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 64 of 92.
“But that was always the danger with article 5 and the subsidiarity clause. There are some very general objectives set out in the treaties, and subsidiarity is one of those catch-all arrangements that can justify stretching the meaning of other articles, as we have already seen. How does the European Union justify the bail-out mechanism that the previous Chancellor of the Exchequer approved under article 122 of the Lisbon treaty, which was designed for natural disasters? How can a crisis in the euro possibly be classified as a natural disaster? The mechanism has, however, been allowed to go through by default. The arrangement before us is another that will go through by default if we do not challenge it.”
“Friend the Member for Stone (Mr Cash) to lambast the concept of subsidiarity when it was first proposed in the treaty on the European Union back in 1992—the Maastricht treaty. It is, very simply, that subsidiarity is not sovereignty. Subsidiarity is subservience; it is submitting to the jurisdiction of the European institutions instead of the sovereign judgment of the British people as expressed in this House. Subsidiarity is no substitute for Government saying no, particularly where the veto is in their hands. I urge my hon. Friend the Minister to exercise that veto, knowing that she will have the confidence of the British people behind her, because they do not want her to say yes in this case.”
“There is absolutely no difference between me and my hon. Friend on that point. To echo my right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (Mr Redwood), the Budget moment in the calendar of this House is the most important political occasion of each year, when the Chancellor comes to this House to deliver his Budget judgment and it is for the House to determine what the levels of expenditure, taxation and borrowing should be. That is absolutely fundamental not only to the mechanics of our democracy but to the culture of our democracy and the culture of this House. This proposal is a very direct challenge to government by national democratic consent. The only, rather lame and late, point that I might be adding to the debate is a very simple one, and I do so for the same reason as that which led my hon.”
“May I commend my right hon. Friend’s tone towards Pakistan and his saying that we should deal with that country constructively and co-operatively? Should we not bear in mind what President Zardari himself has pointed out—that only 11% of the population of Pakistan has ever voted for radical Islamic parties, and that 85% is explicitly opposed to al-Qaeda? On that basis, there should be common interest and common cause between our two countries.”
“May I commend the intellectual ideas behind the whole concept of the big society? May I also commend to my right hon. Friend an article by Tim Montgomerie that appeared on ConservativeHome earlier this week entitled, “Conservatives can win the poverty debate but not if the Big Society is our message”? Is the big society more accurately described as a label for a collection of policies rather than a policy itself?”
“Does my right hon. Friend agree that only the most cynical people could criticise him for wanting to consult more about the changes that he wants? [ Laughter. ] And that only the most cynical could treat the NHS as a laughing matter? Will he maintain the goal of delivering the prize, which is to give local people, through their local GPs, more control over the resources that the NHS spends in their name?”
“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?”
“My right hon. Friend has rightly been commended for the way he has averted a humanitarian catastrophe, but will he say a little more about what will mark the end of this conflict? Ideally we would like to see Gaddafi step down, but is it possible that he could comply with the terms of the no-fly zone and the UN Security Council resolution while remaining in office and keeping the country divided, rather like a new Cyprus?”
“Can we just have a reality check? There will be no stability in the euro area until at least some of the countries currently in it leave. There seems to be little doubt about that. May I remind my hon. Friend that we have just had an austerity Budget—another one? In my constituency, people are talking about having to make NHS savings of £84 million over the current planning period. Can he imagine how absolutely furious British voters will be if it turns out that the British taxpayer must continue to contribute to the bail-out of euro countries even though we are not a member? Why does he not take the opportunity—before agreeing to the new stability mechanism—to get our European partners to agree that we shall be released from any obligation to the temporary stability mechanism for which we are currently liable?”
“Finally, how are these matters being considered by the Government? The Public Administration Committee, which I chair, conducted an inquiry into how Government strategy is decided. Strategy is not about setting certain policies in stone; it is about the ability to adapt plans to changing circumstances. To that extent, it is not about whether we reopen the strategic defence and security review; it is about how the SDSR should be adapted to changing circumstances. We have already had six strategic shocks since the SDSR.”
“This action derives its political credibility because of support from Libya’s fellow Arab nations. Can we afford to risk losing their support or that of the United States, which acts as underwriter for the military effort? I submit not. We can succeed in preventing the atrocity in Benghazi, but should the Arab League walk away from the confrontation with Gaddafi, why should it be our fight? We had better fix our goal and military strategy accordingly rather than invite mission creep by over-extending that rhetoric. In the meantime we must settle the other vital questions that the Prime Minister started to address. Who is in command of this operation? I would like NATO to be in charge. Who is in command of the communications strategy? Where is the Jamie Shea—he was so effective in the Balkans—of this operation?”
