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 71 of 92.
“However, the SDSR should concentrate on maintaining what I call minimum recoverable capability, so that however far we pare down current capabilities, they are recoverable in the event of an emergency. It is a risky business in this world. In the 1930s, we planned for a three-year warning for going to war, yet three years was hardly enough. As was pointed out in evidence to our Committee, it was the fighters—the Hurricanes and the Spitfires—coming into service at just the critical moment that saved this country from annihilation. That is the kind of risk analysis that has to be made in this defence review. If the debate is about what capability we are employing and what capability we do not need because we never use it, that misses the point. Defence is about preparing for what we do not expect or anticipate.”
“As the CDS said, we have lost the “habit of strategic thought”—the kind that looks 20 years ahead and asks what sort of country we want to be. The decisions that are made in the SDSR will define what sort of country we are in 10, 15 or 20 years’ time. It seems as though we are following Sir Humphrey’s adage about producing Government documents: “Always get rid of the difficult bit in the title—it does less harm than in the text.” Thus strategy is referred to in the title, and not to be dealt with in the substance of the text. Yes, deficit reduction is the main effort of Government under the present circumstances; nobody in the defence world resents or disputes that. Indeed, economic security is one of the fundamental qualities of a secure state.”
“I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his suggestion, but I am not going to be drawn into that. I want to return to his mention of strategy. I am Chairman of the Public Administration Committee, which is conducting an inquiry entitled “Who does UK grand strategy?” We have had evidence from the Foreign Secretary and this morning the Chief of the Defence Staff gave evidence. There is a widespread feeling, expressed by the CDS himself, that we have lost the art of strategic thinking. An article in the RUSI Journal by General Paul Newton and others states: “The problem with the UK ‘debate’ on strategy, and defence matters more generally, is that for many observers there does not seem to be one.” I am afraid that that is the vulnerability of this defence review—that it is being conducted in the absence of a coherent strategy.”
“My hon. Friend will know that the Public Administration Committee, which I now chair, issued in the previous Parliament two reports on the subject, and unless we make progress discussing the Bill itself, it seems that much of this debate will turn on what exactly the ombudsman meant in her report. May I advise my hon. Friend and, indeed, the House that my Committee intends to hold a further inquiry as soon as the House returns in October in order to elucidate the exact differences between the ombudsman’s recommendations, Sir John Chadwick’s report and what the Government’s view may be at that time? We will issue a report on what we believe the ombudsman actually intended, and I hope that the Government will honour that interpretation.”
“The Public Administration Committee will have to smooth these troubled waters, and I want to be clear about what the right hon. Gentleman is inviting the Government to do. Sir John Chadwick reported that “the Terms of Reference require me to limit my considerations to those Findings that have been made by the Ombudsman and accepted by the Government”, so what he could recommend was thereby limited. Is the right hon. Gentleman now inviting the Government to ditch the report that his Government commissioned?”
“May I put it to my right hon. Friend that these proposals, whatever the merits of fixed-term Parliaments—personally, I do not support those proposals—smack of gerrymandering the constitution in favour of a particular coalition? That is definitely a bad thing. It is a subjective judgment to suggest that this is giving power to Parliament, as it can be argued that it is taking it away from it. Does this not smack of constitution making on the hoof? What we need is a proper constitutional convention to consider such a major change to our constitution.”
“I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for giving way. He is being assiduous, and the House appreciates that. I put it to him bluntly, however, that the Bill takes away from a simple majority in the House the right to cause a general election and puts into the hands of, perhaps, himself leading a minority party the ability to withdraw his support from one party and give it to another in order to form an Administration, without the risk of a general election. Is that really fair?”
“Can we take it that the right hon. Gentleman has also reached a completely dispassionate judgment, and that his decision to allow the Bill a Second Reading is in no way coloured by the possibility that his party will end up in government without a general election if it is passed?”
