House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill

Julian Lewis Excerpts

Committee of the whole House
Tuesday 12th November 2024 Commons Chamber

[The Minister without Portfolio (Ellie Reeves)]

Thank you, Madam Chair. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, as I open this Committee of the whole House.

As I noted a number of times on Second Reading, this is a short and focused Bill. It delivers on the Government’s manifesto commitment to bring about an immediate reform by removing the rights of the remaining hereditary peers to sit and vote in the House of Lords. This Bill is a matter of principle. In the 21st century, it cannot be right for there to be places in our legislature reserved for those born into certain families. Having now seen all the amendments tabled by parties from across the House, it is clear that there is no principled objection to the aim of the Bill, which is to remove the right of people to sit and make laws in our legislature by virtue of an accident of birth. Therefore, I hope that all Members across the House can join Government Members in voting for this important and long-overdue legislation.

I look forward to hearing from hon. Members over the course of today’s debate, but I shall start with the detail of the Bill itself. Clause 1 is clear, straightforward and central to the overall purpose of the Bill. It removes membership of the House of Lords from the remaining hereditary peers. Specifically, clause 1 repeals section 2 of the House of Lords Act 1999, which currently provides an exception to the general exclusion of hereditary peers from membership of the House in section 1 of the 1999 Act. Under that exception, 90 hereditary peers and those hereditary peers holding the office of Earl Marshal or performing the office of Lord Great Chamberlain continue to be Members of the other place.

The clause is a core part of the Bill and delivers the Government’s clear manifesto commitment to remove the right of the remaining hereditary peers to sit and vote in the other place. It will result in the removal of the 92 reserved places for hereditary peers. There are currently vacancies in the seats reserved for hereditary peers—at present, there are 88 hereditary peers in the other place. Such vacancies would usually be filled by a hereditary peer by-election, but such by-elections have been paused until January 2026 by changes to the Standing Orders agreed by the other place in July 2024.

The Government value the good work done by hereditary peers, and we have spoken on several occasions about the individuals who have served in Parliament with duty and dedication. These reforms are not personal, but they are long overdue and essential.

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

The Government would find considerable sympathy for their position if they were to make provision for those hereditary peers currently in the House of Lords who have done good work and who have acquired a lot of experience by possibly introducing a phase-out or a generous allocation of life peerages to those who are considered worthy on the basis of their past record of participation.

[Ellie Reeves]

I thank the right hon. Member for his intervention. There would of course be no bar on the Leader of the Opposition nominating any of those who have served as hereditary peers for life peerages in the normal way.

[Sir Julian Lewis]

That sounds reasonable, except for the fact that, unless there were a phasing of the process, it would not be possible within the numbers available to the Leader of the Opposition to nominate more than a small fraction. Can the Minister offer any more flexibility on that?

--- Later in debate ---

[Alex Burghart]

As ever, my right hon. Friend is one step ahead of me. It is not that we seek a comprehensive reform of the House of Lords. It is that the Labour party promised that this would come. The Government promised that they would leave the remaining hereditary peers there until they had a plan for comprehensive reform, but that comprehensive plan is missing. Labour is throwing out the stone in the shoe of the accepted hereditary peers and dodging the hard, principled questions about how to ensure that the House of Lords functions most effectively.

[Sir Julian Lewis]

My hon. Friend made a passing reference to a fear that what is going here is a form of gerrymandering. Does he agree that if generous provision were to be made for really active remaining hereditary Members, of whom there are probably quite a few, to be given life peerages on a one-off basis, and on the basis of merit, that would dispose of the suspicion of gerrymandering?

[Alex Burghart]

My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. He strikes at the critical failure of the legislation, which is that really the Government are seeking to remove Members of the upper House who happen not to take the Labour Whip. What we all agree on—or what I hope we all agree on—is that the role of the Lords is that of a chamber of scrutiny, and we must welcome more expert scrutiny. We have seen from the behaviour, attendance and work of hereditary peers that they are an intrinsic part of that scrutiny, so it is highly suspicious that the Labour party should seek to remove them. Indeed, if we set the precedent that the Government of the day can remove Members of one House because they do not agree with them, where will it end? Those Cross Bencher hereditary peers who will be axed by the measures have, as far as I can see, done an excellent job, yet they are not being given another way out such as that suggested by my right hon. Friend.

--- Later in debate ---

[Gareth Snell]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his intervention, and to a degree, I agree. That is why we set out in our manifesto the package of reforms and changes that we hope to see made to the other place during this Parliament, in order to deliver on the promises we made in the election. He is absolutely right to say that constitutional reform is a delicate thing; that is why it is important that we make these reforms with consideration and in small steps, to make sure that the unintended consequences of large-scale reform are not felt.

