rule out European elections. It states:

“No extension of the period under Article 50(3) of the Treaty on European Union may be agreed by the Prime Minister if as a result the United Kingdom would be required to prepare for or to hold elections to the European Parliament.”

This House united around what was known as the Brady amendment, to replace the backstop with alternative arrangements. I cannot think how many times I and other Members have tabled the so-called Malthouse compromise, to limit the implementation period, replace the backstop and, in the latest incarnation, get rid of the single customs territory. We have tried and tried to give the Government the way to get a deal.

[Sir Bernard Jenkin]

I am listening carefully to what my hon. Friend says about amendment (a) in lieu of Lords amendment 5. Let us be absolutely clear. Is he saying that anyone who votes against amendment (a) will actually be voting for the United Kingdom to take part in the European elections, despite the fact that nearly every Member of this House voted for us to leave long before that date? It is a big reverse, is it not?

[Mr Baker]

It is a big reverse. Do Opposition Members seriously think that we should participate in the European elections after so long? It is a ridiculous escapade. Members should have known what they were doing when they voted to trigger article 50—[Interruption.] I see the right hon. Gentleman the Chair of the Exiting the European Union Committee looking quizzical and shaking his head, or perhaps nodding along.

Leaving the EU: Economic Analysis

Debate between Bernard Jenkin and Steve Baker

Tuesday 30th January 2018 Commons Chamber

[Mr Baker]

We are carrying out the usual inquiries into who leaked the report. The hon. Lady is absolutely right that past economic predictions have been very poor, and poor for good reasons on which I would love to elaborate on another occasion. I have set out that particular critique of even the Bank of England’s forecasts, and she is absolutely right that, as I said earlier, we should have a healthy scepticism.

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

We would be in a strange position if Governments had to publish every bit of advice to Ministers and every bit of analysis that they profoundly believed to be wrong. The last Labour Government did not do that, and the Minister should resist publishing this analysis if he believes it is not in the national interest to do so. I also advise him that people are trying to divert the Government’s direction on Brexit—there is absolutely no doubt about it. Will he look into why this particular document was leaked on this particular day, the day that the withdrawal Bill has its first debate in the upper House?

[Mr Baker]

My hon. Friend, the Chairman of the Select Committee on Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs, makes an important and authoritative point about the conduct of government. Opposition Members would do well to reflect on how they would wish to govern the country if, God forbid, the electorate should ever give them an opportunity to do so.

All of us in this House need to have an eye on the long-term functioning of our democracy and our constitution. With that in mind, I hear what my hon. Friend says. There is clearly a campaign to overturn the referendum result, and it can be seen at work in the media and in this House. We will certainly bear in mind what he says.

European Union (Withdrawal) Bill

Debate between Bernard Jenkin and Steve Baker

Committee: 8th sitting: House of Commons
Wednesday 20th December 2017 Commons Chamber

[Mr Baker]

The hon. Lady is trying to pre-empt some of my remarks. If she will bear with me, I will come to that.

A crucial point is that the Bill does not determine whether the UK leaves the EU; that is a matter of international law under the article 50 process. However, it is important that we have the same position in UK law that is reflected in European Union treaty law. That is why the Government have signed these amendments, and I was glad to do so.

I can assure the Committee we would use this power only in exceptional circumstances to extend the deadline for the shortest period possible, and that we cannot envisage the date being brought forward. As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has said many times, we and the EU are planning on the UK leaving the European Union at 11 pm on 29 March 2019.

[Mr Jenkin]

I apologise to the Committee for having had to be in the Liaison Committee for the last couple of hours and for missing much of the debate. I thank my hon. Friend for accepting these compromise amendments. The Government are, in fact, accepting a very significant limitation on the powers they had in the original draft of the Bill. If we are interested in the sovereignty of Parliament, we are interested in limiting the room for Government to set arbitrary dates without any controls over them whatever. That is what existed in the Bill before. There is now proper control by Parliament of the date in the Bill.

[Mr Baker]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I would also like to say thank you to him for the role he has played in bridging the spectrum of opinion on this issue.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Baker]

I am most grateful to my right hon. and learned Friend. I know he is going to take this matter up further with my hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor General. I did actually just make two points, but perhaps I structured them ambiguously.

The third point is that in the event of a strike-down there would be no existing power under which fresh regulations could be brought forward, so it would be necessary to bring forward a fresh Act of Parliament or to rely on the remedial order-making power within the HRA itself. I should say that the remedial order-making power within the HRA was not designed to be the default means by which incompatible legislation is remedied or to deal with the policy changes that could be required.

