Bernard Jenkin MP has urged the Government not to support fiscal union in the Eurozone as a solution to the Euro's problems.

Bernard Jenkin MP has welcomed the Government's statement on public sector pensions and urged a consensus between Government and Opposition.

Bernard Jenkin MP asked a question at Cabinet Office questions on 2nd November regarding changes to the role of the head of the civil service.  Mr Jenkin raised concerns that the head of the civil service will be less able to lead reforms if the role is diminished.

Mr Jenkin commented: ""The government say they are keeping ministerial numbers "under review" but that is political code for their refusal to engage with the committee on this recommendation.  There are more unpaid ministers in this government than ever – described to us by one eminent witness, Peter Riddell, as "an abuse".  There are also therefore more ministers in the Commons than ever.  There are more PPSs than we consider necessary.  This is more about exercising patronage over MPs, and thus being able to influence debates and votes, than it is about efficiency and accountability."

PASC's latest report, 'Smaller Government: What do Ministers do? Further Report including Government Response', can be read in full at the following link:

Mr Jenkin asked: "Given that Chancellor Merkel has called formally on the European Commission to produce treaty texts to amend the European treaties, does my right hon. Friend agree with the following statements:

“'that the accumulated burden of policies, competences, tasks and budgets in the European Union has become too great… that locating ill-justified powers at EU level can undermine democratic accountability; that the time has therefore come to identify those areas in which EU action is neither logical, justifiable or workable'?

"Does he share my surprise that those words were written by the Deputy Prime Minister more than 10 years ago?"

The Prime Minister replied: "I have read that pamphlet too, and what it says is good, sound common sense. We do not know exactly when treaty change will be proposed and how great that treaty change will be, but I am absolutely clear, and the coalition is clear, about the fact that there will be opportunities to advance our national interest, and it is on those opportunities that we should focus."

If you have a subscription to the Times, you can read the article at this link:

http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/opinion/columnists/article3206083.ece

Mr Jenkin’s full speech is given below:

“It is a pleasure to follow the right honourable Member for Birkenhead (Mr Field), who has long made measured contributions to such debates, but I want to draw attention to my honourable Friend the Member for Gravesham (Mr Holloway), who is not in the Chamber. He made the speech of the night so far by bringing his integrity and judgment to the fore at the expense of his political office in the Government. The House should respect him especially for that.

“The fact is that this debate is beginning to show a pattern. Members who reflect the widely held public sentiment that our relationship with the European Union is not quite right and that something needs to change are all in favour of a referendum, whether that means a modest renegotiation or, like my honourable Friend the Member for Kettering (Mr Hollobone) says, leaving the EU

altogether. Members who have spoken against the motion are determined to keep the relationship the same, at least for the time being.

“I fully respect my right honourable Friend the Foreign Secretary, who says that he wants to repatriate powers, but as with St Augustine and chastity, he wants repatriation, but not yet. We know that public opinion overwhelmingly shows a strong sentiment for a fundamental change in our relationship with the EU. Unfortunately and sadly for the House, on an occasion when we could reflect our voters’ genuine concerns on this vexed subject, which has riven politics and both parties over many years, we will vote perhaps 4:1 against what we know most of our constituents would prefer.

“This issue has come to the fore because it is about not only democracy and consent, but growth and jobs. If the coalition came into being for anything, it was for the deficit reduction programme. That is its raison d’être. It might not have escaped her notice that that programme is in trouble, because the economy is not growing. There are many reasons for that—the US, the crisis in the Eurozone, and our country’s indebtedness and excessive taxation—but one fundamental reason is that we are overburdened with European regulation. That is why a majority of businessmen in this country now say that the advantages of the single market are outweighed by the disadvantages.

“We know from experience that we cannot rely even on the assurances given to us by our European partners. In 1992, we thought we had opted out of what was then called the social chapter. We thought that would protect us from the working time directive, but by the end of that Parliament the EU had circumvented the opt-out in typical fashion: it used a different treaty base to force the directive on to our statute book, against the wishes of our Parliament, by making it a health and safety programme.

“The same thing is happening with the agency workers directive, which the Government have bitterly opposed because they know that it will price more young people out of the labour market. We now have above-average youth unemployment in this country when it used to be below-average.

“The same thing is happening in the regulation of the City of London. If there is one thing that we should never have agreed to in principle, it is that the European Union and Michel Barnier should take over the regulation of the City—our biggest single tax generator. That was driven by a misplaced notion that Bonn, Frankfurt, Paris and the City should be given equal status as global financial centres. That would be disastrous for the City.

“We should oppose the Tobin tax on principle, because at the end of the day, it is another tax that takes money out of the pockets of ordinary people, but you wait, Mr Deputy Speaker, the financial transactions tax proposed by the EU will be forced through on some spurious treaty basis.

“The honourable Member for Middlesbrough (Sir Stuart Bell) agrees that that will be forced through on a spurious basis to cover the City. To coin a phrase, we can’t go on like this. Now that the EU is moving into a phase in which huge decisions, such as the decisions of the 17 on fiscal union, are being taken without the requirement of a British signatory on any treaty, we are losing the veto, which was the foundation of our EU membership and which made it acceptable.

“Therefore, it is now time to renegotiate. It is urgent for our economy. If we need a referendum to force the Government’s hand, that is what I will vote for.”

The motion, which Mr Jenkin voted for, was defeated by 483 votes to 111.

You can read the article in full at this link:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/conservative/8843028/Free-Britain-to-grow-by-taking-power-from-Europe.html

During House of Commons business questions on Thursday 20th October, Bernard Jenkin MP welcomed the forthcoming debate on a motion calling for a referendum on the UK's relationship with the EU.  He argued that this issue overlapped with the Government's core goal of economic recovery.

Bernard Jenkin MP has written to backbench colleagues urging them to support Monday's motion, put forward by David Nuttall MP, calling for a referendum on the UK's relationship with the EU.  In response to a proposed amendment to the motion by George Eustice MP, MR Jenkin sent the following letter: