Sir Bernard Jenkin
MP for Harwich and North Essex · Conservative · United Kingdom
“Despite long and historic disagreements between successive UK Governments and Israel, it has remained a steadfast ally in counter-terrorist efforts to keep our people safe in this country. We are now embarked, it seems, on a full diplomatic dispute with Israel and tit-for-tat expulsions of diplomats.”
“I would very much have liked to have discussed the medical devices questions arising from the Bill. The Minister made an incredibly short speech about that important matter. It is quite clear that these provisions are part of the covert dynamic alignment with the EU and the covert rejoin agenda being pursued by the Government.”
“I am as keen as anybody to get on with discussing the Health Bill, but this topic is too serious an opportunity to miss, given that the hon. Member for Leeds Central and Headingley (Alex Sobel) has raised such important issues. I really commend his speech and his initiative. Everybody should read it.”
“The Minister shakes her head, but she is yet to give a good reason as to why this measure is in the Bill. When we had an Adjournment debate in July with the then Minister for patient safety, the hon.”
“The chief executive of the CQC is wantonly conflicted in terms of looking after the safe space, so he cannot be the one left in charge of that function. The real point here is that we are missing the opportunity to save so much money. Governments keep having public inquiries.”
“I asked the Minister, in a letter I sent her after the debate in July, to give us the information on how much the transfer of all this would cost. Nothing has arrived. I never had a reply to the letter. Of course, the Government have changed the Minister and the new Minister for patient safety, the right hon.”
The complete record
Every one of 4,591 lines we hold for Sir Bernard Jenkin, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 23 of 92.
“I am grateful to have caught your eye, Dame Rosie, so that I can respond to some of the comments that the right hon. Member for Ashford (Damian Green) was just making. I respect that he feels passionately about these matters, but to equate these clauses with genocide or the annexation of territory against the will of a sovereign state is absolutely ridiculous. It completely misunderstands the degree of doubt that exists about what international law means when interpreting international agreements.”
“I apologise to my right hon. Friend. His name was in my mind because it was on the monitor before the hon. Member for Cardiff South and Penarth spoke. It is important to see these clauses in the wider context. My heart sank when I picked up the first draft of the agreement, because this was not the departure from the European Union that I had expected to see expressed in the text of the agreement; it was the same oppressive, impenetrable text with endless references to the treaties as they exist. The withdrawal agreement was clearly a concerted attempt by the European Union to continue its influence, even through the direct applicability and direct effect of European Union law on the United Kingdom.”
“However, I can assure the Committee that, in the long run, nothing is going to stand in the way of the British people re-establishing and reclaiming our independence, and if the other place chooses to stand in our way in that respect, I suspect that in the longer term this House, as the democratic House, will prevail.”
“I would go further than that. There is no doubt that this Bill will get through this House intact, but some people are suggesting that there will be more of a problem in the other place. There will be those who continue to resist the consequences of leaving the European Union and the consequences of having signed a highly unsatisfactory agreement that attempts to sustain the influence of the European Union far beyond any legitimate role it has in making the laws of our country. That is what we are talking about, in relieving ourselves of these clauses.”
“No, I am not going to give way. I am going to be very brief. The important perspective is to ask ourselves how this debate is going to be regarded in 10, 20 or 30 years’ time. These controversies will be seen as the growing pains of the re-establishment of our national sovereign independence as a national democracy. I dare say that none of us has studied the debates on the Great Reform Act of 1832, but I bet they went through exactly the same kind of painful introspection that we have seen in the Chamber this evening. Today we look upon the 1832 Reform Act as a great stride towards the democratisation of our constitution, and history will look back at these debates in the same way and see this moment in our history as the time when we decided to take back control of our own constitutional arrangements and our own national democracy.”
“We cannot be bound by it indefinitely or continue to accept laws imposed on our country by the EU court. At least there was a means of leaving the EU, but there is no obvious means of leaving this withdrawal agreement. Much has been said about the potential to lose the respect of the international community, but what will other nations think if this great and sovereign nation cannot bring itself to accept that we made a mistake ratifying this agreement? [ Interruption. ] Some of us warned about it at the time. But the key points are these: the UK will gain respect if we extricate ourselves from the worst aspects of this agreement, which have the capacity to impose laws on our country with even less democratic legitimacy than under our previous membership of the EU.”
“Rarely can a few words uttered from the Government Dispatch Box have overshadowed a debate like this to such an extent, or indeed caused so much instant fury and indignation, but I do not think the House should be in any doubt that the author of those words will have been delighted by the reaction they caused, and that the real purpose and significance of those words will probably prove to be much less than that. The law of this land and international law are both of great importance. I will leave that to the lawyers. The underlying question for the House to address is about where this nation now finds itself. I support the Bill, because it will be necessary to address at least the worst aspects of the withdrawal agreement and protocol.”