The Conservative party made modest reforms during previous Parliaments, such as giving Members of the House of Lords the ability to retire from it. That was a small change, but one with consequential impacts—far more Members have left the House of Lords under that provision than will be impacted by the provisions in this Bill. That was done thoughtfully, carefully, slowly and, I think, consensually.

Similarly, I think that the principle of this Bill—that hereditary peers will no longer have the right to sit in the House of Lords—has already been established in this House. None of the amendments that have been tabled today seeks to overturn that; none of them seeks to make a case for the continuation of hereditary peers. As such, the consensus that the right hon. Gentleman rightly talks about exists in this Bill. The more we seek to tack on to the Bill—taking other elements of constitutional reform and adding them to the Bill—the more we risk that consensus falling apart. We risk this House not having a settled position, creating the opportunity for potential wrecking amendments. I do not suggest that Opposition Members are tabling wrecking amendments, but they could be tabled elsewhere to completely flatline what is a very modest and sensible reform.

[Sir Julian Lewis]

The hon. Gentleman is making a very reasonable speech. Would it be fair to say that he means this is almost a case of going for the low-hanging fruit on which everybody has a measure of agreement, while recognising that future steps may be a lot more complex and potentially dangerous if we get them wrong?

There is one aspect that is not of itself an argument for keeping the hereditary peers, but is something that will be lost if and when they go. That is, the hereditary peers are one group of people who are not appointed subject to prime ministerial patronage. Without straying beyond the scope of today’s debate, could the hon. Gentleman give us an inkling of whether something like putting the House of Lords Appointments Commission on a statutory basis is a reform that the Government might consider, bearing in mind some of the controversial cases where people have been imposed on the House of Lords in defiance of the commission’s preferences?

[Gareth Snell]

I could not possibly begin to offer an opinion on the thoughts of the Government, but I know that my hon. Friends on the Front Bench will have heard that question.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Julian Lewis]

I welcome the hon. Lady’s point about strengthening the House of Lords Appointments Commission, but at the risk of broadening the debate a little too far, can she explain why it would be a sensible idea to have a second Chamber of elected parliamentarians? It would be rather like more than doubling the size of this House, but with Members in two separate places, possibly elected by different electoral systems and at different times. It is impossible to imagine more of a recipe for deadlock and conflict.

[Sarah Olney]

I very much look forward to having that debate in a future Session of this Parliament and on a future piece of legislation. That is why I tabled new clause 7—to call on the Government to make a commitment to future legislation, so that we in this House can debate and support broader and further reforms to ensure the democratic legitimacy of the House of Lords.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Gavin Williamson]

New clause 4 clearly sets out an intention to deliver on what Labour’s manifesto wished to introduce, and I would be happy to work with Government Ministers and the Liberal Democrats spokesman to ensure that we get this legislation into the best possible shape.

Some of the attendance records in the upper House leave me a little shocked. In the 2019-24 Parliament, of the 966 Members eligible to attend at least some of the last Parliament, 28 did not attend at all—did not even bother to turn up—and 116 attended on less than 10% of the sitting days, which is not particularly active. I quite understand why Labour Front Benchers, when in opposition, alighted on that and felt that it needed to be included in their manifesto. That is why I tabled new clause 4. I firmly believe that there is support for it not only on the Labour Benches—Labour Members stood on their manifesto, so presumably they support that proposal—but on the Opposition Benches. During that same period, 158 Members of the upper House voted in less than 10% of the Divisions they were eligible to vote in.

[Sir Julian Lewis]

I hate to strike a discordant note with my right hon. Friend as he and I have fought shoulder to shoulder in many battles, but is it not an illustration of the Pandora’s box one might be opening to consider what the situation would be if all these people turned up at the same time? I doubt very much that the upper Chamber would be capable of handling it, which then leads us to the question of how to reduce the numbers to a manageable proportion. So my right hon. Friend is getting into difficult waters with all of this; he had better be careful what he wishes for in getting all these people to converge on the House of Lords at once.

[Sir Gavin Williamson]

My right hon. Friend and I agree on so many things, but perhaps I am just wanting to see this change happen. By adding new clause 4—introducing Labour’s manifesto commitment as part of this Bill—we can significantly reduce the size of the upper House and avoid the kind of intimate crush that he sets out.

--- Later in debate ---

Those two simple reforms could solve the problem. We have heard about constitutional conferences in the past. May I suggest to the Paymaster General, whom I respect greatly, that it might not be a bad idea for the political leaderships of all our parties to sit down together and organise such reform to reduce the size of the House of Lords to about 600? Do we want to appoint people for life? Why do we not just appoint them for 15 years, so that when they have done those 15 years they retire at the next general election? All those ideas are very moderate and sensible, and if we could secure consensus on them, we could reduce the size of the House of Lords, get rid of the bad apples, and achieve what we want to achieve.

[Sir Julian Lewis]

Does the Father of the House agree that inevitably, given the nature of the Bill, we have been talking more about the process by which people become Members of the House of Lords than about the activity that it carries out? In particular, although not everyone in the House of Lords is an expert, a large number of them are: people who have reached the top of their respective professions, whether those professions be academia, the law, the arts or the judiciary.

Can the Father of the House cast his mind back to 1984, when he and I, having both fought the 1983 general election—he stood in Gainsborough and Horncastle, which is why he was in the House; and I stood in Swansea West, which is why I was not—co-operated on trying to have postal ballots for trade union elections? Does he remember that he introduced a Bill that got nowhere in this House, because of the strong whipping system of elected Members, but when we took it to the House of Lords we were able to persuade people on the arguments because of the light whipping? The amendment went through, and when the Bill came back to the Commons the then Government brought in their own measures to meet the point. Does he agree that, apart from creating gridlock, an elected second Chamber would not have the possibility of introducing fresh ideas that, once introduced, may be accepted by a Government in this place, but which would never get off the starting blocks if they were introduced in this place initially?

[Sir Edward Leigh]

That is a very good point. I remember that rebellion very well—it was the start of my many rebellions. I suggest to Labour Members that they should not rebel if they want get on in this place. We had a rebellion and finally won on that issue, and my right hon. Friend makes a very good point about how we won the argument. That underlines how important it is to have a second Chamber that is not composed of elected politicians. I really do not see the point of electing politicians to a second Chamber, because it would just be like this place: full of people who want to become Ministers and who are completely subordinate to the Whips.

What is the point of having an elected second Chamber? The whole point of a second Chamber is that it should be independent-minded, and the Lords are independent-minded. They regularly defeat the Government, and they actually have better debates than we do. The House of Lords is full of people who have tremendous experience in the professions, business and charities. I just do not see the point of getting rid of them lock, stock and barrel, but there is a perfectly good consensual argument that the number should be reduced. There are some people in the Lords whom we should remove either because they have not been appointed in an entirely right way or because they do not turn up.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Julian Lewis]

It was not my original intention to speak but, given the nature of the debate, and in view of the signal I have received that I might be given a little latitude to go slightly wider than the narrow terms of the Bill, I will make a single point to elaborate slightly on the intervention I made upon the Father of the House a few minutes ago.

A lot has been said about how the public are deemed to regard the status of the upper House. I am not sure on what basis such sweeping statements have been made, although I can understand that when, from time to time, someone manifestly unfit or inappropriate to be ennobled is ennobled, it may cause a degree of public concern and disillusionment.

New Members on both sides of the Committee, but particularly on the Government side, should avail themselves of the opportunities to understand more closely what the House of Lords can do that the House of Commons cannot. In the first instance, peers can bring their expertise to bear. That is not to say that all peers are experts—they are not—but a lot of them are, because they have reached the top of their profession. They are not necessarily any brighter, more intelligent or more cultured than Members of this House, but as we chose to divert ourselves from whatever escalator we could have been on, in order to become full-time politicians, we do not reach the giddy heights of those in other professions, who are then able to bring their expertise to bear on the legislative process by being taken into the upper House.

[Josh Fenton-Glynn]

I appreciate that the right hon. Gentleman is not a doctor, but could he explain the biological process by which someone inherits expertise?

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Julian Lewis]

I am not aware that anything I have said this afternoon has been in favour of retaining the hereditaries. It has not. If the hon. Gentleman had listened to my earlier interventions, he would have known that is the case. That is why I said I am going somewhat wider than this Bill, which focuses solely on the hereditaries.

The suggestion that the upper House stands in low repute is ill-conceived, and I urge the hon. Gentleman and other new Members to take advantage of the seminars that Labour and Liberal Democrat Members and I try to organise to enable new Members from all parties to be brought into contact with leading Members of the upper House, to see what they do. That would be a good use of his and other Members’ time.

[Sir John Hayes]

My right hon. Friend is making an important point about the subtlety of the relationship between the two Houses. I spoke earlier about the relationship between the Government and the Opposition. In an unwritten constitution, political culture prevails, and that political culture is informed by that subtlety and by those relationships. My right hon. Friend described an occasion when legislation emanated from an origin in the other place, but very often legislation is improved and perfected through that connection. That should not be lost as we rush headlong into a piecemeal reform of the House of Lords.

