Sir David Amess Adjournment Debate

Julian Lewis Excerpts

Thursday 12th September 2024 Commons Chamber

[Mr Francois]

No, I can reassure the hon. Gentleman and the House that I only intend to raise three topics.

[Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)]

Before my right hon. Friend leaves the subject of Sir David, whom I first met in the 1970s—in a different place, and when I was briefly in a different party—I ask him to confirm my recollection: that in all those many years, I cannot think of a single occasion when David said a mean, unkind or unfair thing about anyone. There are not many people about whom one can say that, and I for one regard him as an inspiration.

[Mr Francois]

I generally agree with my right hon. Friend, particularly about defence matters, and he has summed my great friend up very well. At the end of my speech, however, I will make a small revelation about David and the 1983 general election, which I hope colleagues will find amusing.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)]

I congratulate the hon. Members for Bexleyheath and Crayford (Daniel Francis) and for Reading West and Mid Berkshire (Olivia Bailey). It is daunting to undertake a maiden speech, but both of them did so with panache and with passion, and my hon. Friends and I are grateful to them for sharing their insights with us on this very, I hope, non-partisan occasion.

Both hon. Members rightly spoke about the aspects of their constituencies in which they take pride, and that gives me a cue to put in a brief word for the Waterside Arts Festival, which has been going on this week. Sadly, I have had to miss most of it, being up here in Westminster, but last Saturday, on a very rainy day, I was privileged to see a few of the offerings of this cultural feast, which is supported by Culture in Common and Arts Council England. One was a remarkable pair of acrobatic dance artists, Olivia Quayle and Jan Patzke, who operate under the title of Joli Vyann. One artist uses the body of the other as a sort of climbing frame, ultimately ending up standing unsupported on one foot on the head of the other artist. That is not something I have ever seen even on television, let alone live, and it was quite impressive to see it on a rainy Saturday afternoon in Hythe, in Hampshire. Another theme was cartoonists, and there was a remarkable, fascinating talk by Clive Goddard about not only technique but the effort involved in a cartoonist ensuring that his or her precarious life as a freelancer somehow makes economic sense.

Next year will mark the 80th anniversary of the end of the second world war, so anyone old enough to have fought in that terrible conflict must now be at, or very close to, their 100th birthday. On suitable occasions, I have previously referred to friends among the wartime and early post-war veterans who are now no longer with us. They have included world war two Mosquito pilot Doug Gregory DFC, who flew a replica world war one biplane fighter at air displays until the age of 90, and who died in 2015 at the age of 92; Fleet Air Arm telegraphist air gunner Norman “Dickie” Richardson DSM, who flew from HMS Victorious in the far east, and who died in 2020 aged 96; and my late father-in-law, Malayan emergency supply drop navigator Frank Souness DFC, who died at the end of 2022 aged 92.

It is not surprising, but still sad, that this year has seen the passing of the last of my second world war friends, all of whom lived in New Forest East. There was Marion Loveland, who reached the magnificent age of 102 and who was a lady of grace, poise and elegance. She was born on 6 June 1921 and was a Wren third officer at HMS Collingwood on her birthday in 1944 as D-day began. Her moving and dignified television interview, recorded earlier this year shortly before her passing, and telling how her fiancé, a decorated Royal Marines commando, was killed landing on Sword beach on 6 June—D-day and her birthday—is still available to view on the ITVX website, and I commend it to right hon. and hon. Members.

Then there was the wonderful Liz Gregory, the widow of Doug, whom I mentioned earlier. She helped him build his replica SE5a world war one biplane fighter in their back garden—as one does—and unfailingly supported him in all his flying adventures and escapades. This great lady lived to the age of 95, and Members can read all about her in Doug Gregory’s fascinating autobiography, “Aeroaddict”, published by Little Knoll Press—if I were not forbidden from brandishing props in this presentation, I would wave it around at this point—[Laughter.]

Finally, just last month, we lost Dr Arthur Page at the age of 100. He was a comrade of Dickie Richardson in 849 Squadron, Fleet Air Arm, on HMS Victorious. Arthur also flew in the famous Palembang raids against the oil refineries in Sumatra and on many other dangerous missions in the far east. Both The Times and The Daily Telegraph published remarkable obituaries of this fine and gallant officer, who quietly resumed his interrupted medical studies after the war and served as a GP in Totton, in my constituency, for more than 30 years. He too continued to fly—until the age of 75—and Members can read about his and Dickie’s adventures in “Palembang and Beyond”, a book written by the late Mike Roussel. Again, I am not allowed to brandish it in the Chamber, but it is an eminently worthwhile read. Although all those outstanding individuals have now gone, the example they set will long continue to inspire those who knew them and generations yet to come.

