Early Parliamentary General Election

Debate between Bernard Jenkin and Kevan Jones

Wednesday 4th September 2019 Commons Chamber

[Sir Bernard Jenkin]

I am not going to give way.

The voters’ faith in the established political parties is not being improved by what is going on; it is being further undermined. The last thing I want is for the whole of British politics to be realigned around the question of Brexit, but that is what will happen the longer we carry on putting off this decision.

Like so many of my voters and so many colleagues in this House, I long to move on to the questions beyond Brexit, but that requires us to respect the decision that has been taken. It requires respect for the fact that there is a Government in office with a responsibility to conduct the negotiations as they see fit, or it requires those who do not have confidence in the Government to table a motion of no confidence to resolve that question.

That brings me back to the Fixed-term Parliaments Act 2011, from which the motion we are debating this evening arises. It has turned out to be a recipe for this paralysis, which would never have arisen but for the Fixed-term Parliaments Act.

[Mr Kevan Jones (North Durham) (Lab)]

You voted for it.

[Sir Bernard Jenkin]

I beg your pardon. The right hon. Gentleman says that accusingly, but I certainly did not vote for it. I remember walking through the No Lobby on Second Reading with remarkably few people, and I said to them, “Don’t worry. This House will rue the day that it passed this piece of legislation.” We should now be rueing the day, because that legislation has put this House in a position where it can endlessly wound a Government but avoid killing them.

If the Leader of the Opposition has so much contempt for how this Government are conducting their affairs, and this Government no longer have a majority, why does he not table a motion of no confidence? It is because there is fear in this House about facing the consequences of a general election because of how this House has conducted the whole Brexit affair for the past three years.

I asked how this will be resolved, and I can tell the House that putting it off again and again will not make the political outcome of the eventual general election any easier for a great many colleagues. The Prime Minister, in his inimitable style, is showing leadership and courage at last. He is trying to resolve this issue.

“Leave” and “remain” were the words on the ballot paper. There was no reference to deal or no deal, but the Prime Minister of the day made it quite clear that we would leave the European Union, and this House has conspired again and again to delay that happening.

People in the constituencies of Opposition Members, particularly in remain-voting constituencies, should ask themselves what mandate they have for putting off this decision again and again. It is democracy in our country that is paying the price, and it is the rise of far more extremist parties that will be the result if this House carries on putting off the decision.

EU Referendum: Voter Registration

Debate between Bernard Jenkin and Kevan Jones

Thursday 9th June 2016 Commons Chamber

[Mr Jenkin]

My hon. Friend raises a legitimate question, and we should inquire further into it. There should be a fail-safe way of ensuring that someone is who they say they are when they register their vote. At the moment, there is not. If people on the register now who are registered incorrectly are being sent ballot papers, and if it is not due to a software glitch, there is no way of picking it up.

I have urged the Electoral Commission to make more public statements, because the system now has different franchises for different purposes. Why will there not be notices in polling stations? The electoral officer is bound to offer a ballot paper to someone who is on the register, but a “Read this” notice could make it clear that people who are not eligible to vote but who knowingly do so commit a criminal offence.

[Mr Kevan Jones]

I accept the point about people filling in the application form without declaring that they are an EU citizen, but if they are an EU citizen they will be marked up as such on the register at the polling station. If they were sent a polling card inadvertently, the clerk would know that they were not entitled to vote.

[Mr Jenkin]

Not if they were misrecorded—that is the point. We need to make people aware of who is eligible to vote. It would be perfectly reasonable for the Electoral Commission and the Government to make more visible public statements to make it clear that if someone has been offered a ballot paper but is not eligible to vote— and knows it—it is an offence to vote. It is as simple as that. I am not asking polling officers to discriminate when the vote takes place; I am simply asking for more clarification and greater public awareness of who is and is not eligible to vote.

