The below Parliamentary question was asked by Bernard Jenkin on 2016-03-15.
To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, whether (a) he, (b) officials in his Department and (c) advisers in his Department read the Duke of Cambridge’s speech given at the Foreign and Commonwealth Office on 16 February 2016 before it was presented.
Mr Tobias Ellwood
No.
The below Parliamentary question was asked by Bernard Jenkin on 2016-01-05.
To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office, how many staff in his Department are working on matters related to (a) European policy, (b) the future of Europe, (c) reform of the EU, (d) the renegotiation of the UK’s relationship with the EU, (e) the EU referendum and (f) the consequences of the EU referendum; how many full-time equivalent staff are working on such matters; what the (i) staff and (ii) other cost of such work is; what proportion of that work is undertaken by such staff on (A) communications, (B) strategy and (C) policy; whether his Department has established any specific unit or units to deal with those matters; to whom such (1) staff and (2) units report; whether his Department has issued guidelines to staff on those matters; and if he will make a statement.
Matthew Hancock
The Government is fighting hard to fix the aspects of our EU membership that cause so much frustration in Britain – so we get a better deal for our country and secure our future. Departments are appropriately resourced to support the Government’s priorities in Europe, including the renegotiation and referendum.
The below Parliamentary question was asked by Bernard Jenkin on 2016-03-17.
To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, whether it is the Government’s policy that the EU Ports Services Regulation should be subject to the 12-month review procedure to assess its conformity with the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality agreed between the Prime Minister and the EU and that no further action should be taken to progress that regulation until that review has taken place.
Mr Robert Goodwill
As part of the settlement secured by the Prime Minister, the European Commission has committed to establish in the future a mechanism to review existing EU legislation for its compliance with the principle of subsidiarity and proportionality. This is an important shift in how the EU operates. Negotiations on the EU Port Services Regulation (PSR) are ongoing and I am committed to defending the UK’s successful ports and to opposing any amendments that would damage the efficiency and competitiveness of our ports sector.
The below Parliamentary question was asked by Bernard Jenkin on 2016-01-05.
To ask Mr Chancellor of the Exchequer, how many staff in his Department are working on matters related to (a) European policy, (b) the future of Europe, (c) reform of the EU, (d) the renegotiation of the UK’s relationship with the EU, (e) the EU referendum and (f) the consequences of the EU referendum; how many full-time equivalent staff are working on such matters; what the (i) staff and (ii) other cost of such work is; what proportion of that work is undertaken by such staff on (A) communications, (B) strategy and (C) policy; whether his Department has established any specific unit or units to deal with those matters; to whom such (1) staff and (2) units report; whether his Department has issued guidelines to staff on those matters; and if he will make a statement.
Harriett Baldwin
The Government is fighting hard to fix the aspects of our EU membership that cause so much frustration in Britain – so we get a better deal for Britain and secure our future. Departments are appropriately resourced to support the Government’s priorities in Europe, including the renegotiation and referendum.
The below Parliamentary question was asked by Bernard Jenkin on 2016-03-17.
To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, what recent representations he has received on the proposed EU Ports Services Regulation; and what proposals he plans to make to other EU member states on that regulation.
Mr Robert Goodwill
I have received recent representations from Honourable Members, Members of the European Parliament (MEPs) as well as the British Ports Association (BPA) and the United Kingdom Major Ports Group (UKMPG) on the EU Port Services Regulation (PSR). I intend to work closely with like-minded EU Member States to ensure that as far as possible we achieve an outcome that protects the competitiveness and efficiency of the UK ports sector.
The below Parliamentary question was asked by Bernard Jenkin on 2016-01-05.
To ask the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, how many staff in his Department are working on matters related to (a) European policy, (b) the future of Europe, (c) reform of the EU, (d) the renegotiation of the UK’s relationship with the EU, (e) the EU referendum and (f) the consequences of the EU referendum; how many full-time equivalent staff are working on such matters; what the (i) staff and (ii) other cost of such work is; what proportion of that work is undertaken by such staff on (A) communications, (B) strategy and (C) policy; whether his Department has established any specific unit or units to deal with those matters; to whom such (1) staff and (2) units report; whether his Department has issued guidelines to staff on those matters; and if he will make a statement.
Brandon Lewis
The Government is fighting hard to fix the aspects of our EU membership that cause so much frustration in Britain – so we get a better deal for Britain and secure our future. Departments are appropriately resourced to support the Government’s priorities in Europe, including the renegotiation and referendum.
The below Parliamentary question was asked by Bernard Jenkin on 2016-03-17.
To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, whether it is the Government’s policy to oppose the proposals of the EU Competition Directorate to introduce a block exemption from state aid regulations for EU ports.
Mr Robert Goodwill
The EU Competition Directorate recently launched an initial public consultation on the proposed extension of the General Block Exemption Regulation (GBER) to ports and airports. The Government is currently studying the proposals and seeking the views of stakeholders before responding by the consultation deadline of 30 May 2016.
The below Parliamentary question was asked by Bernard Jenkin on 2016-01-05.
To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, how many staff in his Department are working on matters related to (a) European policy, (b) the future of Europe, (c) reform of the EU, (d) the renegotiation of the UK’s relationship with the EU, (e) the EU referendum and (f) the consequences of the EU referendum; how many full-time equivalent staff are working on such matters; what the (i) staff and (ii) other cost of such work is; what proportion of that work is undertaken by such staff on (A) communications, (B) strategy and (C) policy; whether his Department has established any specific unit or units to deal with those matters; to whom such (1) staff and (2) units report; whether his Department has issued guidelines to staff on those matters; and if he will make a statement.
Mr Julian Brazier
The Government is fighting hard to fix the aspects of our EU membership that cause so much frustration in the UK – so we get a better deal for the UK and secure our future. Departments are appropriately resourced to support the Government’s priorities in Europe, including the renegotiation and referendum.
The below Parliamentary question was asked by Bernard Jenkin on 2016-03-24.
To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, what steps he plans to take in response to the rejection by the European Parliament of the competitive market exemption condition agreed by the Council of Ministers in 2014 as part of the Council’s General Approach to the Ports Regulation to ensure that the UK ports industry is fully protected from the effects of that regulation.
Mr Robert Goodwill
The European Parliament did not replicate the competitive market exemption (CME) provisions in the Council’s General Approach but negotiations on the EU port services Regulation are ongoing. I am committed to defending the UK’s ports and ensuring during the negotiations that the efficiency and competitiveness of our successful ports sector are safeguarded.
The speech made by Bernard Jenkin, the Conservative MP for Harwich and North Essex, in the House of Commons on 12 December 2022.
The former Leader of the House, my right hon. Friend the Member for South Northamptonshire (Dame Andrea Leadsom), might want to speak before me, Madam Deputy Speaker, but that is at your discretion. Thank you very much for calling me to speak.
It is important that the House understands that the Committee on Standards recognises what a huge amount of anxiety and tension the regulation of standards in the House of Commons can cause. The vast majority of Members strive—I was going to say “manfully”, but womanfully as well—to uphold the seven principles of public life and our standards, and to observe the rules. When I first joined the Committee, I was struck by how different the conversation is within the Committee from the conversation outside. I have argued forcefully that we need a much more intensive engagement and understanding between the Committee and Members so that the conversations in the Tea Room about what our code of conduct means are supportive and constructive, rather than fearful and about “How do I just stay out of trouble?” I am afraid that quite a lot of the conversation is about that.
The shadow Leader of the House would acknowledge that something that came out of last year’s debacle was the appeals process. The main contention at the time was that there was not a sufficient appeals process. There was a form of appeal, but when we had it reviewed by a retired judge, Sir Ernest Ryder, who looked at our processes and their compliance with article 6 of the European convention on human rights, it was found that our system could be made substantially better by introducing a completely separate appeal process. Had that appeal process existed last year, I do not think the debacle would have happened.
Michael Fabricant
Will my hon. Friend give way?
Sir Bernard Jenkin
I will, but I do not want to detain the House for long.
Michael Fabricant
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way, and I totally agree with what he says. It was the appeals process that many of us objected to and, additionally, the fact that the commissioner gave her view on that case before the inquiry had begun. As it happened, I agreed with her view, but it is not for a judge to state it beforehand. That was, I think, the objection of most of us.
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.