European Council

Charlie Elphicke Excerpts

Monday 24th October 2011 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

We have been doing exactly that, but one reason some of those countries have got into difficulties is not just the shortage of growth and competitiveness, though that has been key, but the fact that they have built up very large budget deficits. That is the lesson right across Europe—you have to make sure that you cut your cloth according to what you can afford. That is a lesson that we are tragically having to learn in this country, too.

[Charlie Elphicke (Dover) (Con)]

My constituents in Dover were very pleased and heartened to see the Prime Minister standing up to the French.

When it comes to the national interest, is not a key point that we need action on budgets and action on getting us out of the bail-out fund, not action selling us down the river, joining up with the euro or selling down the £7 billion rebate that we used to have?

[The Prime Minister]

My hon. Friend makes an important point, which is about what the British people want us to do specifically with respect to Europe. The biggest danger, they sense, is getting drawn into further bail-outs. That is why, in the treaty change that has already come forward, that was the price that we exacted—to get out of the EU bail-out fund by 2013. We have returned that power to the UK. We should also be taking action on the European budget, and we have secured agreement with some of the large countries in Europe on a real-terms freeze this year. Those priorities, plus the referendum lock, are what this Government have already been able to deliver.

Public Disorder

Charlie Elphicke Excerpts

Thursday 11th August 2011 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

The first half of the hon. Gentleman’s question, which was all about the new technology that the criminal is using, bore no relation to the second half of the question, which was about resources. What matters is whether we are going to give the police the technology to trace people on Twitter or BlackBerry Messenger or, as I said in my statement, on occasion to close them down. That is the step that we should be taking, rather than immediately launching into a discussion of resources in four years’ time.

[Charlie Elphicke (Dover) (Con)]

May I urge the Prime Minister to consider not just the amount of compensation and business continuity assistance, but its speed? Time is of the essence in getting businesses back on their feet, so that there are more jobs and money in communities that so badly need them.

[The Prime Minister]

My hon. Friend makes a very good point. I can say that the Minister of State, Department for Business, Innovation and Skills, my hon. Friend the Member for Hertford and Stortford (Mr Prisk) will, from his office, be giving one-stop-shop advice to all Members of Parliament who have affected businesses that want to see that money flow quickly. It is very important not just to set up those schemes, but to make sure that the money is paid rapidly.

Public Confidence in the Media and Police

Charlie Elphicke Excerpts

Wednesday 20th July 2011 Commons Chamber

[Edward Miliband]

I want to make some progress.

It is commonly agreed that we need a new system of regulation. Whether we call it self-regulation or independent regulation, which is a term the Prime Minister coined and that I like, in substance it is about ethics being overseen by an independent group of people who are not current editors, with investigatory powers so that the regulatory body cannot simply be lied to as the PCC says that it was and—this is an important point—with the power to enforce compensation and prominent redress. That point is really important. The standards of accuracy in our press will be much encouraged if there is prominence of apology and admission of error rather than their being buried on page 42, which is what happens.

The issue, which the Prime Minister touched on in his speech, goes beyond press regulation. Indeed, Government Members have asked me about this. Why did not more of us speak out earlier? The answer is what we all know and used to be afraid to say: News International was too powerful. It owned 40% of the newspaper market before the closure of the News of the World. It owns two thirds of the pay TV market through 39% of the Sky platform and Sky News. The Communications Act 2003 rightly stops an organisation holding an ITV licence and more than 20% of newspapers, but it does not apply to digital channels. One might say that it was an analogue Act in a digital age. The Act needs to be updated as such a concentration of power is unhealthy. If one thing comes out of what we have seen in the past two weeks and over many years, it must be that we understand the point about concentrations of power in our society because large concentrations of power are more likely to lead to abuses of power.