The remedial order-making power may only be used if there are compelling reasons for doing so and it is targeted at removing the identified incompatibility. If wider policy change were needed following a finding of incompatibility, a fresh Act of Parliament would be the only means of doing that and we could be left with damaging holes in the statute book unless and until such an Act was passed. That is why the Government concluded that converted EU law should have the status of primary legislation in relation to the HRA, and that is why the Government will not be able to accept the two amendments.

[Mr Jenkin]

I wish to pick up on the important point raised by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr Grieve). For the avoidance of doubt, will the Minister clarify that it is not the Government’s intention to set up retained EU law in UK statute in a manner that would encourage a UK court to strike down another primary statute? If that is the intention, may I suggest it might be something the Government will have to look at?

[Mr Baker]

My hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor General has just confirmed to me that we do not want that to happen. I am sure that that will be given further consideration, along with the issue of general principles that my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Beaconsfield has raised.

Exiting the EU: Sectoral Analysis

Debate between Bernard Jenkin and Steve Baker

Tuesday 7th November 2017 Commons Chamber

[Mr Baker]

I think that the right hon. Gentleman has put the words “nothing of significance” in my mouth. I do not think that I have ever said that. We are saying to the House that this sectoral analysis does not contain quantitative projections of impact. As for the right hon. Gentleman’s final question, I think that is a matter for you, Mr Speaker.

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

The motion that the House passed last week without objection referred to

“the impact assessments arising from those analyses”,

in reference to the previous list. I can well imagine that these assessments are scattered around different Departments, and that different officials are looking at various bits of work and saying, “Does this count as part of one of these assessments or not?” I think it would have been unconscionable for the Government to come to the House and suggest that they were not going to comply with the motion or release this information, but may I suggest that there should be some private dialogue with the highly respected Chair of the Brexit Committee, on Privy Council terms, about how to resolve the matter without it becoming a matter of embarrassment that disrupts the negotiations?

[Mr Baker]

It is our intention to comply with the will of the House, but we cannot release what we do not have. We will bring forward the material that is appropriate, timely and up to date, and that will inform the Committee. Steps have already been taken to carry forward the appropriate meetings.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Bernard Jenkin and Steve Baker

Thursday 7th September 2017 Commons Chamber

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

May I add my congratulations to my colleague on his appointment to the Front Bench? It is very well deserved. Is not the right way for the hon. Member for Stockton South (Dr Williams) to secure the rights of workers, and to secure the environmental protections that he wants, to vote for the EU (Withdrawal) Bill? If the Labour party succeeds in blocking the Bill, those protections will no longer exist.

[Mr Baker]

I am most grateful to my hon. Friend for his congratulations and his support, and I look forward to his support in future. He is absolutely right: the best way for Members of this House to ensure that they serve their constituents by delivering a working statute book, and delivering the continuity of the rights and protections currently in EU law and applying to the UK, is to vote for this Bill and to support its passage through the House.

European Union Referendum Bill

Debate between Bernard Jenkin and Steve Baker

Tuesday 8th December 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mr Jenkin]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his intervention. I have already said that the first publication is perfectly justified, as the Government are entitled to explain what they have negotiated and to give their opinion on that. If he would like to do so, he might explain how they are going to give

“information about rights, and obligations, that arise under European Union law as a result of the United Kingdom’s membership of the European Union”

in a concise and simple fashion which is not loaded. Perhaps he could tell us which countries should be used as

“examples of countries that do not have membership of the European Union”

in order to explain the consequences of leaving the European Union. We are talking about very subjective judgments, and of course that is what the debate between the yes and the no campaigns will be about.

My hon. Friend is right to say that people trust what the Government say, which is exactly why what they say should be curtailed and limited: it has a disproportionate effect on the voters. There is absolutely no doubt about that. If a leader of a party says something, that has less of an effect than if the Prime Minister says something. That is why we have a purdah period, and the House has forced the Government to accept that there will be a proper purdah period. Otherwise, if we have what we had in 1975, whereby the Government can carry on regardless, being the Government and yet expressing partisan views on one side of the argument and not the other, an unfair referendum would be created. That is why all referendums throughout the world have systems to try to contain what Governments do during the final phases of the referendum, in order to try to create some fairness.

[Mr Steve Baker (Wycombe) (Con)]

I wonder whether my hon. Friend has seen, as I have, the poster produced by the pro-EU BSE—Britain Stronger in Europe—campaign which co-opts the Governor of the Bank of England under the headline “Think UK’s economy is stronger in Europe”. BSE has also co-opted the President of the United States and the Prime Minister of India. Does my hon. Friend share my concern that it appears that the campaign to remain in is willing to co-opt public officials, who ought not to be dragged into one side of such a campaign?

