Business of the House

Bernard Jenkin Excerpts

Tuesday 14th July 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I emphasise that this is a supplementary business statement. Forgive me if new Members are not familiar with the concept, but the notion of a supplementary business statement is that the Leader of the House will come to announce what is usually quite a modest variation in business, at least in terms of the number of items subject to change. Questioning is therefore on the relatively narrow changes plural, or change singular. It is not a general business statement; it is on the matter of the change announced, and possibly on what might be called any consequentials.

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

May I observe for my right hon. Friend that the Scottish National party has only one objective in this House, which is to foment the break-up of the United Kingdom? Unless all Unionist parties in this House work together to frustrate that aim, instead of continuing the usual games we play in this House, we will help them to achieve that objective.

[Chris Grayling]

I am surprised that the Scottish nationalists have chosen to move away from what they have done for many years, which is to abstain on matters that do not affect Scotland. They have clearly taken a decision to change policy. It is up to other Unionist parties to decide whether they will help them in that approach.

English Votes on English Laws

Bernard Jenkin Excerpts

Tuesday 7th July 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mr Dominic Grieve (Beaconsfield) (Con)]

I congratulate the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael) on securing this debate, which was badly needed. I do not want to rehearse all the issues that have been raised about how we got ourselves to this position, but it seems to me that it was inherent in the devolution settlement of 1998 that the questions we are now discussing would have to be addressed. The truth is that we have ducked them consistently and for a long period. Indeed, we have done more than that and have created over time legislation that is often incoherent and difficult to understand, particularly in the Welsh context of devolution, and legislation that did not meet the needs.

The problem we now have is that there is a ghost in the room as well. We will have to move towards using Standing Orders because we do not wish to have a measure carried out in this Chamber through the ordinary legislative process, which is justiciable. That raises the whole question of whether we are moving inevitably towards a written constitution. The House has consistently set itself against that, but we are asking our unwritten constitution to stretch more and more to respond to complexities for which it was never designed. I do not believe that it will in the long term be able to cope. However, that is the reality of our position and it requires a sea change in opinion in this House if we are ever to get ourselves through it. It also requires good will. Forgive my having to say this again to SNP members, but one of the problems with these debates is that the question of their good will towards the United Kingdom in general is rather in doubt and for that reason, achieving a sensible dialogue is made much more difficult.

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

What does my right hon. and learned Friend think cannot be achieved by an Act of Parliament that can only be achieved by a written constitution in this regard?

[Mr Grieve]

My hon. Friend will forgive me, but I am not sure that I entirely follow his point. My point was that in terms of the process of this House, an Act of Parliament will be justiciable, which is why it is not the route that my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House wishes to take.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Jenkin]

So will a written constitution.

[Mr Grieve]

A written constitution will be justiciable as well, but at least it will be justiciable within a framework that is settled and established. However, that requires the sea change for which I accept there is no majority in this House at present.

Select Committees

Bernard Jenkin Excerpts

Wednesday 3rd June 2015 Commons Chamber

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

I rise briefly to pay tribute to the hon. Member for Nottingham North (Mr Allen) who chaired the Political and Constitutional Reform Committee. I have to declare an interest: I hope to resume the chairmanship of the Public Administration Committee, which will now be the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee. His speech lays down a very serious challenge for that Committee in carrying on the kind of work that he did so ably as the Chairman of his Committee.

I take the hon. Gentleman’s points about workload very seriously. I fear that all Select Committees suffer from the characteristic that, whatever Committee it is, it will unavoidably find extremely important matters to fill its time and which are beyond the capacity of the members and the staff to deliver. We will have to be very disciplined in the Committee, if I am fortunate to be elected as its Chair, to pick and choose the subjects of most importance. The future of the United Kingdom is possibly the most important issue facing that Committee. I will very much welcome a representative of the Scottish National party on the Committee to participate in those discussions. We should take the opportunity to ensure that there is calm and rational discussion about these matters. However, I do not want to stray out of order, Madam Deputy Speaker, by talking about what a future Committee might do.

I simply wanted to speak about the end of the Political and Constitutional Reform Committee. The hon. Member for Nottingham North well knows that it was only created as a special measure to shadow the work of the then Deputy Prime Minister in the coalition Government. It was not cemented into the Standing Orders as a permanent feature. Even if it had been, it would have been just as vulnerable to repeal by a motion such as that on the changes to Standing Order No. 146.

I am pleased that something my Committee recommended—an equalities Committee—is coming into being. In our final report of the last Parliament, we foresaw the possibility that if the temporary measure of the Political and Constitutional Reform Committee ceased, the Public Administration Committee would take back the constitutional responsibilities. I welcome that being expressed in the title of the Committee in the Government’s motion.

Far be it from me to be over-enthusiastic in case I am seen as trying to carve out a greater role for myself, but I wanted to put on the record just how much respect the hon. Member for Nottingham North has earned across the entire House for his extraordinary seriousness and commitment to the subject matter. I hope very much that he will continue to contribute to this House in whatever capacity he can, perhaps even on the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee, although I know how irksome that thought might be to him.

House of Commons Governance

Bernard Jenkin Excerpts

Thursday 22nd January 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mr Straw]

With luck, this report will not be particularly uncomfortable to anybody, but it will involve major change—above all, for traditionalists, if there are such, in this House.

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

As a traditionalist, perhaps, neither do I want to see business as usual.

The right hon. Gentleman’s findings are a great opportunity for a big change in the culture—by which we mean the attitudes and behaviour—of people throughout the organisation so that, in cases such as that of the gym, there is somebody who is clearly accountable for such decisions and wants to take responsibility for making them. The lack of trust that the current structure has generated needs to change, and I think he has come up with the right solution. Some structures can be set up in such a way as to generate mistrust, but he has chosen a structure—not entirely one of my choosing, I accept—that will create the opportunity to generate real trust and accountability throughout the organisation.

[Mr Straw]

I am very grateful to the hon. Gentleman, not least because, as I acknowledged in my opening remarks, he co-sponsored the resolution that led to the establishment of the Committee. Those who have had to put up with it can smile about what has been going on in the bowels of the old Canon Row police station, but I very much hope that the Commission might examine, as a case study, what went wrong there. In my judgment—this is not to criticise the good faith of the officials involved—we have a decision-making structure at an official level where somebody gets something agreed, then they have another thought, and there is no proper structure above that for saying, “Should we be doing this? Why didn’t you think of that in advance?” It is ironic that the people making these decisions in Parliament are less accountable—certainly to Members and, I think, to senior officials—than they would be in an ordinary corporate organisation. That has to change because, apart from anything else, it is wasting a lot of money.

