Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Lindsay Hoyle and Bernard Jenkin

Thursday 23rd November 2023 Commons Chamber

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

I thank the Government for publishing the report on governance and accountability in the civil service, which my noble Friend Lord Maude was commissioned to produce. May I point out that one of his recommendations in that very well drafted report is about learning from the experience of other civil services, such as those in New Zealand, Australia and Canada, where indeed they retain civil servants in post much longer by paying them better—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. Many Members wish to speak, but they will not get in if we are not careful.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Lindsay Hoyle and Bernard Jenkin

Thursday 3rd March 2022 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

Order. We ought to be cautious about the language we use against Members. I support the Minister, who is suffering heavily from intimidation from people who I would not support. Let us be a bit more cautious about how we put things in future.

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

I echo the words of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and of the Opposition in condemning the Ukraine invasion and in their criticism of Russia. It goes far wider than that, however, and it certainly cannot be business as usual, as the hon. Member for York Central (Rachael Maskell) just said. The free world is now in an existential struggle with despotic regimes such as Russia and China. What does global trade look like in the new era? I invite my right hon. Friend to—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. They have to be short questions. [Interruption.] In fairness, Sir Bernard, you know better than anybody, which is why you are the Chair of the Liaison Committee. I think the Secretary of State has got the message.

[Sir Bernard Jenkin]

Can she bring forward the White Paper?

[Mr Speaker]

Do you want to leave? Seriously, it is not fair to other Members. I have to look after all Back Benchers.

Prayers

Debate between Lindsay Hoyle and Bernard Jenkin

Friday 25th February 2022 Commons Chamber

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

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I appreciate that there is an urgent question on Ukraine later, but I wonder whether the Government have given any indication that they intend to make a statement on our relations with China, given that China has done nothing to condemn the Ukrainian incursion. Will the Government also make a statement on what is happening in the Balkans? I understand that missiles are arriving in Serbia, ready to destabilise the Dayton agreement and create a new crisis there.

[Mr Speaker]

I have been given no notification that anything is forthcoming. What I would say is that we have the urgent question; if you are able to catch my eye, you may be able to press the Minister and raise the matter with him. Those important points will have been noted by Government Front Benchers. I am sure that they will take the comments you have just made very seriously and recognise their importance.

Business of the House

Debate between Lindsay Hoyle and Bernard Jenkin

Thursday 25th February 2021 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

There is a hint of hope.

[Sir Bernard Jenkin (Harwich and North Essex) (Con) [V]]

Is my right hon. Friend aware that the Freeport East bid for the freeport at Felixstowe-Harwich is the biggest freeport bid? It will make the biggest contribution to levelling up, the biggest contribution to the UK economy and the biggest contribution to imports and exports in this country. How will the bids be scrutinised by Parliament after they have been decided on Budget day? Will there be specific Government time to ensure that the best bids are approved?

European Union (Future Relationship) Bill

Debate between Lindsay Hoyle and Bernard Jenkin

2nd reading & 2nd reading: House of Commons
Wednesday 30th December 2020 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

Can I just help people and say that those who are high up on the speaking list will understandably get put down if they make continuous interventions? I want to get as many people in as possible, so please—

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

Including the Prime Minister.

[Mr Speaker]

Thank you, Sir Bernard. Prime Minister.

Points of Order

Debate between Lindsay Hoyle and Bernard Jenkin

Tuesday 7th January 2020 Commons Chamber

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

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I apologise for raising a complicated matter, but I hope that you have been given warning that this might be raised. It concerns the election tomorrow of a Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means and the other Deputy Speakers. There is a deal of confusion about how the voting system works. It is extremely complicated, because we are electing three posts, but with restrictions. There must be one woman. There must be one Member of the Opposition and two must come from the Government side, and one will be Chairman of Ways and Means. Can you clarify, therefore, that a voter’s first preferences may be counted even if that voter’s first preference choice is elected, which may affect the outcome of the election of the Chairman of Ways and Means?

[Mr Speaker]

I am amazed that the hon. Gentleman did not raise that in 2010, when I stood. You have managed to cope with the system all this time. You have managed to accept it until now, and I find it quite strange for this suddenly to be raised at the last minute. The House has been aware of this voting system and it has accepted it. However, I think that this is slightly premature because at 6 o’clock we will know how the system will work and whether one candidate is automatically elected. That may be a woman—I am not sure. It might be better if we waited until 6 pm to see what the system throws up because this answer will be different, depending on what happens.