Defence Reform

Debate between Bernard Jenkin and Kevan Jones

Tuesday 26th June 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Jones]

I would talk about the developing situation in the middle east, some of the decisions made post-SDSR in taking away maritime capability, and the whole issue of the deployability of our armed forces. All those decisions were taken within a financial straitjacket, instead of addressing questions such as where we need to deploy in the world and what our priorities are. That has overridden the security needs that are so vital and that were outlined so well in the Green Paper.

As a former Ministry of Defence Minister, I know only too well that the easiest ways to make the kind of in-year savings in the defence budget that are being demanded by the Treasury are to scrap capability or to make personnel cuts. However, the Government have scrapped important capabilities—Nimrod and the Harrier fleet—without any plans as to how they will be replaced. It appears that Ministers have been inflexible in their pursuit of short-term savings at the expense of our long-term security. Too often we are given the impression that the Government are presiding over decline, rather than planning for the future. The Government must reassess the security and spending assumptions on which the review was based.

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

How would a Labour Government have dealt with the £38 billion overhang that the Conservatives inherited from the previous Labour Government? Also, is the hon. Gentleman saying he would, in fact, spend more on defence than the current Government? He should be explicit about that, but his motion is not explicit.

[Mr Jones]

I am glad the hon. Gentleman has asked about the £38 billion black hole, because it has become folklore, but the Government have not produced any evidence to justify that figure. Let me quote from an excellent Defence Committee report—which I am surprised he has not read as he is a former member of that Committee. It says:

“We note that the MOD now state the genuine size of the gap is substantially in excess of £38 billion. However, we also note the Secretary of State’s assertion that the ‘for the first time in a generation, the MOD will have brought its plans and budget broadly into balance, allowing it to plan with confidence for the delivery of the future equipment programme’. Without proper detailed figures neither statement can be verified.”

We should also consider the evidence given to the Committee by the then Secretary of State. He promised the Committee he would give details, but the final report states, at paragraph 205:

“We are surprised that this assessment has not yet begun and expect to receive a timetable for this exercise in response to this Report.”

The £38 billion figure has been bandied around ever since it was spun out of Conservative central office in the election campaign. The Government have been asked on numerous occasions to justify it, but they have not done so. They should.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Jones]

My right hon. Friend, like me, knows the MOD budget very well. Clearly, what the Government have done is to take out in-year capability. We should also remember the reductions in armed forces personnel—the people who are paying for some of this. My right hon. Friend is correct: the idea that such a big black hole can be filled in two years is complete nonsense. [Interruption.] The Under-Secretary, the right hon. Member for South Leicestershire (Mr Robathan), says that it is 10 years, but that is not the impression the Government have been giving. All their decisions, such as slashing personnel numbers, are predicated on this £38 billion black hole. Earlier last year, the previous Secretary of State stopped using that figure—for a while. Suddenly, under the new Secretary of State, it has come back. The Government have got to explain their use of it, because it is the entire raison d’être for some of the cuts they are making.

[Mr Jenkin]

I remind the hon. Gentleman, the right hon. Member for Coventry North East (Mr Ainsworth) and the hon. Member for Bridgend (Mrs Moon) that the £38 billion figure was furnished to the Defence Committee under the previous Labour Government when the hon. Gentleman was a Minister in the Ministry of Defence. At the same time, Mr Bernard Gray produced a report saying that, on present plans, the MOD could order no new equipment at all for the next 10 years, so dire was the state of its finances. It is only by bringing defence spending within the Department back into balance that any new equipment has been able to be ordered at all.

[Mr Jones]

I am sorry but that is complete nonsense. The hon. Gentleman should read the NAO report that I referred to earlier, which makes the assumption that many people have made in respect of flat cash. I will read the quote again, because he has obviously not picked up the argument:

“The size of the gap is highly sensitive to the budget growth assumptions used. If the Defence budget remained constant in real terms, and using the Department’s forecast for defence inflation of 2.7 per cent, the gap would now be £6 billion”.

