Business of the House
Julian Lewis Excerpts(5 days, 21 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lucy Powell
I certainly join my hon. Friend in congratulating Paul and Cara on the work they do on rehabilitation in her constituency. She highlights once again the important role of prevention, early intervention and rehabilitation to ensure that people are healthy and successful in life in whatever way. Often those services are delivered by fantastic volunteers.
Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
The shadow Leader of the House referred to his admirable father’s national service in the course of his tribute, and that took place during a cold war that was prevented from turning into the third world war by the presence of American forces in NATO, led by the Supreme Allied Commander Europe. Up to now, that has always been a senior US army or other officer. Reports are now saying that in the Trump Administration’s latest move away from the security system that prevented a third world war until the collapse of the Soviet empire, America is proposing to give up the post of SACEUR and allow a European or Canadian—prior to annexation—to take it over. May we have a statement about what the Government are doing to prevent such a dangerous and foolish outcome from proceeding?
Lucy Powell
The right hon. Gentleman is right to say that our strength and security in this country, in Europe and across the world come from our very strong alliances with Europe and with America through NATO. Our commitment to that is unwavering, and that has been a critical component of peace and security around the world over recent years. I am sure he will appreciate that I will not provide a running commentary on the Trump Administration, but he will recognise that the Defence Secretary, the Foreign Secretary and indeed the Prime Minister have been incredibly forthcoming with updates and providing details to this House, and I will ensure that they continue to do so.
Business of the House
Julian Lewis Excerpts(1 week, 5 days ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lucy Powell
I join my hon. Friend in thanking all those who run the Pebble Brook Community Cafe and all the vital work that they do. Perinatal mental health is a really important issue that people have come to know about more in recent years. I am a long-standing supporter of the first 1,001 days campaign and the importance that that brings. That is why we are so focused on the early years and some of the issues that my hon. Friend raises and I think that would make an excellent topic for a Westminster Hall debate.
Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
As a believer in parliamentary democracy, I fully support the Government’s right not to exploit shale gas deposits in the UK on environmental grounds. However, may we have an urgent statement from the appropriate net zero Minister on the Government’s decision from next week to start filling in and putting permanently beyond use the two existing shale gas facilities in this country, rather than keeping them in reserve for an emergency should a future Government ever need to exploit them?
Lucy Powell
May I thank the right hon. Gentleman for agreeing with the Government that we should not exploit fracking? That was in our manifesto and we are committed to not doing fracking. I will ensure that Ministers update him on those matters, as they have been doing, coming regularly to the House. We have had a number of statements from Ministers from the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero, who are keen to update the House as and when. However, I will ensure the right hon. Gentleman is updated on that particular issue.
Business of the House
Julian Lewis Excerpts(1 month, 1 week ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lucy Powell
Once again, my hon. Friend lives up to the name I have given him: Mr Doncaster Airport. I am pleased to hear that preparations have moved a step closer for flights coming into Doncaster again. He raises the importance of a project such as Doncaster airport being about not just transport connectivity but bringing jobs and opportunity for young people in the community. I commend him for his work.
Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
I shall try to avoid the temptation to say that when the Leader of the House, in her upbeat way, describes the Attorney General as an asset, we can all agree at least on the first syllable, and instead ask for a debate on—[Hon. Members: “Oh!”] It took a while! Instead, I will ask for a debate on trends in defence spending during and after the cold war, so that those on both sides of the House have the chance to appreciate that when we are involved in a serious confrontation, we should not be arguing about 2.5%; we should be arguing for a figure much nearer to the 5% that President Trump, for once, is right to demand.
Lucy Powell
I will ignore the right hon. Gentleman’s invitation to say anything other than I absolutely stand by my comment that the Attorney General is a fantastic asset for this Government, and we are lucky to have him working with us.
The right hon. Gentleman will know that this Government are absolutely committed to working towards spending 2.5% of GDP on defence, but he is right to point out that defence spending has been too low to meet our country’s strategic needs. He will also know that the last time Government spending on defence reached 2.5% of GDP was under the last Labour Government. It never reached that level under his party.
