House of Lords Reform

Julian Lewis Excerpts

Monday 27th June 2011 Commons Chamber

[The Deputy Prime Minister]

Let me make a little progress, if I may.

If we are to continue in the spirit of co-operation, it is essential that we are pragmatic. House of Lords reform has constantly been blighted by an inability to compromise, because of either pessimism on the one hand or purism on the other. Both must now give way. When we differ on the detail, we must not lose sight of our overarching aim, which is a more democratic and legitimate upper Chamber.

Members know my preferences for reform: I support a fully, rather than mostly, elected House and believe that Members should be elected by the single transferable vote to give the other place greater independence from party control. I shall continue to argue strongly for both, but I will not make the best the enemy of the good. I shall remain open-minded and realistic, and I hope that Members on all sides of the debate will do the same. On that note, I give way to the hon. Member for New Forest East (Dr Lewis).

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

The Deputy Prime Minister is being very courteous in giving way. Does he accept that to elect two Houses by different electoral systems will lead to arguments over relative legitimacy? Will he put this particular voting system to a referendum? Why should we have a referendum on the voting system for this House and not one on the voting system for the other House?

[The Deputy Prime Minister]

On the first point, we have an array of different electoral systems already in this country, from that used for the European Parliament to that used here in London and those used in the devolved Assemblies. Those systems all co-exist. I do not think that we need perfect consistency of electoral systems, as we do not have it anyway. On the second point, when all three parties have committed to something in their manifestos, such as House of Lords reform, the situation is unlike that with electoral reform to this place, so there is not a similar case for a referendum.

A range of issues will no doubt come up today, and many of them have been brought up already. There are two particular areas of concern, however, that have frequently come up in debates so far, and I want to address them in turn. The first is that the Government’s proposals risk creating a second Chamber that is too powerful and the second is that Members will be elected but not properly accountable.

On the question of the balance of power between the two Chambers, it is simply not the case that the other place will rival the Commons—with 300 Members, it will be half the size. That is the number that we judge to be right, although we are listening to views on that question. Whatever number we settle on, however, the Commons will remain significantly larger, as is the case in the vast majority of bicameral systems around the world. Members of the other place will serve long single terms of 15 years with no prospect of re-election, keeping them a step removed from the electoral cycle of this House. They will be elected according to a different voting system, which will be proportional and will have, we propose, larger multi-Member constituencies, giving them an entirely different mandate from MPs. Their elections will be staggered, so that they will be either elected or elected and appointed in combination in thirds. That will mean that they will never have a more recent mandate than the Commons.

The two Chambers will remain entirely distinct. The Commons will continue to assert its authority through the Parliament Acts, through MPs’ decisive right over the vote of supply and through the Government’s need to retain the confidence of MPs in order to remain in office.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sadiq Khan (Tooting) (Lab)]

I believe in a fully elected House of Lords. It is right and proper in this day and age that both Houses of Parliament are directly accountable to the electorate. I would like to remind the House where Labour stood on Lords reform at the general election. Labour’s manifesto stated:

“We will ensure that the hereditary principle is removed from the House of Lords. Further democratic reform to create a fully elected Second Chamber will then be achieved in stages.”

The Deputy Prime Minister has often suggested that the best is sometimes the enemy of the good—he used the phrase today—as justification for the proposals contained in the draft Bill presented to Parliament, which falls short of his own party’s manifesto commitment, but I feel very passionately that there is a principle at stake, the fundamental principle of having a 100% elected upper House. That is the right and proper outcome, and one which will deliver the democratic system that the people of this country deserve.

[Dr Julian Lewis]

Does the right hon. Gentleman not accept that the single most important function of our second Chamber is the revision and improvement of legislation? If we remove hundreds of people who are experts in their field and substitute them with hundreds of professional party politicians, what will make the latter better qualified to revise legislation in that Chamber than we amateurs are in this Chamber?

[Sadiq Khan]

I do not think that the second point necessarily makes the first point impossible; it is possible to have a second Chamber that is a revising Chamber and for all its Members to be elected. Of the 61 other bicameral Parliaments, none has an appointed upper Chamber. All of them are elected and seem to be doing a pretty decent job.

