Privileges Committee Special Report

Julian Lewis Excerpts

Monday 10th July 2023 Commons Chamber

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

At the closing stages of what has already been a very long debate, one thing has emerged very clearly: it is a thankless task indeed to be involved in issues of this sort.

I would like to congratulate speakers on both sides of the argument—not necessarily both sides of the House—for the contributions they have made, most notably those who have made the point that they have friends on both sides of the argument. That is true of me as well. If I were to single out two particular speeches on opposite sides of the argument, I would first congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Lichfield (Michael Fabricant) on giving a masterclass in how to defuse a very fraught and serious subject with good humour while still making his case lucidly. I would also commend my hon. Friend the Member for Newbury (Laura Farris) for her excellent focus on the heart of the matter, which is to ask the question: is anyone seriously suggesting that the seven members of the Committee, who went through this exhaustive process, were blinded by hatred and bias?

I have been in the House since 1997, and I hope, with luck, to carry on a little bit longer. My hon. Friend the Member for Broxbourne (Sir Charles Walker) is in his last Parliament, and I have known him very well since he came in in 2005. I challenge anybody who knows my hon. Friend at all well to believe for one moment that he would allow himself to be blinded by prejudice and bias in an inquiry of this sort. It is inconceivable.

There is a tendency in controversial areas such as this never to know when to stop. I remember having an argument with the then Leader of the House, my right hon. Friend the Member for North East Somerset (Sir Jacob Rees-Mogg), from whom we heard at length this afternoon, in the run-up to the debate about Owen Paterson. At that time, the Privileges Committee had produced a report with a very strong sanction. I had been shocked that that process had continued after Owen Paterson’s wife had committed suicide. My argument was to suggest to the then Leader of the House and the people in my party that it would be sensible to note the Privileges report, but to decide on compassionate grounds to take no further action. That lost out to an alternative policy and we all know where that led. It did not lead anywhere any good for Owen Paterson himself, the Government of the day or the reputation of this House. It was a case of not knowing when to stop.

I came to the debate this afternoon fully expecting that the Opposition might move an amendment arguing for sanctions against the seven people who were named in an appendix to the report. Had that been put to a Division, I would have voted against it; and had it nevertheless been agreed and had there been a Division on the amended motion, I would have voted against that as well. In my opinion, the Speaker was very wise not to select any of the amendments, on either side of the argument.

The one argument that I have heard against the way in which the Committee has conducted itself that carries any weight with me is this: I think it was unwise to name specific Members in an appendix, when all that the appendix did was give samples, as we have heard, of the sort of extreme criticism bordering on, and perhaps constituting, abuse to which the Committee was being subjected. The Committee would have been wiser to anonymise those quotes. It could have made the point just as effectively without then giving reason to people to feel—with some justification, I think—that they should at least have been informed that they were going to be named. I know the Committee will say, “Well, they’ve had their chance today to set their comments in context,” and some of them have done so.

Nevertheless, there is one other key point, with which I will conclude, that lies at the heart of the matter. When Members engage with a process that is going to judge them in some way, or at least make recommendations as to how they should be judged, which the House of Commons will then decide whether or not to agree with, and when Members accept that process, then they really ought to accept the result; otherwise, they should not have engaged with the process in the first place.

I close with an example of that, which I have asked my parliamentary researcher’s permission to mention. My parliamentary researcher is a lady called Nina Karsov. As an infant, she survived the holocaust. In 1967 she was put on trial in Poland for keeping an anti-communist political diary. She refused to engage with the court because she did not recognise its legitimacy. She knew what that would cost her: she spent two years of a three-year sentence in a Polish jail, until Amnesty International made her prisoner of the year, which helped get her released and brought to this country.

The fact is that if you are not prepared to accept the verdict of the umpire, don’t play cricket. I am getting increasingly fed up with the brutalisation of language in discussions of this sort, but I have limited sympathy for those people who get into trouble because of tweets and emails. If they open themselves up to that sort of thing, that is precisely what they should expect.