[Mr Jenkin]

The other tension that exists in the current organisation is that, with the best will in the world, the Management Board is trying to think strategically in the long term and there has not always been synergy between its strategic long-term thoughts and the Commission’s strategic long-term thoughts. Merging the two organisations will generate that synergy.

[Mr Straw]

I hope that is the case. Putting the non-executive members on to the Commission, with all their outside experience, should ensure that the input into a longer-term strategy is where it should be, which is ultimately with the Commission.

I want to conclude—

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Hague]

That is a very fair point. When the Commission meets next week, subject to the motion being approved by the House today, it will be able to consider such things and, indeed, to bear in mind the urgency stressed by the right hon. Gentleman and other Members.

We have already invited the two existing external members of the Management Board to attend Commission meetings as a first step. Indeed, they attended the Commission’s meeting on Monday, so that recommendation has already been provisionally implemented, as announced by the Commission in a written statement to the House yesterday. My right hon. Friend the Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (John Thurso), who speaks for the Commission, may wish to elaborate on that. It was the first in a series of periodic updates on process that the Commission has undertaken to make, which in itself was in direct response to one of the Committee’s recommendations.

I have already indicated to the House on an earlier occasion that the Government are working hard to find a way to make the minor legislative changes that are needed to alter the membership of the Commission in the way recommended by the Committee, and to do so quickly. I will make further announcements about that as soon as I can. We will also provide the necessary time requested by the right hon. Member for Blackburn for the House to consider before the Dissolution of Parliament the minor changes to Standing Orders that implementation will require.

[Mr Jenkin]

Given the delays that tend to affect legislation, is there any impediment to the Management Board and the existing Commission working together as one body on a pro tem basis until legislation formalises the arrangement, even though any formal Commission decisions would have to be taken by the Commission as currently constituted?

[Mr Hague]

No, I do not believe there is any legislative impediment to that. Indeed, I have already mentioned how the two non-executive members of the Management Board have started attending the meetings of the Commission. That work is already going on, but legislation will be essential in order to alter the membership of the Commission. Given that we all envisage that the Commission in the new Parliament will be appointed and elected in a different way from before, there is a very good case for that legislation to be dealt with speedily. I will return to the House on that matter in the not-too-distant future.

Finally, we can acknowledge that the House faced a significant problem and disagreement on these matters, and that the Committee, chaired so ably by the right hon. Member for Blackburn, has not only found the right solution but set out a governance structure for the House that I believe will provide Members and the public alike with the levels of confidence, capability and accountability that are so vital to the long-term health of the House of Commons.

--- Later in debate ---

[Ms Eagle]

I strongly agree with the hon. Gentleman. I hope that anyone who wishes to apply for the post will read the Committee’s report, as well as all the fascinating evidence people gave in such a short time, so that they are well aware of the nature of the job and the authority that we intend should go with it.

[Mr Jenkin]

I agree with everything that has been said, but what is so vital in the arrangement is that there should be complete trust and understanding between the Clerk of the House and the director general. The sequencing of the appointments, which my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House mentioned, is therefore very important. The Clerk must feel that he or she has had a say over the director general’s job description and how the job is advertised, otherwise the arrangement will not work. We will be setting it up to fail if anybody feels that premature decisions have been foisted on them. That must be borne in mind.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Oliver Heald (North East Hertfordshire) (Con)]

The hon. Member for Wallasey (Ms Eagle) talked of the pace of change over the years. She and I used to sit on the Select Committee on Employment in the early 1990s, when Committees were not supported to the extent they are now. As has been observed by others, there has been massive change over that period. This report has presented an opportunity to look at our arrangements, many years since Members last looked at them, and to see how we can better fit them to the current day.

I pay tribute to the work of our Chairman, the right hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr Straw). The Committee sat a great deal. We sat three times a week and took evidence from many witnesses. I am grateful to him. It was a privilege to serve under him. We saw some excellent chairmanship skills, which is not surprising after his many years here and all the important posts he has held over the years.

It was a particularly good idea for the Committee to meet 60 staff members in break-out groups to hear their views on the governance of the House. That might be a good model for the House of Commons Commission to follow occasionally. The staff were genuinely excited and pleased to be asked their views.

I am proud of the work of the Committee. I pay tribute to my colleagues and the staff who helped us. It was a major undertaking and the report was delivered early. I am glad that the Commission has pledged to implement the proposals if the House supports them today.

The right hon. Member for Neath (Mr Hain), with whom I served on the Modernisation Committee when I was shadow Leader of the House, asked whether this is a major change. One only has to look at the organograms in annexes E and F to see that it is. The wonderful current arrangements are shown in annex F, which is like a piece of modern art, it is so complex. What is being proposed is a much simpler, more straightforward and more modern system.

I do not want to dwell on the reasons the Governance Committee was set up. It was clear from the evidence that we heard that it was time for Members to look at this issue. I believe that the Committee did a thorough and good job.

One focus for the Committee was to consider the role of Clerk of the House and chief executive. We heard important evidence from Members and a large number of other witnesses. Lord Browne, who at the time was the Government’s lead non-executive, was a particularly telling witness. He explained that, in designing who should be at the top of the pyramid of officers in a company, it was important to look at who had detailed knowledge of the core business. Although we are not a company—we are a very unusual body indeed—I felt that he had a point. He felt that the same principle should apply here, and I rather agreed.

We also heard from Lord Judge, the previous Lord Chief Justice, that if he was talking about privilege he would expect to talk to the person who was in charge and was expert in the matter. Many others, including the former leader of the Liberal Democrats, the right hon. and learned Member for North East Fife (Sir Menzies Campbell), also gave good evidence on that point.

One thing that became clear during our deliberations was that there are models in the public service of the senior official having somebody with commercial and operational skills working with him. That can be valuable in ensuring that what is decided actually gets done. We heard from John Manzoni, chief executive of the civil service, and Michael Whitehouse, chief operating officer for the Comptroller and Auditor General at the National Audit Office. Lord Browne told us that if there are to be two roles, it is vital to have clarity and proper job specifications, and we have set out in the report the specifications for the two roles we decided on. He said:

“Governance must start with clarity, which is difficult to achieve, and with a clear understanding of accountability, which includes decision rights. Who gets to decide what and to whom do you report when you have done it?”

