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 38 of 92.
“Additionally, in any privatisation plan the Office for National Statistics should have the power to take over the collation and publication of Land Registry data, effectively getting a daily feed from all new records and publishing them free online. If the Government decide to proceed with some kind of privatisation of the operations, in two years’ time I expect to be calling the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills and UK Government Investments, which is overseeing the process, to discuss with my Committee what effect this movement has had on the publication of open data. Finally, in answer to the hon. Member for Bridgend (Mrs Moon), I hope the Government will explore alternative means of doing that by keeping the Land Registry in the public sector.”
“I shall come to that. It is a perfectly reasonable question. The type of owner of the infrastructure might be like the banks automated clearing system, which is a company that is owned by the banks. It is just an operating company that the banks fund in order to provide them with a service. That is much more the kind of privatisation that I would find acceptable, rather than a company called Land Registry plc, with its own board of directors thinking about how to develop its business. It is a service and there is a function that it needs to provide. The final proposal should include a full assessment of what has happened in other countries where such a service has been transferred to the private sector.”
“May I take this opportunity to pay tribute to my right hon. Friend for his premiership and for the many achievements of his Government, of which we can be proud? I also commend his condemnation of the vile racist attacks that have been reported from all over the country. Will he take this opportunity to condemn the ridiculous and revolting behaviour of a certain MEP in the European Parliament yesterday and make it clear that that MEP does not represent this country and he does not represent— [Interruption.]”
“I am grateful, Mr Speaker. That MEP does not represent this country and he does not represent even the vast majority of patriotic and law-abiding people who voted leave in the referendum.”
“Have the Government made any inquiries, assessment or technical analysis of whether there is any possibility that some malevolent attack was made on the website at that time, as opposed to there being an incredibly unusual spike in the numbers?”
“We have already pencilled in what we will do in the aftermath of the referendum, to see what lessons should be learned, and in the aftermath of the general election, individual registration and so on.”
“May I correct any misinterpretation? Everyone I know in the leave campaign—in Vote Leave, in particular—welcomes the enormous interest and surge in the number of people registering to take part in the referendum. It was clearly imperative that something be done, if possible, to address the anomaly that arose on Tuesday night. I welcome the fact that young people in particular are registering, and I absolutely take the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich North (Chloe Smith) that anybody in politics who thinks they will thrive on a lower turnout is not thriving in a democracy that we want to be part of. There will be a time for an inquest, not just by the Electoral Commission or the Government, but by the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee.”
“The person still has to be registered. There is no way of cross-checking to find out whether someone has lied.”
“I was going to come to that later but will deal with it now. With individual registration, it is imperative that every new registration is cross-checked with national insurance data and, if necessary, Border Agency data. There is no post-registration audit of electoral registers, so anybody who is mis-registered stays on them. This needs to be looked at, because we have no idea how many non-UK EU nationals not from Malta, Cyprus or Ireland are recorded as eligible to vote and have been sent ballot papers, not because of a software glitch but simply because they were mis-registered, either on purpose or inadvertently. Indeed, one electoral returning officer told a member of the House of Commons Library—off the record—that if somebody lies on their registration form and it cannot be checked, nothing can be done about it.”
“My hon. Friend raises a legitimate question, and we should inquire further into it. There should be a fail-safe way of ensuring that someone is who they say they are when they register their vote. At the moment, there is not. If people on the register now who are registered incorrectly are being sent ballot papers, and if it is not due to a software glitch, there is no way of picking it up. I have urged the Electoral Commission to make more public statements, because the system now has different franchises for different purposes. Why will there not be notices in polling stations? The electoral officer is bound to offer a ballot paper to someone who is on the register, but a “Read this” notice could make it clear that people who are not eligible to vote but who knowingly do so commit a criminal offence.”
“Not if they were misrecorded—that is the point. We need to make people aware of who is eligible to vote. It would be perfectly reasonable for the Electoral Commission and the Government to make more visible public statements to make it clear that if someone has been offered a ballot paper but is not eligible to vote— and knows it—it is an offence to vote. It is as simple as that. I am not asking polling officers to discriminate when the vote takes place; I am simply asking for more clarification and greater public awareness of who is and is not eligible to vote.”
“I have heard anecdotally from one authority that “we are near breaking-point”. There are record numbers of postal votes, record numbers of registrations, record numbers of proxies in a massive national poll, on which so much is hanging. The pressure is on them, and this adds to that pressure. We should be mindful of that, thank them for their incredible commitment, which makes our democracy run so smoothly most of the time and wish them well in their tasks. I extend my best wishes, too, to the Electoral Commission. I and others have criticised it, but it is doing its best under very difficult circumstances. There may be lessons to learn about the future of the Electoral Commission and the future role of the Cabinet Office when we conduct our inquest into this referendum.”