Privilege: Conduct of Right Hon. Boris Johnson

Julian Lewis Excerpts

Monday 19th June 2023 Commons Chamber

[Sir Jacob Rees-Mogg]

No, I have already given way to the hon. Gentleman, which seems to me to be sufficient.

Paragraph 9 of the report says:

“we leave our party interests at the door of the committee room”.

That is all very good, and it is to be encouraged, but it does not meet the Hoffmann test, which is important because the Judicial Committee of the House of Lords, like the Privileges Committee, was a Committee of Parliament following a judicial or, in this case, quasi-judicial process. I quote from its judgment:

“The contention is that there was a real danger or reasonable apprehension or suspicion that Lord Hoffmann might have been biased, that is to say, it is alleged that there is an appearance of bias not actual bias.

The fundamental principle is that a man may not be a judge in his own cause. This principle, as developed by the courts, has two very similar but not identical implications. First it may be applied literally: if a judge is in fact a party to the litigation or has a financial or proprietary interest in its outcome then he is indeed sitting as a judge in his own cause. In that case, the mere fact that he is a party to the action or has a financial or proprietary interest in its outcome is sufficient to cause his automatic disqualification. The second application of the principle is where a judge is not a party to the suit and does not have a financial interest in its outcome, but in some other way his conduct or behaviour may give rise to a suspicion that he is not impartial”.

That is the fundamental point, and it led to the Judicial Committee—for, I believe, the only time in its history—overturning a decision it had made. It is reasonable suspicion.

The judgment of Lord Nolan runs to only four lines. I will read out only two of them:

“I would only add that in any case where the impartiality of a judge is in question the appearance of the matter is just as important as the reality.”

This seems to be fundamental: the Judicial Committee followed a proper process, which the Privileges Committee did not.

I have slightly exceeded the time limit, but I will finish relatively swiftly. Fortunately, the previous two speakers were brief, which is encouraging.

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

rose—

[Sir Jacob Rees-Mogg]

I will not give way. Let us come to paragraph 14, on a special report, because this is important. Paragraph 194 cites the 1978 resolution of this House that its “penal jurisdiction” would be used

“sparingly…in order to provide reasonable protection for the House, its Members or its officers from improper obstruction or attempt at or threat of obstruction causing, or likely to cause, substantial interference with the performance of their respective functions.”

That does not mean criticism; it is absolutely legitimate to criticise the conduct of a Committee or its members—that is politics. Our politics is adversarial, which is one of the great strengths of our political system. It is open to us, within this Chamber, to accuse people, within the bounds of good order, of saying things that we disagree with. Outside this Chamber, freedom of speech is paramount; we are allowed to say what we like.

The House has historically tried to call people to the Bar—indeed, in past times it even imprisoned people—and it made the House look ridiculous. When John Junor was called to that Bar of the House because he had said in the Sunday Express that Members were fiddling their petrol coupons, it was not he who looked ridiculous but the House. We must defend the right of freedom of speech. Frankly, if politicians cannot cope with criticism, one wonders what on earth they are doing with a political career.

I have one final question, which arises from annex 1 and the answer to question 7, where it says that Sue Gray’s report was not important in this case. When the witnesses have come from Sue Gray’s report, it is odd then to say that her report was not important. It might also be interesting to know, in the interests of paragraph 12-style transparency, quite how many communications, private and public, the Chairman of the Committee had with Sue Gray.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir William Cash]

I will leave that for a moment. I have more to say on that very question.

Only by cross-examination of witnesses can truth be properly established. The 1997 resolution went through unanimously after a series of many Select Committee reports in the 1990s following the arms sales to Iraq saga. There were intensive cross-party discussions and, eventually, John Major and Tony Blair insisted on the words, “knowingly misleads” in the resolution that was unanimously passed; the House agreed to it. That resolution, as I have said repeatedly, prevails to this day. Therefore, no Minister shall be expected to resign, or be forced to resign, unless that can be proved.