There is a huge difference between £6 billion and the £38 billion figure that the Government are claiming. Even if, in line with the NAO report, we assume a flat cash budget for 10 years, we only get to a figure of £36 billion. Where the Government get the extra £2 billion from, I do not know. This issue was also dealt with in Bernard Gray’s report, and as my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgend said, the £38 billion figure is based on the principle that every single piece of equipment that was planned for would actually be delivered. However, anyone who knows the defence budget knows that that is not how things work. [Interruption.] I am sorry, but the £38 billion figure is a fiction, and this Government have got to justify it, because they are using it to justify some of their most draconian cuts, not only in equipment but to the service terms and conditions of members of our armed forces.

Parliamentary Commission for Administration and Health Service Commissioner for England

Debate between Bernard Jenkin and Kevan Jones

Monday 18th July 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Jones]

There is—and quite rightly. Because of previous Governments’ and this Government’s pegging of MPs’ pay, many people, even some quite low-level local government workers, are earning considerably more than us. In terms of the process that we are addressing however, it is important that the ombudsman is independent of, and cannot be influenced by, Government. We have a slightly different relationship with the individuals to whom the hon. Gentleman has referred.

These measures were all brought in on the basis of pay restraint. A lot has been said about trying to cut senior salaries. I have already mentioned the Auditor General’s pay, and there seems to be some inconsistency across Government about where this restraint should apply. If we are going to make exceptions, I cannot see why things were changed here, as opposed to, say, for Bernard Gray who was appointed Chief of Defence Materiel at the Ministry of Defence by this Government on a salary of £250,000 a year, plus a potential bonus of £30,000. I know that that is a very important job; it delivers equipment to our armed forces. I have no objections to Bernard, either; I know him well, and he is a very fine individual. However, if the decision was taken to break the principle of the Prime Minister’s salary being the ceiling in that case, I do not understand why the Government have intervened in that way in this other case.

The Prime Minister’s letter of 21 June reveals a lot about the attitude to pay restraint policy. I do not think he has understood the process. What we are doing here is going away from quite a well-thought-out system to one that has now brought into doubt whether not only current Ministers and Governments, but others too, could influence these areas in future.

[Mr Jenkin]

I think that the hon. Gentleman will find that when he served as a Minister, civil servants received performance-related pay and quite substantial salaries. Indeed, larger salaries were probably offered to public officials than the current Government are offering. I am therefore not quite sure what his complaint is. Does he now recognise that the Government have conceded the principle of what he is arguing in the wording of their motion, in that in future the salary will be agreed between whoever holds my office of Chair of the Select Committee on Public Administration and whoever is Prime Minister

“in advance of the recruitment process”

starting, so there will be stability in the salary at the outset of the recruitment process? I am therefore not quite sure what the hon. Gentleman is arguing with the Government about now.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Jones]

The hon. Gentleman has not won a great victory here, because he has no powers of determination now in respect of the existing salary, unless he is going to be able to go back and negotiate—be the shop steward—on behalf of the ombudsman each year to increase her salary. A mechanism would be better.

What is the difference between this instance and the cases of other individuals—such as the MOD example that has been given—in terms of the pay restraint policy that the Government are introducing? Another problem is where to start in terms of the salary band. As the motion says, the individual would get an increase, but that will be forgone at the moment.

[Mr Jenkin]

Is the hon. Gentleman seriously suggesting that we should have come back to the House of Commons, with the new ombudsman having negotiated and agreed her salary at the current level, demanding that the House of Commons vote for a higher salary than she has agreed? In these straitened times I think that the British public would have found that difficult to understand. Starting from now, we have come up with a much better solution to sort this out for the future without embroiling the new ombudsman in a silly controversy that would have distracted from the seriousness of her office.