“If this happened in some fledgling democracy in the former Soviet Union or in Africa, what would the observers say about the conduct of the poll? This is a really unpleasant precedent to set in our system, which should be one of the finest democracies in the world. The fact that Ministers have spent so much talking to lawyers underlines the point I made yesterday that this is on the cusp of legality. We are on the edge of what is acceptable. I do not for a moment believe that there will be a legitimate challenge, but the fact that we have to consult lawyers in such detail and so carefully to get this right underlines the pickle that we are in as a result of this lack of foresight and lack of care. More pressure is being placed on electoral returning officers and electoral administrators.”
“Perhaps they should have used publicity to clarify that people did not have to re-register if they were already on the register. As my right hon. Friend the Member for North Somerset (Dr Fox) rightly noted, and as the Minister confirmed, a great number of people registered to vote in this referendum when they were already on the register—perhaps up to 75% of those applying. That is one reason why the system has become clogged up. People have not clearly understood that if they are already on the register, they do not need to re-register. We need to learn from that. Let us be clear about the consequences. A requirement to change the law when a poll for postal voters has effectively already opened is highly irregular.”
“If the wrong people are able to vote, it is not making a mountain out of a molehill. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman would not want the wrong people to vote, so I am surprised that he does not want the public to have the information that they should have. The matter before us should not have arisen. It reflects a lack of adaptation, because individual registration has enormously increased the pressure on systems to cope with the problem. The Government were warned by the Electoral Commission and the Public Administration Committee, as it then was, about the consequences of rushing forward with individual registration, however desirable it was. There was a lack of foresight. The Government agreed to spend millions of pounds on promoting registration in the run-up to this poll.”
“May I advise the Minister that it is probably legal to keep the site open for a short period—a few hours, to capture those who did not have the opportunity to register yesterday—but any idea of rewriting the rules in any substantial way would be complete madness and make this country look like an absolute shambles in the run-up to the referendum, which is such an important decision? Will he bear those things in mind, or risk judicial review of the result?”
“May I first commend the Government and my right hon. Friend for so successfully engaging millions of people that they want to register and vote in this referendum? That is definitely a good thing. I am afraid the problems he has encountered are born out of the fact that the Government and the Electoral Commission were ill prepared for the surge of registrations. The Government spent millions of pounds on promoting registration, so they should have been prepared. This issue now arises: there is a cut-off in our legislation because the register has to be finalised and published six days before the date of the poll for the referendum—there have to be five days remaining so that any name on the register can be challenged during the first five days it is on the register—which leaves very little time for anything like legislation.”
“My right hon. Friend has rather candidly admitted that it is more difficult to control immigration while we are a member of the EU. Does she agree that two of the reasons why we have 4,000 EU nationals in our jails are, first, that if we deport them and our EU partners do not choose to keep them in prison, they have the right to come straight back here and be free to roam our streets because they are EU citizens; and, secondly, that these people now have access to the EU charter of fundamental rights, which the Prime Minister said he wanted a complete opt-out from, but he did not get that in his renegotiation?”
“In my right hon. Friend’s enthusiasm to bludgeon the British voter into supporting a European Union that they do not really like, how can he justify planning to break the law? Is he aware that the Public Administration Committee has now published three legal opinions from Speaker’s Counsel— [ Interruption. ]”
“Is my right hon. Friend aware that the Public Administration Committee has now published three legal opinions from Speaker’s Counsel that make it perfectly clear that it is illegal for the Government to keep their pro-EU propaganda up on Government websites during the purdah period?”
“(Urgent Question:) To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer to set out his latest assessment of the UK economy following the result of the EU referendum, which he has published today; and if he will make a statement.”
“Given that in 2014 the UK contributed £10 billion net to support other, failing EU economies rather than our voters’ own priorities, what effect will the continuing collapse of the eurozone economies have on the EU budget as a whole, and particularly on the UK’s net contribution? Does not the Government’s entire campaign reinforce the unfortunate impression that today’s political leaders will say anything they think will help them get what they want, whether it is true or not? Does the Minister not realise that my right hon. Friends the Chancellor and the Prime Minister are contributing to cynicism about politics and a sense that voters should not trust their rulers but should make their own choice and judgment, which is why they will vote leave on 23 June?”