[Charlie Elphicke (Dover) (Con)]

My concern is that we preserve the freedom of the press. The right hon. Gentleman mentioned News International specifically, but we know that Mirror Group and the Daily Mail were equally culpable according to the 2006 report. He talks about the media market, but we know that the BBC has a dominant position. His comments are beginning to look like he is conducting a vendetta against News International when we need to consider the media as a whole.

Public Confidence in the Media and Police

Charlie Elphicke Excerpts

Wednesday 20th July 2011 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

Let me pay tribute to the hon. Gentleman, to what he has done and his role in this. The point I am making is simply this: the time that Andy Coulson spent at No. 10 Downing Street and the work that he did for the Government, no one has made a complaint against. That seems to me to be important, because I have said that I gave him a second chance after he had resigned from the News of the World because of what happened under his watch. No one has raised with me any of his conduct at No. 10 while he carried out that job.

[Charlie Elphicke (Dover) (Con)]

The Prime Minister has said that contacts with the media since the general election will be published. I do not think that that is good enough. We need to know the contacts that the Government have had with the media for the past 10 years. We also need an investigation into the Home Office and into what Home Office Ministers were doing.

Parliamentary Commission for Administration and Health Service Commissioner for England

Charlie Elphicke Excerpts

Monday 18th July 2011 Commons Chamber

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

I do not intend to detain the House for long. However, with my colleagues’ permission, I would like to place one or two points on the record. In particular, I would like to join the tributes paid to the existing ombudsman, who has done such a fantastic job over so many years. Ann Abraham has stamped her authority on the office of the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman. In particular, she fought a gallant battle over the Equitable Life issue. I am pleased that in the end it was resolved amicably between her and the Government. No one can say that she did not change the course of history on that question, as she has on so many minor issues that are equally important to the people concerned.

Ann Abraham will continue in office until the end of this year. She gallantly gave notice in good time that she wished to step down to give us time to decide not just to appoint a successor but how to appoint one. Traditionally, under legislation, the appointment is made by Her Majesty the Queen on the recommendation of the Prime Minister and with reference to a resolution of both Houses of Parliament. However, traditionally, the appointment process has been handled entirely by the Cabinet Office. Quite early in the process, the Public Administration Committee made it clear that we thought that this was no longer a process that reflected the present times and that Parliament should be much more at the forefront of this procedure. I am grateful that the Government readily conceded this point and handed the whole process over to the House of Commons.

I am extremely grateful to those who took part in the appointment process, notably the Principal Clerk of Select Committees, the permanent secretary at the Department of Health, Una O’Brien, who was the Government nominee on the panel, Professor Alice Brown, who is a former public service ombudsman in Scotland, David Prince, who was the external assessor appointed by the Appointments Commission, and myself. I am pleased to tell the House that we reached a unanimous decision in favour of Dame Julie Mellor. We had a strong field of acceptable candidates from which to choose and many of them were capable of doing the job, but Dame Julie Mellor has an outstanding record of achievement in the public and private sectors.

In particular, Dame Julie Mellor excelled as chairman of the Equal Opportunities Commission between 2005 and 2009. I can assure the House that we are fortunate to have her. That judgment was confirmed by the pre-appointment hearing conducted by the PAC on 6 July, which was chaired by a colleague on the Committee, the hon. Member for Luton North (Kelvin Hopkins). I absented myself as I had served on the panel and therefore had a conflict of interest. I wanted to ensure that the Committee had a free run in making its own judgment about the ombudsman. Again, she received unanimous approval from the PAC, and I am sure that the House will wish her well in her appointment.

Perhaps the more important issue to raise, however, is the ombudsman’s remuneration. As the hon. Member for City of Durham (Roberta Blackman-Woods) pointed out from the Opposition Front Bench, we have slipped into the habit of aligning the ombudsman’s salary with that of a High Court judge, which was appropriate, because, like a High Court judge, the ombudsman has the right to summon persons and papers to resolve the issues before her. However, in the interests of pay restraint, and with the Prime Minister’s salary in mind, the Government have set about trying to re-evaluate the correct salary for quite a large number of public appointments.