[Mr Jenkin]

I have to be mindful about whether that is taking us beyond the scope of what we are discussing, but it reminds me of a very controversial element of the Government’s conduct of the Scottish referendum, and I have some sympathy with arguments that have been made on this point. I refer to the use of a permanent secretary to give a speech on behalf of the Government’s view while this was purporting to be the publication of advice to Ministers. Such advice should never be published. On any orthodox analysis, the opinions of civil servants in the form of advice to Ministers should never be published, but this was used as part of the propaganda. Many Scottish National party Members would regard that as a gross misuse of civil servants during a referendum period, and we need to try to avoid that.

I leave two questions for the Minister as he responds to this debate on Lords amendments 5 and 6. First, what does “publish” actually mean? What do the Government intend to do by way of the publication of these two reports? Are they just to be White Papers or are they to be propaganda circulated by the Government in some way much more widely? Secondly, how will he ensure that this is done in the highest spirit of impartiality, using that word in the way most people would expect it to be used? How is he going to ensure that these publications are genuinely objective and not just a means of advancing one side of the argument against the other?

European Union Referendum Bill

Debate between Bernard Jenkin and Steve Baker

Monday 7th September 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mr Jenkin]

First, I thank my right hon. Friend the Minister for generously accepting amendment (a) to new clause 10. That will provide a significant safeguard and reassurance, and it will provide stability in the referendum campaign. It means that regulations changing the rules will not be made halfway through the campaign, perhaps to suit the convenience of Ministers at a time when the temptation to avail themselves of that convenience might be considerable, given the big issues at stake in the referendum. I am grateful to members of my Committee, the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee, for supporting that amendment.

I am bound to say, however, that new clause 10 has been described as an open barn door for whatever changes to purdah the Government want to make. Given that they started from the position that they did not want to have purdah in statutory form at all, we are entitled to be a little suspicious about what kind of regulations they might bring forward. I appreciate that there is a safeguard, in that regulations will have to be approved by both Houses of Parliament, and the Committee will be vigilant in looking at those regulations.

I am grateful to my right hon. Friend the Minister, and to my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary, who is also listening, for the fact that the Government have accepted the principle that the Electoral Commission should be consulted and give a view in advance of any such regulations. That moves the Electoral Commission into a slightly new role, but it is not uncommon in other countries. In Ireland, for example, the equivalent of the Electoral Commission has a strong role in policing the purdah regime. I will come to that in a minute.

I also thank my right hon. Friend the Minister for Europe for being so scrupulously polite and confirming to all of us once again that his integrity is unimpeachable. I commend him for having brought the Bill a long way from where it was in June, when the Committee wrote to him after taking evidence from Lord Owen, from Jack Straw, from Peter Riddell, the director of the Institute for Government, from Lord Bew, the chair of the Committee on Standards in Public Life, from the Electoral Commission, from Sir Jeremy Heywood and from Ministers. The Government were, and still are, putting forward the view that section 125 of the 2000 Act is too wide-ranging, but that failed to convince almost all our witnesses. As the Minister will recall, we made it clear in our letter that the Committee’s unanimous view was that section 125 should be restored to the Bill, and that

“its intent should remain unimpaired by any amendment.”

I imagine that that remains the view of Committee members, particularly as I suspect most of them will support what is decided in the Division Lobbies later.

We have the Electoral Commission’s advice on the Government’s new proposals, which makes it clear that, like the rest of us, the commission has had very little time to consider them, although I thank my right hon. Friend the Minister for telephoning me while I was in Ireland last week and explaining what was intended. This is pretty complicated stuff, and to end up with 38 pages of amendments to debate in five or six hours is not the best advertisement for how we legislate in this House, but nevertheless there has been dialogue, and it has been good-natured. My colleagues and I do not relish disagreeing with our Government, so we very much appreciate the fact that the dialogue has been conducted in a good-natured way. I thank my right hon. Friend the Chief Whip for that.

The Electoral Commission’s advice states that it has not had sufficient time to fully consider the detailed implications of the Government’s proposals, but that the Government should explain in more detail

“how it would expect to use these powers”—

the powers under new clause 10. It states:

“Our view is that, if Parliament accepts this new clause, its use should be limited only to managing any potential restrictions on the conduct of ‘day-to-day’ EU business.”

The Electoral Commission also makes clear its support for the amendment to new clause 10, which my right hon. Friend the Minister has accepted. It states that any changes should be made

“well before the start of the restricted period of 28 days before polling day.”

I am grateful to him for accepting that.

Speaker’s Counsel has been mentioned. My right hon. Friend said that the TTIP negotiations might suddenly intrude on the last 28 days of campaigning, but Speaker’s Counsel has been clear on that point in emails today. He mentions provisions on EU business being conducted as normal, stating:

“I do not share the view that these are caught by s.125.”