“Our other allies and trading partners will have far more respect for the UK if we stand up for our interests in this way than they will if they watch us accepting that we are to remain indefinitely a non-member subsidiary of the EU. The Government must ensure that there will be a clear end to the jurisdiction of the EU Court; that is the test of whether we are taking back control of our own laws, and our democracy demands it.”
“One wonders whether the Government recognise better than many here how most voters will react to this. Most of those shouting the loudest now showed how little they understood the voters in the 2016 referendum. Voters will support a Government who are determined to resist the unreasonable enforcement of the withdrawal agreement by the EU. Today, the Government have a strong mandate and a secure Commons majority for taking back control of our laws. Voters will expect no less than that, and they will give little quarter to this Parliament if they are let down again. We are in a process of constitutional transition, from being subordinated by the EU legal order towards the restoration of full independence. While we are in this penumbra period of mixed constitutional supremacies, it is unsurprising that this kind of controversy should arise.”
“I do not think it is a matter to be done casually and without very great care, but, as many right hon. and hon. Members, even those objecting to this Bill, are now saying, if the worst comes to the worst, we may have to avail ourselves of these powers, because it is the obligation of this House, first and foremost, to stick up for our national interests. The EU says it will act against the UK through the European Court, but there is something absurd about the EU attempting to impose its laws on a member state after it has left the bloc—when did the voters endorse that? There is something ironic, even bizarre, about MPs in this Parliament demanding that the EU should continue to impose its laws instead of themselves wanting to make the laws for their constituents—they still do not accept Brexit.”
“The answer is that any question in European law, under article 174 of the withdrawal agreement, has to be referred to the European Court of Justice, and the Court is acting not on behalf of the 28 as before, but on behalf of the 27. We know it is a political court.”
“May I draw my right hon. Friend’s attention to the exchange of correspondence between our right hon. Friend the Leader of the House and me as Chairman of the Liaison Committee about the continuing scrutiny of the overseas aid budget? I welcome the fact that the Government seem to have withdrawn their proposals simply to merge the International Development Committee with the Foreign Affairs Committee. What possible justification could there be for any reduction in scrutiny by Parliament of this very substantial and complicated budget? [R]”
“I thank the Secretary of State for the written ministerial statement he published after my last question to him in July. May I ask a bit more about the National Institute for Health Protection? Who was consulted before the decision was made? What is the legal basis for its present operation? Does it require legislation? What kind of public body is it intended to be: a non-ministerial department, an executive agency or a part of the Department of Health and Social Care? How will it be funded? When will there be a proper White Paper or Green Paper on the subject? Will the political appointee put in as interim head be replaced by a properly appointed public appointments-approved person? I could go on—there are plenty of unanswered questions.”
“I have been listening carefully to what my right hon. Friend has been saying, and he has laid great emphasis on saving the building of the Palace of Westminster, but can he clarify whether it is the Government’s policy that it should be saved so that it should be the home of our national Parliament permanently?”
“Will the right hon. Lady clarify the review being conducted by the Sponsor Body? Presumably, the Sponsor Body is allowed to conclude that the full decant is no longer regarded as the most cost-effective option, or is she serving notice that because the House voted it through by, I think, a mere 14 votes some time ago, that option is closed to it? Presumably, that option is open to it.”
“The danger is that we decide on something and then there is a great national controversy, and one party or another is driven off course as it tries to win an election, and the whole project is thrown into disarray as somebody says they will save some money by cancelling it. We have to engage with parliamentarians and the people and develop a proper vision for this building before we ask the Sponsor Body and Delivery Authority to embark on what is an almost impossible job—to manage the risks of this great project.”
“It has brought tens of thousands of children through here every month and has been a tremendous exercise in the education of our people about the value of our democracy, anchored in this building, which communicates so much about the values of our democracy and its permanence. If we want this refurbishment to make that kind of statement, how is that conversation to be conducted? Will there be a competition for different proposals to see what attracts us as parliamentarians? There is a great deal about engagement with parliamentarians; there needs also to be engagement with the people.”
“Or is there a very different requirement, to make this a major statement about what our national democracy is, what it should mean and how it should engage with the British people? One thinks of what the German people did with the rebuilding of the Reichstag after the reunification of Germany. Is the country in the mood for a huge national statement about this building and our Parliament, or will that simply add to the risk? I think the British public want us to do a job that makes this building much more relevant to them. I had many differences with the previous Speaker, but the construction of the Education Centre was an act of genius.”