The chief executive of the civil service, who reports to the Cabinet Secretary, and the chief operating officer of the NAO, who reports to the Comptroller and Auditor General, had found that it was possible to have a senior official working closely with the person in charge in a role that was described in different ways—chief executive or chief operating officer. They found that it depended crucially on having the right people in position, having clarity and the two people having an ability to co-operate. We have set out a process whereby the Clerk would be appointed first and then the director general, which is important to ensure that we have people who can work closely together.

[Mr Jenkin]

From hearing this debate, I am increasingly persuaded that part of the accountability that we need is the autonomy and clear visibility of the director general. Even now, the director general of facilities wears a badge telling us his name and title, and he feels more accountable because people stop him and talk to him as he walks around the Palace. That shows how important the visibility and demonstrable autonomy of the director general will be under the new arrangement, which is something we have all learned from this process.

[Sir Oliver Heald]

I very much agree. We use the words “overall responsibility” several times in the job specification for the director general, to show that autonomy.

I support the conclusion that the Clerk should remain the senior official of the House of Commons, with the authority that that involves, but that a director general should bring the skills we have just discussed to that important role. It is also right that the director general should have the freedom to initiate in certain areas, that he should be on the House of Commons Commission and that his role should be clearly defined.

During the course of our evidence taking, it became clear that the arrangements for the Commission and the Management Board were not working as well as they should, partly because of the structure, which I have already mentioned and which is obvious from the annexes to which I have referred, but also partly because of culture. We proposed a model that would expand the Commission and involve every important player in this place, and we clarified an enhanced role for Back-Bench Members of the Commission. As the motion states, it is important that there is party balance on the Commission, and it is also important that there are non-executive directors to strengthen it and ensure that there is proper business experience at the top level.

The effect of the changes will be that the Management Board will be abolished and replaced with an executive committee. That is more common in public companies and other parts of the public sector. It will be a streamlined body, working on a House service basis, committed to delivering the Commission’s decisions. Some suggest that the Clerk should chair that body, but we decided that, overall, it should be the place where the director general ensures that the Commission’s decisions are put into effect. The Clerk should of course be a member, but the lead role of implementation should be with the director general.

The report is more extensive than we first expected, and I believe that it provides a good way forward for the future. I hope that the Government will commit the time necessary to put the new system in place so that it takes effect immediately after the general election, and I was grateful to the Leader of the House for his points on that, which seemed encouraging.

As somebody who has practised as an employment lawyer and advised the recruitment industry in the past, I was a bit surprised by the recruitment procedure followed last summer. The procedure from 2011, which was supervised by Susan Craig of the human resources department here, was a good step forward on what had happened previously. Although it was intended that a similar procedure would be followed this time, it was not. The House must have state-of-the-art recruitment procedures in place, so I welcome the report’s provisions setting out a model for future recruitment in line with current practice. That is an improvement on the 2011 procedure and fits in with the recommendations that Sir Kevin Tebbit made as long ago as 2007.

Over recent years, there has been a process of improving the way in which the House of Commons is managed, but having heard the evidence to the Governance Committee I have no doubt that there is a lot more to do. I believe that the report provides a basis for structural changes that are needed.

An important part of our recommendations relates to the culture of the House and the need for further efforts to achieve a more coherent House service that puts even more emphasis on staff development and training. Sir Kevin Tebbit told us that was important to break down the barriers between departments and functions. I am sure that is right, and our report suggests ways to foster that. I am proud of the report and its conclusions, and I hope that the House will agree that they have merit.

Business of the House

Bernard Jenkin Excerpts

Thursday 18th December 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hague]

I think that is not so much a question as an advertisement! I am sure readers in Scotland will be able to make up their own minds about what they want to read without our having to endorse it. There is always something a bit suspicious about newspapers being endorsed by politicians of any colour, and those politicians often live to regret it when the newspaper decides to change its editorial line. I caution the hon. Gentleman a little about that.

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

May I say how happy I am to be able to join all those who have commended the House of Commons Governance Committee report, and urge my right hon. Friend to bring forward the debate as quickly as possible so that the findings can be implemented? I say that not least because I was the guy who came up with the idea of this Committee; I drafted the motion that was accepted by the House; and I was even the first to invite the right hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr Straw) to take on the role of Chairman—and he has done so most ably. Moreover, the report concurs with the evidence submitted by the Public Administration Select Committee.

[Mr Speaker]

Anybody would think that the matter was about the hon. Gentleman! If he wishes us to think that, it is Christmas time, and we are pleased for him.

Devolution (Scotland Referendum)

Bernard Jenkin Excerpts

Tuesday 14th October 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hague]

All the party leaders supported that, but it is the great joy of our democracy and the House that all 650 of us can give our views on those matters. Provided I do not take too long, many of us will do so today.

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

Will my right hon. Friend give way?

[Mr Hague]

I will make a bit of progress. Otherwise we will stop on that point.

As in Scotland, the Government have been making good on our promise to deliver further devolution to Wales, with the referendum on law-making powers, setting up the Silk commission and introducing the Wales Bill. The Bill takes forward almost all the recommendations of the Silk commission’s part I report and devolves a significant combination of tax and borrowing powers to the Assembly and to Welsh Ministers. It is important that Wales, too, is at the heart of the debate on how to make the United Kingdom work for all nations.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sadiq Khan]

I have a huge amount of respect for the former Attorney-General, but I am afraid that it is inconsistent to accuse us on the one hand of failing to look at the total picture and on the other hand to suggest a Westminster stitch-up.

Clearly, part of the solution is greater devolution within England, and that has been at the centre of Labour’s policy review: reversing a century of centralisation with radical plans to devolve power and responsibility downwards.

[Mr Jenkin]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Sadiq Khan]

I will give way to the Select Committee Chair in a moment. I want to make some progress first.

My Front-Bench colleagues have already announced ambitious plans that will be implemented should Labour form the next Government. My right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds Central (Hilary Benn) has unveiled a new English deal in which the equivalent of £30 billion of spending would be transferred from Whitehall to city and county regions. My noble Friend Lord Adonis has outlined the way in which a future Labour Government will give local areas and city regions more powers over economic growth, transport and skills. There are other examples. In the context of my own brief, justice, I have announced plans to give local authorities more control over youth justice. They are closer to the issues, and the structure of incentives to cut crime and reoffending works much better on that scale.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sadiq Khan]

I give way to the Chair of the Select Committee on Public Administration.

[Mr Jenkin]

We have to understand that dealing with the English votes on English laws question is more difficult for the Labour party because it has a vested interest in the power of its Scottish MPs over English matters, but it is wrong to pretend that the delegation of powers and functions to local authorities, which are Crown bodies, is equivalent to legislative devolution to Scotland. That is what makes the English votes on English laws question altogether different from what the right hon. Gentleman has just been talking about.