However, I assure the House that I was not impressed with this system in 2010. The House has had many chances to change it. If Members are unhappy, it is up to the House to change the system. Please do so, because back in 2010 I genuinely thought that it was not the best. If you are still telling me that it is not good now, there is a way to do something, but I find it strange that we have waited all this time to raise this.

UK's Nuclear Deterrent

Debate between Lindsay Hoyle and Bernard Jenkin

Monday 18th July 2016 Commons Chamber

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. I want to fit everyone in, and there are a great many SNP voices to be heard a little later. Long interventions mean that other Members do not have a chance to speak, and we do not want that to happen.

[Mr Jenkin]

I will move on to the next point, Mr Deputy Speaker.

My right hon. Friend the Defence Secretary is fond of describing Trident as an insurance policy, but I counsel him to use that phrase sparingly, because the maintenance of our nuclear deterrent is so much more than just an insurance policy. It is not a premium. That description “de-emphasises” the way in which the deterrent is continuously used, shaping our global security environment, and expressing the character of our country and our national will and resolve. It does not sufficiently emphasise its deterrent quality, which is not to deter terrorism or much lower forms of combat.

The invention of nuclear weapons has undoubtedly ended large-scale state-on-state warfare, and I would even be so bold as to suggest that were we to disinvent them, we would be inviting the resumption of such warfare. I am not sure that human nature miraculously changed after 1945, but something in the global strategic environment certainly did, and we no longer see that large-scale state-on-state warfare.

Members of the Scottish National party have made much of the cost of Trident today, but let me ask them this question: how cheap would it need to be before they regarded it as good value for money? I do not think that that is an argument with which they are prepared to engage. They are against nuclear weapons whatever the cost, and they are perfectly sincere about that, so I invite them to stop bellyaching about the cost, because it is an irrelevant part of their argument.

European Affairs

Debate between Lindsay Hoyle and Bernard Jenkin

Thursday 25th February 2016 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lidington]

I am happy to respond. The Prime Minister responded to this point in answer to questions on Monday. The Government have a very clear position, which is to recommend to the country that people vote to remain members of a reformed European Union. Quite exceptionally, Ministers are being allowed to depart from the normal rules on collective responsibility in order to dissent from the official Government position on that referendum question, but the civil service exists to serve and support the policy agreed by the Government of the day. The letter published by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, subsequently extended by formal guidance from the Cabinet secretary to civil servants, does no more than give effect to that policy.

[Mr Jenkin]

Further to that point of order, I am grateful for your indulgence, Mr Deputy Speaker, but that does not answer a great many of the questions. How can I raise this very urgent matter?

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

The simple answer is that I have had no notification that anybody is going to make a statement. I can do no more than allow the Minister for Europe to reply.

European Union Referendum Bill

Debate between Lindsay Hoyle and Bernard Jenkin

Tuesday 16th June 2015 Commons Chamber

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

On a point of order, Mr Hoyle. Excuse me, but I thought we were discussing amendments, not the views of certain businessmen about the EU. Surely we should stick to the amendments.

[The Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

The Chair can decide what is in order and what is out of order, but I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Chairman]

Order. We need to keep tight to the amendments.

[Mr Jenkin]

Hear, hear.

[The Chairman]

Thank you, Mr Jenkin. We do not need any applause. We can save that for another occasion.

I was giving the right hon. Gentleman some time, but we now need to get on to the amendments. As important as Wolverhampton is to him and me, I am sure that discussion of the amendments would be more welcome in the Chamber.

Public Administration Select Committee

Debate between Lindsay Hoyle and Bernard Jenkin

Thursday 10th April 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. I am sure that there must have been a question somewhere in that great rant, and I am sure that Mr Jenkin will be able to pick out an answer.

[Mr Jenkin]

I am interested to note that Lincolnshire is one of the outliers in the table of the average no-crime rate for reported rape incidents that shows the downgrading of rape. As I look at the table, I cannot remember instantly whether that means it is very good or very bad—[Interruption.] My hon. Friend the Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton) says that I should turn it upside down. The hankering after practical policing based on common sense outlined by my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh) suggests that the police would be well advised to lead according to common-sense values and the values in the ethics code. If they do the right thing on the day according to those values, their leadership should back them.

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

Last but certainly not least, I call Tim Loughton.