“I hear strong arguments in favour of decanting, and I remain open-minded about them, but I spent 10 years looking at major projects, as Chair of the Public Administration Select Committee and then the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee, and everything we learnt about major projects told us one thing: the bigger the project, the more unpredictable it is. If there is one absolute certainty, that is it; it is the law of major projects. I will finish with one final thought. Great emphasis is placed on what is known as “the requirement”. What is the requirement? Is it simply to preserve the building as it is, with a new set of mechanical services, new windows, a proper roof and without bits of masonry falling off?”
“The lesson from many of the cost overruns on the Queen Elizabeth Tower was not just on what could have been known—for example, somebody should have worked out what the scaffolding requirement was and costed it properly, which was a very big component of the cost overrun; there were also a whole lot of unknown unknowns that inflated the cost. We have to accept that if this is to be a single big project, it is bound to overrun on cost and time because there are so many unknown unknowns. The question is whether the Sponsor Body should be charged with doing a single great project, or whether we should let it do it in bite-size pieces and learn incrementally; whether we decant is a secondary consideration.”
“We all want best value for money. When large projects overrun, people often say that it must be due to the incompetence of either the contractor or the people who let or manage the contract. The bigger the contract and the project, the more complexities, the bigger the budget, the more people involved and the more risk. We see that in the procurement of new buildings and of large bits of defence kit. The risks compound and concatenate, and that is what will happen with this project. As the NAO report makes clear, there are still so many known unknowns and unknown unknowns.”
“The opportunities for modularising on an incremental basis are quite apparent, particularly in respect of mechanical services. Sometimes we get a little carried away. We should not conflate the outside of the building with the inside of the building. The outside of the building is capable of being repaired while we are in it—the roof and parts of the walls are being repaired as we speak. It is perfectly possible to deal with the external fabric. The problem of capacity is important, and it is the capacity of the Sponsor Body and Delivery Authority that we should be most concerned about. They need to develop the capacity, expertise and skill to manage a very large project, and perhaps they should cut their teeth on a series of smaller projects, to build up their track record and expertise. I come back to the question of risk.”
“The NAO report published in April highlights an enormous number of problems with this great project, not least a confusion of boundaries about who is responsible for what. In some respects, the Sponsor Body and Delivery Authority have been put in charge of a project they do not control, because of us, because of the quirks of public opinion, because of the press and because of all kinds of added political risks. I was unambiguously in favour of decant until I went around the basement and learned that, when we took the decision to vote for decant, we did not know nearly enough. I remain open-minded about the question of decant. While we are still learning, the cost of alternative arrangements and security has risen and risen.”
“It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant), who speaks with great passion about this building and great knowledge about the challenges we face. All I plead for is realism. We have a clear objective: that this great building should remain the home of our national democracy. My right hon. Friend the Leader of the House did not quite say that in his response to my remarks. It may be so obvious as to be implied, but it would be good if it was explicitly the policy of the Government that they envisage staying permanently in this building—even if we decant for a period, and even if the House of Commons chooses to meet in different parts of the country at different times, with this remaining our national home. I mentioned the need for realism.”
“May I return to the question of public confidence? I thank my right hon. Friend for the tireless way that he submits himself to scrutiny by parliamentarians and the press, but will he accept that the public do want to understand more clearly what mistakes were made and what lessons have been learned? Can I perhaps invite him at least to table a written ministerial statement, before the rising of the House next week, setting out the key lessons learned and how they are being implemented as we go into the autumn, which could be another very testing time for our country?”
“Secondly, now that the implementation of the final UK-EU border will be effectively phased to July 2021, which could violate WTO rules, there will be legal certainty that there will be no extension beyond July 2021, and Parliament can provide that legal certainty in UK primary legislation if it is required.”
“I thank my right hon. Friend for his statement. I have just stepped out of a meeting with the British Chambers of Commerce, and it very much welcomes the acceleration in implementation, investment and certainty for British business, although it wants as much of that as quickly as possible. I ask for clarification on two technical matters, and I shall choose my words carefully. First, as long as the Joint Committee is satisfied that goods in transit from GB to Northern Ireland are not at risk of travelling on to the Republic of Ireland, while there may need to be some data transfer, there will be no need for a full import customs declaration to cross from GB to Northern Ireland.”
“I thank my right hon. Friend for his statement, and I add my voice to those highlighting the plight of self-employed people, or people who have been remunerating themselves through dividends and have not been able to benefit from the furlough scheme, as raised by my right hon. Friend the Chair of the Treasury Committee in a recent report; but may I thank him wholeheartedly for what he has done for the hospitality sector, which will help coastal communities such as those in Harwich and North Essex? It is a big boost for jobs and employment.”