“He said this morning: “A lot of the Government’s so-called forecast depends on business confidence, which the Government is doing its best to undermine. Economists are no better than anyone else in predicting shifts in confidence…We have nothing to fear but fear itself—which the Government is doing its best to stir up.” The Government say that wages will fall, so why did Lord Rose tell the Treasury Committee that wages would rise if we left the EU? Is this report produced by the same Treasury that failed to foresee the banking crisis and the great recession that followed? Why do none of the Government’s post-referendum economic assessments look at the risks of remaining in the EU?”
“Does that not demonstrate how Ministers have become preoccupied with dishonestly talking down Britain’s economic prospects, which is highly irresponsible? Why do the Government not agree with the chair of the remain campaign, Lord Rose? He has been reassuring in saying: “Nothing is going to happen if we come out of Europe in the first five years…There will be absolutely no change.” What about my right hon. Friend the Business Secretary? He said in February last year: “As I’ve said before, a vote to leave the EU is not something I’m afraid of. I’d embrace the opportunities such a move would create and I have no doubt that, after leaving, Britain would be able to secure trade agreements not just with the EU, but with many others too”. What does the Minister say in response to his Conservative predecessor, my noble Friend Lord Lamont?”
“I reflect on the fact that obesity was rather less of a crisis for the House this afternoon than I imagined it would be, Mr Speaker. May I first say to the Minister that we all know that these forecasts are just rubbish being produced by a Government who are now obsessed with producing propaganda to try to get their way in the vote rather than enlightening the public? Has this report been signed off by the same Professor Sir Charles Bean who has previously said that models of economic shocks are based on “gross simplifications”? Will the Minister confirm that the so-called shock scenario suggests nothing more serious than that the economy will remain the same size as it was just last year?”
“We do not have control over immigration into this country, because all EU citizens and their dependants have the right to come here, and the Government have no means of excluding them even if they are criminals and terrorists.”
“May I remind my right hon. Friend that the report produced by the Public Administration Committee during the last Parliament cast grave doubt on the accuracy and reliability of the immigration statistics? The annual passenger survey is just that: a survey of a sample of passengers entering the United Kingdom. Those statistics may well be “the best way” of measuring our immigration, but the Committee decided that they were not a reliable way of measuring immigration, and the very large rise in national insurance numbers shows that there is something else going on. May I also remind my right hon. Friend that the last census showed that the British population was larger by 467,000 than the Government had understood it to be, and that a very large proportion of that was due to unrecorded immigration?”
“I am grateful to the hon. Lady, who is a fellow member of the Committee. Will she recall that, last summer, we fought valiantly to stop the Government taking powers to limit the application of section 125 of the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000, which would have allowed the Government to carry on campaigning in this manner in the last 28 days of the campaign? Is it not now clear that they were presenting excuses to us as to why they needed those flexibilities? It was simply so that they could carry on exploiting the system, as they are planning to exploit the system and possibly even breach section 125 by keeping up their websites for the entire campaign instead of taking them down for the last 28 days.”
“It is worth remembering that it is not the first time that the United States of America has misconstrued its own interests. President Roosevelt did not want Churchill to fight Hitler. He wanted us to make peace with Mussolini. Ronald Reagan pleaded with Margaret Thatcher not to take the Falkland Islands by military force but to do some kind of shared sovereignty deal with a south American dictator. Our allies may be our allies, but they are not always right.”
“The Prime Minister discussed in his speech today the importance of sharing our intelligence with our European partners, but I am sure the right hon. Lady knows about the importance of our relationship with the United States, which spends $52 billion a year on signals intelligence and gives us everything it has whenever we ask for it. It would not do that if it thought we would give it to the French and the Germans; it would cut us off instantly. That was its experience in the Kosovo campaign, when there were intelligence leaks to the French. It would simply not countenance supporting that intelligence relationship if we shared all our intelligence with our European allies, as the Prime Minister seemed to suggest we do in his ludicrous speech.”
“To pick up a refrain from the hon. Member for Vauxhall (Kate Hoey), the entire construct of the document that we are discussing, and indeed of the Prime Minister’s speech today, is that somehow we are withdrawing from Europe. We want to leave the European Union, which is a failing institution, but we want to remain an active member of NATO and remain engaged with our European allies and partners on all the matters that the European Union deals with. We just do not want to be told what to do as a member of the European Union.”
“(Urgent Question): To ask the Prime Minister if he will instruct his adviser on ministerial interests to launch an inquiry as to whether discussions between Ministers and officials and representatives of trade unions or the Labour party concerning amendments to the Trade Union Bill constitute a breach of the ministerial code of conduct. I am grateful to you, Mr Speaker, for granting this urgent question.”