“I have been listening to these exchanges closely, but will the Minister tell me whether I have understood him correctly? Is he saying that, whatever special measures may be made for the lower paid, which he is not prepared to discuss now for the reasons he outlined, he has no intention of trying to impose them through legislation, and that they will be negotiated come what may, but that this legislation might become necessary in order to provide the framework for such a settlement? Is that correct?”
“I am interested in what the right hon. Lady is saying, but I think it is incumbent on her to explain to the House why she thinks the Bill might be discriminatory in some way, rather than just advert to a negative and say that that is not good enough. Does she honestly believe that the measures could be discriminatory in some way? If she could explain that to the House, it would be very helpful.”
“It is inconceivable that compensation arrangements that were reached as part of voluntary arrangements between Government Departments and civil servants, and have become legally enforceable by accident, should be respected as though they were contracts entered into and signed in blood. I do not accept what the hon. Member for Southport (Dr Pugh) said about these arrangements. They were intended to be flexible and negotiable, and the Bill is attempting to restore that position, albeit now putting in place a statutory baseline that is harsh—let us have no illusions about that. It is sobering to reflect how harsh these arrangements are in comparison with the existing arrangements.”
“It is appropriate at this stage to remind ourselves of why we are having this debate. We are here because there was no agreement. The agreement reached with the five other unions by the previous Government was challenged in the courts, and we finished up with the courts ruling that the compensation payable represents legally enforceable rights. That was never the intention of the original legislation, and that is why we have this Bill. We are not undoing previous legislation; we are undoing the work of the courts on previous legislation. In my view, it is about the culture of judicial review and judicial activism that we now live in. It is unfortunate but it is where we are. Let us have no illusions about why this is necessary from an economic viewpoint. We are facing the worst public expenditure crisis since the 1930s.”
“I am grateful for that comment, Mr Deputy Speaker, and I will truncate my remarks as best I can. Perhaps it is just an irony that the PCS is the single union that held up the agreement and a representative of the PCS held up the debate for 21 minutes after being implored to speak for only eight minutes. I reflect on that. The Public Administration Committee, which I chair, recently took evidence from my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Cabinet Office and the principal civil service unions about the provisions of the Bill and the prospects for a negotiated settlement of the dispute about ongoing compensation for civil servants who are forced to leave their jobs or voluntarily accept redundancy. The hope then was that the parties would reach a negotiated settlement, but regrettably that settlement has not been reached.”
“Nobody listening to this debate can be under any illusion about the seriousness of the measures that we are discussing and the impact that they will have on people’s lives. I commend many of those who have spoken from both sides of the House for alerting us to those concerns.”
“That is not conducive to better governance and decision making, and if it continues to happen under this new Administration there will perhaps be a case for the Public Administration Committee to launch an inquiry into why the Government’s legal advice has so often proved deficient in such cases. I place the Government on notice about that. Subject to those qualifications, I support the Bill and will vote for it. What Ministers do will be taken as a reflection of the regard in which the civil service is held, and that will have an effect on the morale of the public service at a time of great uncertainty and change, and therefore on this Government’s relationship with civil servants.”
“A legal challenge could run for a very long time in Strasbourg, perhaps for years, and if the Government lost having gone ahead with job reductions on the terms set out in the Bill, it would potentially saddle the public purse with a huge liability at some future date, to say nothing of the subsequent complications in trying to repay individuals long after the event. I point out that Governments of both parties have a long history of wishful thinking when it comes to such cases. I speculate that it appears that the easier course in the short term is often to risk defeat in the courts sometime in the distant future rather than to confront the legal realities and their implications immediately.”
“I understand that there is case law in the ECHR suggesting that mere claims to possessions are capable of being interpreted as property rights when there is sufficient basis in national law, for example when there is settled case law in the domestic courts confirming that. Precisely that confirmation was provided in the case that was adjudicated in May. Is the Minister confident that, even if the accrued rights are considered possessions, the Government are justified in interfering with those rights in the wider public interest, and therefore lawfully able to do so? In short, is he satisfied that the unions will not have a claim against him for not exercising his discretion in a fair and proper manner in failing to recognise existing entitlements? That is an important matter, not some arcane point.”