I am concerned that in other areas of constitutional change the Government have shown themselves willing to be less principled and more partisan. For example, we will see the number of MPs reduced from 650 to 600 at the next election, with no evidence for why we should lose 50 Members, which will simultaneously increase the power of the Executive. We have had 117 new unelected peers appointed to the House of Lords since last May, with more promised. Each peer costs £108,000 a year—we can all do the maths. There are now almost 830 unelected peers in our Parliament. We have seen boundaries re-fixed according to out-of-date electoral data that exclude 5 million eligible voters. We have seen Parliaments fixed at five-year terms, which was mentioned by neither coalition partner before the election, but is now mysteriously favoured by both. We have seen the political fudge of establishing a commission on a Bill of Rights, papering over the cracks between the coalition partners on human rights, and we have seen a failed referendum on the alternative vote. Those are some of the reasons why those of us who should be the natural allies of the Deputy Prime Minister’s plans to reform the House of Lords are suspicious of his plans and of him.

--- Later in debate ---

[Conor Burns]

I can think of many, and it is not often that I am accused of being on the same side as Lord Heseltine. I remember telling Lady Thatcher a couple of years ago that he had not made his maiden speech, having been in the Lords for nine years at the time. Her reply was, “Well, look on the bright side, at least we haven’t had to listen to it.” Lord Heseltine is a very good example of my point—he says that he took his membership of the other place because he wanted the honour, but he did not want to participate. He has participated in fewer than 20 Divisions in the 10 years that he has been a Member of the other place. That was why I found it absolutely disgraceful that he came in the other night to vote against the referendum lock in the European Union Bill, which is going through the other place. Such examples show that the other place needs some reform.

[Dr Julian Lewis]

Does my hon. Friend accept that there would be no more accountability under the current proposals than there is at present, because someone who underperformed in the other place would have been elected democratically for just one term of 14 years and could not be voted out again?

--- Later in debate ---

[Andrew Griffiths (Burton) (Con)]

Thank you for calling me, Mr Deputy Speaker, in this important debate. By speaking today, I am breaking a little pledge that I made to myself: I assured myself, when I was elected just over a year ago, that rather than be tempted to speak in every one of the interesting and exciting debates that we hold in this Chamber, I would limit myself to those debates concerning a particular constituency issue, or where my constituents were particularly concerned. I wanted to be the voice of the people of Burton and Uttoxeter, and in order to do that I was going to champion their views in Parliament.

By speaking in this debate, I am breaking that pledge, because not a single constituent has contacted me to discuss Lords reform. Not one e-mail, either pro or anti, not one telephone call, not one letter and not one person attending my surgeries has brought the burning issue of Lords reform to my attention. That is why I am so concerned to speak in this debate, because not only has that not happened in the past 12 months of my being an MP, but it did not happen in the previous four years, when I was busy knocking on doors and kissing babies as a parliamentary candidate. Indeed, in the 10 or 20 years that I have been an active member of the Conservative party, campaigning regularly, nobody has ever raised the issue of Lords reform with me.

[Dr Julian Lewis]

In support of what my hon. Friend is saying, let me point out that in response to a Liberal Democrat comment in The Southern Daily Echo in favour of House of Lords reform, I wrote an entire column saying why the House of Lords should remain appointed and not be elected in any way, shape or form. Not only was not a single blog post or letter of dissent directed towards me, but nothing was put in the paper, which only goes to show what a non-issue this is, in either direction, for the electorate.

--- Later in debate ---

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

May I start by warmly endorsing that suggestion, although I am afraid that a referendum would result in the triumph of hope over experience? I fear that the knowledge that this proposed reform of the House of Lords to a primarily elected or all-elected Chamber would not get past a referendum ensures that no referendum will be offered to the British people.

I have been trying to think of what I might contribute to this debate that has not been said before and that might not be repeated subsequently, and in the end I have come up with a little personal experience, which I hope the House will indulge me in discussing. It has often been my silent boast to myself that I did far more in affecting legislation before I became a Member of Parliament than I have managed subsequently. In fact, I have only once managed to affect legislation going on to the statute book since I was elected to this House in 1997, and that was over the issue of MPs’ home addresses not being made public in response to freedom of information requests. I was able to win that change only because the then Labour Government had the decency to give the House a free vote.

I influenced legislation on three occasions prior to becoming a Member of this House, however, thanks to the House of Lords and the way in which it functions. The first of the three occasions was to do with the Trade Union Bill of 1984. The then Thatcher Government did not propose to make postal ballots for trade union elections compulsory. The issue was passionately raised in the House by Conservative Back Benchers, and most prominently by my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Mr Leigh)—who was in the Chamber until very recently but has sadly slipped out just at the wrong moment—but their arguments were brushed aside. In the House of Lords, however, an amendment that trade unions should conduct their elections by postal ballot rather than the raising of hands in unrepresentative branch ballots was discussed in great depth and at great length, and that amendment was carried on the strength of the argument. Of course, there was no question of that surviving into legislation without the agreement of the democratically elected lower House. Precisely because Members in the upper House had recognised the strength of the argument and had taken the trouble to amend the Bill, when it came back to the lower House, although the Government did not accept the amendment in full, they at least made a determination that trade union postal ballots should become the norm. In subsequent years they did not become the norm, however, so in 1988 that measure was brought in against that test, which would not have been in place but for the intervention of the upper House. Subsequently, trade union postal ballots were made compulsory in the 1988 Act. My hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough has now returned to the Chamber, having just missed my recent reference to him.