Intelligence and Security Committee of Parliament
Julian Lewis Excerpts(3 months, 2 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
I promise that I will not unduly detain the House. As the retiring Chairman of the Intelligence and Security Committee of Parliament, I wish to put on record that it has been an interesting tenure. It got off to a somewhat controversial start when the then Prime Minister delayed its reconstitution by seven months, and then proceeded to try to impose a Chairman on the Committee in defiance of the provisions of the Justice and Security Act 2013 that the Committee should henceforth choose its own Chairman from among its members.
I am delighted to see that the present Government do not appear to be trying to do either of those two things. I am also encouraged by the fact that there appears to be a better balance between the Members of this House and the number of Members from the other place, which reflects more appropriately the joint nature of the Committee.
During my four years in post, the Committee produced several substantial reports—not just the famous Russia report, which was the work of the previous Committee and which we resolved to publish on our first day of reconstitution in July 2020. We produced major reports under our own steam, including one on extreme right-wing terrorism; a particularly well-received report on China; a substantial report on international partnerships; and, although it has not yet been published, a very interesting and comprehensive report on Iran. That report is in its final form and is just awaiting completion of the agreed redactions that have to be worked out between the agencies concerned and the Committee. I hope that that report will appear soon. The Committee also produced no fewer than four of its annual reports, which surveyed the general landscape of the seven intelligence agencies and other security organisations that it supervises.
There have been only two clouds on the horizon. One was the persistent refusal of the previous Government —no doubt on advice from officials in, I suspect, the Cabinet Office—to allow the Committee to adapt its memorandum of understanding with 10 Downing Street, which was specifically designed for flexibility when security sensitive activities were undertaken by different Departments. That element of the work of those different Departments should be scrutinised by the ISC, and appropriate adaptations should be made to the terms of the memorandum of understanding. Instead, it was unrealistically suggested that the general Select Committee for the Department concerned could do that sensitive work. It could not; it should not—this should be down to the ISC.
The second point is something I have alluded to repeatedly in speeches in this Parliament, which is that the independence of the secretariat of the ISC has been compromised by a so-called temporary arrangement, which was entered into with the Cabinet Office no less than 10 years ago. It means that if the ISC is deemed to be unhelpful to the Government or the establishment, or the two organisations out of the seven that it scrutinises which happen to be located in the Cabinet Office, the careers of the staff of the ISC will not prosper. I want to put it on record that the director and the staff of the ISC—this is a common view among all parts of the Committee throughout my tenure as Chairman—are absolutely outstanding.
I was particularly incensed when on two occasions, my recommendation as Chairman for an outstanding grading for the ISC’s professional director was overruled by officials in the Cabinet Office and downgraded. It was as a result of that sort of unacceptable behaviour and intrusion on the independence of the ISC that the Committee earlier this year voted unanimously—I stress, unanimously—that the secretariat of the ISC should be removed from the oversight or control of the Cabinet Office and should become an independent body or a body corporate, as exists in certain other organisations. I really do commend that to the Leader of the House. We do not want to see a persistence of this conflict of interest, where the Cabinet Office is able to put a blight on the careers of the loyal, talented and dedicated members of staff who have served the ISC so well.
With that, Madam Deputy Speaker—
Sir Jeremy Wright (Kenilworth and Southam) (Con)
Will my right hon. Friend give way before he finishes?
Sir Jeremy Wright
I am extremely grateful to my right hon. Friend for giving way. On behalf of those who have served on the Committee and, in my case, who hope to carry on serving subject to the will of the House, I just say that this moment should not pass without our simply saying thank you to my right hon. Friend for his service. This is an important Committee, as he knows better than anyone. It does a considerable service to the House, and he has done a considerable service to the House himself in serving on it or chairing it with the skill with which he has over nearly a decade.
Sir Julian Lewis
I am flattered and extremely grateful. Coming from someone of the calibre of my right hon. and learned Friend, that means a great deal to me.
It reminds me of one last point that I perhaps would have overlooked: one can achieve an awful lot with these secret organisations. I remember going with the excellent director of the ISC to meet a senior figure, shall we say, in the secret world, and we were discussing some of the reports we were going to produce. One of them was, as I mentioned in my list earlier, a report on the international partnerships that our intelligence agencies have. The senior figure was saying, “Well, it’s going to be very difficult. You’re not going to be able to publish just about anything. Are you sure you really want to do this examination?” To which the obvious answer was, “Well, we will certainly be able to produce a very interesting report, even if it is classified in its entirety and published only as a single sheet with the title page on it.”