The motion of 21 April deliberately left out the word “knowingly”. It was a Labour bear trap for Boris Johnson and the Government. Changing this fundamental principle through a new precedent would, in my view, affect all Governments and democratic accountability in future, and would, incidentally, apply to civil servants, who are also governed, under the civil service code of conduct, by the words “knowingly misleads”. They are the people who have to put together the answers to the questions that are raised on the Floor of the House and, for that matter, in speeches, too.

[Sir Julian Lewis]

My hon. Friend is, indeed, a true friend and, normally, we find ourselves in the same Lobby under heavy crossfire, but I want to ask him a simple question that I would have asked my right hon. Friend the Member for North East Somerset (Sir Jacob Rees-Mogg) had he found time to give way to me. Given that he is so hostile to the report of the Committee, will he do people like me a favour and divide the House today, so that we can have the opportunity to cast our vote, either against the report, as he wishes to do, or in favour of it, as I wish to do?

[Sir William Cash]

My right hon. Friend is a very good friend of mine—he really is—as indeed of some Members on the other side of the House. I would simply like to say this. I am not in control of whether there is going to be an amendment. [Interruption.] No, I am making the point that, as far as I am concerned, there is an issue here that is being debated. Many people are absenting themselves for what they believe to be very good reasons. I am simply taking the view that somebody may decide that they are going to divide the House and I am leaving that as an open question for the time being. However, the statements made by Boris Johnson on the Floor of the House—

Tributes to Baroness Boothroyd

Julian Lewis Excerpts

Tuesday 28th February 2023 Commons Chamber

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

If I may, Mr Speaker, I will share with the House just two personal anecdotes of my experience with the late, great Betty Boothroyd. The first occurred in May 1997, on the day of my swearing in—at least, I hoped it would be the day of my swearing in, because I had inquired, checked and double-checked that on that day the new intake MPs were to be sworn in. As it was my first time, my father, Sam, had come from Swansea in south Wales. He had caught the train on time, it had arrived on time and I had picked him up on time, so I knew that something was bound to go wrong. No sooner had I got him settled in the Gallery than the then Deputy Chief Whip told me that there had been a change of plan and the previous MPs were to be sworn in on that day; the new MPs would be sworn in on subsequent days. However, he said that I could go and have a word with the Speaker’s Secretary—the gentleman at the time who was standing by the Chair. I did that, and he understood and said, “You can go on the end of the queue and be sworn in when all the pre-existing MPs have done so.”

For the benefit of anyone watching these tributes who does not know the procedure, I should say that one lines up, takes the Oath at the Dispatch Box, signs the register and shakes hands with the Speaker, with whom one has a gentle exchange of words. In my gentle exchange of words, I said that I was so pleased that it had been possible to be sworn in on that day as my father was 84 and he had come 200 miles to see it. Betty paused, looked up at the Gallery, spotted this gentleman with silver hair who was beaming and looking very proud of being part of this wonderful occasion, and said, “Is that him up there?” When I said that it was, she said, “Well, strictly speaking, we are not allowed to make reference to anyone outside the boundaries of the Chamber itself. But as it is a special occasion, let’s give him a wave.” So Betty the Speaker and I gave my dad a big wave.

The second anecdote I would like to share is from June 2000. As a result of a debate on the armed forces, I was in the proud position of welcoming four second world war veterans of the Fleet Air Arm, all of whom had been decorated with distinguished service orders, conspicuous gallantry medals or, in one case, the distinguished service medal for their participation in near suicidal attacks on the German battlefleet going up the channel in 1942 or on Japanese-supplying oil refineries in Sumatra in 1945. I thought that it would be nice to get some extra tickets so that they and their wives could attend Prime Minister’s questions. I went along to the Speaker’s Office and, when I explained the situation, the member of staff graciously said, “Yes, of course you can have these extra tickets, but why not bring them round, because I am sure Madam Speaker will want to see them.”