--- Later in debate ---

[Michael Moore]

My right hon. and learned Friend rightly points to the history of engagement by the Labour party, the Liberal Democrats and, later on, the Conservatives. Now, we must hope that the SNP will engage in the process in the right spirit. The interventions from SNP Members this afternoon seem to being going against the spirit of welcoming the Smith commission; they seem to have prejudged it and decided that it will not work. I believe that John Swinney and Linda Fabiani will enter into the work of the commission in the right spirit to ensure that we can reach common ground; I hope that that is the correct judgment to make. It is the responsibility of all participants to create a package that will meet the ambitious aspirations of the people of Scotland, that will maximise the common ground between the political parties and those not of any party, and that will prove stable for Scotland and the UK more widely.

[Mr Jenkin]

Have we not seen SNP Members demonstrating in the House this afternoon that they are interested not in reaching solutions or long-standing agreements but in wrecking, in spoiling and in taking slight and injury in order to destabilise whatever settlement is agreed on here among the main parties?

[Michael Moore]

I certainly think that any attempt to create grievance about the process goes against the grain of what we understand to be the SNP’s willingness to be a full participant in the process. I believe, however, that John Swinney and Linda Fabiani will enter into their work with the commission in the right spirit and that they will be determined to work with others and respect the outcome of the referendum, which made it clear that Scotland should stay in the United Kingdom.

The different parties debated and set out their proposals for what they seek from the commission, according to the different principles that Lord Smith asked for, by the end of last week. It is important that we should adopt those principles, so that we can have a Parliament with the maximum range of powers to fulfil our ambitions for it. Those ambitions include an ability for the Scottish Parliament to raise more than half the money that it spends, while retaining at UK level sufficient fiscal capability and responsibility to allow the UK Parliament, and all the MPs who are part of it, to perform the functions that are best secured across the whole UK, including defence, the provision of a unified international presence, fiscal transfers and solidarity, social protection and equity, and the macro-economic foundations of our economy.

It is important that we entrench the Scottish Parliament to make it clear that there is no danger of its ever being taken away, which would be a political disaster. Now is a good moment to entrench it in the United Kingdom constitution. We must ensure that we maintain what is valuable about the United Kingdom, what people have argued and fought passionately for over the past three years, including the single market for businesses and a single welfare system whose core elements are available across the whole UK.

There is another dimension to this, which has formed part of the debate in England and in Scotland. Although it is not part of his official remit, I hope that Lord Smith will look hard at the issue of local devolution in Scotland, because the cries for decentralisation within Scotland are every bit as strong there as they are here.

--- Later in debate ---

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

I fully concur with the hon. Member for Sunderland Central (Julie Elliott) that since the referendum in the north-east of England, the issues facing that region have not been pursued with the urgency that she demands. She was the agent for the yes campaign in that referendum and I was the Conservative shadow Minister who set up North East Says No. I am sure she accepts that there really was no appetite for that extra layer of government. However, both our parties pay lip service to decentralising the necessary powers and functions to the existing tiers of local government, but both have failed to do so. Such decentralisation would somewhat reduce the sense of isolation from the Westminster system that many parts of England—and Scotland—feel. If we do not learn that lesson from the Scottish referendum, we are really missing the point. I hope that we will build on the consensus.

[John Stevenson (Carlisle) (Con)]

I agree wholeheartedly with what my hon. Friend is saying about devolution within England. Does he agree that this is relevant to places like Cumbria and the north-east, which border Scotland, given that Scotland will be given greater powers? Those areas would like to have greater powers granted to them as well.

[Mr Jenkin]

I totally agree with that. I will come back to the question of English votes for English laws later.

I was overcome with relief at the outcome of the Scottish referendum. Both my parents were born in Edinburgh and half my family lives there—I say directly to the Scottish people: you are my kith and kin—and it would have broken my heart if we had found ourselves in separate sovereign states. I am heartily glad that Scotland voted no. However, it was a much closer vote than the Prime Minister intended when he first suggested that the referendum should take place, and we need to learn lessons from that. Given the nature of this debate, I wonder whether we are learning any lessons.

This scrappy, partisan debate is exactly the kind of thing that reflects badly on Westminster politics throughout the United Kingdom, and that was cleverly exploited by the yes campaign in Scotland. We should concede that to the Scottish National party representatives here today. We should also concede to them that the vow, however well intentioned it might have been, is in fact a bit of a muddle. It is indecipherable, and I do not think it made any difference to the result. It was ham-fisted. However, I congratulate the right hon. Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath (Mr Brown) and my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister on the passion that they brought to the debate.

[Pete Wishart]

This is a matter that we are trying to determine today. Does the hon. Gentleman think that the right hon. Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath (Mr Brown) was duped about the vow?

[Mr Jenkin]

No, I think it was a panic reaction to a late poll. It was something that they were desperate to do. I believe that the very fact that it was a close poll was enough to turn people away from voting yes, because they suddenly realised that their vote might make a difference. Most pollsters would agree that that was the effect of the very close poll.

The vow stated:

“We agree that the UK exists to ensure opportunity and security for all by sharing our resources equitably across all four nations”.

That is fine; I think we would all agree with that. Then, however, it goes on to reaffirm the Barnett formula. There are two things about the Barnett formula, the first of which is that if Scotland is to raise more of its own resources, the formula will become a much less significant component of the allocation of resources. Secondly, the formula actually represents the opposite of

“sharing our resources equitably across all four nations”.

It cements in place an artificial bias in favour of funding in Scotland, which is no doubt why Scottish politicians campaign so vociferously in favour of it.

[David Mowat (Warrington South) (Con)]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[Mr Jenkin]

I have given way twice already; I do apologise.

The House of Lords produced a very good report in 2009 which concluded

“that the Barnett formula should no longer be used to determine annual increases in the block grant for the United Kingdom’s devolved administrations.”

It stated:

“A new system which allocates resources to the devolved administrations based on an explicit assessment of their relative needs should be introduced.”

The question is: how are we going to get from A to B? Lord Strathclyde has recommended a convocation in which the four component parts of the Union should be represented on equal terms in a single body. The question of the fair allocation of resources among the four parts of the United Kingdom deserves to be discussed in such an impartial forum. This cannot be imposed by the Treasury. It cannot be imposed by a system that we have inherited from a period when there was no devolution and no devolved tax-raising powers at all, so we need a new system. If we are going to learn from this referendum, it would be much more honest if we all agreed that, over time, we will need to move on from the Barnett formula.