“How will the Government now embark upon a big, comprehensive, sustainable strategic review of our relations with China, involving not just people within the Government but people beyond the Government and other nations?”
“I welcome every word of my right hon. Friend’s statement and the bipartisan nature of these exchanges. I invite him to take up the appeal made by the hon. Member for Wigan (Lisa Nandy) for a long-term strategic approach to China. What can we learn from the disastrous mistake of the Government just a few years ago, who thought we were embarking on some new “golden era” with this dictatorship? Let me draw attention to the comments made by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster at the weekend, when he said that “foreign policy-making is often weakened by the lack of deep knowledge of the language, culture and history of the nations with whom we are negotiating or whom we seek to influence.” Why has that been the case? What can we learn from it?”
“Unless we understand how we MPs have forfeited the trust of victims, we will fail to learn the lessons of our past and fail to honour our obligation to put matters right.”
“I support the motions tabled by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House, but I have also added my name to the amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant), who is Chair of the Committee on Standards, on which I serve. The amendment would mean that the House would ratify the decisions of the ICGS independent expert panel without debate. Evidence of the mistreatment of the staff of this House, of right hon. and hon. Members’ staff and even of Members of the House themselves was for far too long managed out of public view to avoid proper scrutiny, meaning that those responsible were never held to account. That is why the ICGS must be as it describes itself: independent.”
“Our challenge on the Standards Committee is to reform the House of Commons code so that it begins also to promote a positive change in attitudes and behaviour.”
“If this works well, there is much that the Standards Committee might learn from the ICGS about how to improve the House of Commons code of conduct, which we still have under review. My right hon. Friend the Leader of the House talked about changing the culture. That is something that the House of Commons code has never really succeeded in doing. What do we mean by culture? We mean changing people’s attitudes and changing their behaviour, and that is a very personal and difficult thing to discuss. It is about not just talking about that, but approving of the good behaviours and the good attitudes and calling out the bad long before people have actually broken rules. I suggest that promoted alongside that is a positive conversation as well as a holding to account. It is not just about the enforcement of rules.”
“The IEP must inspire the trust and confidence of the House as well as of staff and the public. The legitimacy of such decisions taken by such a panel will be the issue. As my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House said, it needs to be chaired by the equivalent of a High Court judge. I would say that it should be a retired senior judge who chairs this panel, supported by relevant people of similar standing with juridical experience of the assessing and weighing of evidence and of interpreting the meaning of rules. The IEP should itself be sufficiently judicial in character to provide the same assurance as a proper court. Its decisions need to be as unimpeachable as the High Court would be.”
“To expel or even just suspend an MP voted in by their electors is a serious matter. It is perfectly sensible for my right hon. Friend to test the opinion of the House on whether the House should debate a decision by the IEP, but the delegation of such decisions has no bearing on our sovereignty, whether we debate the matter or not. By voting for the amendment we will not only demonstrate our commitment to the ICGS. By deliberating and then deciding on these matters, we make sure that there can be no legitimate complaint about there being no debate when at some future date we are asked to approve the IEP decisions. I do, however, wish to put down a caveat. If the wrong kind of panel is appointed, this delegation of a very serious constitutional responsibility to unelected people will not last.”
“Friend the Leader of the House, for not doubting me in that. I have no wish except to serve this House and the Committee. Committees require Ministers and officials to be open, to bring out truth and to increase understanding within Government, as well as more widely. This is the only way to promote learning and improvement, and this principle will be my guide.”
“Policy on care homes spans Health and Local Government. The reopening of schools is Education-led, but education must work with the Treasury, Health and Local Government. Quarantining of international travellers is a Transport lead, but working alongside Home Office, Health, Business and the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. Health is relying on other Departments for the recruiting of trackers and tracers. Most importantly, the strategy for leaving the lockdown covers every Department. Scrutinising cross-cutting programmes is now vital, and the Liaison Committee could take a pivotal and unique role in this. I appreciate others’ concerns in this debate, but if the House so decides I will serve as Chair independently and impartially. I am grateful to many in all parts of the House, including my right hon.”
“The Liaison Committee is the only Committee that directly holds the Prime Minister to account, and accountability is all the more critical during the current crisis. If the House appoints me as Chair this evening, my first priority will be securing a date to take evidence from the Prime Minister as soon as possible—and Parliament is entitled to insist on this. The Liaison Committee exists only to support and strengthen the other Committees, particularly when they are the only means of full scrutiny of the Government at this time. Individual Committees can only scrutinise their Departments, but in this crisis I have been giving thought to how the Liaison Committee can strengthen whole-of-Government scrutiny. It is in areas requiring cross-departmental co-operation that failures have been causing most public concern.”