Not only did she want to see them, not only did she give them a personal tour of the Speaker’s apartments, but at the end of it all she made a little oration to them that was perfectly judged. We must remember that, in their day, these elderly gents had been heroes of the second world war, but many, many years had gone by and most people of that generation did not even know about the channel dash raid or the Palembang oil refineries raid. She said, “I want to thank you, because, without what you and your comrades did, we would not have a free Parliament today.” Impishly, she added, “And with my views, I would probably have ended up in a concentration camp.” Quick as a flash, Pat Kingsmill DSO said, “Yes, but we would have been in there right alongside you all the way.” I could see the backbones of these four elderly gentlemen straightening because of the way that they had been inspired by the empathy, the kindness and the dignity of this wonderful woman.

I close by reminding the House that I was one of hundreds of MPs. Those are my two anecdotes, and if some of those hundreds were here, they could tell many more.

[Mr Speaker]

Let us go to somebody who is a serving neighbour.

Parliamentary Services for MPs

Julian Lewis Excerpts

Thursday 9th February 2023 Commons Chamber

[Sir Charles Walker]

That is exactly what I am talking about. It is a nice and kind thing to do, and there is nothing wrong with being nice and kind. Workplace recognition is a good thing. I received a lovely pen when I left my first substantive job. I received a lovely decanter from the 1922 committee to mark my 11 years of service to it. Is it going to change my life? It is not going to change my life at all. Is it something that I will enjoy and that, I hope, my family and children will enjoy? Yes, it is. I just wanted to put that into context.

Treating people well is important, and it will encourage good people to run for office. As I have said, I entirely concur with the idea that we need better Members of Parliament. I suppose I should not be surprised that, when the Committee and my wonderful colleagues on it went away and thought about how we could do that, they got criticised for having done it, but the people criticising them are the very ones saying that we need better Members of Parliament. Excellence in this place should be the norm, not the outlier.

I will conclude by saying this—

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

Before my hon. Friend concludes, may I just put it on the record that I would like to think on both sides of the House there could be no better Member of Parliament than he has proved to be during his time here?

[Sir Charles Walker]

I absolutely thank my right hon. Friend for that. He and I have been friends since I got here, and that means a huge amount to me. I thank him.

This is what I want to conclude with. We will never in this place struggle to attract the shrill, the loud and the raucous. We will always be inundated with the practitioners of the clear thinking of the totally uninformed. That is what makes this Parliament so wonderful. There are those who believe there are simple solutions to complex problems. If there were, we would have found them, Mr Deputy Speaker. I promise you that we would have found them. There is always space for that, and at times I have been one of the raucous, the loud, the shrill and the emotional—I celebrate that. But we also need the thoughtful, the considered and the intellectually inquiring. Their numbers really are thinning, and we in this place have a duty to reach out to them.

We have a duty—not just to ourselves, but to future generations of Members of Parliament—to make this place the greatest Chamber with the greatest vocation someone can pursue in this country. A President came yesterday, welcomed by literally thousands of people, and he referred to our Parliament as the greatest in the world. I take great comfort from that, and I want to prove him right day in and day out.

Business of the House

Julian Lewis Excerpts

Thursday 22nd September 2022 Commons Chamber

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

I warmly congratulate my right hon. Friend on becoming not only Leader of the House, but Lord President of the Council. In that latter capacity, will she urge the Privy Council not to agree to the proposed change in name of Linacre College, Oxford to that of a Vietnamese billionaire who is proposing to give £155 million to the college? If we want to clean up the dirty money and dodgy donations in this country, that would be a good place to start.

[Penny Mordaunt]

I thank my right hon. Friend for raising this matter. I will ensure that the Department for Education has heard what he says. I suspect that that is the more appropriate and swiftest way of resolving the issues of concern to him.