“At times, the Prime Minister seemed to be talking as though we could just implement a no-fly zone and go home. Of course, we will have to maintain a no-fly zone until the political situation is resolved. How else is the stalemate to be resolved? We have a duty to be clear. Either the removal of Gaddafi is the legitimate military aim, or I put it to the Foreign Secretary that we must drop it from our public statements and focus our words on the more limited task we are setting our military. We cannot do both. Clausewitz again: “The political object is the goal, war is the means of reaching it, and the means can never be considered in isolation from their purposes.” The UK has to balance the will to obtain a preferred outcome—Gaddafi’s removal—with the wider issue of security and stability.”
“The Prime Minister set that out again today when he outlined the limited aims of the UN Security Council resolution alongside our aspiration to remove Gaddafi. The former Chief of the General Staff, General Lord Dannatt, wrote at the weekend: “Unless the military planners are crystal clear about the strategic objective to be achieved then the focusing of effort is going to be misaligned from the outset.” That is a danger we face today. He talked of how military planners are “trained to work out the implied tasks as well, to ensure that the campaign plan fulfils entirely what the higher authority's intentions are. In this case, the specified task is the protection of civilians, but the implied task—and the end-state to be achieved—must be the removal of Colonel Gaddafi and his regime”.”
“Brevity demands bluntness, for which I hope the Government will forgive me. I support the motion, but I think that we need to be honest about the consequences of what we are taking on. First, we have crossed a threshold, and by approving this motion, the House is crossing it with our political leaders. Hon. Members should have no illusions: there is no such thing as limited war, in all its bloody terror and dirt. Secondly, I remind the House that “no one starts a war—or rather, no one in his senses ought to do so—without first being clear in his mind what he intends to achieve by that war and how he intends to conduct it.” So wrote Karl von Clausewitz. The Government must admit that on that there is some doubt and the potential for confusion and indecision.”
“I took part in the debates on the European Union Bill, and the European Scrutiny Committee is to be commended for what it achieved in setting the record straight that sovereignty was not a common law principle but a fact of history. However, what we proposed in that Bill, and what is being proposed here, is to put the word “sovereignty” into statute. My hon. Friend’s Committee never took advice on that question, but we rather assumed that this would be a good thing to do. What does he say to those who are concerned that it would actually make the concept of sovereignty justiciable if we placed it in statute, and that we are in danger of drawing the courts into a dispute with Parliament about what sovereignty is?”
“One of the most important points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Mr Chope) was that there is no substitute for Parliament exercising its sovereignty. In that respect, our amendment to the European Union Bill and the Bill before us are a cry of despair. They are not a substitute for Parliament exercising its sovereignty. No amount of legislating for parliamentary sovereignty will match the exercise of our sovereignty. As one of my hon. Friends said to me this morning, it is a bit like the parish council beating the bounds of the parish. It is a long time since we exercised our sovereignty in that way here, but sooner or later we are going to have to do so, to prove that we still have it.”
“I join my right hon. and hon. Friends in congratulating my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister on his brilliant success at the United Nations, which is a vindication of the credibility of British foreign policy. Can he say more about the strategic objective, which, as Lord Dannatt and others have clearly stated, must be extremely clear? My right hon. Friend is committed to regime change, but are our allies, and in particular President Obama, committed to regime change?”
“Although it is entirely desirable for the House to express its clear opinion before any military action is taken, will the Leader of the House make it clear that the Government do not consider themselves restrained from taking military action before the motion is carried if it is necessary to do so?”
“Is not the most important issue in this debate the fact that events in Libya appear to be at a turning point? I am sure that the Government are grateful for the support that Her Majesty’s Opposition have given to my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary on the no-fly zone initiative and the toppling of Gaddafi. Is this not, if it fails, a crucial test of the credibility of British foreign policy, which has perhaps not adapted to the shortage of defence capability we now suffer as a result of the strategic defence and security review or to the fact that we have a completely different kind of United States, which is prepared to be passive in an international crisis?”
“Q15. Does my right hon. Friend support the following statement:“The reason I've never supported AV is that it would have given”—Labour—“an even bigger majority in 1997, and it would have given the Tories an even bigger majority in 1983, and…1987 as well…If…we want reform…to rebuild public trust and confidence in politics…AV doesn’t deliver that.”Is he as surprised as I was to learn that those are the words of the right hon. Member for Exeter (Mr Bradshaw), who is the director of Labour’s Yes to AV campaign?”
“Can we be absolutely clear what we are doing here? It used to take months, even years, to change a European treaty. Tonight, we are going to debate this motion for 90 minutes and then the Government will go to the European Council and agree to that change in the treaty. That is correct, is it not, because the next time this comes back for scrutiny it will be a fait accompli?”
“Is the hon. Gentleman saying that the European Union Bill will set aside the procedure set out in the 2008 Act, and that there will no longer be a requirement to bring draft Council decisions before this House before they are made? I think that he should invite the Minister to intervene on him to clarify whether that is the case.”