“The seven principles of public life require public office holders to “avoid placing themselves under any obligation to people or organisations that might try inappropriately to influence…their work.” The ministerial code states: “Ministers must ensure that no conflict arises”, or appears to arise, “between their public duties and their private interests”. In this matter, the Labour party constitutes one of their private interests. Will my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister instruct his adviser on ministerial interests, Sir Alex Allan, to launch an investigation? If my hon. Friend the Minister and the Cabinet Office are right, he has nothing to fear from such an investigation.”
“Lest there be any doubt about the impropriety of this deal, Her Majesty’s Opposition should ask themselves this question: what would they be saying if this Government had altered a Bill in order to give extra money to the Conservative party or to the Conservatives’ remain campaign, Conservatives In? My hon. Friend the Minister should ask himself this question: what would have been the reaction if a Labour Government had changed a Bill in order to favour the Labour party’s ability to support the Government on some controversial policy and in order to give the Labour party money? This stinks—it reeks the same as cash for questions. This shows that this Government really are at the rotten heart of the European Union.”
“It is now being reported on Channel 4 News and in today’s papers that those unexpected concessions are linked to a £1.7 million donation that trade unions might make from their political funds, which are now much larger than they would have been, to the Labour remain campaign, Labour In For Britain. Until recently, the right hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle (Alan Johnson) was trying to raise £75,000 for a few leaflets, balloons and badges; now the campaign is getting £1.7 million. It has been confirmed to me by more than two independent sources that No. 10 instructed those concessions to be made after discussions with trade union representatives. That being true would amount to the sale of Government policy for cash and political favours.”
“The Prime Minister told the House of Commons on 15 July last year: “There is a very simple principle here: giving money to a party should be an act of free will. Money should not be taken out of people’s pay packets without them being told about it properly” —[ Official Report , 15 July 2015; Vol. 598, c. 885.] and he likened that to mis-selling. On 16 March, the Minister in the other place described the Labour amendment, which the Government have now accepted, as a “wrecking amendment”. Yesterday, the Minister made a wholly unexpected concession when he announced his decision to abandon opposition to the change in the Bill.”
“We all remember the Prime Minister foretelling that the next great scandal would be a lobbying scandal, and here it is. Trade union leaders have been complaining that they are unable to campaign effectively for a remain vote in the EU referendum while the Government’s Trade Union Bill has been threatening trade unions and their funding. The Bill would have implemented a Conservative manifesto commitment to “legislate to ensure trade unions use a transparent opt-in process for union subscriptions”. As a result of the amendment being accepted, a 19-year-old who has just started a job and is a member of a trade union will now never be asked by a trade union whether he wants his political fund subscriptions to be taken out of his pay packet.”
“We know that special advisers are required to submit their emails and telephone texts to public view under freedom of information legislation. What is the Government’s policy on the use of WhatsApp, which special advisers are using to conceal Government business from public view?”
“Will my right hon. Friend point out to President Obama that in a series of European Court judgments such as those in the cases of Davis and of Schrems, using EU data protection laws and the EU charter of fundamental rights, the EU has established its jurisdiction over our intelligence data and sought to prevent our intelligence sharing with the United States? Will he therefore warn the President that if we vote remain, far from gaining influence in the EU the United States will lose control and influence over her closest ally?”
“Furthermore, in the light of the Grimstone review’s proposed changes to the public appointments process and in line with other roles, such as those of the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman and the chairs of the Office for Budget Responsibility and the UK Statistics Authority, PACAC recommends that future appointments of the Commissioner for Public Appointments should be subject to a resolution of both Houses of Parliament. This will be an additional safeguard, and act as a public reassurance that the independence and status of the Commissioner for Public Appointments is not threatened. We also recommend that a similar procedure should apply to the post of First Civil Service Commissioner. I am very pleased to present this report to Parliament.”
“PACAC will therefore closely monitor how Mr Riddell works with Ministers to implement the Grimstone review’s recommendations, and how he responds to the recommendations that PACAC have yet to make on the Grimstone review. PACAC will underwrite Mr Riddell’s authority and independence as the Commissioner for Public Appointments, and we will make use of our ability to carry out follow-up scrutiny, if necessary, to make sure that any concerns we have are heard. We agree with Sir Gerry Grimstone that the role of the CPA should be robust and authoritative, and should not be undermined.”
