Liaison Committee

Debate between Rosie Winterton and Bernard Jenkin

Monday 17th July 2023 Commons Chamber

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

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. May I, through you, apologise for not having been present from the start of these proceedings? I was not expecting this business to be debated this evening; I should have been more alert, as my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Sir Christopher Chope) has been, to the possibility that it would be.

I would not consider it appropriate to try to catch your eye to make a contribution to this debate, Madam Deputy Speaker—unless you deemed it appropriate.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

I did say that if the right hon. Gentleman wanted to make a contribution, he should have been here at the beginning. May I clarify whether he was told that he would be referred to in the debate?

[Sir Bernard Jenkin]

I do not think we need to make an issue of that, Madam Deputy Speaker.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

I was going to say that if the right hon. Gentleman had not been told, it would be perfectly reasonable for him to make a contribution. In the circumstances, I am prepared to allow him to make a one-minute contribution.

--- Later in debate ---

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

Order. I want to call the Leader of the House, so I do not want the hon. Gentleman to read out a list.

[Sir Bernard Jenkin]

I am most grateful to you, Madam Deputy Speaker, and to my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Sir Christopher Chope), who is talking about the context of the inquiry. How can we conduct the inquiry in a vacuum, without reference to what happens in other countries, what other Parliaments are doing to scrutinise long-term strategic thinking, and what other Governments are doing in response? There is a strong public interest in this, and I have held a very close interest in the subject matter, which he generously acknowledges.

This is not a threat to Select Committees. The Chairman of the Defence Committee, on which the right hon. Member for Warley (John Spellar) sits, has supported this inquiry, and I hope he will take part. We do not imagine that we will have a great number of oral evidence sessions, because Select Committee Chairs are so busy. Much of this will be conducted on a desktop basis through written evidence, rather than through oral evidence sessions.

I hope that clarifies it for the House, and I am most grateful to you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for allowing me to make a contribution under these circumstances.

Standards: Code of Conduct and Guide to the Rules

Debate between Rosie Winterton and Bernard Jenkin

Monday 12th December 2022 Commons Chamber

[Sir Bernard Jenkin]

My hon. Friend touches on a key change, which is that in the serious cases that come to the Committee on Standards, the commissioner will now present her findings, but will not present a conclusion. It will be for the Committee to adjudicate on the conclusion, and then for the subject of the inquiry to appeal that conclusion on various grounds to an Independent Expert Panel. That is a significant improvement, and it should significantly reduce the anxiety that Members felt about the system before.

There are only two other points I wish to make about the areas of contention. First, I argued very strongly for the changes to the descriptors of the seven principles of public life, because the bald descriptors of the seven principles on the Committee on Standards in Public Life website are difficult to translate into what we actually do as MPs. For example, selflessness—how do you become an MP if you are completely selfless? You have to advance your own interests. How do you have influence as an MP, unless you advance your own interests and you advance your publicity? Navigating selflessness as a Member of Parliament is a complicated business, and to anybody who says that it is easy to apply the seven principles of public life to all our activities, I say no. We are navigating a difficult landscape where we are constantly beset by conflicting values that we have to reconcile, and the idea is that these revised descriptors will help inform the conversation.

The idea that these descriptors will have a chilling effect on the free speech of Members is a nonsense, because the descriptors themselves have no force in the rules whatever. They simply are there for information and conversation and to help Members to think about how we apply the seven principles of public life. Indeed, any Member who has fallen foul of the rules who could argue in front of the commissioner, “Here are the seven principles of public life, and here are the descriptors, and I felt I was following these principles”, would certainly have a mitigation, in that they had thought about the principles they were seeking to uphold, but nevertheless had fallen foul of the rules. These descriptors are completely innocuous. They are designed to help Members, and I cannot for the life of me understand why the Government have decided to object to them. I do not understand the argument that my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House has presented.