Financial Transaction Tax and Economic and Monetary Union

Debate between Lindsay Hoyle and Bernard Jenkin

Tuesday 18th June 2013 Commons Chamber

[Greg Clark]

The hon. Gentleman makes a powerful point, and I was wrong in seemingly indicating that it was only Government Members who share some of these concerns. He has a long and distinguished record of being not only concerned but an active force in drawing attention and suggesting remedies to some of these matters.

On the proposals before us, one suggestion that has been made is that there should be new mechanisms to increase the level of co-operation between national Parliaments and the European Parliament to contribute to this process—it certainly will not be the end of the matter. It has been stated that how it is done is a matter for the Parliaments to determine themselves. I understand that the Conference of Speakers of EU Parliaments agreed in April to set up such an inter-parliamentary conference to discuss EMU-related issues. The conclusions of that meeting state that the conference

“should consist of representatives from all the National Parliaments of Member countries of the European Union and the European Parliament”.

That reflects one of the recommendations in the Select Committee’s report.

The Government have consistently highlighted the importance of these issues since the December European Council. For example, it was highlighted by the Prime Minster in his Bloomberg speech in January, when he set out his agenda for EU reform. He was clear that the future European Union we need must entail a bigger and more significant role for national Parliaments. He said:

“It is national parliaments, which are, and will remain, the true source of real democratic legitimacy and accountability in the EU”.

My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary has said that

“if the European Parliament were the answer to the question of democratic legitimacy we wouldn’t still be asking it.”

He went on to outline a concrete set of ideas, including the proposal to have an EU “red card” system that would allow national Parliaments, working together, to block legislation that should not be agreed at the European level. Furthermore, we have said that we would support calls by this House to summon a European Commissioner to explain a proposal directly to this Parliament if the Committee demanded it.

[Mr Jenkin]

I wholeheartedly support the principles set out on the primacy of national Parliaments in the Prime Minister’s Bloomberg speech, but neither of the proposals that the Minister has just mentioned—the red card and the summoning of an EU Commissioner—addresses the primacy issue. The red card just creates another opportunity for our national Parliament to be outvoted by other national Parliaments, and summoning an EU Commissioner has no legislative effect whatsoever. What are the Government going to table in concrete terms that will assert the primacy of national—

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

Order. Mr Jenkin, I have mentioned that we want short interventions. That was your second intervention and you are hoping to speak as well. If you want Members to get in, we are going to have to use the time well—it is going very quickly.

House of Lords Reform Bill

Debate between Lindsay Hoyle and Bernard Jenkin

Tuesday 10th July 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Jenkin]

It is not as though the Government were not already beset by problems and challenges on an awesome scale, as many Members have said. Economic growth is well below forecast, borrowing is still far too high and the unresolved and unresolvable euro crisis is probably leading us towards some kind of economic precipice. We are facing an economic emergency, as well as all the other challenges of government in a time of recession. This is the last moment for any Government to choose to pick a fight to alter any part of the constitution, when there is clearly no real consensus or common understanding of what needs to be done.

The debate so far can leave no one in any doubt that this is a massive constitutional change, but the Government have utterly failed to address the most fundamental questions about the upper House. What is the House of Lords for? Does it operate effectively as it is? Would the changes be likely to improve or impair its effectiveness? The answers are pretty straightforward. First, it is intended to be a revising Chamber, not a senate or a rival to the House of Commons. Secondly, as the Deputy Prime Minister has himself admitted on many occasions, the current Chamber is very effective. Thirdly, the changes seem to be intended to supplant expertise and experience with more party politics, which is hardly likely to improve the Chamber’s effectiveness.

The Bill addresses no evident crisis of the legitimacy of our constitution, yet it threatens to create a political crisis on top of an economic crisis. There is no public clamour for the change, and there are no crowds in Parliament square crying out their support. That is why the Government fear a referendum on the Bill, because the voters would certainly reject the idea of replacing the current effective, proven and appointed House with more elected politicians, appointed to lists by their respective parties on ludicrous 15-year terms.

So what is the Bill really about? The Deputy Prime Minister should be careful about accusing others of having ulterior motives, because what is his? The Bill is about power. It is about the Government remaining in office now and about the Liberal Democrats building a power base for when they are not in office. It is the product of a stitch-up, a deal between two coalition parties to stay in power. It is a bid permanently to shift the balance of power away from this House and towards a more legitimate House of Lords.