“That is all very elegantly argued, and no doubt the Government have had the benefit of legal advice, but if the Bill is enacted and subsequently challenged in the courts, the consequences could be extremely significant. Even if the challenge were not successful, if it went to the European Court of Human Rights for a determination, the delay and dislocation would be considerable. How sure is the Minister that the rights generated by the legitimate expectation of civil servants about their terms and conditions with regard to redundancy payments will not be regarded as possessions?”
“The PCS argues that the Bill is unlawful because it offends against the principles of the ECHR, namely that the legitimate expectations about compensation rates that the current state scheme gives rise to, are legally possessions of which individuals cannot be deprived. In the explanatory notes, the Government declare the Bill’s compatibility with the Human Rights Act 1998 because payments under the civil service compensation scheme cannot be considered to be a possession. In any case, they say, even if they were to be considered possessions, since the cap on compensation rates does not apply until a redundancy notice is issued or a voluntary departure is agreed—that is, after the Bill has come into force—it does not therefore amount to the deprivation of an existing possession.”
“Can the Minister explain what the special circumstances are that justify such a provision in this case? Secondly, I should like to focus on the possibility of a further legal challenge to the provisions of the Bill given the High Court’s decision to quash the earlier agreement. In his judgment, Mr Justice Sales took the view that compensation payments under the scheme should be taken to be accrued rights in the same way as pension entitlements. In his answers to me about the Bill’s compatibility with the European convention on human rights, the Minister for the Cabinet Office was, if I may say so, not entirely persuasive that he had addressed the legal point made by the unions and potentially to be made in a future action.”
“Clause 2 provides for early termination or an extension of the 12-month applicability of the legislation. Of course, sunset clauses are not unknown, and in many respects they are welcome provisions because they provide an opportunity to declutter the statute book. However, this Bill is unusual in providing what one might call a “sunrise” clause whereby, if desired, the legislation can be revived by an order under the affirmative resolution procedure in this House. The only similar provision was made in relation to section 13 of the Prevention of Terrorism Act 2005. I worry that the matters in this Bill are hardly in the same category, and that the ability of this House properly to control the law is being excessively compromised for nothing more than the managerial convenience of the Government.”
“In fact, all the evidence that we received from the trade union representatives conceded that we need to deal with it as a matter of urgency in the current economic climate. This short Bill is simply a reflection of the accumulated mess that successive Governments and successive decisions in the courts have got us into. If there is one thing I regret, it is that there is not more understanding from the official Opposition of the mess that they were in on this same subject and that we cannot present more of a united front, but that is the prerogative of opposition and our democratic process, and I respect that. I have two particular concerns about the Bill, and I would be grateful if the Minister could address them when he winds up. The first is technical and raises an important issue of principle.”
“The hon. Gentleman misunderstood me. The Government have made it clear that they want a negotiated settlement, and that they are not prepared to talk about the terms of that settlement in this debate. Obviously, however, what we enact here provides a legally enforceable baseline that ultimately is not negotiable—the hon. Gentleman is quite right. The point is that the Government have made it absolutely clear that they want a negotiated settlement. With five of the six unions having negotiated in good faith, I hope that the PCS will also do so, whether or not the Bill passes on to the statute book and comes into force. The need to reform the civil service compensation scheme is well understood.”
“Will my hon. Friend take this opportunity to correct the Opposition on one other point, which is that it would not in fact be possible to return to the February settlement because that has, effectively, been nullified by the courts? Even if all the unions now agreed to the February settlement, that settlement has been kyboshed by the courts, and even if they had agreed to it at the time, had there been a challenge in the courts and it had been successful—and it would have been—that would have nullified the settlement. This Bill is therefore indispensible.”