“We will welcome any further written evidence. The present Committee on Standards in Public Life has warned that this could “all add up to a public perception of a system which was being operated under increased political patronage. It could also run counter to the intentions to increase transparency and diversity.” The outgoing CPA, Sir David Normington, has expressed his opposition to the proposals as a reversal of the Nolan reforms of 20 years ago. Sir Gerry Grimstone has made it clear that transparency rather than the direct powers currently held by the commissioner would enable the commissioner to remain a powerful regulator. However, the Minister for the Cabinet Office has made it clear that the CPA would be consulted by Ministers, but the CPA would no longer have the power to direct an independent appointment process, as now.”
“We concluded that it would have been inappropriate for us to make a report on the Government’s preferred candidate that could have been regarded as an implicit and unqualified endorsement of the Government’s interpretation of the Grimstone proposals. After our initial evidence session with Mr Riddell before Easter, we therefore issued a call for evidence on the Grimstone review. We took evidence from the outgoing CPA, Sir David Normington, from Sir Gerry Grimstone himself and from my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Cabinet Office and Paymaster General prior to concluding our pre-appointment scrutiny of Mr Riddell on 12 April. I am very grateful to the Government for delaying Mr Riddell’s appointment while we completed our pre-appointment scrutiny. We intend to report on the implications of Sir Gerry Grimstone’s review shortly.”
“Ministers would have latitude to interview and appoint someone even if the selection panel had marked him or her below the line. The new Order in Council and the new code of conduct for public appointments have yet to be published even in draft form. Publication of the Grimstone review was originally expected last year, but it was held back. There was a gap of only three days between the publication of the Grimstone review, along with the Government response, and Mr Riddell being named as the preferred candidate. That left us with no opportunity, by the time of Mr Riddell’s appearance before the Committee on 21 March, to consider the Grimstone review.”
“We will report on our inquiry into the Grimstone proposals after the code of practice for public appointments and the new Order in Council have been published. The proposals are controversial. They propose a significant removal of the powers exercised by the office of the CPA over the public appointments process. Ministers, instead of the CPA, would set the rules by drawing up the new governance code. Ministers could decide to run an appointment process without referral to the CPA. Ministers, not the CPA, could determine the membership of appointment panels, including the independent member. Ministers could include on selection panels an official acting as a Ministers’ representative without the consent of the Commissioner for Public Appointments.”
“He is well known to many in this House as a respected political journalist and commentator. He was appointed a Privy Counsellor for his work on the Gibson inquiry into the possible illegal rendition of UK detainees. He has also been chair of the Hansard Society and, most recently and perhaps relevantly, director of the Institute for Government. PACAC remains concerned, however, that the changes proposed by the Grimstone review, as interpreted by the Government, alongside other changes, such as the introduction of enlarged ministerial offices—whereby Ministers, instead of the civil service, can themselves make appointments to their private offices—may be leading to an increasing politicisation of senior public appointments.”
“From 2011 to 2016, the post of CPA was held jointly with the role of First Civil Service Commissioner by Sir David Normington. However, with Sir David’s departure, the two posts of First Civil Service Commissioner and CPA were advertised separately. That was the result of a recommendation made to Ministers by Sir Gerry Grimstone prior to the publication of his review of public appointments. As indicated by the recruitment advertising for this post, the commissioner will be expected to work with the Government in implementing the Grimstone review’s recommendations. The Grimstone review, however, was published only in March this year. After two hearings with the Government’s preferred candidate, the right hon. Peter Riddell, and after some discussion, we have given Mr Riddell a qualified endorsement as Commissioner for Public Appointments.”
“I am grateful to have this opportunity to make a statement on the report by the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee entitled “Appointment of the Commissioner for Public Appointments”, which we published last week. The post of Commissioner for Public Appointments was established in 1995 following the recommendation of the Committee on Standards in Public Life in its first report, the Nolan report. The Nolan report recommended the creation of the post as a means of enhancing public confidence in the public appointments process and the quality of appointments made under it. The role of the Commissioner for Public Appointments is set out in the Public Appointments Order in Council 2015. Since the post and office of the commissioner were established in 1995, there have been four Commissioners for Public Appointments.”
“The Grimstone review has started a much-needed debate about public appointments, but before my Committee and I give a definitive view of Sir Gerry Grimstone’s proposals, we want to consider all the arguments and all the evidence.”
“I think the danger is not that those things will happen, but that people will say that they may seem to be happening. Curiously, it might make it harder for the Government to put a friend or supporter into a public appointment job if the Minister is more directly involved. The current arrangements were created to protect Ministers. If Ministers are frustrated that the wrong people are being interviewed, that people are being appointed according to the wrong job specifications or that people with the right skills are not being given an interview, it is up to them to make sure that the job specification for a job is as they think it should be before the recruitment process starts. I will not defend the public appointments process in total.”