May I address the extraordinarily charming and eloquent speech given by the right hon. Member for South Shields (David Miliband)? He said that the Bill’s opponents were trying to have it both ways, but it is its supporters who are trying to have it both ways. They cannot argue that an elected Lords would be more legitimate but in the same breath insist that the relationship between the two Houses would remain the same. The issue of primacy is just one of the fundamental issues that we will need to address before the Bill leaves this House.

That brings me to the continuing threat of a timetable motion. To timetable a constitutional measure under the current circumstances would be unconscionable. I say to my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary that the much quoted Winston Churchill would be heaving in his grave with fury and indignation at the mere suggestion. The timetable is a modern invention, only introduced in 1997. The guillotine used to be an absolute exception, and even then was never used on a constitutional issue.

The Bill has 60 clauses and 11 schedules containing a further 158 paragraphs. The Government’s withdrawn motion would have allowed 60 hours in Committee, which would have been taken up by Divisions, urgent questions, statements and points of order as well as debate. That would have left, perhaps, an average of half an hour for each clause, let alone the schedules. Primacy, powers, accountability, remuneration, costs, expenses, staffing support, IPSA, financial privilege, the scrutiny of regulations, elections, voting systems, eligibility, constituencies, the question of a referendum or not—how many other topics will there be to debate, or must we have the freedom to debate should we so choose?

Constitutional measures used to pass through the House before there were timetables. Both the Parliament Acts themselves passed through the House without a timetable or guillotine. No timetable should be imposed, because our ability to scrutinise legislation in full is just about the only real check or balance in our constitution to protect it from the tyranny of a simple Commons majority.

As it stands, we are being asked to give a Second Reading to a Bill that will invite the Government to fast-track a massive constitutional change, which will nevertheless distract us from the crisis that demands our attention, which may fundamentally change the character of the government of our country, which fails to address the most fundamental questions about the upper House, which represents gerrymandering of the constitution and is the product of a stitch-up to stay in power, for which no referendum is to be provided, and on which the Government are determined to curtail debate.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order.

Autism (Quality Standards)

Debate between Lindsay Hoyle and Bernard Jenkin

Tuesday 24th May 2011 Commons Chamber

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

On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. Could you clarify whether the House has the option to take today’s votes in an order that would facilitate the expression of Back-Bench opinion, as we will be debating Back-Bench business? In the usual course of events, a motion is not voted on until the amendments have been taken. That means that if the Government use their majority to whip through an amendment, the House will never get the opportunity to vote on the motion that the Backbench Business Committee selected for debate. Is it possible for you to ensure that the House has an opportunity to vote on the motion that was selected for debate, or are we in the hands of the Whips and those under their influence?

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Unfortunately, I have been told that the answer is no; those are the rules on how votes are taken. As frustrating as that may be for the hon. Member, those are the rules of the House as they stand.

Eurozone Financial Assistance

Debate between Lindsay Hoyle and Bernard Jenkin

Tuesday 24th May 2011 Commons Chamber

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

On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. May I put it to you that the Backbench Business Committee is in fact not being allowed to operate as was clearly originally intended when it was established? Because the motion was amended, the Committee was unable to allow the House to vote on the motion that it had selected for debate. What advice can you give to the House on how that matter might be rectified so that in future, as on Opposition days, the motion is voted on before the amendment is taken? What advice can you give to enable that to happen in future?

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

I recognise that there is a lot of frustration at the way the motion was dealt with today. However, things have been carried out in order. I am sure that the Leader of the House will reflect on the hon. Gentleman’s comments and think about them, but I am also sure that he will speak to the Committee to see whether there is a way forward for everybody. Hopefully, some amiable agreement can be reached in future, if that is the desire of the Committee.

Points of Order

Debate between Lindsay Hoyle and Bernard Jenkin

Monday 4th April 2011 Commons Chamber

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

Further to that point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

I was going to rule on the point of order raised by the hon. Member for Elmet and Rothwell (Alec Shelbrooke), but if the point of order from the hon. Member for Harwich and North Essex (Mr Jenkin) will help, I will take it.

[Mr Jenkin]

Further to that point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. The leaflet in question uses local authority free post whether or not a person already has a postal vote, thereby adding to the costs authorities face for this referendum. How can the House engage in this matter and hold this disbursement of public money, which the Yes campaign is wasting, properly to account?