I know I am not allowed to produce props, Madam Deputy Speaker, but I just happen to have with me a copy of that report, which it proved possible to publish in the end. It was not a single page; it was about 100 pages. That is what a clever, dedicated staff can manage to produce, irrespective of the fact that it rightly has to exclude anything that might harm the interests of the nation. It is possible both for the secret agencies to do their work and for the scrutineers of the secret agencies to do their work, provided that the independence of the people who do all the heavy lifting, namely the director and the secretariat, are not compromised.
Business of the House
Julian Lewis Excerpts(4 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lucy Powell
I express my deepest sympathies to all those affected by that tragic case. The issue of people acquiring and driving vehicles without insurance or a driving licence is often raised in this House. I will ensure that it is raised with the Secretary of State for Transport and that my hon. Friend gets a full reply. I am sure that this would make a good topic for a debate.
Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
I have been impressed by the courtesy and assiduousness with which the Leader of the House sends those of us who ask a business question in which we request a statement or debate a copy of the letter she sends to the appropriate Department. She would impress me even more if she instituted a requirement that the Ministers who receive those letters must respond, so that she can send us some feedback on why they do or do not intend to give us the debates or statements we have requested.
Lucy Powell
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his kind words. It is important to me that Members get responses from Ministers. I thank my fantastic civil service team for ensuring that all those letters are sent. I get replies to those letters from some Ministers, and those who do not reply are strongly noted. I do follow up, and I have my own internal league table. It is important to me that Members who raise issues, either with me or in the House, get a thorough response from Ministers. I shall certainly do that.
Business of the House
Julian Lewis Excerpts(5 months, 1 week ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lucy Powell
I thank my hon. Friend for raising that issue. Crime and antisocial behaviour blights many communities and is frequently raised at business questions by the Members that represent those communities. That is why we are taking action to create more neighbourhood police, as well as bringing in respect orders and other actions to tackle antisocial behaviour. Home Office questions is next week and he may want to raise the issue then as well.
Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
I reassure the Leader of the House that some of us feel that nothing is too good for the marvellous Taylor Swift, including, where appropriate, a police escort for her “Getaway Car”. However, there can be no doubt that the terrorism threat is intensifying. Can we have a statement, as soon as possible, on the reports in today’s media about the possibility that Russia is behind an incendiary device that was flown in on a plane to the United Kingdom, but fortunately did not ignite until it was in a warehouse in Birmingham?
Lucy Powell
We have seen many of those reports, and we heard from the head of the security services, in a key speech he gave last week, about some of the threats that our amazing security services thwart, which we often do not know about. Home Office questions is next week, but if the right hon. Gentleman does not get the answers he wants, I will encourage the Home Secretary to consider giving us a security update.
Business of the House
Julian Lewis Excerpts(5 months, 2 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lucy Powell
Life obviously begins at 30. I thank my hon. Friend for raising the important White Ribbon campaign and accreditation, to which she has long been committed. Tackling violence against women and girls is a priority for this Government, and one of our key missions is to halve violence against women and girls over the coming years. We are determined to meet that very ambitious target. Her idea of Parliament undertaking the journey to become a White Ribbon-accredited organisation is very good, and I will discuss it with her and with members of the House of Commons Commission.
Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
Will the Leader of the House join me in paying tribute to two fine, distinguished, genial and dedicated parliamentarians, whom we have lost in the past few days: Michael Ancram, Lord Lothian; and Sir Geoffrey Pattie, who passed away most recently? I send my appreciation and condolences to their families, and I would be grateful if the Leader of the House did so on behalf of the House.
As it is the Leader of the House’s birthday today, would she consider giving a present to this House? It is absolutely true that successive Governments have announced important matters in the media, when they should have announced them first to this House, and successive Oppositions have criticised them for doing so. Will she do her level best to ensure no unnecessary repetition of what we recently saw happen with the announcement on the Chagos islands, which was made so soon before Parliament was set to resume?