The Committee was, shall I say, distressed that the ombudsman’s salary was caught up in that general process. The difficulty that we had in arguing for the status quo was that the Parliamentary Commissioner Act 1967 makes no reference to a High Court judge; rather, it says that the salary should be fixed to that of a permanent secretary. Unfortunately, unlike in 1967, when the legislation was passed, the salary of a permanent secretary is a moveable feast these days. Their salaries extend from a little over—or even a little under—£100,000 to well over £200,000. Fixing the salary to that of a permanent secretary has now become an arbitrary process, although we did not feel it right for the Government simply to take the matter into their own hands. The Government were determined that we should advertise the post with a salary range that we describe in our report on the remuneration as “arbitrary”, and we are distressed that we were left in that position.

The current ombudsman has been clear that de-linking the ombudsman’s salary from that of a High Court judge leaves the office vulnerable to the charge that it is being downgraded by the Government. The office used to be analogous to that of the Comptroller and Auditor General, who now earns a significantly higher salary than the ombudsman. At some stage this matter will have to be addressed, but, as the hon. Member for City of Durham said, the most invidious part of the process is that the ombudsman, having been approved by the panel and agreed by the Government in principle, then had to negotiate her salary within the range offered by the Government, which was between £152,000 and £172,753. We did not feel it right that someone who will be responsible for holding the Government to account on behalf of complainants should have to negotiate her remuneration with the very Government whom she should be regulating. Having discussed the matter with one of two others in prominent public positions who had found themselves in the same situation, I can state that the Committee is entirely right to have concluded that this is an entirely unacceptable basis on which to proceed.

[Charlie Elphicke (Dover) (Con)]

It is a great pleasure to serve on my hon. Friend’s Committee. I would like to hammer home the point that the function of the ombudsman is analogous to that of a High Court judge, in that the ombudsman acts as a large-scale arbiter and provider of justice. As such, it is right and proper that the ombudsman’s salary should be on a level equivalent to that of a High Court judge. Does my hon. Friend agree that the appropriate course is for the Minister to listen to this debate, go away and reconsider the matter?

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Jones]

The hon. Gentleman cannot have it both ways. He cannot say that he is objecting to the arrangement and that he has obtained some kind of victory for the future when he has not. I am sorry to say that what was wrong was the fact that the Government intervened by imposing an arbitrary cap and then saying to the ombudsman, “Sit down and negotiate your pay.” He has obtained something for the future but it is not going to affect the starting salary or the situation now. He is asking whether it would have been wrong for his Committee to have suggested something, but it could have proposed a mechanism that would have possibly increased a larger salary. If it is okay for Bernard Gray at the MOD to be paid £250,000 a year plus bonuses, why are the Government not having consistency across the board? This is a very important job, as it involves independence from the Government and from Parliament, and it is wrong for the Government to be interfering.

[Charlie Elphicke]

I say to the hon. Gentleman that under the previous Government there was a lack of ability to check pay and keep it to the correct level. As a matter of policy, it is right, in general, that officials should not be paid more than the Prime Minister. Nevertheless, the failure and misunderstanding of the policy in this particular case relates to the fact that the ombudsman’s role is akin to that of a High Court judge, and her office means that she should be treated in the same manner as a High Court judge. That is what I hope Ministers will consider, and will perhaps reflect upon and act upon.

[Mr Jones]

I know that the hon. Gentleman is a new Member, but he is living in hope if he thinks that any future Government are suddenly going to throw money at individuals once the salary has been set; he is being a bit naive to say the least. He makes an interesting point about the figure of £142,500. The policy is that nobody should earn more than that. Why? Where has that come from? We know where it came from. It came from the soundbite machine at the general election, from this Government and from a Prime Minister who does not need the salary in any case, because he has independent wealth. If someone could argue that that was the proper level for the job, that would be fine and I would have no problem with it. However, no evidence is being put forward to support that figure of £142,500. That is an absolute fortune, and most of my constituents could only dream of earning anything like that, even in 10 years, let alone in one year. None the less, I would have more respect for the Government’s approach if there were an evidence base to suggest that that figure was the norm, rather than people plucking it out of thin air and then trying to give an impression that it is the norm and capping the pay of the ombudsman—the one post that it should not have been applied to—while having different arrangements for other positions, such as the MOD example that I gave, and others.