We did not argue long and hard over the question of the declaration of ministerial interests. We would not be having this conversation if we had the situation described by my right hon. Friend, with timely, publicly accessible and regular declarations of ministerial interests on a par with the declarations that Members—non-Ministers —have to make as a matter of course in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. I wish that we were not in this situation.

I have listened carefully to what my right hon. Friend has said, and I will listen further to the debate. I hope she is saying that this will be sorted out and that, in response to my earlier intervention, we will finish up with a member of the public being able to see on one register all the interests relating to that Member of Parliament, whether a Minister or not. I quite understand the anxiety about dual adjudication of the code and of the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards. We do not want to get into a situation where—I do not think this is accurate, by the way—there is anxiety that the Parliamentary Commissioner will somehow be adjudicating on matters that are strictly for the ministerial code.

I will listen to this debate. I have added my name to the relevant amendment, but I may well conclude that if the Government need the time to sort this out, we should give them that time, and this would not be some dereliction or watering down of standards. I appreciate that the shadow Leader of the House has to make her points on behalf of the official Opposition, for perhaps not entirely selfless reasons. However, as long as we finish up with both sets of interests being declared within 30 days and the ability to have them all in one place on one website, so that any member of the public or journalist can see exactly what interests are being declared in the name of that Member, we would be in a much better place. I wish we could do that by agreement rather than by dividing the House, but I do not know that we can.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

I call the SNP spokesperson.

Committee of Privileges

Debate between Rosie Winterton and Bernard Jenkin

Thursday 16th June 2022 Commons Chamber

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

I commend the report that the Privileges Committee has published this morning dealing with the powers of Select Committees to summon persons and papers, and I am grateful to the Backbench Business Committee for this opportunity. I am making this statement on behalf of the Committee, because the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) is no longer Chair of the Committee. He was discharged from it on Tuesday because he has recused himself from the new matter referred to the Committee, concerning the conduct of my right hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip (Boris Johnson). However, the hon. Member for Rhondda was in the Chair during all proceedings on the report published today, and I pay tribute to the effective way in which he chaired the Committee, enabling us to come to a unanimous conclusion on this somewhat vexed matter.

Today’s report is the second we have issued on this subject. A year ago we published our original proposals with a draft Bill. Both reports relate to the matter referred to the Committee by the House as long ago as 27 October 2016, namely,

“the exercise and enforcement of the powers of the House in relation to select committees and contempts”.

Our earlier report set out different potential options for addressing the issue of recalcitrant witnesses. Its preferred option was legislation, and the creation of a criminal offence of refusing to obey a summons to attend a Select Committee meeting or to provide it with papers. A draft Bill was attached to the report. Following extensive consultation, including further written and oral evidence, the Committee now reaffirms its conclusion that

“if the House wishes to address the problem of recalcitrant witnesses, then legislation is the only appropriate means to do so.”

A revised version of the draft Bill is annexed to the report.

On the role of Select Committees, the report notes that

“select committees have a right to scrutinise matters of public interest beyond the main bodies of government.”

It adds

“in considering government policy, it is legitimate to look at the effects of policy failure, or to identify emerging areas which need policy oversight. For that legitimate function to be effectively performed, Parliament needs appropriate powers.”

Explaining the intention behind recommending that Parliament legislates to empower Committees, the report asserts that

“topical inquiries involving non-cooperation by witnesses will continue to occur from time to time.”

and that

“individuals who feel that they have little to lose will test the ability of the House to enforce their attendance as witnesses or their production of papers.”

The report notes that while cases are few,

“it is undoubtedly a real problem”,

which the Committee's proposed legislation “is intended to address.”

The Committee’s report concludes that, ultimately, and perhaps realistically,

“the decision before the House in relation to powers is between accepting the status quo or introducing new powers by means of legislation, accepting there will be a role for the courts. A primary benefit of legislation is that it would put Parliament’s power to sanction beyond doubt.”