[Mr Jones]

The hon. Gentleman cannot have it both ways. He cannot say that he is objecting to the arrangement and that he has obtained some kind of victory for the future when he has not. I am sorry to say that what was wrong was the fact that the Government intervened by imposing an arbitrary cap and then saying to the ombudsman, “Sit down and negotiate your pay.” He has obtained something for the future but it is not going to affect the starting salary or the situation now. He is asking whether it would have been wrong for his Committee to have suggested something, but it could have proposed a mechanism that would have possibly increased a larger salary. If it is okay for Bernard Gray at the MOD to be paid £250,000 a year plus bonuses, why are the Government not having consistency across the board? This is a very important job, as it involves independence from the Government and from Parliament, and it is wrong for the Government to be interfering.

Draft Financial Services Bill (Joint Committee)

Debate between Bernard Jenkin and Kevan Jones

Monday 18th July 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Jones]

I agree. To be honest, my answer to the question of the second Chamber is ultimately to vote to abolish it. I have always been a unicameralist and think that if we did the job here better we would get legislation that was not only better, but more timely and well drafted, and we would not have the theatricals that we have to go through with the other place.

The draft legislation is being put forward and I welcome that process. I sat on one of the very first Joint Committees in 2003—the Joint Committee on the draft Civil Contingencies Bill. For a new Member, that was a very good process and learning curve, because it included young and inexperienced Members of this House, such as the hon. Member for Newark (Patrick Mercer) and myself, and Members of the House of Lords, such as Lord Archer, a former Solicitor-General, and Lord Condon, who is a former Metropolitan Police Commissioner. They brought a wealth of experience to that process, which was a good one in that it could not be replicated by the usual way in which we conduct legislative scrutiny in this place. The most important thing was that out of the 130 amendments that were tabled, well over 100 were accepted. The important thing about this Committee will be whether it genuinely conducts pre-legislative scrutiny and whether the Government will really consider changing their proposals.

My hon. Friend the Member for Bassetlaw talked about the House of Lords. I feel uncomfortable not about joint legislative scrutiny with the House of Lords, which is a good process, but about having it for financial matters. That makes me a bit nervous. Not only the membership of the Committee from this House, but the selection process in the other place, which is nothing to do with us, as I well know, have not been thought through. Getting the balance right is a difficult job. The supremacy of this place in dealing with financial issues has to be maintained. I would not like, as my hon. Friend said, for this to be a chink in the armour that breaks the convention that this House, not the other place, deals with finance. Unfortunately, that point seems to have been glossed over in the way that the Government and the usual channels have put the process together. The Procedure Committee or others might want to look in detail at how such Joint Committees come into being. I would not want it to become a regular occurrence for Joint Committees, including those considering financial issues, to have Members of the other place sitting on them and determining what is taken forward.

It will be difficult to get the Bill right. It will be like finding the ark of the covenant to find a regulatory system that everyone agrees with and that protects the public from the scenes that we saw a few years ago. It is interesting that we hear the Conservatives say these days that they are now for more regulation, even though in the 1980s they deregulated the financial markets and then called for less regulation when the previous Labour Government of whom I was a member were bringing in legislation.

I am concerned about the short time scale that is being allowed for the Bill. The motion says that

“the Committee should report on the draft Bill by 1 December 2011.”

We are about to go into a long recess and the Committee will have to work through that to keep to that timetable. I wonder why that date was inserted. Getting this right is more important than any headlines the Government wish to create so that they can say they have solved the problem of the regulation of the banks. The date needs to be reconsidered and the timetable extended.

[Mr Jenkin]

If the date is so important, why did not the hon. Gentleman table his own amendment? Why does he think that the Committee that this House is about to appoint is incapable of reporting to the House if it feels that it has not completed its deliberations? Its members have a mind of their own—they do not need the supervision that he is attempting to give them.

[Mr Jones]

The hon. Gentleman is being a bit petulant—[Interruption.] Pedantic, even. I do not understand why. In my conversations with him, we have never agreed about anything, but we usually get on quite well.