[Sir Julian Lewis]

The elements that make up the House of Lords consist of different groups of people: some have got there by accident of birth and are now going to leave; some have got there as the result of political horse-trading of some sort, and perhaps should not have been put there in the first place; but a great many have got there, as I said earlier, by having reached the heights of their various professions and having proved themselves to be outstanding intellectuals who can bring a level of specialisation to the scrutiny of legislation. Even if we in this House were on exactly their same level of accumulated knowledge, we cannot bring that same level of scrutiny because of the demands we face on our time and in looking after our constituents, which inevitably works to the cost of the amount of attention we could give purely to focusing on improving legislation.

I wish to place on record that the reason why I became an ardent advocate of an unelected second Chamber—and why I would rather have no second Chamber at all than two elected Chambers—is precisely that it is impossible to whip such a Chamber to prevent people with good ideas from persuading peers of the virtue of those ideas. Members of an unelected second Chamber are able to have at least a sporting chance of amending legislation in good ways that would not get beyond first base in this House, because the elected Members, for the most part, almost all the time, obey the whipping.

Before I was an MP, when I was a political activist, I and my colleagues managed to get four pieces of legislation into law. Since I have been an MP, I have got only one, on the privacy of Members’ home addresses, on to the statute book, because, exceptionally, that was a free vote. How many free votes happen in this House? Hardly any. The equivalent of free votes in the upper House happen all the time.

We required postal ballots for trade union elections, which was incorporated into the Trade Union Act 1984 and the Employment Act 1988. We outlawed political indoctrination in schools, which was incorporated into the Education Act 1986 and carried forward in the Education Act 1996. We prohibited local councils from publishing material that

“promotes or opposes a point of view on a question of political controversy which is identifiable as the view of one political party and not of another”,

which was incorporated into section 27 of the Local Government Act 1988. Finally, we more strictly defined the concept of “due impartiality” in the coverage of politically contentious issues on television and radio, which was incorporated into the Broadcasting Act 1990.

Every one of those measures was got through the House of Lords first, and then either adopted in the House of Commons directly or brought forward by the Government in their alternative proposals. We do away with the expertise of the House of Lords at our peril. All we will be left with are machine politicians, whether they are in one elected House or two elected Houses, and that is to the detriment of our democracy, not to its enhancement.

[Iqbal Mohamed (Dewsbury and Batley) (Ind)]

Thank you for calling me to speak, Madam Chair. I am honoured to serve under your chairmanship.

Before I begin my prepared remarks, I wish to commend and pay tribute to right hon. and hon. Members across the House for their skills of oratory and persuasion and their education and ability to entertain. It has been an absolute privilege to hear Members with such experience speak, so well-informed are they on such topics.

I also wish to speak to new Labour Members who, like me, are finding their feet and learning the ways of the world in this place. I am pleased to hear that they are passionate about pushing and challenging their party to implement the laws and changes that the constituents and the country demand. but I remind them of the consequences of that. Rebellion, as I have seen in this short time, is rewarded with sanction or suspension, so it is better to get as much as possible into this Bill now than to hope that they may ever get a chance to do so again.

The House has been made aware that faith in political parties and institutions is at a low ebb—perhaps the lowest in my lifetime. We have been told that only 12% of the British public say that they trust politicians; political parties are the least trusted of any UK public institution, and trust in Parliament is on the decline. Any measure that helps to rebuild that trust is to be supported, which is why I support this Government Bill to remove hereditary peers. The anachronistic nature of hereditary peerage contributes to the sense not only that the House of Lords is out of touch, but that all our political institutions are out of touch. It feeds a disconnect between the people and their systems of governance and reinforces a belief that politics is the preserve of another elite, the political elite, that lives in its own bubble in Westminster.

Given this urgency to rebuild faith in politics and the need for radical change to that end, it is disappointing that the Government have chosen to be so timid in their ambition. I understand that further changes could be introduced further down the road. Indeed, hon. Members have said that they will try to push for more changes. For instance, perhaps they could remove the over-80s from the Lords, or retire the 26 bishops who are automatically given a seat.

The Lords themselves have raised the idea of removing those Members who rarely, if ever, attend. But even these tame reforms appear to be too much for this Government at this stage. We need much bolder action.

Ministerial Code: Policy Announcements

Julian Lewis Excerpts

Tuesday 29th October 2024 Commons Chamber

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

Absolutely. It is no surprise that we have a Conservative party that wants to talk about process, but it will not take responsibility for the £22 billion black hole that it left in our finances.

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

Yesterday, Mr Speaker, you made the strongest statement of condemnation on a subject of this sort that I have heard from the Chair in 27 years in this House. The Minister is a decent chap and, for all I know, he may be a skilled cricketer, but he must admit that he is batting on a sticky wicket today. Does he understand that if his defence is just to say, “We did it because the previous party did it,” nobody will ever break this cycle? His party has a big majority. It could just say sorry and resolve to do better in future.