The other option—that the House should reassert its historical powers to fine and imprison through Standing Orders or by resolution—is rejected outright by the Committee on the grounds that the powers have effectively become unenforceable. A new word that I learned in studying the matter is desuetude.

The report analyses the consultation responses and makes modifications to the initial proposals as well as mounting a defence of them where it feels that criticism was misplaced. It clarifies some points, such as that the draft Bill does not seek to criminalise contempts of the House as such, and that the criminal offence will be that of failing to comply with a summons to attend a Committee or to produce papers without reasonable excuse rather than giving unsatisfactory responses to questions when attending a Committee. It revises the draft Bill to substitute a maximum sentence of six months’ imprisonment in place of the original proposal of two years’ imprisonment, and to give Mr Speaker the power to issue the statutory summons. It calls on the House’s Liaison Committee, which I chair, to develop a protocol on the treatment of witnesses to ensure that all witnesses get fair treatment. I will ensure that that occurs.

Now that the Committee has published its report and recommendations, it will be for the House to consider the proposals and make any final recommendations. I am happy to take questions.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

I call the shadow Minister.

[Jessica Morden (Newport East) (Lab)]

I thank the hon. Member for his statement and congratulate the Committee and my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) on their work on this important issue. As we all know, Select Committees play an essential role in holding the Government to account, and it is right that they have the powers to function properly, so the Opposition welcome the Committee’s report and recommendations. Will the hon. Member expand on his preferred timetable for any potential legislation to be brought forward?

[Sir Bernard Jenkin]

I could give the short answer of “as soon as possible,” but, realistically speaking, I suspect that the Government will find difficulty in providing time for the draft Bill that we have annexed to our report. I very much hope that they will introduce it soon. In the interim, we can do much to improve Select Committee procedures to ensure fairness for witnesses and to include some of what is relevant in our Standing Orders. That is much easier to do and, in the absence of legislation, if we used our traditional powers, that would make them more credible as well as less likely to be challenged by the courts were we to ensure that our procedures are human rights-compliant.

My view is that Select Committees are not for jumping on private individuals in the manner of some kangaroo court and prosecuting them for wrongdoing, and I doubt that we would get consent from the courts for a statutory process if that is how we treat our witnesses. We really need to copper-bottom and copper-plate the treatment of witnesses so that they always get fair treatment and are never unfairly treated.

Select Committees are not prosecuting bodies. They are not there to find fault with individuals. They are there to improve Government policy and scrutinise Government Departments. Occasionally, they have to carry out that function by looking at independent bodies, private sector bodies or charities. However, their job is not to regulate the private sector but to oversee and scrutinise the public sector.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for the Select Committee statement.

Committee on Standards: Members’ Code of Conduct Review

Debate between Rosie Winterton and Bernard Jenkin

Thursday 3rd February 2022 Commons Chamber

[Sir Bernard Jenkin]

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Is there a means by which you could draw to the attention of the SNP spokesman, the hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart), that Mr Speaker made a statement in which he explained

“there are means by which accusations of lying may be brought before the House”?—[Official Report, 2 February 2022; Vol. 708, c. 266.]

I do not think the SNP spokesman has read that statement or understood it.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that point of order. He has rather achieved what he set out to achieve, and he has continued the debate.

Health and Social Care

Debate between Rosie Winterton and Bernard Jenkin

Friday 3rd December 2021 Commons Chamber

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

Order. I thank the Minister for his undertaking about brief answers, and I urge Members to ask brief questions as well. Otherwise we will not get everyone in, because we do need to return to the private Member’s Bills.

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

I thank my hon. Friend for his statement. Can he confirm that it is the Government’s policy to encourage the reopening of mass vaccination centres to get through the bulge of booster jabs that we need? In that regard, will he congratulate the South Suffolk & North East Essex integrated care system, which has once again secured facilities at Harwich international port, and will he thank the port for offering those facilities again? We are hoping for a mass vaccination session on 19 and 20 December, and further sessions in January. Is that not the way to take the pressure off GPs?