Lucy Powell
I join the right hon. Member in paying tribute to the eminent parliamentarians he mentioned, whom we recently lost. It is important that this House comes together to do that.
I try to give many presents to this Chamber, which was why I was keen to announce the long-term recess dates; I am sure we can all agree that was a present. The right hon. Gentleman is right that the Government and I, as Leader of the House, are committed to the principle that statements should be made to Parliament first, and should be made to Parliament as soon as possible, if the House is not sitting. I take the firm view that Secretaries of State should make those statements. I work very hard to uphold those principles. Of course, there are times when announcements need to be made during the recess for international or national reasons, so it is right that the Foreign Secretary came here at the very first opportunity to make his statement to the House.
Business of the House
Julian Lewis Excerpts(10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Penny Mordaunt
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for using this Business Statement to get on record his thanks and appreciation to all of his colleague. I wish them all well and I thank them for their service to this House.
Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
Thank you for your service to this House, Madam Deputy Speaker. May I place on the record my tribute to the director and staff of the Intelligence and Security Committee for their outstanding dedication and commitment to an area that is particularly important in this difficult and dangerous international environment? May I thank them for the work that they have done on preparing comprehensive annual reports and specialist studies on extreme right-wing terrorism, on the UK’s international intelligence partnerships, and on a very well-received report on China, with a similar one on Iran to follow as soon as the redaction process is complete?
May I just bring to the attention of the Leader of the House the fact that the Committee has resolved that it will no longer be under the aegis of the Cabinet Office? The basic conflict of interest, whereby the careers of the staff of a Committee that oversees bodies that are housed in a Department are in the hands of people in that very same Department, has become unsustainable.
Finally, may I thank the Members of the Committee from all three parties and both Houses, who kept to the tradition of leaving party politics at the door? Despite an unpromising start, when an attempt was made to do away with that important principle, they came together and have shown complete unanimity and dedication to carrying out the work of the Committee, which is necessarily not done in the public view.
Penny Mordaunt
I am sure the whole House will join my right hon. Friend in thanking all who enable this very important Committee to carry out its work. It is unseen work, but it is vital. I thank him also for the outputs and those important reports that will strengthen our democracy and protect this nation from those who would do us harm. May I also thank him for ensuring that the Committee can remain properly independent, which he has safeguarded with this new innovation?
Risk-based Exclusion
Julian Lewis Excerpts(10 months, 1 week ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Dame Karen Bradley
I can never resist the hon. Gentleman, and that is why I will always give way to him. He makes a very good point. There may be a role for another process that does that, but for the exclusion process it feels that the right point is at charge.
Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
I wonder whether my right hon. Friend’s Committee considered the difference between whether the allegation or accusation related to a member of staff or another employee of the House, or to somebody completely unconnected. I could be persuaded that arrest might be enough for exclusion if the matter related to somebody who worked here, but if it was unrelated, and if there was no question of the Member not being given bail because risk was assumed to be low in general, then I would come to a different conclusion. That is another complication that I might ask for my right hon. Friend’s opinion about.
Dame Karen Bradley
That was not a matter the Committee considered, but my right hon. Friend makes a very good point. We need to think of this as a process and not an event, because things can change and develop. Today we are deciding whether to introduce into our Standing Orders a process for exclusion, but in future we may well decide that the measures did not go far enough and that we need another process. The Commission has taken years to look at the matter. I am glad we have got to the point where we are finally discussing it and we have the chance to vote on the proposals, but it is a process, not an event.
Jess Phillips (Birmingham, Yardley) (Lab)
I rise, in an unusual moment, to agree with the hon. Member for Shipley (Sir Philip Davies), and with the point that the hon. Member for Amber Valley (Nigel Mills) also laid out in a lot of detail. The reason why the proxy voting, the panel and the other things were originally in the motion was that the motion was originally based on arrest. This House did not get a chance to vote on that. From the cursory opening speech made by the Leader of the House, it seems that even she is not that keen on the fact that the motion got changed. As such, I rise to talk about her original motion and the original motion of the Commission. I totally agree that if the basis is charge, we should get rid of the proxy voting and so on.