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

I have a great deal of respect for the right hon. Gentleman. I am not a cricketer, as it happens, so I cannot comment on the condition of the wicket. With regard to Mr Speaker, I did initially set out in my remarks today my respect for what he said both yesterday and today, and my respect for Members of this House.

Black History Month

Julian Lewis Excerpts

Thursday 24th October 2024 Commons Chamber

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

There is one cohort that it would be nice to hear mentioned by the Front Benchers: the black warriors who came to this country to fight in two world wars, and particularly to fight the Nazis in the second world war. I commend to people on both sides of the House with an interest in this subject the book “The Eighth Passenger” by the late Miles Tripp, which prominently features Flight Sergeant Harry McCalla. He was the rear gunner in his Lancaster and flew dozens of perilous missions; he survived, and Members can read about what happened after the war. We need to salute, in both senses of the word, those people who came to fight the Nazis.

[Mims Davies]

Hear, hear! A little further on in my speech, I will mention some of that, but I have certainly learned even more from my right hon. Friend.

Infected Blood Compensation Scheme

Julian Lewis Excerpts

Wednesday 23rd October 2024 Commons Chamber

[Clive Efford (Eltham and Chislehurst) (Lab)]

First, I want to express my gratitude to Members of the House who have elected me as the designated chair of the all-party parliamentary group on haemophilia and contaminated blood. I say “designated” because we are lacking a Conservative officer in the group, so we cannot register it in the normal way—

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

I would be delighted to volunteer to fill that gap for the hon. Gentleman.

[Clive Efford]

The right hon. Gentleman would be most welcome, and I will pass on that information. I was hoping to tease someone out by saying that! It is an honour and a challenge to follow on from the excellent leadership of my right hon. Friend and colleague, the Member for Kingston upon Hull North and Cottingham (Dame Diana Johnson). She will be an extremely tough act to follow. She was forced to stand down from the role because she was appointed to the Government.

I welcome the progress that the Government are making and I welcome today’s regulations. For many, however, the victories that were celebrated when Sir Brian Langstaff made his final report and Sir Robert Francis was appointed to lead the Infected Blood Compensation Authority, were, rather than the beginning of the end, mere milestones on a path with many miles still to go. The fear among many campaigners is that the Cabinet Office, which was responsible for delay and obfuscation over decades, is now back in charge of the compensation scheme.

I know that the Minister is earnest in his wish to see the victims of this scandal given the justice they deserve, and that he understands that we are where we are because the campaigners refused to be silenced. They took on the establishment and won, and my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull North and Cottingham and I cheered them on and promised to deliver for them without equivocation should we get into government.

There has been progress, and we welcome today’s regulations, but for too many the euphoria has been replaced by frustration, leading to anger and a growing fear of betrayal. That stems from the fact that the campaigners feel that they are excluded from the process they brought into being. Decisions that they insisted should not be made without them are being made without the openness and candour the Government are legislating for. The Government have an excellent opportunity, ahead of that legislation, to show what candour means in public office. That is particularly true of how the tariff has been arrived at.

For the campaigners, it is like they have won the war, only to see those they vanquished put in charge of delivering the peace. There is growing unease that this is leading to the same tactics as before: delays, lack of information about how decisions are arrived at and lack of communication from the Cabinet Office. That lack of communication is causing people to look to small charitable organisations for advice, as they struggle to understand the complex compensation process. Will Ministers commit to providing support to those organisations, so that they can continue that work, as was recommended by Sir Brian Langstaff?

I understand that the Infected Blood Compensation Authority is starting to engage with the Haemophilia Society and campaigning groups about the process and technical matters, but there is an urgent need for much more engagement than has happened thus far. We are told that the Infected Blood Compensation Authority intends to settle 20 cases by the end of the year. Why only 20? How will they be selected? The victims call these the Willy Wonka golden tickets. In the meantime, while these 20 cases are completed, another 14 people are likely to die—one victim dies on average every four days.

Justice delayed is justice denied. When Sir Brian Langstaff published his interim report in April 2023, he appealed to the Government to get on with the compensation scheme, because he was alarmed that so many people were dying without receiving the justice they deserved. That makes it imperative that people, whether infected or affected, receive the interim payments without delay. Regulations for those affected by the scandal will not be published until March 2025—yet another year on from Sir Brian’s final report. Yet again, justice is delayed; yet again, victims will die without receiving compensation.

These are people who have suffered unspeakable harm: bereaved parents who lost children; bereaved children who lost parents and suffered bullying; bereaved partners who could not have families or who were advised to abort babies for fear they may have HIV; siblings who were bullied; and siblings who, under the tariff, are currently ruled out because they were over 18. There is so much more.