I opposed bonuses when I was a trade union official, and the hon. Gentleman is right about our approach. The last Government used them all the time; we tried to say that we were keeping civil service pay down but we were paying bonuses instead. I was always against bonuses because they do not accrue in terms of pensionable entitlements. Let us be honest and say that the Government should try to get away from this whole idea.

The Government have put forward the same argument in respect of local government. The idea that cutting the salary of the chief executive of Durham county council by £5,000 a year or £10,000 a year will actually make a difference in delivering £140 million-worth of cuts over the next three years is completely bonkers. It is nice for the newspapers and it is a nice soundbite at elections, but it does not do the job. What we need in all these situations, as we need in any organisation, is well-thought-out remuneration structures. I am not happy about the cosy relationship between the Chair of the Committee and the Prime Minister in determining the salary of this individual. What the Committee should have proposed are the proper, thought-out, independent salary review processes that we need. As I said before, all Governments try to ignore them when they do not quite fit what they are arguing for, but that is what we need in this case.

The Government have done the ombudsman a huge disservice by intervening in such a way. I feel sorry that she is now lumbered not only with this salary but with a feeling that she somehow has to negotiate her own salary. The Committee did not pull its punches. It said:

“We believe that this is neither a sound nor desirable way to proceed.”

One of the many things about the Government that concern me is the fact that they are completely ignoring processes in devising any type of policy. That leads not only to inconsistencies but to changes that will have an effect, over time, on how the ombudsman service is seen.

My final point concerns the motion. We will agree a salary of £152,000, which the motion says is

“within the range of salaries payable to Permanent Secretaries”.

It is and, as I have already demonstrated, it is not. There are some who are on possibly £100,000 more than that and who are eligible, as the ombudsman is not, to receive annual bonuses. The hon. Member for Dover is right. On some occasions in the Ministry of Defence, I could never quite work out which targets some people got bonuses for meeting. Bonuses were used as a way of avoiding giving pay increases.

The motion says that the salary should be subject to

“any relevant increase…recommended by the Senior Salaries Review Body and…after the end of the current…freeze, 1% annual uprating in lieu of performance pay”,

and that the House considers

“that in future, and subject always to the statutory requirements, the remuneration of the Parliamentary Commissioner…should be agreed by the Prime Minister”.

That is fine for the future, but why 1%? What is that figure based on? Trying to do something at the end is not very satisfactory. Although the motion will be passed tonight, the Government have a lot of questions to answer about why they have intervened in such a way.

Phone Hacking

Charlie Elphicke Excerpts

Wednesday 13th July 2011 Commons Chamber

[Charlie Elphicke (Dover) (Con)]

May I welcome the Prime Minister’s reaffirmation that sunlight is the best disinfectant? If we are really going to sort things out on a cross-party basis, surely it is not good enough for this to involve only Government Ministers and special advisers—surely it should involve shadow Ministers and their special advisers as well.

[The Prime Minister]

I think that is right. The point about the relationship between politicians and the press, and where that has gone wrong, is, as I said, that we have been courting support rather than confronting problems. That has been the case for Oppositions. I freely admit that as Leader of the Opposition, you spend quite a lot of time trying to persuade newspapers and others to support you, because you want to explain your policies, your vision and what you are doing for the country. That will not stop. We are not all going to go and live in a monastery and never talk to journalists ever again, wonderful though that might seem by moments. We must have a healthy relationship where we can have those meetings and discussions, but at the same time confront the difficulties that we have. That is what the commission will do.