“It states: “The ESM will complement the new framework of reinforced economic governance, aiming at an effective and rigorous economic surveillance, which will focus on prevention and will substantially reduce the probability of a crisis arising in the future.” All that sounds extremely beneficial and positive, but, as we know, the problem is that although specific sanctions do not apply to non-euro state, there is no exclusion of economic governance over all member states. Everything that the EU does implies that one day all its members will be members of the euro. That is clearly the direction in which it wants things to travel.”
“Friend seemed to be saying, in so many words, that while we had always opposed the formation of a federal Europe which would inevitably be dominated by Europe’s major economic superpower—Germany—we were now facilitating the creation of a federal Europe, at least within the eurozone. The text that we are approving states: “Member States whose currency is the euro may establish a stability mechanism to be activated”, and so forth, but there is no explicit exclusion of countries that are not participating in the euro in terms of its effects. What exactly is a mechanism? We have in mind some kind of bail-out fund, but the annex to the Council conclusions that were produced in December contains a draft decision that refers in more detail to what this instrument might actually concern.”
“It would be a shame if we lost the opportunity to discuss matters before they go to the Council, but I accept the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for North East Somerset (Jacob Rees-Mogg) that it is up to the European Scrutiny Committee to bring them before the House. In the few minutes for which I intend to speak, I shall concentrate on what was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Mr Cash) and by the right hon. Member for Rotherham (Mr MacShane). The Government should be worried when there is agreement between those two Members. On this occasion, they agree that momentous events are afoot. My hon.”
“I intend to speak very briefly. First, let me thank my right hon. Friend the Minister for clarifying the procedural issues. I wrote in a note to colleagues that I understood that this would be the last occasion on which we could scrutinise the process before ratification. I now understand that that is not correct, although certainly the decision will be set in stone, and we shall not have an opportunity to change it unless we vote down the Act of Parliament that will be implemented. However, I should like one further clarification. I understood that whatever amendment was made to the text of the treaties would require an Act of Parliament, regardless of whether the European Union Bill was passed, because that is the way in which we have always implemented treaty changes. To that extent, the EU Bill means no change.”
“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”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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 really think that my right hon. Friend deserves congratulations on the fact that a fortnight ago he was virtually a lone voice in floating the idea of a no-fly zone, and now he has the support of the Arab League and France. What exactly went on at the European Council? Whom was Baroness Ashton speaking for? What mandate does she have to give her opinions? Should she not serve the member states of the European Union rather than pretending to lead them?”
“He was absolutely clear that he intended that statement to apply to Ministers as well as to MPs. The UK is notable among similar western nations. We have more Ministers than France, Italy, Spain and Germany.”
“I beg to move, That this House notes the publication of the Seventh Report from the Select Committee on Public Administration on Smaller Government: What do Ministers do?, HC530. This procedure, involving a motion, is in place of what we hope one day will be an arrangement to make a statement. I will make some remarks and then invite right hon. and hon. Friends to intervene. Our Committee decided to inquire into the role of Ministers following the Government’s decision to reduce the number of right hon. and hon. Members by 50 without a corresponding reduction in the number of Ministers. The Prime Minister made it clear before the election that the public wanted us to “cut the cost of politics. Everyone is having to do more for less”. He therefore asked if it was not time that “politicians and ministers did a bit more for a bit less”.”
“Lord Smith of Finsbury, a former Culture Secretary, said that the amount of paperwork he had to contend with was “plainly ludicrous” and “no way to run a life let alone a country”. It is less clear whether all that Ministers do has to be done by a Minister of the Crown. Chris Mullin, in his autobiography, noted his role as “a glorified correspondence clerk” and lamented: “So much ministerial activity is entirely contrived and pointless.””
“I am most interested that my hon. Friend should ask that question, because my Committee is considering the possibility of an inquiry into the impact on Departments of our relationship with the EU and looking for an academic who might support us in that work and help us to construct a cartography of the relationship between EU institutions and Whitehall Departments. The total number of Ministers has grown steadily since 1900. Our report examines whether revising the role of Ministers could provide a way of reducing their numbers. We took evidence from current and former Ministers, as well as from academics and senior civil servants, and we were left in no doubt that Ministers have a very heavy work load.”
“We asked Sir David Normington, who was still permanent secretary at the Home Office when he gave evidence, whether he had ever had to create work to keep a Minister busy, and he diplomatically answered, “Not in recent times”.”
“It is also obvious that if Ministers were reshuffled less often and specialists were more encouraged, they would be more effective as Ministers.”
“The consensus is that they should set policy priorities, provide leadership to their Departments, represent their Departments across Government and outside, and answer to Parliament. They should focus on their core job and less on what one might call “announceables”. Lord Rooker pointed out how they had to operate in this way in the old Northern Ireland Office before devolution, where there were only four Ministers covering a broad range of portfolios. He added that officials were forced to “fillet out the key strategic decisions that as a minister you really had to do. So you didn’t get all the minutiae that you get in Westminster Red Boxes.” This strongly suggests that having fewer Ministers would itself bring about new ways of working.”