Let us deal with the question of what the promises mean. If we ever want evidence of the chaos in the no campaign, we need only see that, even after the referendum, we still have three separate proposals in this Command Paper for what is to be devolved, and an unseemly scrap between the Westminster parties over what should be devolved. I have no doubt that agreement will be reached, and I commend the SNP for being determined to bring its good will to the party in order to get an agreement, because that has to be our objective. However, as part of that agreement, there is now huge awareness across the United Kingdom of English votes on English laws.

Select Committee on Governance of the House

Bernard Jenkin Excerpts

Wednesday 10th September 2014 Commons Chamber

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

I am the Chairman of the Public Administration Committee and as I listened to the right hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside and Hillsborough (Mr Blunkett), I thought about how this debate is a microcosm of the debate that is going on in Whitehall about how to get Whitehall machinery to operate in a much more open, accountable and transparent way. I use the word “accountable” because I think a lot of this debate has arisen because there is a sense, particularly among younger and, dare I say it, more impatient Members—like myself, of course—that there is an opacity, a sort of Victorian mystery about the way in which this place works.

This whole episode has been painful for the House of Commons. I commend those on both sides of the House who have spoken, but particularly the shadow Leader of the House, the hon. Member for Wallasey (Ms Eagle), who made a dignified and conciliatory speech. We need to avoid dwelling on what has gone wrong; we can learn from that, but we need to move forward.

I spent much of my summer worrying that this issue would divide the House and, because of the controversy, almost poison the office of the Speaker. The purpose of my asking for the motion to be drafted in the manner that it has been drafted, and of suggesting that the right hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr Straw) chair the Committee, and of gingerly tip-toeing around the various—increasingly angry—people on all sides of the debate was to try to find a method of resolving the issue in a manner that will not result in a terrible and divisive row about a particular individual. I join the right hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside and Hillsborough in sympathising with the individual who has been exposed in this episode.

My role as Chairman of the Public Administration Committee was to suggest that the ultimate modernisation of the process of appointment of the Clerk would be to make it subject to a pre-appointment hearing. Constitutionally, that matter rests within my Committee’s remit. We will keep that on the table for whichever candidate emerges as the final candidate, because whoever it is should be subject to a pre-appointment hearing. The right hon. Member for Barking (Margaret Hodge), the Chair of the Public Accounts Committee, does the same for the appointment of the Comptroller and Auditor General, who is an Officer of the House. My Committee does the same for the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman, who is also an Officer of the House. The idea that Officers of the House should not be subject to pre-appointment hearings seems to me anachronistic and old-fashioned.

The remit of the new Committee is not about going back over the past, but looking to the future. It is about throwing light on the dim recesses of how this place operates. I say to hon. Members in all parts of the House that change is coming to this place whether we like it or not and—perhaps speaking to Government Members—if we want things to remain the same, things are going to have to change, but this is not about throwing babies out with the bathwater. If there is to be a chief executive, the role must be properly thought about, properly defined and properly embedded within the structures and accountability of the House, and within what the House is for, which is the scrutiny of legislation and the holding to account of the Executive.

We want more involvement for Members, more openness and accountability, and more listening and working together, plus less tearing chunks out of each other over this particular subject, if you please, because that does the House nothing but harm. I think that the proposed Committee is the solution.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con)]

This is a crucial decision and we need to make it in a timely and sensible way.

We stand on the threshold of momentous constitutional events. We might even lose a country from our United Kingdom, or we might go into a period of fundamental constitutional change with a massive devolution of powers. We will need good professional advice and leadership to complement the crucial work of the democratically elected politicians.

The Speaker is the servant of the House. Mr Speaker has shown, by the way he has said that there has to be a pause and a reconsideration, that he knows that he is the House’s servant. In turn, the House has to be fair to Mr Speaker. It is our duty tonight to set in process a way of resolving this problem in the best interests of everyone and in a good spirit, knowing that Mr Speaker also wishes the best for our House of Commons and will be guided by the House. It is our duty to come up with competent and sensible guidance for him. He undertook a process with a series of senior Members and an outside adviser in good faith and they came to a judgment. Apparently, that judgment does not suit the House. That is the House’s privilege, but we now need to find a better way of resolving the matter.

This situation has consequences not just because we need good guidance, and especially so at this time, but because if we want the best talent from around the world to apply for jobs in this place, we need to show that we are professional in handling such matters and that there is no danger of an unsuccessful candidate having their name revealed or trashed in the process. That is completely unacceptable.

I am therefore drawn to the view, which some are expressing, that we need to examine quickly but thoroughly the idea that there are two functions and that there need to be two different roles. There are many fine things about this House, but I think that we could be better at some of the things that come under the chief executive’s remit. We have many able, hard-working and talented staff and I do not wish to imply any criticism of them. However, a good chief executive would look at the way in which we handle guests. Are we happy with the queues and the way in which security is handled? We wish to be safe, but we wish to welcome people. They are our guests or our constituents. I do not think that we always get it right. We need to ensure that our catering provides what people want in a timely and sensible way. There might be opportunities to improve that. We certainly need to look again at technology and the how we communicate with those who communicate about us and with the wider world.

Those are all time-consuming tasks and I am not sure that they can be carried out by a constitutional expert living through a constitutional crisis, who needs to be up to speed with everything that happens in this Chamber and with the long history of our traditions, our law codes and our constitution, written and unwritten as it is. Somebody needs to provide that guidance.

[Mr Jenkin]

My right hon. Friend’s description of the importance of the role of Clerk of the House is absolutely right. I heard the right hon. Member for Neath (Mr Hain) say that he did not understand why the Clerk was paid on a different scale from the Speaker and a higher amount. The Clerk is paid on the same scale as a High Court judge, because he is the arbiter of the law of Parliament across the entire Commonwealth. The independence of his remuneration is part of his independence and has to be preserved.

[Mr Redwood]

I quite agree. It is a crucial role for a very senior lawyer and has to be rewarded accordingly, and at a level that means that they do not have money worries, because they need to spend all their time concentrating on the job. I am quite sure that the Clerk’s role is senior to and more crucial than that of the chief executive, but I also believe that we need to do our guests and ourselves a favour by having the best possible management. We need someone to come in and look again at our standards, our quality, the choice that we offer and the way in which we handle guests, technology, information and research, and our messages.

That is the spirit in which we should enter the debate. We should get behind our Speaker and give him the right instructions, and then we will have a better answer.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir George Young]

I am grateful to my hon. and learned Friend for refreshing the House’s memory of that particular Tebbit recommendation. If we had two co-equals, they could play Members off against each other; indeed, Members could play them off against each other too. That has to be taken on board.

[Mr Jenkin]

I do not prejudge this question, but if we went for a chief operating officer under the Clerk, the really important thing is that the chief operating officer should be directly and visibly accountable, in a way that the present officers under the Clerk are not visible and accountable.

[Sir George Young]

I think the Commission could make that happen in the terms of reference if we go down that particular route.

I agree that some of the considerable burdens on the Clerk’s shoulders should be removed. In the meantime, I think the appointment process should not be paused; I think it should be aborted. If Carol Mills, with whom I have some sympathy, wanted to show that she understands how this place works, she would withdraw her application, resolve a constitutional impasse and generate some good will among colleagues. My right hon. Friend the Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Sir Alan Beith) made a good point about there being robust interim arrangements in place.

As my right hon. Friend the Member for South Cambridgeshire (Mr Lansley) said, we have to take on board the interface with the other place, where there is a Clerk of the Parliaments, who has a unified command. How would he interface if one separated the jobs down this end?

I have two final points. I am slightly worried about the ambitious time scale for the Select Committee. Nominations for the proposed Select Committee do not close for over a month and then there are but three months to complete the task, including Christmas. The House may have other things on its mind by then. Braithwaite and Tebbit took many months, with people doing nothing else. We may need an interim report in January, if the ground is to be thoroughly covered, and a final report later.

I end by gently asking a question. What would have happened in this case had we not had the safety valve of the Backbench Business Committee, enabling the House not just to make its views known, but to pass a resolution, in a way that was not possible before—a resolution that I am happy to support?

Business of the House

Bernard Jenkin Excerpts

Thursday 12th June 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lansley]

I am grateful to the shadow Leader of the House for her response to the business statement. I echo her congratulations to the hon. Member for North East Derbyshire (Natascha Engel), whose re-election is a testament to her chairmanship of the Backbench Business Committee and to the work of the Committee as a whole. It has brought forward some important debates and given Back Benchers a greatly enhanced voice. Surveys in recent years have shown that the public now believe that the House debates issues of relevance to them on a more regular and timely basis.

I also echo the shadow Leader of the House’s good wishes to the England team. It will be a late night on Saturday, but at least it will be followed by Sunday morning. I am looking forward to the England team scoring many goals and kissing the badge, as they say. I am told that the Leader of the Opposition is being invited to do that with the trade unions in Nottingham at the moment. It seems a strange idea, but it tells us something about where the trade unions think the interests of the Labour party lie, in contrast to the coalition, which knows that it serves in the national interest.

The hon. Lady asked about a statement on Monday. I have announced that the Foreign Secretary will be in the House on that day to make a statement, and we will of course take opportunities to update the House on the very concerning situation in Iraq. The threat presented by the so-called Islamic State for Iraq and the Levant is alarming for the whole international community. The Iraqi authorities in the federal Government and in the Kurdistan Regional Government need to co-ordinate and work together to put forward a political response and a security response to the situation. We are aware of large numbers of Iraqis being displaced from Mosul and the surrounding areas. The Department for International Development is monitoring that situation closely, and rapidly assessing the humanitarian need that will arise from it. I will ask my colleagues in the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and in DFID to ensure that the House can be updated whenever possible.

The hon. Lady mentioned the recall Bill. We announced the Bill in the Queen’s Speech and will introduce it in due course. We are making good progress with it. We have already introduced five Bills in this Session—three in the other place and two here—and we will introduce further Bills in due course.

The hon. Lady also asked about defence spending. I have announced a debate on defence spending, which will take place next Thursday following the recommendations of the Backbench Business Committee. It will give my colleagues an opportunity to remind Members—including Opposition Members—that we inherited a defence budget with a £38 billion black hole. We have taken action to balance the books; Army 2020 is an integral part of that. An excellent job has been done—not least by the Defence Secretary and the Chief of the General Staff—to redesign the Army so that it can meet future demands while remaining affordable. We are committed to investing £1.8 billion in the reserves, and we are now seeing the benefit of that: the trained strength of the reserve forces is rising for the first time in 18 years.

The hon. Lady asked about the situation in the Passport Office. I made it clear in response to questions last week that my colleagues would update the House on that matter this week, and they have done so in response to questions and to an Adjournment debate secured by the hon. Member for Coventry North West (Mr Robinson). The Home Secretary has also given the House a full, authoritative response on the issue and outlined a number of measures that will make a substantial difference in the weeks ahead.

The hon. Lady asked about issues that she suggested were not being covered in the Government’s reply, and she included food prices. I heard one of my DEFRA colleagues reminding the House that food prices in the year to March rose by only 0.5%, and in the past two months food prices appear to have been falling, so it is important to bear in mind the fact that on some issues relating to the cost of living people are in a better place than they might otherwise have been. That is particularly the case when they are in work, and as we saw just yesterday more than 2 million new private sector jobs have been created since the general election. If there is a gap, it is between the Labour party and reality on what is happening in our economy. Our long-term economic plan is delivering on reducing the deficit and on growth, which is 3% up on a year ago. We have 2 million more private sector jobs and 400,000 more businesses. We are delivering our long-term economic plan in the national interest while the Leader of the Opposition is off to serve the union interest.

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

I echo the call for a debate on the situation in Iraq, although it is noticeable that Her Majesty’s official Opposition did not ask for such a debate, having not provided a debate on foreign affairs during consideration of the Queen’s Speech. Does my right hon. Friend agree that we need a general debate on foreign affairs, to cover not only Iraq but the crisis in Syria and the situation in Ukraine?

[Mr Lansley]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his question and he is absolutely right: I was very surprised and disappointed that the Opposition did not choose to debate matters relating to foreign affairs and defence. Of course, the Backbench Business Committee will enable defence issues to be raised next week, but this was the second year in a row that the Opposition did not choose to debate foreign affairs. Given the circumstances in which they made that decision—the events in Ukraine and Syria, and now Iraq—it would have been helpful had they chosen to have such a debate. Anybody who examines the debate on the Queen’s Speech in the House of Lords will see that it had a full, substantial debate on foreign affairs. I believe that Members in the other place were astonished that there was no debate on foreign affairs in this House, but of course, these were matters for the Opposition.