Public Bodies Bill [Lords]

Charlie Elphicke Excerpts

Tuesday 12th July 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Maude]

The office of chief coroner will be brought into existence. It will not be set up in the elaborate way and with the extensive additional costs embodied in the proposals of the previous Government. The office will exist. The functions, to the extent that they are needed, will be exercised in a way that is affordable in the current circumstances. If the right hon. Gentleman, for whom I have considerable respect, is really suggesting that we should spend this amount of extra money on this matter, he needs to tell the House what he would cut to enable that to happen.

[Charlie Elphicke (Dover) (Con)]

Surely the concern is not just over the amazingly expensive offices that many quangos like to equip themselves with, but over the amount of pay that they receive. People at the UK Film Council get more than £150,000 a year, the British Waterways chief executive gets £230,000, and a similar amount goes to the chief executive of the Dover Harbour Board, dare I mention it? Surely we should ensure that the cost of each individual is reduced to a sensible amount.

[Mr Maude]

One of the benefits brought about by this Government is to make all that more transparent. We have exposed for scrutiny by the public and the House what those high salaries are, and it is right that we should do so. They may be completely justified in many cases, but they ought to be justified and scrutinised, so I make no apology for introducing that degree of transparency.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Maude]

My hon. Friend’s point simply amplifies the case for the presumption that we are instituting in the Bill that there needs to be a really compelling case for a state function being carried out in a way that is not accountable. That is the purpose of the Bill.

[Charlie Elphicke]

Will my right hon. Friend give way on that point?

[Mr Maude]

My hon. Friend will forgive me, but I really do need to make progress. A great many Members wish to contribute to the debate.

Our first test of a body was the existential test—does its function need to be carried out at all? If, as in most cases, the body’s functions were deemed necessary, we then sought to establish whether the functions should be carried out independently. We had three tests. If a body carries out a highly technical activity, if it is required to be politically impartial or if it needs to be able to act independently to establish or measure facts, it is right for it to remain outside direct ministerial or other democratic accountability. That is clearly the case with bodies such as the new Office for Budget Responsibility, Ofgem and many others.

Any body that does not meet any of those tests will either be brought back into a Department, where it can be held accountable to the House through a Minister, or devolved to local authorities. In both cases there will be democratic accountability. Or in some cases, a body’s functions could be carried out outside the state altogether in the private or voluntary sector. We went through an extensive process to determine the outcome of the review.

The first task was simply to establish how many quangos there were and what they did. It may sound absurd, but it was and remains incredibly difficult to get firm information on that. Many do not publish accounts, there is no central list and there are many different types of quango with different statuses. The official list of non-departmental public bodies contains 679 bodies, excluding those in Northern Ireland, but that does not include non-ministerial departments, Government-owned public corporations or trading funds. Our review covered 901 bodies, and we believe, but cannot be certain, that that is the true extent of the landscape. I stress that departmental executive agencies were not within the review’s scope. They are directly controlled by Ministers, who are accountable to Parliament for what they do.

At the end of that review, I announced our proposals to the House on 14 October last year. They were that 481 of the bodies should be substantially reformed, including 192 abolished entirely and a further 118 merged. Since that announcement we have concluded consideration of a number of other bodies, and I can tell the House that the current total is that 495 bodies will be reformed, including 200 abolished and 120 others merged into 59 successor bodies. We have moved quickly to implement that programme, and I am pleased to tell the House that 45 bodies had been abolished by the end of April this year. Overall, we expect to make administrative savings—I stress that they are administrative—of £2.6 billion from public bodies over the spending review period. That money will be better spent on protecting public sector jobs and on front-line services.

Oral Answers to Questions

Charlie Elphicke Excerpts

Wednesday 15th June 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

We are now better informed.