Northern Ireland Protocol

Debate between Rosie Winterton and Bernard Jenkin

Thursday 15th July 2021 Commons Chamber

[Sir Bernard Jenkin]

I thank my right hon. Friend for her strong speech. This has been a thoughtful and meaningful debate. I am particularly pleased that the Opposition Front Bench has given its support to the motion that has been tabled. That will strengthen the Government’s negotiating position considerably.

I will pick up one or two points. My hon. Friend the Member for North Dorset (Simon Hoare) talked about the need for flexibility, but then seemed to say that that could be achieved without any change to the protocol. That is just not realistic. The idea that the President of the Commission cannot change his mind because member states would have to agree may be a problem for the European Union, but it cannot be a problem for the paralysis of the British Government—the British Government will have to take action.

I invite all those who have almost signed up to what I call the Macron doctrine, after he said at the G7 summit that nothing was negotiable and everything was applicable—this attitude of “You’ve signed it, so you’re stuck with it,” whether or not that is good for the British people or the Northern Ireland peace process—to consider that that is a kind of blindness that we really have to drop. What we are looking for is flexibility, as my hon. Friend the Member for North Dorset, the Chair of the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee, asked for—real flexibility. The EU will not win respect around the world for adopting a head in the sand approach to this, and we will not shoehorn the whole of the United Kingdom back into the single market to resolve these problems, because that is not what the British people voted for.

I leave my right hon. Friend the Minister with this fundamental thought. She talked about working hard and in good faith, and courage and determination, but I am afraid that we are reaching the point very quickly where the Government will have to take action, and it will be a question of letting the European Union know that its failure to respond in reasonable good faith to the entreaties with which the Government have been presenting it will lead to consequences. That needs to happen soon, because the longer this situation persists, the more economic disruption is caused in Northern Ireland and the more the faith and trust in the Good Friday agreement are ebbing away. Everyone has to accept that the protocol is bad for the peace process in Northern Ireland, and it must change or be changed.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

This House supports the primary aims of the Northern Ireland Protocol of the EU Withdrawal Agreement, which are to uphold the Belfast (Good Friday) Agreement in all its dimensions and to respect the integrity of the EU and UK internal markets; recognises that new infrastructure and controls at the border between Northern Ireland and the Irish Republic must be avoided to maintain the peace in Northern Ireland and to encourage stability and trade; notes that the volume of trade between Great Britain and Northern Ireland far exceeds the trade between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland; further notes that significant provisions of the Protocol remain subject to grace periods and have not yet been applied to trade from Great Britain to Northern Ireland and that there is no evidence that this has presented any significant risk to the EU internal market; regards flexibility in the application of the Protocol as being in the mutual interests of the EU and UK, given the unique constitutional and political circumstances of Northern Ireland; regrets EU threats of legal action; notes the EU and UK have made a mutual commitment to adopt measures with a view to avoiding controls at the ports and airports of Northern Ireland to the extent possible; is conscious of the need to avoid separating the Unionist community from the rest of the UK, consistent with the Belfast (Good Friday) Agreement; and also recognises that Article 13(8) of the Protocol provides for potentially superior arrangements to those currently in place.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

I am suspending the House for a few minutes to make the necessary arrangements for the next business.

Coronavirus

Debate between Rosie Winterton and Bernard Jenkin

Thursday 25th March 2021 Commons Chamber

[Sir Bernard Jenkin]

I am perfectly prepared to accept that it is a worst-case scenario, but we are dealing with projections that are based on a great deal of speculation, and they do not take account of the possibility of new variants. I rather share the concern expressed by some Members in the debate that we need restrictions on people coming into this country, particularly from the continent, and that there should be more testing of people coming here. I am sure that the Government will want to implement those measures if they can. It is rather easier to call for them to implement them than to do so without causing a great deal of disruption.