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

That point has already been raised in the House. It is not a procedural point on which I can rule, but I suggest that it might be taken up with the Electoral Commission.

European Union (Amendment) Act 2008

Debate between Lindsay Hoyle and Bernard Jenkin

Wednesday 16th March 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Jenkin]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for pointing that out. It underlines the fact that we are at a crucial crossroads in the development of the European Union and our relationship with our European partners.

A few months ago I attended a private discussion, and those present included some very senior recently retired Government figures. One of them said—Chatham House rule, I am afraid—“You must be very pleased, Bernard, that the new Government are going to consider all this, because obviously there will be a consolidation of the eurozone area, and Britain will have to establish a different relationship with the European Union because we will remain outside it.” I said, “Well, I’d love to think the incoming Government have thought about all these things, but it seems that their minds are closed. I don’t think they want to think about this at all.” The result is that events are sweeping us along. We are not setting the agenda. The agenda is being set for us, and we are not even looking ahead at the consequences of what we are agreeing to.

That could have profound consequences for the future of our relationship with the EU. Indeed, I would say that it brings forward the inevitability of the United Kingdom finishing up having to make a dramatic in-or-out decision. If the Government have a lever in their hands but are still unwilling to exercise leverage to start drawing the distinction between those who want to consolidate the euro area and those who want to remain outside it, we do not have a European policy worth the name. We will therefore be driven into deciding on this binary question of whether we stay in or get out—and I hear that the Labour party may be beginning to flirt with the idea of holding the referendum that it denied the British people when it was in office.

We should consider the vote achieved by the UK Independence party at the recent by-election, as there has been a constant upward trend in every by-election since 1997. If we do not recognise that a part of the despair with politics that we experience in our daily contact with our constituents is a result of our powerlessness, and of our denial of the real choices and issues facing this country, we will drive those who feel such despair into the hands of more extreme parties than the mainstream ones where we all wish to be.

I leave the following thought with my right hon. Friend the Minister. As this Parliament progresses, this debate will not subside or go away. Instead, it will become more intense, particularly as the economic realities of the euro are based on denial. It is rather like the denial that there was for a period in respect of the European exchange rate mechanism before it broke up. However, because it is so much harder to break up the euro, the denial will go on for longer and the pain inflicted will be much more intense. There will be riots in the streets of European capitals before this situation is resolved, because I do not think it is possible for countries to make the kind of adjustment that the euro is currently imposing on them without the flexibility of separate currencies, which is why it is an accepted fact among many economists that at least some of the southern European states will leave the euro before this crisis is out.

Several Hon. Members: rose—Order

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Three speakers wish to contribute, and there are eight minutes to go. I call Steve Baker.

Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill

Debate between Lindsay Hoyle and Bernard Jenkin

Tuesday 15th February 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Jenkin]

I echo the point made by the right hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr Straw) that the amendment only requires the House of Commons to think about a poor turnout and how to respond to the result under such circumstances rather than automatically triggering a small yes vote with a low turnout and a new voting system. Does the Minister not recognise the irony of his position? Here we are looking at a referendum that might introduce a new voting system under which a Member elected to this House will be required to get 50% of the votes cast, yet we cannot even put in a threshold to require a 40% turnout to give credibility to the result of a referendum. What serious constitution around the world does not have some form of threshold and why should we not introduce one in this case?

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Let me be quite honest: a number of Members are still seeking to catch my eye, so we need shorter interventions.

European Union Bill

Debate between Lindsay Hoyle and Bernard Jenkin

Wednesday 26th January 2011 Commons Chamber

[The Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Amendment 82, page 8, line 16, at end add—

‘(6A) A Minister of the Crown may not make a formal decision as to whether to exercise the right of the United Kingdom to make a notification to the Council under the terms of article 10(4) of the Protocol (No 36) on Transitional Provisions annexed to TEU and TFEU, unless—

(a) the decision is approved by Act of Parliament, and

(b) the referendum condition is met.

(6B) The referendum condition is that set out in section 3(2).’.

Amendment 83, page 8, line 16, at end add—

‘(6C) A Minister of the Crown may not make a formal decision as to whether to exercise the right of the United Kingdom to make a notification to the Council under the terms of article 10(4) of the Protocol (No 36) on Transitional Provisions annexed to TEU and TFEU, unless the decision is approved by Act of Parliament.’.