It is not possible to deal with these cases without understanding each individual’s circumstances and the suffering they endured through so many years. What is needed is a bespoke system that meets individuals’ needs, but that requires far more engagement than is currently happening. The lack of engagement with victims is leading to a lack of understanding about how decisions are reached and how compensation is calculated, fuelling mistrust in the process. Many victims, whether affected or infected, have lost their faith that the full extent of their suffering will be recognised through the compensation scheme. Indeed, some campaigners have concluded that their suffering will not be recognised through the compensation scheme and that they must return to court to get the compensation they deserve.

Those suffering from hep C do not understand why their experiences mean they receive different treatment from those with HIV. That requires urgent explanation. Again, the scale of the suffering needs to be looked at case by case, and there needs to be greater engagement, so that both sides understand the concerns. Why are people with hep C being offered much lower rates of compensation unless they are near death?

Similarly, the additional payments for those experimented on, of £10,000 or £15,000, have been met with widespread derision. My constituent, Mr Lee Moorey, was a pupil at Treloar school. Having read his testimony to the inquiry, I share his sentiments. Will the Minister guarantee that that will be looked at?

We need to remind ourselves of the scale of the scandal and just how many people have died without justice. All along, people have had to fight to get justice, but they will only believe in justice if they have faith in the process. That requires the decisions to be made about them to be made with them. We have to restore their faith in the process. I understand that Sir Brian Langstaff has kept his inquiry open so that he can keep a watching brief. It would be a shame if the Chancellor, the Paymaster General or even the Prime Minister found themselves summoned before him.

Finally, my right hon. Friend promised that there will be a full debate in Government time on the scandal. When will that take place?

House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill

Julian Lewis Excerpts

2nd reading
Tuesday 15th October 2024 Commons Chamber

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

I will take one more intervention.

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

I thank the Minister and his colleague, the Minister without Portfolio, for having made themselves available to Members of the Opposition—as well as to those in the Government party, no doubt—to discuss these things privately in a less dramatic environment than this one. One incidental by-product has been pointed out to me by that very important group of peers led by Lord Norton of Louth, whom I know the Minister is going to see, who are in favour of sensible and credible reform. They say that, by removing the hereditaries, he will be removing the only group of peers who are not appointed in a process that is subject to prime ministerial influence. That is not an argument for not doing it, but it might be an argument for putting the House of Lords Appointments Commission on a statutory basis. What does he think about that?

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

Even with the removal of hereditary peers, the Conservative party will remain the largest party in the House of Lords. As for reform of the House of Lords Appointments Commission or any other aspect of reform, that discussion is clearly why the Government have chosen to take this more considered, measured approach. I was grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his constructive contribution when the Minister without Portfolio and I held our drop-in. I am more than happy for that dialogue to continue, both during the passage of this Bill and when we move to the second stage of reform.

Anniversary of 7 October Attacks: Middle East

Julian Lewis Excerpts

Monday 7th October 2024 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

I absolutely agree with that, whether it is children taken as hostages—it hardly seems possible to say that sentence without recoiling—or those orphaned in Gaza, as my hon. Friend rightly suggests.

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

I appreciate that it is difficult to get into the mind of a theocratic regime such as that of the ayatollahs in Iran, but to what extent have the Government been able to establish whether a principal motivation for what happened on 7 October was the desire of the Iranian regime to prevent a rapprochement between Israel and Saudi Arabia, its great rival?

[The Prime Minister]

Iran bears huge responsibility across the region, both in its assistance in relation to the 7 October attack and through the other action that it is supporting in the region. That is why we have been clear in our positioning on Iran, and clear about the responsibility that Iran bears in relation to those awful incidents.

Infected Blood Compensation Scheme

Julian Lewis Excerpts

Monday 2nd September 2024 Commons Chamber

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend. The report sets out the five different areas of loss: those from injury and the social impact, then the autonomy award for the real effect on people’s freedom and family life, and also the loss from the care people have received, and financial loss as well. Those are the major heads of loss under the scheme and it is important to reflect the very different ways in which people were affected. It is also important to accept, as Sir Brian Langstaff set out, that a tariff-based scheme is crucial as well. That is to try to make this process as simple as the Government possibly can and to ensure people receive the justice they deserve.

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

The infected blood scandal is the health service equivalent of the Post Office Horizon disaster, with the added torture that it has gone on much longer. It took 40 years—over 40 years—before my constituent Lesley Hughes even discovered that the blood transfusion she had been given in 1970 had given her hepatitis C and subsequently cirrhosis of the liver and liver cancer. So although the end now appears in sight, I first raised her case in 2015 and I did not think we would still be waiting for a resolution nine years later; I hope the finishing tape really is at last about to be breached.