[Charlie Elphicke (Dover) (Con)]

8. What recent representations he has received on the provisions of the Public Bodies Bill.

[The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Mr Nick Hurd)]

As my hon. Friend knows, the Bill has completed a tortuous but constructive passage through the other place, and we hope for a Second Reading in this place soon. In the meantime, the Cabinet Office and other relevant Departments are holding information sessions for colleagues who want to discuss this important Bill.

[Charlie Elphicke]

I thank the Minister for his reply, his hard work and the excellent job he is doing on the Bill. Under the Bill, public statutory corporations such as British Waterways will be reformed and become mutuals. Have Ministers considered other similar public bodies, such as trust ports, for inclusion in the Bill?

[Mr Hurd]

I understand that my hon. Friend is frustrated by the pace of progress in his committed and spirited attempt to allow the people of Dover to take over the port. He will know that the Transport Secretary, who is sitting alongside me, has announced a consultation on the criteria for assessing the sale of trust ports in England and Wales, largely to reflect the Government’s localism and big society agendas. It is right for that consultation to conclude before further decisions are taken.

Oral Answers to Questions

Charlie Elphicke Excerpts

Tuesday 24th May 2011 Commons Chamber

[The Deputy Prime Minister]

Yes, forgive me. [Hon. Members: “Oh!”] I would like to group questions 3, 4, 5, 11 and 12. A major issue—my omission to group the questions. That is how over-excited Members on the Opposition Benches get.

[Charlie Elphicke (Dover) (Con)]

4. What recent representations he has received on his proposals for House of Lords reform.

[Mr Ben Bradshaw (Exeter) (Lab)]

5. What recent representations he has received on his proposals for reform of the House of Lords.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Deputy Prime Minister]

As was discussed in the debate last week, the principle that one of the ways in which we distinguish between a reformed House of Lords and this Chamber is to introduce long non-renewable terms for the elected component in the other place was not invented by this Government. It was identified in a series of cross-party commissions over many years, but if the Joint Committee that is to be established thinks otherwise, that is exactly the kind of thing that we should debate in the months ahead.

[Charlie Elphicke]

Given that reform of the House of Lords was in all three major parties’ manifestos, is it not right that the House discuss the matter in Committee to work out the best way to implement it?

[The Deputy Prime Minister]

Yes, and that is precisely why we look forward to a Joint Committee of both Houses being established through the usual channels, which will be able to get to grips with all the many questions, queries and objections that have been raised, so that we can as far as possible proceed on a cross-party basis on something that all parties are committed to seeing through.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I am sure no one is suggesting that any right hon. or hon. Member would be dishonest in this Chamber. [Interruption.] Order. I take that as read.

[Charlie Elphicke (Dover) (Con)]

T4. Did not the Government inherite an unreformed, unwieldy, unaccountable health service that was partly privatised, and are not these reforms necessary to secure the future of the health service for the next generation?

[The Deputy Prime Minister]

I strongly agree with my hon. Friend. Opposition Members simply cannot get their heads around the fact that this Government are prepared to listen. We are prepared to listen to doctors, nurses, consultants and patients. What is more—this is something the Labour Government never did—when we think we can improve our proposals, we are prepared to do so.

Libya/European Council

Charlie Elphicke Excerpts

Monday 28th March 2011 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

I recognise the point that my hon. Friend makes, given his interest in the magnificent Honda plant in Swindon, which I had the great good fortune to visit. Indeed, although I am not allowed to drive it any more, I am the proud owner of a Honda made in Swindon. I know of the problem. I did not discuss it with the Japanese Prime Minister because we were talking about the absolutely urgent requirements for help for the Japanese now, but it will be key for the Japanese economy, and indeed for ours, to make sure that those trade links are opened up again as soon as possible.

[Charlie Elphicke (Dover) (Con)]

Rather than bail-outs, will the Prime Minister consider putting it to the European Council that there is a better alternative, which is to get spending under control and get a really great Finance Minister like we have here?