Intelligence and Security Committee of Parliament

Julian Lewis Excerpts

Wednesday 9th February 2022 Commons Chamber

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

I will not detain the House, but it seems a suitable opportunity just to say a word of thanks to the two members of the Intelligence and Security Committee who are leaving, and a word of welcome to the two who are joining.

The right hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Dame Diana Johnson) is well known for the calmness and conscientiousness of her approach to politics, and her good sense and good judgment on all issues to which she turns her hand. Our loss is the Home Affairs Committee’s gain. I felt honour bound to vote for her for that position, even though we knew that we would be losing her services which were much valued on the ISC, but we wish her every success in her new post.

My right hon. Friend the Member for The Wrekin (Mark Pritchard) brought his keen enthusiasm for the subjects with which the Committee deals strongly to bear and, as a result, has significantly shaped the make-up of our future programme of study. We are grateful to him for all his contributions.

The fact that we are gaining a former Attorney General, in the shape of my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kenilworth and Southam (Jeremy Wright), is particularly apposite, because who better than a former Attorney General to be around to remind both the Government and the agencies of their obligations under the Justice and Security Act 2013? Sometimes those obligations are slightly overlooked, and we look forward to the strength and legal underpinning which his skills will bring to the ISC.

Finally, it is a pleasure to welcome the hon. Member for Garston and Halewood (Maria Eagle), who entered the House at the same time as I did in 1997. I particularly remember working with her on a cross-party basis on a very moving campaign that she undertook in relation to the tragic loss of the MV Derbyshire with all her crew. This was the largest ship of the British mercantile fleet ever to be lost at sea. As a result of her campaigning, and that of her predecessor in Liverpool, the wreck was eventually discovered and the crew absolved of any blame for the loss that had claimed their lives. It was a pleasure to work with her on a cross-party basis then. I, and I am sure all other members of the Committee, look forward to working with her on a cross-party basis in the future.

With that, Madam Deputy Speaker, I thoroughly endorse the recommendations in the motion.

Amendments to the Independent Complaints and Grievance Scheme

Julian Lewis Excerpts

Wednesday 28th April 2021 Commons Chamber

[Valerie Vaz (Walsall South) (Lab)]

I start by thanking the Leader of the House for outlining the position in relation to the motion. This is a good time to thank the people who started off the whole process of setting up the ICGS, who may have moved on before they had a chance to be thanked. It was a difficult task from the start, and they have done incredibly well. As the Leader of the House has said, Alison Stanley reviewed the process and then undertook an 18-month review, which was published on 22 February. I thank her for her diligence in her work.

The Commission discussed a report on the proposed changes, and that is now before the House. It includes amendments made in response to the 18-month Stanley review, and additional changes to policies and procedures. I want to deal with the response to the Stanley review. We have the introduction of a time limit from 28 April 2022, such that

“a complaint may not be brought more than one year after the incident…complained of.”

At present, there is no time limit on non-recent cases. Stanley suggested two years, acknowledging that tribunal cases have a time limit of three months. The Commission report states that the time limit will be one year from the date of the incident complained of.

The independent investigator will also be able to consider at the initial assessment stage

“whether the complaint has already been fully and fairly considered in another context.”

If it has, there will be grounds for rejecting the complaint. We know of incidents where staff have taken a complaint through the normal grievance procedures and also through the ICGS. As the Leader of the House outlined, we cannot have this double jeopardy. Again, the definitions are being aligned with the Equality Act 2010 to include all the protected characteristics. The 18-month review found that the combination of a factual accuracy check and the right of the complainant to seek a review of the investigators’ findings had delayed some cases substantially, but the factual accuracy check remains available for both parties to correct factual inaccuracies.