In the time remaining, I shall return to a continuing constitutional issue, which I previously raised in the debate on the King’s Speech. With the election of Select Committee Chairs having just taken place, we must hope that the Prime Minister, after consulting the Leader of the Opposition, will soon present to the House nominations for membership of Intelligence and Security Committee of Parliament. The matter is pressing, not just because the Committee was about to complete a key inquiry when the election was called, but because of the fact that, while there is no Committee, its dedicated expert staff are left vulnerable to the tender mercies of some of those whom it oversees. That is of serious concern.

For the benefit of new MPs, I should explain that the ISC is a cross-party Committee of both Houses of Parliament created by statute. Under the Justice and Security Act 2013, the ISC has the legal responsibility for overseeing the UK’s intelligence community on behalf of Parliament and its Members. After confirmation in both Houses, its members choose their own Chairman from among their nine members.

Right hon. and hon. Members may be surprised to learn that the ISC’s office—with a very small number of staff—belongs to the Cabinet Office, despite the ISC overseeing several sensitive organisations within the Cabinet Office. They would be right to be surprised, because that is indeed a fundamental conflict of interest. That is why, at the time of the Justice and Security Act, the Cabinet Office was supposed to be only the temporary home of the ISC’s office. Yet here we are, more than 10 years later, with the Committee’s staff still beholden to, vulnerable within, and unfairly pressured and even victimised by the very part of the Executive the Committee is charged with overseeing.

The Executive should not be able to constrain and control the Committee’s democratic oversight on behalf of Parliament by exerting control over the Committee’s small staff team to prevent them doing their job independently. Such control means that part of the Cabinet Office can and does starve the team of resources, so that the ISC’s staff are unable to fulfil the Committee’s legal responsibilities. That is in complete contravention and disregard of a clear ministerial undertaking given by the then Deputy Prime Minister, my right hon. Friend the Member for Hertsmere (Sir Oliver Dowden), before the election. It also means that they can stigmatise and penalise the ISC’s staff, with damaging consequences for their careers in the civil service.

The outgoing members of the ISC value the Committee’s staff very highly indeed, and we found such treatment to be unacceptable. In the last Parliament, the Committee therefore formally resolved, by a unanimous vote across all three political parties on the ISC, that it is essential for parliamentary democracy and its scrutiny system that the Committee’s office must move out from under the control of the Executive—that is, the Cabinet Office—and should be established instead as an independent “body corporate” with a link to Parliament rather than to the Executive. That unanimous decision was confirmed by the members of the Committee at its meeting on 19 March 2024, following expert and authoritative external advice that it is indeed within the ISC’s power to take such a step and to determine the suitable mechanisms for implementing it.

This constitutional change, essential to protect the separation of powers, is easy to achieve. It requires a very short amendment to the Justice and Security Act to change the status of the ISC’s office. The amendment would establish an independent office to support the Intelligence and Security Committee of Parliament to safeguard the independence of the Committee itself. It had been hoped that the amendment would be included in the new legislative programme. Unfortunately, but unsurprisingly in the Committee’s absence, the Cabinet Office has hitherto managed to block it. However, this is to underestimate the previous members of the Committee, from both sides of the House and in both Chambers, who are convinced that the Committee’s office cannot and must not continue to be controlled by the Cabinet Office.

There is already, in the legislative programme, an obvious vehicle for achieving the necessary change: the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association and International Committee of the Red Cross (Status) Bill is designed to change the status of those two organisations. It is therefore the obvious place to include a short amendment to the Justice and Security Act to change the status of the Committee’s organisation, too. As a measure to secure democratic oversight, I am confident that it should and would secure cross-party support in both Houses. Prior to the election, both the then Government and the then Opposition seemed to accept that this reform was needed, which does rather beg the question why it has not happened yet.

I trust, in conclusion, that the Government will ensure that this change is not being blocked somewhere by forces unknown, and will ensure that it is now taken forward, together with the emergency uplift in resourcing that was approved by the then Deputy Prime Minister before the general election but which has been disregarded by the Cabinet Office since. This is urgently required if the new Committee is to have sufficient efficient staff to be able to meet and function fully when it is reconstituted. The Government should recognise that this cannot wait. Too much valuable time has been lost already.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

I call Satvir Kaur to make her maiden speech.