“I commend my right hon. Friend the Member for Tunbridge Wells (Greg Clark) for his urgent question and endorse everything he said. Those of us who are not in the engine room of Government are being told by our constituents that, welcome though Tuesday’s package was, it is simply not going to be enough. When diehards such as my right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (John Redwood) and Allister Heath of The Daily Telegraph are lining up for far more radical measures than the Government have yet announced, the Government must take note. May I urge the Government to say something today to give people assurance that the help will come?”
“I thank my right hon. Friend for his response to the hon. Member for Edinburgh East (Tommy Sheppard) on how this House should operate. I want to connect two issues: the scrutiny of emergency powers and the need for public confidence in their exercise, and the role of Select Committees. When does he think he will be in a position to announce to the House what the arrangements for Select Committees will be? If these emergency powers are to be exercised, Select Committees can sit when the House is not sitting and provide some democratic oversight of how these powers are being exercised.”
“Will my right hon. Friend join me in thanking the thousands of local community groups that are already mobilising in order to deal with what may be a very serious situation in their communities, involving looking after vulnerable people and even nursing the sick? Will he, with the Prime Minister and others, make sure that we mobilise these people and empower them to take decisions without having to wait for instructions?”
“Does my right hon. Friend share my admiration for the sheer calm stoicism of so many people who work in this place? We are greeted by the police officers when we come into the building, as though nothing has changed, and the Clerks of the House carry on servicing the business of this House as though nothing has changed, despite the anxiety that the whole country is feeling about the coronavirus. Will he join me in recording our thanks to everyone who works in this place who will keep the show on the road? Does that not set the best possible example to the rest of the country that we should keep things going and remain calm to make sure that we carry on making rational decisions in this crisis?”
“For all the efforts of Combat Stress to change its organisation to a hub-and-spoke model, which is being supported by charities such as the Royal British Legion, the anxiety is that the withdrawal of a large chunk of NHS funding—we are grateful for the new contract that has been granted, but it is a very much smaller one—will mean that there will be veterans who slip through the cracks. Some 1,500 or so veterans will now be entirely dependent on going through their GP and into the veterans services provided by the NHS, and there is a deep anxiety that people will not get the treatment they need, although we very much applaud the efforts of the NHS to improve what it offers to veterans.”
“I thank my hon. Friend for his evident personal commitment to the mental health of veterans and members of the armed forces. This is a very big change and we very much appreciate it. I also thank the Chancellor of the Exchequer for the contribution he is making through the Budget and the £10 million he has allocated for this purpose. Will the Minister expand a little on what he said about his efforts to “accelerate the introduction of a…high-intensity service for those in most acute need, following the challenges faced by Combat Stress”? I am a vice-president of Combat Stress.”
“In fact, the Carillion collapse meant that all the Carillion liabilities for the contract were transferred to the two other contractors. Where was the harm in that? Was that not a rather skilfully let triple contract?”
“I declare an interest as a vice-president of Combat Stress. May I point out that Combat Stress is facing a crisis because the Government are withdrawing funding for the 1,200 or so veterans who use its services every year? There is now an instance of a veteran taking their own life because they were refused treatment by Combat Stress and referred back to their GP. This is a very serious situation. Will my hon. Friend please ensure that Combat Stress gets the funding it needs to deliver the care to the veterans it looks after?”
“Will my right hon. Friend join me in extending on behalf of the whole House our sympathy and best wishes to those injured in the Streatham attack last week? I welcome his intention to legislate as a consequence of this attack. Does he agree that Her Majesty’s Government now have no option but to legislate to try to contain the threat of ex-terrorist offenders when they still pose a threat to our country?”
“The health service is confronted with another baby deaths controversy in Kent, and a whistleblowing scandal in West Suffolk at the Health Secretary’s own local hospital. When are the Government going to reintroduce the health service safety investigations Bill, which had its Second Reading in the other place before the election, had its pre-legislative scrutiny under my chairmanship in the last Parliament and is ready to go? One might say that it is oven-ready, so when does my right hon. Friend think it will be reintroduced?”
“I cannot say I welcome this decision, but I understand it. However, what harsh and honest lessons will the UK Government take from finding themselves confronted with this dilemma? This Administration and, indeed, the previous Administration inherited the problem from a long way back. Does it not represent a massive strategic national failure and, indeed, a failure of western strategy that the Five Eyes have been left in this position? How will we learn those lessons? Will he set up a post-hoc review?”