The second campaign was to do with the fact that in the 1980s many ideological disputes and divides were finding their way into the school classroom. Once again, we could not get an amendment considered seriously in the lower House, but it was taken very seriously in the upper House. The Bill that became the Education Act 1986 was amended in the upper House to ensure that political issues were raised in the classroom in a balanced and responsible way. When the Bill returned to this Chamber, the amendment’s merit was recognised and it was kept.

Finally, the same thing happened with the Bill that became the Broadcasting Act 1990. Questions of due impartiality for politically controversial subjects were enshrined in law as a result of changes made in the upper House.

The whole point is that in the upper House there are not only experts but people who can make changes to Bills that would be whipped out of existence if they were introduced in the lower House. If we go down the road of having a fully elected upper House, we will simply increase the number of Members of Parliament by a total of 300. They will be whipped in that place in the same way as they are in this place and the prospects of their being able to make changes that will survive the process in the democratic lower House will be lost.

[Gavin Barwell]

I am partly giving my hon. Friend an opportunity to finish his argument in the time allowed to answer my intervention, but I also ask him to consider the model in the draft Bill, which is 80% elected and 20% appointed. That does not seem, at least from the study I have done of the appointments since 2010, to be that different from the ratio in the upper House at the moment between political appointees and those who might be classified as independent experts. Why does he think there is a danger with the 80:20 model?

[Dr Lewis]

My hon. Friend makes a fair point, which was made by Lord Ashdown in his article in The Times. He said:

“As for wisdom versus democracy, well I concede that there is a reservoir of expertise in the Lords.”

He went on to say that

“maybe we should preserve this 20% if they are independently appointed”,

much though he would prefer to follow the 100% model.

On the question of experts, nobody is denigrating the potential expertise of people who become party political professionals when they enter this House. I am not saying that the average level of intelligence or articulateness in this House, whatever people might think, is lower than the average level of the same qualities in the other House, but the fact remains that those of us who chose in our 30s or 40s to become professional politicians gave up the chance of reaching the pinnacles of expertise that we might have reached if we followed other careers. If we make the proposed change, we will find that people who reach the pinnacles of their profession will no longer be part of the legislative process and that will be our loss.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Bryant]

I will not, if the hon. Gentleman does not mind, because he has only just spoken. Some 34 Back Benchers spoke, and I want to reply to as much of the debate as possible.

The current system is also unsustainable simply because of the numbers. There are already more than 800 Members down the other end, and if we do not make reforms towards an elected second Chamber, we will end up with another 269.

[Dr Julian Lewis]

Reduce the number!

[Chris Bryant]

I hear the hon. Gentleman say, in a rather Tudor way, “Let’s just reduce the number.” What? A kind of cull? Beheadings? We should have Acts of Attainder, perhaps, down this end just to get rid of particular named Members down the other. I am not sure that that is right, and I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Clwyd South (Susan Elan Jones), who said that there are too many Members and we need to ensure that there are fewer. The proposals are right in that regard.

A system that is based on appointment always leads to patronage. It was ever thus, and surprise, surprise, whoever we get to appoint people, they end up appointing people who are rather like them. When Lord Home of the Hirsel announced that women were to be introduced to the House of Lords, he rather bizarrely said that

“taking women into a Parliamentary embrace would seem to be only a modest extension of the normal… privileges of a Peer.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 30 October 1957; Vol. 205, c. 590.]

People did not quite understand what he meant, but the following year, when the first four women peers were introduced, one was the wife of a viceroy, another was a daughter of a viceroy and a third was already a Dame of the British Empire.

It was exactly the same in 1997, when the Labour Government decided to ask somebody to draw up a new system of appointments. We asked Herman Ouseley to do so, and he came forward with the House of Lords Appointments Commission, which we now enjoy. Guess who was on the first list of people whom the commission appointed—Herman Ouseley, now Baron Ouseley. To recite an old Robin Cook joke, there is of course Elspeth Howe, who became a Lady when her husband became Sir Geoffrey Howe, a Lady when her husband became a Member of the House of Lords and was then, herself, made a people’s peer, so she was “Once, twice, three times a lady”—[Interruption.] Sorry!