“I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for giving way, but he will be aware that the position of the Electoral Commission that he has just outlined is a dramatic reversal of that adopted by it in 2002. Is he also aware that one of the reasons it gave for changing its mind on the current occasion was: “If we oppose combination but it goes ahead anyway, we then have a major role in conducting the referendum—potentially undermining our own credibility”? It does not sound like a very strong-minded quango under these circumstances. Is it one of the quangos my right hon. Friend is thinking of chopping?”
“We have to accept that as the reality of coalition politics.”
“Obviously, not everybody in the House would agree with that. However, let us have no doubt that the Bill is the product of party politics. I believe that it is in the national interest to equalise constituencies, but I do not know whether it is in the national interest to combine that issue with a referendum on the alternative vote. One is reminded of Disraeli’s dictum that England does not love coalitions. If the general public were forced to watch this debate, they might arrive at that conclusion rather more quickly than Members on the coalition side of the House would want. The Bill is the worst advertisement for the coalition: a product of backroom party political horse-trading resulting in a measure—the alternative vote referendum—that neither coalition party supported in its manifesto.”
“I fear that many right hon. and hon. Members are finding this Bill to be a rude awakening to the realities of coalition politics. I support the Bill, albeit reluctantly, because I support the coalition. I support the coalition because at the time of the election we faced a crisis and a deficit and we urgently needed to form an Administration with a prospect of being able to tackle that deficit. However, I did not—and still do not—support changing the voting system. I am reminded that Ipsos MORI regularly polled the electorate in the run-up to the election and never more than 1% raised constitutional matters as a matter of urgency. Yet the House is to be deeply preoccupied with such matters as a result of this unsatisfactory coalition agreement. The coalition was formed, with the best of intentions, for the benefit of the nation.”
“It also warned of the dangers for broadcasters: “Distinguishing between election and referendum activities will be extremely difficult, if not impossible in some instances.” If we are to have a referendum on an unwanted voting system in this country, let us at least have a fair referendum on a fair, separate date.”
“It stated: “Referendums on fundamental issues of national importance should be considered in isolation” and that “the turnout of combined polls can have varied results. As such, the benefits do not appear so great or definitive as to automatically over-ride any potential problems”. It continued: “It is hard to avoid the conclusion that combining an election and a referendum can have a distorting effect on the conduct and outcome of both polls. Specifically, a combined poll may be perceived as being an extension of the political process as well as being for the sake of turnout. By not disengaging the referendum from the political process the Government risks jeopardising the integrity of the result”.”
“It may be a generous one, but why do we not see how the debate goes before we give licence to all the filibusterers who will fill up the time by saying nothing much at all to stop people raising salient points, which is what inevitably occurs when there is limitation on the time of debate? Let us see whether the Government will genuinely engage with those who want changes and alterations to the Bill before we agree to any kind of guillotine. Why the rush to hold the referendum on 5 May 2011? I return briefly to the Electoral Commission, not in its rather supine form that we see today but as it used to be in 2002, when it faced down Tony Blair, who wanted to have a referendum on the euro at the same time as the Scottish and Welsh elections in 2003.”
“It may be a different sort of tactical voting from what we have now, but rest assured there will be tactical voting. Finally, the alternative vote lacks the elegant simplicity of the most popular candidate winning, which is the system that is most widely used throughout the world and has served our democracy for 300 years. I think that we should stick with that. I have never before spoken in a one-day debate that has been curtailed by a statement before it in which 74 Back Benchers have applied to speak. I ask myself, why the rush to timetable the Bill through on a guillotine, for that is what it is? Although I will support Second Reading, I will not support the timetable.”
“We watch with interest. The myth of fair votes is further exposed by the fact that the alternative vote creates two classes of voter: one whose votes are counted once; and another, such as people who vote for the UK Independence party, the British National party or tiny parties, whose votes are counted again and again. As Winston Churchill argued, the alternative vote would mean that elections were decided by “the most worthless votes for the most worthless candidates”. For that reason, it is not a very good system. Nor would the alternative vote abolish safe seats. I keep hearing that myth, but in Australia something like 43% of seats are considered safe. In 2005, some 371 seats were won by more than a 15 percentage point margin, and they are likely to remain safe. AV does not get rid of safe seats; it institutionalises tactical voting.”