Amendment 84, page 8, line 16, at end add—

‘(6D) A Minister of the Crown may not give a notification under Article 10(5) of Protocol (No 36) on Transitional Provisions annexed to TEU and TFEU that the United Kingdom wishes to participate in an Act that has ceased to apply to it pursuant to Article 10(4) of that Protocol, unless the notification in respect of the Act has been approved by Act of Parliament.’.

[Mr Jenkin]

Amendments 82, 83 and 84 concern what the Minister set out in a statement last week, in which he described the arrangements for the Government to give formal notification of whether they wished the UK to opt out of certain justice and home affairs matters by 31 July 2014. He made it clear in the statement—I think this is welcome—that the Government intend to allow the House of Commons and the other place to table a formal resolution to approve or disapprove of the action the Government take in these matters.

While we are listening to this debate, it is worth reminding ourselves of the magnitude of what we are talking about: a complete rearrangement of the civil and criminal legal system of our country that will move the whole civil and criminal system on to an entirely new basis. I hear what my hon. Friend the Minister says about the number of advocates-general and about maintaining four judges in the European Court of Justice who represent common law jurisdictions, but that is a completely meaningless reassurance in the face of all the other judges and the history of the jurisprudence of the European Court of Justice, which simply is not interested in the common law basis of the jurisdictions of its member states.

Having fought against the Lisbon treaty in principle and most particularly on the basis of its potential to interfere in the criminal and civil law of this country, it is astonishing that the Government, since the election, have, for example, approved the directive establishing the European investigation order. Let us be clear: that allows another member state to oblige the United Kingdom to carry out almost any investigative action in the UK, including searching a house, intercepting telephone calls and obtaining DNA for the purpose of criminal proceedings in the requesting member state. The UK has supported the directive on the right to interpretation and translation of criminal proceedings, ceding jurisdiction in that area to the European Court of Justice. This all happened before the European Scrutiny Committee was sitting, so it was all unscrutinised by this House. Any weasel words from the Government about strengthening the scrutiny of the House of Commons should carry a health warning.

The Government have decided to opt in to the Council decision on the conclusion of an agreement between the European Union and Georgia on the readmission of persons residing without authorisation, which makes binding on the UK as a matter of European Community law an international agreement between the EU and Georgia and means that the UK cannot conclude its own readmission agreement with Georgia, should it wish to do so. I just point out that had any of those decisions been in an international treaty outside the European Union’s jurisdiction, they would have required an Act of Parliament, but these things are done by the stroke of a Minister’s pen under the powers in the European Communities Act 1972.

European Union Bill

Debate between Lindsay Hoyle and Bernard Jenkin

Tuesday 7th December 2010 Commons Chamber

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

As far as the term “business as usual” is concerned, I must ruefully reflect that it is business as usual in this House, as we are again discussing this interminable topic. It has occupied many thousands of hours of discussion since I was elected in 1992, and many thousands more before that. It is perhaps amusing and depressing to see how little some things change while the pace of European integration seems uninterrupted by whatever votes take place, whatever arguments occur and whatever crises erupt. The present crisis over the governance of the euro is a case in point. The architects of the Maastricht treaty, far from accepting that they have been proved wrong by events, are seizing on the chaos to strengthen the hold of the centre over the rest of Europe, accelerating the pace of integration as a result.

I am bound to ask, as should we all, whether the scene that we observe in the Chamber today was really what my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary envisaged when he came up with the brilliant idea of a referendum lock at the Conservative conference in 2009. At that time, I think what he saw looming was the imminence of the ratification of the Lisbon treaty, and the difficulty of holding a referendum on a treaty that had already been ratified. He was looking for something to throw to the crowd, and his idea got a wonderful round of applause at the conference. Little can he have imagined, however, that that simple promise would give rise to a Bill of such byzantine complexity. It has not been universally welcomed in the Chamber, although, knowing the way in which this place works, I suspect that it will find its way into Committee. No one, with the exception of a few aficionados, can have imagined what a mess the future Government were getting themselves into by making such an apparently simple pledge. As recently as 1 November, the Prime Minister told the House:

“I would grant a referendum if there were any proposed transfer of powers from Westminster to Brussels.”—[Official Report, 1 November 2010; Vol. 517, c. 625.]