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

The thoughts of the whole House will be with the right hon. Gentleman’s constituent, and I know from my own service in this House in previous Parliaments that he has raised this issue on a number of occasions before. I would say to him, and indeed to this House, that there is no dispute that decades have passed when people should have achieved justice and did not. We had this scandal of infected blood and infected blood products in the 1970s and 1980s, but it was compounded by the failure since to recognise what had gone wrong and to try to make recompense for it; there is no doubt about that. The undertaking I give him is that the Government will push this forward as quickly as we possibly can, and I hope finally we will get to where he wants, which is the position where compensation has finally been paid to those who so richly deserve it.

NATO and European Political Community Meetings

Julian Lewis Excerpts

Monday 22nd July 2024 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

I thank my hon. Friend for her question. The reset with our European allies was well received, and there was clearly an appetite to work in a different and better way with the UK, which I think will stand us in good stead as we go forward. We did have discussions about a closer relationship with our EU allies, but I made it very clear from the outset—as I have done in opposition—that that does not mean rejoining the EU, it does not mean going back into the structures of the EU, and it does not mean freedom of movement. I took the early opportunity to make that clear to our European allies so that we can move forward progressively, but with the right framework in mind.

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

May I congratulate the Prime Minister on his election victory, and particularly on the very strong commitment he gave at the beginning of his campaign to the maintenance of the strategic Trident nuclear deterrent in the future? Does he agree that, if there had existed in 1914 or in 1939 an organisation like NATO that committed America to the protection from day one of countries such as Belgium in the one case or Poland in the other, those two terrible conflicts might well never have broken out? Does he therefore share my concern that the virus of isolationism is again on the move in certain parts of the American political spectrum?

[The Prime Minister]

I thank the right hon. Member for that question. First, I was able to make clear our unshakeable commitment to the nuclear deterrent, something I did in opposition. I have been able to make that absolutely clear as Prime Minister, and it was very important that I did so from the outset. In relation to what may have happened in the past, I will not speculate, but I believe that NATO is the most successful alliance the world has ever known, and that it is as needed now as it was when it was founded. The then Labour Government were very proud to be a founder member of NATO, and it was very important for me to reaffirm our unshakeable support for NATO. The world is a more volatile place, the challenges are greater now than they have been for many years, and I think that NATO is as needed now and as relevant now as it has ever been in its history.

Debate on the Address

Julian Lewis Excerpts

Wednesday 17th July 2024 Commons Chamber

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

Who would have ever dreamt, Sir Edward, when we first met in October 1981, that so many years later both you and your equally radical and progressive friend, my constituency neighbour and hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Sir Christopher Chope), would successively grace this House by occupying the Speaker’s Chair?

I wish to make congratulations a theme of my short contribution. I want to congratulate in particular the three maiden speakers we have heard so far. It takes quite a bit of doing to make one’s maiden speech so soon after entering the House of Commons, and it is greatly to their credit that they made such generous tributes to their predecessors. The hon. Member for Bolton North East (Kirith Entwistle) talked about working across party boundaries, which I wish to come back to. The hon. Member for Wolverhampton West (Warinder Juss) concentrated on housing issues and the great sports record and legacy of his beloved Wolverhampton. I, too, can remember Billy Wright from all those years ago. The hon. Member for Southport (Patrick Hurley), who has just spoken, showed an intimate knowledge of the local issues affecting his new seat, and I am sure he will be extremely assiduous in attending to them.

I said that I believe congratulations are a theme that is in order, and I wish to echo what my right hon. Friend the Member for Herne Bay and Sandwich (Sir Roger Gale) said about the result of the election and the way in which power was transferred. It goes without saying that whenever we have a general election and one side achieves a significant absolute majority, as has happened in this case, there will be a majority of people in the Chamber who feel self-congratulatory, but I suggest that we all ought to congratulate ourselves and each other on the way in which we have handled the transfer of power. It is a cause for great concern that when we look among modern democracies, both in western Europe and, sadly, across the Atlantic, we see that the cause of democracy in those countries is currently so ragged and threadbare. Let us hope it is but a passing phase.