I turn to the policy and procedural changes. These will use the same words for both the complainant and respondent for all bullying, harassment and sexual misconduct cases. It is also stated that the existing procedure documents have been shortened and amended to make it clear that they provide an outline only of the procedure, and that further detailed information on the different stages of the process is available from both the ICGS team and the relevant decision-making body.

The Leader of the House has not clarified some of the questions that were asked. I find it concerning that the procedures should be in lots of different places and that they are not in a usable form. We have Standing Orders and “Erskine May”, so things are out there and transparent. We also have obiter dicta from his podcast about how Parliament works. Making it obscure and asking the team in the relevant decision-making body does not give clarity, certainty and transparency. People should not have to go to different places to find out what the procedures are. I am happy to work with him and anyone else to ensure that the procedures are published in full, so that everyone is aware of them. Again, victimising a complainant for bringing a complaint would be treated as an aggravating factor.

I turn to the vexatious question that has been before the House on the change to the drafting in relation to non-recent cases, which was agreed in July—that it should be possible to complain about the conduct of any former member of the parliamentary community, be they Clerks or anyone else, whether or not they hold a parliamentary pass when the complaint is made. As currently drafted, there is an “and” in paragraph 4.3, as the hon. Member for Christchurch (Sir Christopher Chope) said. The person has to hold a parliamentary pass, and the change is to whether or not former members of the parliamentary community—whether it is a Clerk, a Member or anybody else—hold a parliamentary pass. I think that that offends the principles of natural justice, one of which, I remind hon. Members, is procedural fairness—the right to a fair hearing. That means that people know the rules by which they are being judged and that people act fairly, act in good faith, without bias, and give each party an opportunity to state their case.

Procedural fairness, in my view, is not changing the rules and making them apply retrospectively. The Leader of the House did not actually say whether the rules were retrospective or not, so I ask him to confirm whether any changes made today will apply to the current cases that are going forward. I know that he suggested that it was about the decision maker, but actually, as the hon. Member for Broxbourne (Sir Charles Walker) pointed out, it is an individual decision maker. They are all separate and they are all different. That is why there should be a set of rules that everybody can see and everybody can apply. In no quasi-judicial situation do we ever have different decision makers making different decisions on a rule that is not clear. The amendment sought to clarify that, so I hope that the Leader of the House will too.

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

I apologise to you, Mr Deputy Speaker, that I did not hear the opening comments from the Leader of the House because I was chairing a Committee meeting in another building. Following as closely as I can what the shadow Leader of the House is saying, as I understand it—on this particular paragraph 4.3, about passes—I presume that she would not have any objection to a change in the rules saying, “Passes used to be required but no longer will be required”, as long as that applied only to future cases. It seems rather strange that it should be said, “We are not changing the rule—we are just clarifying what the House meant previously, and when it previously said that the person has to still hold a parliamentary pass, what it really meant was that he or she did not have to be holding a parliamentary pass at all.” That is surely not a clarification of the rule; it is a change of the rule and, therefore, it should be forward-looking and not retrospective, should it not?

[Valerie Vaz]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for that. I think he missed the earlier discussion about the lack of clarity around that, but it should not be the case that current cases are subject to a changes of rules. To me, that is a breach of natural justice. We cannot have different decision makers applying the rules as they interpret them. In my view, we cannot have changes in procedure to cases, because each case will be dealt with differently, but as it was set out—as the hon. Member for Christchurch read out paragraph 4.3—it is fairly clear that there are the two limbs and therefore that any changes should apply to future cases.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

I am grateful to all those who have participated in the debate and, as always, to the shadow Leader of the House who, along with me, serves on the Commission. Of course, although these recommendations are brought forward by me as Leader of the House, they are brought forward on behalf of the Commission, so a number of questions that she raised are questions for the Commission rather than for me as Leader of the House. The Commission has its own spokesman, and as we both serve on it, that is probably the best way of getting the information that the right hon. Lady requires, because I do not wish to blur the lines between what is my responsibility as Leader of the House and what is the Commission’s responsibility.

My hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Sir Christopher Chope) went back to his fundamental point, and I want to give him clarification on who may appeal to the IEP. There is one category of Member or former Member that is excluded, and that is a former Member who had the good fortune—if it is a good fortune—to go to another place. They would not be able to use the IEP. Anybody who brings a complaint against a Member is able to appeal to the IEP, and any Member or former Member except a peer is also able to take their case to the IEP.[Official Report, 12 May 2021, Vol. 695, c. 2MC.]

My hon. Friend reiterated his concern about the issue of retrospection. The best I can do is to go back to what I said in my speech, because this is fundamental. The people considering any of these cases must do so looking at the language of the policy at the time. I said that twice when I was speaking, I think I then reiterated it in an intervention, and I have now reiterated it a fourth time in winding up. I think that is very clear. Where I cannot be clear, because we have not had a decision, is on how the panel would interpret the rules at the time, because that is rightly a matter for the panel because it is independent. I hope that I am giving my hon. Friend most of the comfort that he wants, without trying to be a soothsayer and make a prediction of what may be determined in the future.

[Dr Julian Lewis]

I know that my right hon. Friend will only be able to give me his opinion on this, in the light of what he has just said, but does he know of any specific historical case that is currently under way that would be ruled out of scope unless the rewording of paragraph 4.3 was applied retrospectively?

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

My right hon. Friend raises a question of considerable importance and one that I have been very careful to avoid in all these discussions. It seems to me that it would be quite wrong to be making this decision, in relation either to what I have said about the rules at the time or to the new rules, with reference to any specific cases. That is fundamental to having a just and fair system. On the question he asks me, I know of gossip, but I have no confirmed knowledge of reports of who may or may not be facing an investigation. In all the deliberations I have done, whether on the Commission, in preparing my speech or in discussions I have had privately with the shadow Leader of the House, I have done it on the basis of general principles rather than trying to consider specific names. I think that is very important.

I thank the hon. Member for Midlothian (Owen Thompson) for his support and for the contribution of his hon. Friend, the hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart), who is a member of the Commission, is always fully engaged with our discussions and makes a serious contribution to our deliberations.

I am concerned about the issue raised by the hon. Member for Lewisham East (Janet Daby) about a complaint that has taken three years. That is one of the reasons that we had the Alison Stanley review. It is one of the issues that has come up up most commonly from people who have been involved with or have an interest in the ICGS—a feeling that things are taking too long. It is absolutely the aim of the Commission and the ICGS itself to ensure that things happen in a timely manner.

I thoroughly agree that every Member of this House and everybody who works for or in the House should be treated with respect and decency, regardless of their ethnic background or any other background issues. That is fundamental to the House, to our democracy and, dare I say, to the constitution of this nation. I think we can go back—although I will not in this speech—to Magna Carta and the idea that we have equality under the law and that we all should have; that is a fundamental position of the British constitution.

I am, of course—I reiterate this—acting for the Commission, but in acting for the Commission. I commend the motion to the House.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House endorses the report of the House of Commons Commission entitled Amendments to the Independent Complaints and Grievance Scheme, HC 1384, laid on Thursday 22 April; and approves the revised bullying and harassment policy and outline procedure, and sexual misconduct policy and outline procedure, set out in Annexes 1 to 4 of that report.

Business of the House

Julian Lewis Excerpts

Thursday 25th March 2021 Commons Chamber

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

I am glad that the hon. Gentleman is pleased by the hospital rebuilds programme, and he raises a serious and important point. My right hon. Friend the Health and Social Care Secretary will be at the Dispatch Box shortly, and that question could be raised with him in an intervention. I will pass on the point to my right hon. Friend after this statement, and try to get the hon. Gentleman an answer regarding what is the policy, and what has been learned from the pandemic.