It could not be clearer. He goes on:

“Commenting on EU business is not providing information about a referendum”—

that addresses the question of TTIP negotiations—

“neither is it ‘dealing with any of the issues raised by a referendum’…nor is it putting any arguments for and against any particular answer”.

He points out:

“Even if they were doing any of these things, then s.125(3)(d) expressly allows the issue of press notices (without any restriction as to their content).”

What do the Government need to be able to do that they will not be able to do? That has been singularly unexplained in the whole process.

[Mr Baker]

Does my hon. Friend agree that the fundamental problem is not a lack of faith in the Government but a lack of faith based on past EU referendums in other countries, where the conduct of Governments, and the EU in particular, has led to trust in the process being undermined? Is that not the fundamental problem?

[Mr Jenkin]

And indeed in our own country—it was the conduct of the Welsh referendum in 1997 that led the Committee on Standards in Public Life to bring forward its proposals for purdah, which the then Labour Government accepted and which the Labour party consistently supports today. Those arrangements were good enough for the north-east referendum, the alternative vote referendum and the most recent Welsh devolution referendum. Indeed, in the view of some Members, they were probably not strong enough in respect of the Scottish referendum last year.

As my right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (John Redwood) said, the purdah proposals were designed for a referendum on the euro, so the idea that the European Union was not considered when the arrangements were formulated is just not correct. Tony Blair’s Government introduced the 2000 Act in order that there could be a fair referendum on the euro, which was his ambition. If these arrangements were good enough for Tony Blair, why are they not good enough for our own Conservative Government?

A referendum should be a solemn and carefully regulated constitutional procedure, not a ploy or device to get a particular outcome and fix a political problem. Abuse of the referendum by less scrupulous Governments in the last century famously led Clement Attlee to describe referendums as

“a device of demagogues and dictators”.

Other countries, such as Sweden, Ireland and Switzerland, have much tougher purdah regimes. The Government’s proposals take us backwards, as we have heard from those who have participated in referendums, such as Nigel Smith, a well-known referendum expert who was chairman of the Scottish yes campaign. He has been appalled by the proposals, and he gave evidence to our Committee about them.

It has been suggested that the precedent for the forthcoming referendum should be 1975. I do not know whether Members have read the 1975 Cabinet minutes, but they show how the Government were set to run a parallel campaign to the yes campaign. That is not the precedent that we should follow in the last 28 days of campaigning. Indeed, the Foreign Secretary could bring forward a White Paper before the start of the 28-day period, just as the Scottish Executive brought forward a comprehensive White Paper about their proposals for Scottish independence, although it was lacking in detail and a little bit partisan—we had some comments to make about that. There is nothing to stop the Government bringing forward as much information as they want before the purdah period. Incidentally, the Electoral Commission thinks that 28 days is far too short for a purdah period and we are not debating that today. If the Government, with all the advantages that Governments have, cannot win the referendum just because they will be restricted for the last 28 days, what kind of referendum do we expect to have?

I listened to my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (Mr Clarke) and I really think he wants to go back to a 1975-style referendum where the Government are used as an instrument of campaigning in what should be a fair fight. What is the point of having spending limits on the yes and no campaigns if Ministers can use the machinery of Government in an unrestricted way, which is what the abolition of purdah would mean?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Jenkin]

I wholly agree with my right hon. Friend. In fact, I think that would reinforce the integrity with which the Government have approached the matter. They still have the option of amending the Bill again in the other place and bringing it back for discussion in this House, and of introducing regulations under new clause 10, so long as that happens at least four months before the date of the referendum. I am bound to say that there are plenty of options available to the Government. They do not need to divide the House on amendment 53.

[Mr Baker]

My hon. Friend may not be able to commit to this now, but does he think that the Committee he chairs would be prepared to scrutinise statutory instruments before they come to the House, so that the Government could have confidence that they enjoyed cross-party support before they came to the vote? We are well aware that they cannot be amended; they can only be voted down.

[Mr Jenkin]

I will certainly undertake to put that in front of my Committee. It depends on the Government: if they table amendments 35 minutes before the deadline and a recess period and are then determined to discuss them on the first day back, it makes it very difficult to scrutinise matters, as the Electoral Commission has attested. I invite my right hon. Friend the Minister for Europe to make sure that any regulations he introduces under new clause 10 are published in draft so that we can properly give them pre-legislative scrutiny, take proper advice on them and make objective recommendations to the House without being rushed or bounced into them.

One of the advantages of amendment (a), which my right hon. Friend has kindly accepted, is that the temptation to bounce the country into a referendum has been significantly reduced. If we are to have a sensible referendum debate, there has to be a proper period for discussion of the outcome of the Government’s negotiations and the merits or otherwise of remaining in or leaving the European Union. I am sure that was the Government’s ambition when they originally proposed the idea of a referendum. I look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say in winding up.