To those situated on the Opposition Benches, I have to say that, bad though the result was for the Conservative party, those who observe these Benches today should not think it was quite as much of a wipeout as it might appear. I think that two of us at least have had the experience of sitting on these Benches before. I was one of 32 first-time Conservative MPs elected in the Blair landslide of 1997. I had 13 years on the Opposition Benches, and then after that I had five years in a coalition. Which was the worse I am not sure, but I offer a piece of advice to all new entrants to the House, including on the Government Benches: if you want to enjoy your time in this place, ask yourself the following question, and hopefully give yourself the right answer. Would you still want to be here if you knew that you were going to be a Back Bencher for all of your parliamentary career? If the answer is yes, you are in the right place. Cling to it, because then anything else that happens is a bonus. If the answer is no, you made the wrong career decision. Get out at the next possible opportunity, because you will never be satisfied. People who come in with that attitude are disappointed. They may make it to the Front Bench but not make it to be a Cabinet Minister. They may make it to the Cabinet but not get to be one of the top four, or they may make it to the top four but not get the top job. We know what happens even to many Prime Ministers who get right to the top. So enjoy the status that you have got, bank it and look on everything else as a dividend.

I turn to the King’s Speech, on which I will make just a couple of observations, because we do not have the time for anything more detailed. On planning presumptions, I am always a little bit worried about presumptions in favour of this and presumptions in favour of that. Let us hope that is not a shorthand for ignoring what people want. In my constituency of New Forest East, the biggest local issue for the first six years of my time in this place was a proposal to build a giant container port on reclaimed land on Southampton water called Dibden bay. Associated British Ports said that, without doing that, the port of Southampton would begin to die. We fought that for six years and we won. Guess what? The port of Southampton did not die; it found other ways of dealing with the container traffic, which has thrived. Now we have the prospect of a freeport in the area. I like to think that the new people in charge of Associated British Ports will be a lot more sensitive about what they plan for the delicate parts of the constituency. All I would say is: do not trample roughshod over communities’ concerns about major infrastructure projects, because sometimes that may not get us the best projects.

On conversion therapy, I just leave a question hanging in the air. Anybody who votes for this change needs to be able to answer this point: what is it that you are proposing to outlaw that is not already forbidden under existing laws? The danger with well-intentioned laws of this nature is that we can end up really talking about thought crime. Seventy-five years after George Orwell’s “Nineteen Eighty-Four” was published—technically speaking, perhaps it is now 76 years—we need to be wary of that.

I have a constituent with whom I happen to disagree about abortion. He is totally opposed to abortion; I am not, and I do not think that there should be demonstrations outside abortion clinics. He wants to be able to stand silently by himself on the pavement and pray internally. If he is asked by the police what he is doing and he says, “I am thinking about my shopping list”—or some other domestic issue—he is fine, but if he admits that he is praying in relation to the abortion issue, he could end up being accused of committing an offence. We should be careful before going down that road too far.

When it comes to modernising the membership of the House of Lords, we must be careful about blanket proposals. A well-informed group led by Professor Lord Norton of Louth have been grappling with sensible ways of trying to modernise and reform the House of Lords for quite a number of years. Such voices need to be listened to. The House of Lords, though some people are appointed to it on the wrong basis, does an important job.

If I may please have a few more moments, I have one last point, which is significant and relates to the Intelligence and Security Committee. This is an essential matter that will need to be incorporated into one of the pieces of legislation that the Government are to introduce. A single amendment to the Justice and Security Act 2013 is required to protect a particular aspect of our parliamentary democracy that is currently being undermined. The amendment would establish an independent office to support the Intelligence and Security Committee of Parliament—which I chaired until recently—in order to safeguard the Committee’s independence.

For the benefit of the newer Members of the House, the ISC is a cross-party and cross-House Committee 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. Newer Members will be surprised to hear that the ISC’s office—a very small number of staff—belongs to the Cabinet Office, when the ISC oversees large parts of the Cabinet Office. They would be right to be surprised. That is 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 a temporary home but, in the more than 10 years that have elapsed since then, the Committee’s office is still beholden to, vulnerable within and unfairly pressurised by the very part of the Executive that it 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 team to the extent that the Cabinet Office officials are actually overriding the Committee, as has happened repeatedly in respect of staff assessments in recent years, or starving it of resources so that it is unable to fulfil its legal responsibilities.

The members of the ISC in the last Parliament therefore determined unanimously—across all parties and both Houses represented by its membership—that it was essential for parliamentary democracy that the Committee’s office move out from under the control of the Executive and be established instead as an independent body corporate with a link to Parliament rather than the Executive.

In the King’s Speech—this is my final point—we heard this morning a programme outlined that gives an obvious vehicle for putting this matter right: the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association and International Committee of the Red Cross Status Bill, which is designed to change the status of those two organisations. That is therefore the obvious place to include a short amendment to the legislation necessary to change the status of the Committee’s organisation as well. I hope that we can work across party boundaries to ensure that the resources and the independence of the staff of the Intelligence and Security Committee can now be secured after a difficult time in which the excellent staff have helped to produce many important reports. However, they should not have to be looking over their shoulders with a problem of this sort.

[Several hon. Members rose—]