My hon. Friend the Member for Hertsmere (Mr Clappison) made an illuminating speech, pointing out that certain transfers of power are not included in the Bill. The reason why they are not included is either that the Government have already made those transfers and do not want to admit that they should have been made more accountable to this House, or that they intend to make further transfers and do not want to get caught up in the potential for litigation. I would be grateful if my hon. Friend the Minister for Europe made it clear in his summing-up speech when he expects the provisions to come into force. My understanding is that whatever is in this Bill is not intended to apply to this Parliament, but to the next one. I see the Minister nodding. It would be a bit embarrassing to legislate for the next Parliament and create a trap for a future Government that the current Government would not accept for their own behaviour. I guess that that is why these lacunas exist.

The crunch is that it all depends on what is meant by power. A child can have power over its parent, even though it does not have any sovereign or legislative authority. Power has a fluid quality to it: it cannot be held; it travels to people with influence. Power is clearly leeching away from our kingdom and this House, even though I believe that this House remains absolutely sovereign. The fact of power, where it is exercised, and the constraints that it makes people feel when it is exercised, is clearly having an effect.

Two simple tests can be applied to the Bill. The Foreign Secretary himself says that the Lisbon settlement lacks democratic legitimacy, so we should ask ourselves whether this Bill adds to the democratic legitimacy of the settlement between the United Kingdom and the European Union. The answer is that it does not affect it. It affects what might happen in future—we can argue about that, and some argue that it might have a greater effect than expected and that the courts might have to decide how much effect it will have—but it does not constitute a lock, as my hon. Friend the Member for Clacton (Mr Carswell) pointed out, because no Parliament can bind its successor. Whatever is in the Bill can be amended or repealed by a future Parliament. It is not really a lock, but it does not affect anything that has gone before.

The sovereignty clause provides another case in point. In fact, despite the Government’s repeated reference to it as such, it is not a sovereignty cause. It does not contain the word “sovereignty” or “sovereign” and it does not use the words “supremacy” or “primacy”. It merely provides an historical account of what happened—that there was an Act of Parliament, which is how the European Union’s laws apply in this kingdom. It has no effect whatever.

Let me cite the evidence given to the European Scrutiny Committee. Professor Adam Tomkins gave advice that was accepted by the all-party Select Committee. He said:

“Neither clause 18 nor any other provision in the Bill safeguards the United Kingdom from the further development of EU law by the ECJ.”

Now the ECJ, that really is power! How is this House going to regulate the power of the European Court to expand competence and reinterpret the competences of the European Union as it has done down the ages? Well, of course, it cannot. I was touched by the faith in the Bill expressed by my right hon. Friend the Member for Charnwood (Mr Dorrell), but as Professor Tomkins also said on the limitations of clause 18:

“If this is the attempt by the UK Parliament to reassert or reclaim some kind of sovereignty in the face of the European competence creep, it ‘don’t do what it says on the tin.’”

I am afraid that the Minister has to face that.

In my last minute or two, let me move on to the second test of the Bill. Is it really in the national interest; does it address the national interest? I would regard the Bill as almost wholly irrelevant to the national interest. The hon. Member for Ilford South (Mike Gapes) pointed out that we should be talking about the rise of China and how we are going to do business with India. We really are contemplating our navels as we discuss this Bill. As the recent Public Administration Committee report says, what we need is a reassessment of our national interest with regard to our membership of the European Union. I do not advocate an “in or out” referendum, but I think that we need to start reassessing whether our current terms of membership are in our national interest and then to start working out how we should alter them to reflect our national interest.

The problem with this Bill is that it neither addresses the democratic legitimacy—or the lack of it—in the current settlement, nor stops the flow of power to the European Union. As we are talking about democratic legitimacy, I should say that that flow takes power away from democracies and gives it to something else, because whatever the European Union is, it ain’t a democracy. The Bill fails to address our national interests and it reflects the muddle that the Government have got themselves into because, as we have heard, the prime purpose of this Bill is political; it was designed to appease sentiment in the absence of a referendum on all the treaties where we should have had referendums: the Maastricht, Nice and Amsterdam treaties, as well as the Lisbon treaty. The Bill will fail to reassure people and will fail to address the increasing disconnect that people feel, not from the European Union, but from the governance of their own country by their own democratically elected representatives. Dealing with that is the real challenge that we face, because that is about despair about us in this place.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Before I call the next speaker, may I say that I am trying to get 11 Members in and I presume that the Front-Bench spokespeople will want 15 minutes each? We can work the sums out for ourselves, but I ask for a little haste and for hon. Members not to take as much time.