House of Commons Business

Bernard Jenkin Excerpts

Thursday 8th May 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lansley]

As my hon. Friend will recall from his experience of these matters, we sometimes believe it necessary to introduce what are known colloquially as “knives” into the programme motion to specify when discussion on certain groups of new clauses or amendments is to be concluded. However, we discuss that with the usual channels, and we try to ensure that the House gets the opportunity to debate all significant groups of amendments. The process of deciding whether we should do that or—as we sometimes rightly allow—whether to allow the debate on the amendments to proceed naturally, as it were, is not changed by the motion.

In effect, the motion creates during its trial period an agreement across the House that amendments on Report should be tabled three rather than two days earlier. The benefit of that is that we are more likely to get the programme motion right and not find, as has happened in the past as my hon. Friend will recall, that Opposition or Back-Bench amendments are tabled on Report at quite a late stage and at a time when it is very difficult—not to put too fine a point on it—to incorporate them successfully into a programme motion that understands where the weight of the debate will be. That is what this motion is principally about. A trial period in the next Session would enable us to see whether the proposal turns out to benefit Back Benchers and whether there are any unforeseen disadvantages. I am pleased that the Procedure Committee has secured the support of the Her Majesty’s loyal Opposition for the trial period, and has committed to reviewing its operation towards the end of the next Session. If judged successful, the Government will support a permanent change.

Let me clarify that we start from a shared understanding that we use the term parliamentary privilege to describe a fundamental constitutional principle that guarantees freedom of speech in Parliament and allows us in this House to work on behalf of our constituents without the threat of interference from the courts. The motion on parliamentary privilege arises from the work of the Joint Committee on Parliamentary Privilege, which was established to consider the Government’s White Paper on that subject published in 2012. I place on record my thanks for the diligent work of the Committee on that complex issue, and I stress that, as set out in the Government’s formal response, we agree with the Committee in its central conclusion that there is no strong case for comprehensive codification. None the less, there are steps that the House can take—I stress that the operation of parliamentary privilege is a matter for the House rather than Government—to provide greater clarity.

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

I am most grateful to my right hon. Friend for his endorsement of the work of the Committee on which I served. Will he take this opportunity to make clear that we enjoy parliamentary privilege not as a privilege but as an obligation and duty? It is a freedom we hold on behalf of our constituents; it is a protection for our constituents that their elected representatives can enjoy limited immunity in respect only of what we do in this House, so that we can act in their interests without fear or favour. It does not protect us from any aspect of criminal law should we commit any ordinary criminal offence, which is how it should be.

[Mr Lansley]

I am hoping to make absolutely clear that this motion is in no sense about the law not applying equally to us as it would to any other member of the public. It is about what happens in this House and its proceedings, which require to be protected. Parliamentary privilege may have originated centuries ago, but it must always remain true. It may take a different character in terms of judicial activism, rather than Executive action, but none the less on behalf of our constituents we require what we do here to be done without fear or favour, and without risk of impeachment or prejudice from external parties. As my hon. Friend says, it is important for that privilege to be maintained for the benefit of our constituents.

The motion before the House is a means by which I hope we can provide the clarity necessary for the effective operation of parliamentary privilege. An equivalent motion was agreed by the House of Lords on 20 March this year, after a full debate. In essence, it calls for clarity in the application of any particular legislation to Parliament. The need for further clarification on that point arises because there is some legal uncertainty as to the consequences of a decision of the courts in the Graham-Campbell case of 1935, which held that the protection afforded to this House by the doctrine of parliamentary privilege was wide. The scope of parliamentary privilege has been revisited by the courts and commentators in more recent times—notably by the Supreme Court in the 2010 Chaytor case. However, the Graham-Campbell case has not been expressly overruled, which has sometimes led to uncertainty over what needs to be said in an Act intended to apply to Parliament. The boundaries of parliamentary privilege will in practice be determined by the courts on a case-by-case basis, so it is helpful to them if legislation makes clear Parliament’s intent when legislating in areas that might encroach on those boundaries. That is why this motion provides for explicit provision on that point in cases of doubt.

In practice, that will require discussions between parliamentary counsel and the authorities of the two Houses on whether relevant provisions in Bills should apply to the activities of the two Houses, and for there to be express provision in the Bill where necessary. That is a sensible and pragmatic move towards providing greater clarity on a relatively obscure but important issue. As a matter of principle, I am sure we all agree that the law of the land should apply equally to Parliament, subject where appropriate to the protections of parliamentary privilege. I hope the House will agree to the motion so as to provide for that consistency across the two Houses.

[Mr Lansley]

Yes, my hon. Friend is right. It was not an invariable practice. A moment ago I spoke about the necessity for discussions between parliamentary counsel and the authorities of the two Houses, and I hope that those discussions will enable us to meet the recommendations of the Joint Committee. That is important.

What has, in part, led to the necessity of the motion is that different Bills have taken different approaches, sometimes seeing it as necessary to disapply parliamentary privilege and in other cases seeking to make it clear in legislation that parliamentary privilege applies. Our general proposition is that it is not required to say that parliamentary privilege applies—it does apply. However, we need to make it clear where the provisions of a Bill intend to have an effect on Parliament. In particular, we need to identify and specify where they may encroach on the boundaries of parliamentary privilege, so that the courts have an unambiguous legislative provision that sets out to what extent Parliament has determined that the law, in that respect, applies to it.

[Mr Jenkin]

It is important to emphasise that parliamentary privilege rests solely on an understanding between the courts and Parliament, albeit that that rests on article 9 of the Bill of Rights. It is implicit that the Bill of Rights overrides every other Act of Parliament. All we are saying in the motion, for the avoidance of doubt, is that that is the case unless an Act of Parliament specifically says otherwise. In the absence of any provision in any Act of Parliament, article 9 applies and the courts, who do not wish to interfere in the proceedings of Parliament, will respect that.

[Mr Lansley]

Yes, I agree with my hon. Friend and he expresses that very helpfully. That is precisely what we are looking for. We do not suggest that it is not the responsibility of the courts to determine to what extent legislation applies, but that Parliament, through these legislative provisions and the discussions that will lead to them, should give the courts a clear expression of where in legislation that boundary applies, and legislation should apply, to Parliament in any particular instance. It must be in the best interests of this House, Parliament and the courts for us to be clear about what we intend to achieve in legislation. That is principally what we are trying to do.

[Mr Jenkin]

I am sorry to interrupt my right hon. Friend again. The resolution does not need to be followed by any legislation. It is implicit that article 9 applies—end of story. The only time legislation might impinge on article 9, and the only time we are saying that it could possibly impinge on article 9, is if Parliament expresses that explicitly in a subsequent Act of Parliament. However, we do not anticipate doing that, so article 9 applies.