“I do agree, but I think the hon. Gentleman is a new Member, and it is a feature of politics that Governments frequently push through things that people do not like—he will get used to it. The point is that the alternative vote is an orphan voting system. The Labour party is split over it, the Conservative party wants to keep the current voting system and the Liberal Democrats really want the single transferable vote. Let us remind ourselves that AV is no more proportional than the current system. Indeed, it was rejected by the Jenkins commission in 1998 precisely because “it might increase rather than reduce disproportionality”. It does not mean fair votes. I hear Take Back Parliament, Unlock Democracy and all those pressure groups talking about fair votes, but they are wondering whether AV is the bandwagon that they should jump on.”
“I hesitate to correct my hon. Friend, but the Australians use a variant of the alternative vote, not the system proposed. They call it preferential voting, and it requires people compulsorily to number all the candidates on the ballot paper. I am afraid that only Papua New Guinea and Fiji use the alternative vote.”
“If my hon. Friend will allow me, let me say, with the greatest respect to the Liberal party, that members of the Liberal party and Liberal MPs are not the people. I believe that my hon. Friend is referring to the people of this country as being those who were excluded from the coalition deal.”
“May I ask my right hon. Friend for a debate, for which legislation clearly provides, but that he seems not to wish to have on the Floor of the House, namely on motion 16 on the Order Paper about the new members of the Electoral Commission? Motion 8 on delegated legislation in his name seems determined to remove the subject from the Floor of the House of Commons, where it was originally intended to be debated. May I invite him to reconsider so that we can have a debate about the new Electoral Commissioners?”
“I commend the Prime Minister for his excellent statement, which I am sure will be greeted with some relief by the intelligence services, not least because he is standing by the control principle, which it is so important to restore—that is, the principle that intelligence lent to us by our allies should not be passed on, leaked or released through the courts, as has been happening, thereby damaging our intelligence relationships. Will he give an assurance that if it becomes necessary to amend the operation of the Human Rights Act 1998, he will not flinch from doing so in order to protect our relationships with our allies?”
“That is not the suggestion being made. We all know that voting reform—changing the voting system—is a big deal in here but of very scant interest to the vast majority of our voters. What is the justification for artificially inflating turnout by coinciding the referendum with other elections, when the right hon. Gentleman has yet to receive any formal advice on that topic from the Electoral Commission?”
“Will my right hon. Friend give an undertaking that there will be no move to hold a referendum on voting reform on the same day as any other elections, after the ruling given by the House of Lords Select Committee on the Constitution, which said: “we recommend there should be a presumption against holding referendums on the same day as elections”?”
“I have set out my own basis for the review in the form of a memorandum which the Prime Minister might well have sent to the Cabinet Secretary in his first week of office—a memorandum which the Royal United Services Institute very kindly published on its website today. The defence review is about what sort of nation we wish to be in, say, 2020, and it must also explain how we get there. Are we to become just another medium-sized European country, like Spain or Italy, or must we recognise that our historical and geographic inheritance has presented us with a unique global role that we should be prepared to shoulder?”
“Bernard Gray, the author of the excellent MOD report on procurement last year, said that, if the MOD budget is frozen, the Department will be unable to order any new equipment for the next 10 years. If defence is to come out stronger, as the Secretary of State said it must, following the review, it is very difficult to see how spending can be cut—a point implicitly accepted by the protection of defence spending in the current year. The Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary have both stated that they have no wish to oversee the decline of the UK as a world power. The task facing the Secretary of State is to ensure that his “policy-led, resource-informed” cross-Government review does not lead to the UK stumbling toward decline as a result.”