Sir Julian Lewis
In the spirit of consensus, may I point out to the House that when I responded to an intervention that the hon. Lady made last Wednesday, I made an error? I said that I was not aware that the word “arrest” had been included in the original proposal. I then immediately rushed off to check that I was right, and found that I was wrong. I am glad to have had the opportunity to set the record straight.
Jess Phillips
I welcome the right hon. Gentleman’s intervention, and I hope that he took the fact that I was seeking to correct him in the spirit in which it was intended. I will just point out that on the issues of arrest, sexual violence and safeguarding, I am usually right.
Business of the House (13 May)
Julian Lewis Excerpts(10 months, 2 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Sir Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)
We have, I think, another hour and three quarters, or a little longer, in which to debate this motion. The point I want to make at the outset is this: why are we wasting so much valuable sitting time because of the way the Order Paper is being arranged? Perhaps my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House, who I hope will respond to this short debate, can explain to us how it comes about that we have the best part of two hours to debate this motion, yet the motion states that we have two hours maximum to debate a much more important motion on Monday. That motion is in the name of the Leader of the House and relates to the exclusion of MPs. We had, I think, four amendments tabled to the Finance Bill, but there are already eight amendments tabled to the motion for Monday, which shows that there is quite a lot of interest in it. Those amendments include one from the hon. Member for North East Fife (Wendy Chamberlain), who wishes us to go back to the situation that pertained in the original motion relating to the risk-based exclusion of MPs.
The original proposal was that Members could be excluded just on the grounds of suspicion. I tabled amendments against that proposal, together with colleagues, and it is to the credit of the Leader of the House that she has come back with a revised motion that makes it clear that exclusion would not begin to apply unless or until somebody had been charged with a violent or sexual offence.
Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
As one of the colleagues who signed my hon. Friend’s suggested amendment, I found alarming the suggestion that an MP could be suspended on the basis of an allegation. It does not require much imagination to see certain circumstances in which an MP could be targeted by someone making a serious allegation with no factual underpinning whatsoever, and then having to be suspended. It is astonishing, frankly, that we could be put into such a situation on so flimsy a basis.
Sir Christopher Chope
I agree absolutely with my right hon. Friend, to whom I am grateful for supporting my amendments to the original motion. I am sure that it will be of concern to him that the hon. Member for North East Fife (Wendy Chamberlain) has tabled amendment (h) for debate on Monday, which would effectively take us back to the original motion by suggesting that, instead of having to be charged, a Member would only have to be arrested on suspicion of committing an offence in order to be excluded from this House.
Sir Christopher Chope
I take that point absolutely, Mr Deputy Speaker, but I think we have already had a taste, from the couple of interventions, of the fact that this is a controversial subject, for which two hours of debate on Monday is inadequate. The purpose of this debate is to decide whether we believe that a motion limiting debate on Monday to two hours is the right or wrong course, and I would suggest that it is the wrong course.
Sir Julian Lewis
While fully accepting your guidance, Mr Deputy Speaker, I must say in response to the intervention from the hon. Member for Birmingham, Yardley (Jess Phillips) that I said nothing about somebody who had been arrested. The original wording to which I objected did not refer to someone having been arrested; it was simply about whether somebody had been accused of something. On the point about someone having been arrested, I might well agree with her interpretation; it would depend on factors such as the bail circumstances.
Sir Christopher Chope
One issue is that people can be arrested and not know whether they will be charged for months, if not years. During that period, they are in limbo and under suspicion, but are, under the principles of justice in this country, innocent until proven guilty. I think it is reasonable, if somebody is charged with an offence, that the matter is moved on, and that their identity is known. However, quite often, people may be arrested and their identity will not be known.
The point I am making is that this is a controversial subject. The new motion that the Leader of the House has brought before us is more in line with what is proposed in the other place, which probably has even more legal wisdom than this House. It decided in a similar debate that it would be wrong to exclude Members from the parliamentary estate on the basis of suspicion or mere arrest, and that a charge was needed. I submit that it is desirable to have consistent rules across the whole parliamentary estate, because people can move freely between the different parts of the estate, so if somebody in the other place is subject to a different regime from somebody in this place, that will create extraordinary anomalies.