[Mr Lansley]

I agree with my hon. Friend. The motion is not about giving rise to legislation. It is about this House sharing directly, in the same terms as the House of Lords, an expression about how we should frame legislation in future to make clear the relationship between this House, and the privilege applying to this House, and legislation, particularly in circumstances in which legislation is intended to apply to this House and its activities. I hope that my hon. Friend will be able to agree with that.

--- Later in debate ---

[Ms Eagle]

I suspect that will not do, because of the history of how parliamentary privilege has developed. The Joint Committee did think about looking at a review of previous Acts of Parliament so that we could deal with this point and concluded that it would actually cause more trouble and anomalies than it would solve.

[Mr Jenkin]

I support the hon. Lady’s response to the hon. Member for Nottingham North (Mr Allen) because he has just made the classic error of thinking that privilege refers solely to freedom of speech in Parliament, and it does not, as my hon. Friend the Member for South Swindon (Mr Buckland) said. The term “privilege” is a technical one that applies in many spheres of life; we talk about legal privilege for solicitors and the privilege of the courts, and we should not try to redefine the term, as we would be tempting the courts to start to adjudicate on the very thing we do not want to tempt them to adjudicate on. That shows the importance of her explicit endorsement of these two paragraphs of our report.

[Ms Eagle]

The hon. Gentleman is right. It is a knotty and a thorny issue. I suspect that we need a translation of the term, so that lay people who are not technically proficient in constitutional law can understand that it is a good thing rather than something that gives Members of Parliament, or others who may be giving evidence in the House, a significant advantage.

Standards

Bernard Jenkin Excerpts

Thursday 8th May 2014 Commons Chamber

[Kevin Barron]

The Standards Committee did not know that this would come up when we started looking at all-party groups. The right and proper time to discuss those matters will be during next Tuesday’s debate.

The Committee on Standards has been critical of media stings in the past, but the case under discussion was not one in which a Member was misrepresented or had made a single error. It was a sustained course of conduct, not an ill-advised response to a single “fishing” incident.

There has been some confusion over the respective roles of the Committee and the commissioner. The commissioner is a finder of fact. She investigates and presents her findings to the Committee, and sometimes those findings include advice on the interpretation of the rules. The Committee entirely agreed with the commissioner’s conclusion that Mr Mercer’s actions had inflicted significant reputational damage on the House and its Members. The commissioner does not have a role in recommending a penalty. It is for the Committee to decide on the recommended penalty, and MPs and lay members play a full part in that discussion.

In this case, the Committee took into account the gravity of the offence and the penalties given in similar cases in the past. In fact, there are very few similar cases, and in most of them the Members concerned were no longer in Parliament by the time the Committee’s investigations were over. There is very little we can do about ex-Members.

As our minutes show, the Committee seriously considered an even heavier penalty than the one on which we eventually agreed. It is disappointing when colleagues say that the Committee overturned the views of the independent Commissioner for Standards and suggest that there are fundamental disagreements between the Committee and the commissioner, because that is not the case. Clearly, no system is beyond improvement. Indeed, the Committee will itself hold an inquiry into how the House’s disciplinary process could be improved, and the commissioner will contribute to that process as fully as possible. However, public confidence is not helped when Members of Parliament attack the integrity of the system rather than try to understand the Committee’s work, or when they claim that the Committee has overturned the commissioner’s findings, without appreciating the complexities of individual cases.

I do not want to go into this in great detail, but on 8 April my hon. Friend the Member for Bassetlaw (John Mann), who sadly is not in his place, asked an urgent question and said that the Committee’s proceedings should be open

“so that people can see on what basis the Committee overturns the views of the independent Commissioner for Standards”. —[Official Report, 8 April 2014; Vol. 579, c. 124.]

There are three pages in that report that clearly explain our decision in relation to that of the commissioner. I advise Members of the House to read our Committee’s proceedings before dashing to the media to grab a few headlines.

I would have more sympathy with Members’ calls for reform to increase public trust if the proposals of the Committee on Standards and Privileges, made in December 2012, to update the code of conduct and the guide to the rules had been debated in the House. We are still waiting for that to happen.

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

I am probably interrupting the Chair of the Standards Committee to make a different point, but on public confidence, why did Mr Mercer hear about the contents of his report before it was published from journalists briefed by people who were party to the report? Is that not a breach of privilege that the right hon. Gentleman should take very seriously?

[Kevin Barron]

We are undertaking a form of inquiry into what happened and this is all I can say at the moment, but it looks as though what was in the media came out before the decision had actually been taken. We may make a further report to the House at some stage if we feel that it is necessary. However, I have no concerns about that. The integrity of the Committee stands good. We take decisions not on the basis of party politics, but on the basis of the commissioner’s memorandum, the precedents of actions we have taken in the past and what is presented to us. What happened was unhelpful, but it may have been based on pure speculation about this case. As has been said, there are other cases, one of which—in the other place—is directly related to this media sting.

Finally, if any Member has issues about a report, its coverage in the media or anything else, they can talk to me or any Committee member. We hold no party political proceedings on such matters. We are trying to get this place beyond what came to light in 2009, and it would be most helpful if all Members kept that in mind when talking about Standards Committee reports. I hope that the House will accept this report.

--- Later in debate ---

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

I should make it clear that Patrick Mercer is my friend and that I admire many of the things that he has achieved in his professional life. He was the first to admit that he had behaved badly in this matter. I condemn his behaviour and wholly endorse the report that has been produced by Parliament, painful as it is.

I raised the possible leaking of the contents of the report because it undermines the authority of the Standards Committee. I do not share the confidence of the Committee’s Chairman that it was just speculation, because there was too much certainty in what Mr Mercer was told. Although the Committee might not have concluded its proceedings, there may well have been drafts that informed the speculation, as the Chairman referred to it.

I do not envy the Chair and members of the Standards Committee. They have a very difficult task, but they have produced a good report and one that Mr Mercer accepts. Indeed, he said how ashamed he was of his own behaviour. That is testimony to the honour of the man.

We need to learn from this experience and see how we can improve our procedures to maintain their respect, impartiality and integrity. It does Parliament no good if the media feel that they can hunt down the contents of a report before it has been published—it undermines Parliament and it undermines the integrity of the proceedings of the Committee.

I have nothing further to say, except that I very much welcome the fact that there will be a new Member of Parliament in the constituency, as there should be. Mr Mercer took the right decision and the courageous one in doing what he did.