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

I refer to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. The Government are rightly working on a scheme to protect blameless leaseholders from financial ruin owing to the cladding scandal, yet as my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Itchen (Royston Smith) and others movingly explained on Monday, lessees are even now being handed bills well in excess of £70,000 for hugely expensive waking watch arrangements and other costs, which they cannot possibly afford. May we urgently have a Government statement on how to prevent such innocent people from being forced to forfeit their leases, sacrifice their homes and declare themselves bankrupt before the new scheme has been fully activated?

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

The Government have always been clear that leaseholders should not have undue worry about the costs of remediating historical defects that they did not cause. Waking watch arrangements have been in place for far too long, and leaseholders are being left to pick up sometimes very high bills. That is why the Government are providing £30 million for a waking watch relief fund to install fire alarms and other interim measures, providing alternatives to the expensive waking watch systems. I will take this up on my right hon Friend’s behalf with the Secretary of State, but Housing, Communities and Local Government Questions are on 19 April. I point to the measures that the Government have introduced, which my right hon. Friend referred to, which will be of considerable assistance to leaseholders and get the right balance between leaseholders, the taxpayer and freeholders.

Business of the House

Julian Lewis Excerpts

Thursday 11th March 2021 Commons Chamber

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

The hon. Lady raises a really important point. The Government have a wide range of measures with which they support businesses that wish to export, including the export credit guarantee scheme, the use of embassies to help people to export and guidance that is available. To give that a higher profile so that more people know what support is available is extremely worth while. While I cannot promise a specific debate, her point is one that I am sure the Department will want to follow up on.

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

May we have a statement from the Foreign Secretary on the issue raised so eloquently in last night’s Adjournment debate by our hon. Friend the Member for Shrewsbury and Atcham (Daniel Kawczynski): the Nord Stream 2 pipeline and the strategic threat it constitutes to our central and eastern European friends and allies? The Under-Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Wendy Morton), agreed with the analysis by our hon. Friend the Member for Shrewsbury and Atcham but stopped short of agreeing with his recommendations for action we can take. This is a very serious matter, and it deserves deeper and wider consideration.

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

My right hon. Friend is right to raise the important Adjournment debate that was held yesterday by our hon. Friend the Member for Shrewsbury and Atcham (Daniel Kawczynski). It is a useful example of how important Adjournment debates can be in raising issues of national significance. There are currently no autonomous UK sanctions being imposed with respect to Nord Stream 2, and it would not be right to speculate on future sanction designations from the Dispatch Box this morning. None the less, the UK remains concerned about Nord Stream 2 and its implications for European energy security and the interests of Ukraine. Our focus continues to be on regulation, diversification and decarbonisation of sources of supply, and we will continue to work closely with our European allies on these issues, although the implications of the pipeline may be something that my right hon. Friend’s Intelligence and Security Committee is interested in looking into.

Business of the House

Julian Lewis Excerpts

Thursday 4th February 2021 Commons Chamber

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

The hon. Lady will know that the immigration system is being updated to ensure that we have a fair points-based system to help people. If there are individual constituency questions, they are best taken up directly with the Home Office, although if the hon. Lady is not getting answers as swiftly as she would like, I will certainly use my office to help her.

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

Now that Putin the poisoner has jailed Alexei Navalny for the “crime” of missing probation appointments while in a coma, may we have a statement about British policy towards Russia, so that the House can express its view on such issues as that outrage and the increasing reliance of our European friends and allies on Russian gas supplies through such follies as the Nord Stream 2 pipeline project?

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

My right hon. Friend is so right to raise this important and disgraceful issue. The Government have called for the immediate and unconditional release of Mr Navalny. It is a completely perverse ruling. To say that somebody who has been the victim of an attempted murder, with a poison that is usually only available to state actors, has missed an appointment and therefore must go to prison is peculiar and unjust. It shows Russia is failing to meet the most basic commitments expected of any responsible member of the international community. Russia should fulfil its obligations under international law to investigate this despicable crime and explain how a chemical weapon came to be used on Russian soil.