“There is no question but that Ministers should be accountable for decisions that they take. However, can my right hon. Friend put his hand on his heart and say that on no occasion has he seen a Minister promoting a political or personal agenda on a television screen, as opposed to something that is absolutely in the public interest for a Minister to do? In this world of 24/7 media, the amount of media that a Minister could do is almost limitless, and we have to keep a check on the priorities that take up his time. Lord Rooker thought that many Ministers were under the misapprehension that they were there to manage their Departments. Lord Norton told us that Ministers should “focus on what is strategically important, rather that just getting through the paperwork”. So, to echo the title of our report, what should Ministers do?”
“The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. We need to remember that right hon. and hon. Members are paid, first and foremost, to be Members of Parliament. I will come to the whole role of the payroll vote in a moment.”
“Presumably, Ministers will become less directly responsible and have fewer decisions to make about things that happen in this country. By how much could the number of Ministers be cut? Numbers are currently limited by two statutes: the House of Commons Disqualification Act 1975, which limits to 95 the number of Ministers who can sit and vote in the House of Commons; and the Ministerial and other Salaries Act 1975, which constrains to 109 the number of ministerial salaries that can be paid.”
“I certainly think that that is an opportunity, and I will come to it later in my remarks. We must acknowledge that Ministers are busier than ever in Parliament, with more Select Committees, Westminster Hall and other new procedures that bring them before us. However, we believe that Parliament must stop holding Ministers accountable for matters which no longer fall within the remit of Whitehall Departments or, indeed, have never fallen within their remit. The habit of grilling Ministers on every local detail militates against devolution, decentralisation and localism. On the big society, which my hon. Friend the Member for Harlow (Robert Halfon) mentioned, we ask what the post-bureaucratic age will mean for Whitehall Departments and ministerial responsibilities.”
“One of our recommendations is that that should be given serious consideration. I have to say that it is a relatively minor part of the report, and I would not want those particular proposals to overshadow the important points that we make elsewhere.”
“Obviously any change in this regard would have to be ameliorated by other arrangements—perhaps a more open and direct negotiation between First Ministers and the Whitehall Government and other means of representation of these interests within Government. As well as the ministerial cadre, the Cabinet is attended by 28 people and it, too, is clearly too large. Currently, a total of 141 MPs are on the payroll vote as Ministers or Parliamentary Private Secretaries. If this number remains static at the same time as the number of MPs is cut by 8%, the payroll vote as a proportion of MPs will increase from an already staggering 22% to 23.5%.”
“Thirdly, the number of PPSs should be limited to one per Department. When he gave evidence to the PASC in the last Parliament, Sir John Major described the size of the payroll vote as a “constitutional outrage”. His view was that only Cabinet Ministers should be entitled to PPSs. That suggestion was endorsed by Lord Norton and others, who argued that doing so would make the post more meaningful. This would lead to 26 fewer Members being on the payroll vote.”
“I am grateful for my hon. Friend’s endorsement. The Government say that they want to see Parliament strengthened, but this increase in the percentage of the payroll vote as a proportion of the House of Commons would further strengthen the Executive at the expense of Parliament; that seems to be unanswerable. PASC urges three steps on the Government to reduce this power of patronage. First, the current legal cap on the number of paid Ministers should be the absolute limit on the number of Ministers. The increasing number of unpaid Ministers has been described as an abuse by one of our witnesses, the right hon. Peter Riddell. Secondly, the legal limit on the number of Ministers in the Commons should be cut by eight, at the very least, in line with the reduction in the number of MPs just enacted. This is, in fact, a very modest reduction.”
“I am most grateful to my hon. Friend for reading out that part of the report. The important point is that PPSs are not paid by the Crown to be Ministers, but they are hijacked by the Executive to prevent them from doing the job for which they are paid, which is to be Members of Parliament. We need to be mindful of the fundamental duty of a Member if they are not a Minister of the Crown.”
“We looked at that suggestion, but it is rather difficult because there is no legal definition of a PPS. However, they are referred to in the ministerial code. I wonder whether something procedural could be done under Standing Orders to formalise the arrangement, or whether they could be given statutory status. However, that is a step further than our report went.”
“We welcome the fact that the Government’s thinking seems to be moving in that direction. The Deputy Leader of the House said last year that “it is likely that at some stage in the future we will reduce the number of Ministers.” —[ Official Report , 25 October 2010; Vol. 517, c. 129.] I welcome that. I hope that the report will encourage the Government to move in that direction faster, and to review the number and functions of Ministers in a way that strengthens Parliament and delivers a better quality of government. Question put and agreed to.”