I want to briefly touch on the continuation of our vaccination programme. One of the risks that we need to factor in is that the rate of vaccination will slow, and particularly the rate of first doses, because the vaccination programme now has to cope with the large quantity of second doses. The restrictions on vaccine supply mean that the number of first doses will perhaps reduce to as little as 50,000 a week in April. That does not rule out that we should adopt a generous attitude towards our European friends, however much they may be casting around for blame and trying to salvage their reputation from the failure of their own vaccination programmes. We can draw comfort from the fact that they are resorting to possible bans and blockades because they have no contractual obligations to enforce upon AstraZeneca—it is a misunderstanding of the difference between contracts that give rights over stock that exists and contracts that give rights over the flow of production, which is creating stock that does not yet exist.

The fact is that we are at the front of the queue, but I think that the United Kingdom should seek to be generous and to avoid this vaccine nationalism, even if it means giving up some of the flow of our vaccine, although it is understood that there are actually some large quantities of vaccine in the European Union that are not being used. The fact that they have trashed the reputation of the AstraZeneca vaccine is most unfortunate, and while understandable in psychological terms, it is unforgivable in public health terms.

Finally, on the issue of lifting covid restrictions in Parliament, I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Hazel Grove (Mr Wragg), the Chair of the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee, who cobbled together a majority in the Procedure Committee to get what he wanted in the Committee’s report. But I suggest that, in the end, it is a matter for the whole House what the House’s procedures are. There are things to learn, as the Prime Minister said yesterday, that will make the House more equal, fairer to people who are sick and fairer to people who have caring responsibilities and perhaps take the pressure off the shortage of time we have because we do not want too many late nights. Some of our debates have got too short, and speeches have got too short, and if those who had to be away could have proxy votes, we could have longer debates, better debates and better scrutiny of legislation, as well as a House that is more attractive for women to stay in and take part in.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

I need to point out that, if Members take interventions, it would be helpful for them to stick to the four-minute time limit, because otherwise we simply will not get everybody in. Colleagues in the Chamber may not be able to get in if Members do not stick to the time limit, which would be a shame.

ICGS Investigations: Commons-Lords Agreement

Debate between Rosie Winterton and Bernard Jenkin

Wednesday 25th November 2020 Commons Chamber

[Sir Bernard Jenkin]

That does not fall under our remit at all, but in recent cases that I can think of, an estoppel has been put on possible elevations to the other place of Members who are under suspicion or where there has been controversy. Obviously, if it was an entirely secret and non-disclosable allegation that had not found its way into the public sphere, we would need to check that there would be a procedure for that. However, that is a separate matter from whether a complaint is going to be investigated and adjudicated by the ICGS.

We have also addressed the complementary problem. There are not many Members of the other place who choose to renounce their peerages and seek election to the House of Commons, but this can and does occasionally happen. The Committee therefore recommends that the new arrangements should be reciprocal. Allegations against an ex-peer who might then be in the Commons would be investigated under the procedures of the other place, but any sanction would be carried out within this House.

The Lords Conduct Committee has agreed a report in very similar terms to our own, and this has been approved in the other place. I urge this House to do likewise and approve these sensible arrangements, which are necessary to block off this lack of redress in our measures for tackling bullying, harassment and sexual misconduct by our Members and ex-Members.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

Does the Leader of the House wish to make any comments?

Covid-19

Debate between Rosie Winterton and Bernard Jenkin

Monday 2nd November 2020 Commons Chamber

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

If I may just respond to the hon. Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire North (Gavin Newlands), I do not feel that this House is ignoring Scotland; I feel that this House has voted for very large sums of extra money to be devoted to Scotland. But perhaps my Government need to be more mindful of the fact that these things can be so easily misconstrued in the heat of Scottish politics, and it is the responsibility of the Government to make sure that they are not so misconstrued.