“Strike aircraft and cruise missiles help deter aggression by rogue states that threaten to destabilise their regions. How else would we defend the Falkland Islands today? The ability to deploy ground troops at a distance acts as a deterrence and also hugely increases our influence with our key allies, especially the United States. Astute submarines can deter almost any other navy from putting to sea against us. Flexible, deployable capability gives us broader deterrence effect, and that indefinable and indispensable quality, influence. Such capabilities take decades to create and will take decades to re-create if we give them up now in the face of a one-off fiscal crisis. But what can we afford? Even if spending is maintained, there will have to be substantial cuts in personnel and equipment.”
“She argues that by having three Trident submarines instead of four, we would not only save, as she terms it, “several billion pounds a year”, which is questionable, but could maintain a “smaller but still effective deterrent” if we “keep Trident submarines in port, with at least one on alert status able to sail in a developing crisis situation.” The suggestion is that the UK should be forced to deploy our nuclear deterrent in the face of the world’s media in the midst of a full-blown international crisis. To plan for such a public escalation is strategically illiterate. But Trident is simply one part of our deterrence. We need the new smaller surface warships to deter drug smuggling and piracy. We need more drones to protect ground forces on operations.”
“Does anyone expect this to be a cheaper option than piggybacking on American technology? Secondly, the development of an alternative weapons system would also put us in breach of the non-proliferation treaty. What would the international community say about that? Thirdly, Trident is the most effective system. It is safe from first strike, unlike land-based missiles. It is supersonic, unlike cruise missiles, which would be vulnerable to interception, and crucially, it is the least detectable. I draw the attention of the House to something that Baroness Williams wrote in The Guardian this morning, which she clearly fails to understand.”
“As the Secretary of State told the Royal United Services Institute last week, defence is as much about deterrence as the actual use of force—and we heard that again today. The strategic defence and security review must be preoccupied not just with the capabilities we deploy during this period of “hot peace”, as opposed to cold war, but with maintaining those capabilities that we hope never to use in anger. I have no fear of further scrutiny of the Trident deterrent programme, first because Trident is the cheapest option available. Its costs are vastly overstated by its opponents, amounting only to 0.5% of the defence budget over its lifetime. No one knows how expensive the alternatives would be, but they would demand the creation of a whole new weapons systems without the input of allies.”
“It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Bolton North East (Mr Crausby), with whom I served on the Select Committee on Defence in the last Parliament. I always knew that he had a great speech in him that would defend the strains in the Ministry of Defence. We certainly heard it today, and I congratulate him on it. We all accept that in this Parliament debt reduction must be the coalition’s main effort, but in this dangerous world, the UK needs to be able to protect itself from the threats it may face, now and into the future. The possession of a flexible, deployable military capability remains an indispensible component of any cost-effective defence and security strategy.”
“That would be outstanding value for money for this country and for the world, and would help to create a safer, more secure, and therefore more prosperous world for the next generation.”
“The Conservatives in 1979 inherited an economic and fiscal mess almost as bad as the one that we now face, yet between 1979 and 1985 defence spending increased by 30% in real terms or by almost 0.9% of GDP. The national interest was put first, and it should be put first now. Defence spending in 2009-10 was £35.3 billion, historically very low as a percentage of GDP. Other programmes, such as social security, are several times larger. While spending will have to be restrained in the long term, with a modest phased spending increase, savings of perhaps £3 billion in procurement and overheads, and a moratorium on discretionary operations, we could maintain a broad spectrum of capabilities and retain the UK’s global role.”
“Which other nation or nations would gain from our retreat? Would they promote freedom and democracy, or their own agenda, not ours? The world is getting more dangerous and more fluid. We are in an age much more akin to the 19th century than the relative stability of the cold war stand-off. In today’s world overpopulation, competition for food and resources, the risk of environmental catastrophe, mass migration, accelerating technological change, nuclear proliferation, nationalism and extremism are all on the rise, and that is quite a list, aggravated further by the global recession. Is this the moment for us to substitute soft power for hard power? Too often, advocates of soft power are those who have decided that they can take a free ride on the hard power of others.”