This crisis was incredibly unexpected, even though it took months to arrive, and almost every western Government was extraordinarily ill-prepared for it. There have been unprecedented challenges, inevitable mistakes, much experimentation, much learning and much wasted, but much achieved. However, the politics of this country inevitably tends to revert to type, and we have seen a bit more of that in the House of Commons today with what we do best in here, which is to disagree with each other for the sake of disagreement. Somehow we have to try to rise above that in this crisis.

The opposition to these measures on the Government Benches reflects declining public confidence in the Government’s covid response, and it is public confidence that the Government should, above all else, strive to address. So what needs to be done to strengthen public confidence? We heard quite a lot about that in the speech by my right hon. Friend the Member for South West Surrey (Jeremy Hunt). A lot of it is about having a plan, explaining a plan, and giving people hope that there is a plan. The measures announced on Saturday are another reaction that has set the course for the next four weeks, but beyond that, the Government have not published any plan. I have been asking for some time for a plan called “Living with coronavirus”. There may be a single vaccine that gets us out in one go, but that is most unlikely to happen, so we will go on needing to manage the spread of the virus for many months and possibly even years. How are the Government going to do that? The Royal Society certainly does not expect an instant vaccine.

There are basically three choices facing this House. The first is to control the virus with more of these economically ruinous lockdowns. We all agree that that is not going to be acceptable, and we have heard frustration being expressed by some of my colleagues. The second is to expand the NHS to gargantuan proportions so that we can deal with as many people who get infected. We cannot afford to do that and we do not have the capacity to do it. The only solution is to try to manage the virus, perhaps with vaccines but certainly with Test and Trace. We have had six months to get Test and Trace to where it is. Let us celebrate the 500,000 tests a day and the huge organisation that has been established, but we should ask ourselves what needs to be done in order for us to have as effective testing and tracing as people have in Japan and in Korea. They had years practising in the aftermath of SARS—severe acute respiratory syndrome. We have had to achieve this very much more quickly, but that does not mean that we cannot adapt those experiences of very different societies to our own immediate future to make sure that we do a much better job.

We need to carry on improving the data. The fact that Test and Trace is divided among four different directorates in four different locations, and that the data directorate has had three directors general in the past five or six months, does not suggest that there is much continuity or co-ordination across Test and Trace.

We need to deliver a campaign to change behaviour on the street. This cannot be done from a spreadsheet in Whitehall. It cannot be done from remote call centres with unfamiliar telephone numbers. It can only be done with person-to-person human contact. Go and ask the Japanese how they are doing it. It is very analogue. It is very old-fashioned. There is an app— every country has an app—but an app is a tiny proportion of what people can achieve. People are not going to use an app if they think it just results in them being rung up by some stranger and told what to do. That is not working.

Above all, NHS Test and Trace needs a single command structure and a single plan. However localised the delivery is, and I am very much in favour of using local authorities—the local authority pilots that have been carried out already have proved very much more successful in contacting a much higher proportion of people—every local authority should be so funded. However, we need a central headquarters, preferably run by a military capability that can bring this together and win this together.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

Order. In order to get everybody in, after the next speaker I will need to reduce the time limit to four minutes, which is what was in place in the debate before the recess. Perhaps colleagues might like to tell the hon. Member for Wycombe (Mr Baker) when he returns that it will be four minutes for his speech.

Business of the House

Debate between Rosie Winterton and Bernard Jenkin

Thursday 30th January 2020 Commons Chamber

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

Order. Mr Speaker has indicated that he wishes business questions to run for approximately 45 minutes. Obviously not everybody will get in, so I encourage short questions and short responses.

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

The health service is confronted with another baby deaths controversy in Kent, and a whistleblowing scandal in West Suffolk at the Health Secretary’s own local hospital. When are the Government going to reintroduce the health service safety investigations Bill, which had its Second Reading in the other place before the election, had its pre-legislative scrutiny under my chairmanship in the last Parliament and is ready to go? One might say that it is oven-ready, so when does my right hon. Friend think it will be reintroduced?