Appointment for life is also, in the end, reactionary. It often means that the wisdom and experience that goes into the House of Lords sits there for 20, 30 or 40 years and then becomes out of date and refers to a society of many years before. It was suggested earlier that the House of Lords should be a place of debate for an older generation. My hon. Friend the Member for Ealing North (Stephen Pound) said that that is effectively the Saga version of the House of Lords. We need a far better system to ensure that what it does reflects the will of the whole country. One of the other problems about appointment is that over the past few years the vast majority of appointments have come from London and the south-east of England. It is almost inevitable that those who end up doing the appointing end up appointing in their own likeness.

The system of by-elections for hereditaries is unsustainable, as is reflected by the elections that take place when one of them dies. As I am sure that all hon. Members know, earlier this year, on 11 May, there was a by-election following the death of the 11th Baron Monson. Fourteen hereditaries stood; seven got no votes at all; five—the Earl of Oxford and Asquith, the Earl of Shaftesbury, the Earl of Drogheda, Lord Cromwell and Viscount Colville of Culross—were eliminated because the single transferable vote is already used for the House of Lords; and the Earl of Lytton beat the Duke of Somerset by 15 votes to nine. I have to say that my favourite is still the 2005 by-election in which there were 28 electors, 26 stood, 19 got no votes at all, and in the sixth and final round Viscount Montgomery of Alamein defeated the Earl of Effingham—you couldn’t make it up, could you?—by 11 votes to eight. It was pure “Blackadder”. I am delighted, however, that in the other by-election that took place this May, a Labour candidate, the third Viscount Hanworth, stood against a Liberal Democrat, the Earl of Carlisle, and the Labour man got 233 votes while the Liberal Democrat got only 26. Interestingly, it is sometimes said that people will not stand for election to a second Chamber, but the Earl of Carlisle has not had much luck, as he also stood for the Commons in 1987 and 1992.

Incidentally, it is inappropriate that we still combine the peerage with the legislature. If the hon. Member for Gainsborough (Mr Leigh) wants to be a baron, a viscount, an earl or whatever, it would make far more sense for him to make his bid and start to get a bit less rebellious, because the Government will not be doling it out to him, and I am sure that Her Majesty will end up giving him a suitable honour.

Several hon. Members referred to experience and expertise. As the hon. Member for Carlisle (John Stevenson) has said, we should not undervalue the expertise and experience in this House. Many of us look to people such as the hon. Member for Beckenham (Bob Stewart), who have a degree of experience in certain fields, to bring that to this House. It is true that there are not many generals here, but there are majors and people who served in the ranks. One of the best speeches on the military covenant that I have read or heard in either House was made by a Member who has never been a member of the armed forces—my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton North East (Mr Crausby)—as I think that a lot of hon. Members who heard it would agree. As regards the NHS, we have GPs and a gynaecologist, who is in the Chamber now. We have teachers, people who have run their own businesses, people who have built their own businesses and people from the shop floor—we even have a vicar and a former Member of the House of Lords. We should not undervalue the experience that people like to see getting elected to this House.

On the bishops, it is inappropriate that they should represent only the people of England. For me, one of the great moments of the debate was hearing my right hon. Friend the Member for Torfaen (Paul Murphy), who is a well-known papal knight and a respected Roman Catholic, acknowledge that the bishops of the Church of England are actually bishops—so the job of the Reformation is done. I say to my hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough (Sir Stuart Bell), who served with distinction as one of the Church Commissioners, that the bishops were originally here because they were one of the major land tenants in the country, then because we took into Parliament the business of deciding on religious matters such as transubstantiation and now because people argue, as we have heard, that we need them for spiritual support.

In Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, neither the spirit of the land nor the Churches have collapsed because no bishops represent those areas in Parliament. Although some of my best friends are bishops, I honestly think that the time has come for them to depart the House of Lords. That would not signal the disestablishment of the Church of England, just as the fact that there are no representatives of the Church of Scotland in the House of Lords does not prevent it from being established. I say to my bishop friends that they can make a far more effective contribution to society by editing the New Statesman. If that has not helped Conservative Members join my cause to take bishops out of the House of Lords, I do not know what will. I hope that we will see an end to bishops in the House of Lords.

There are some problems with the legislation, as hon. Members have said. First, the powers of the House of Lords must be addressed. I do not think that clause 2 will stand the test. The Salisbury-Addison convention, to all intents and purposes, is now non-existent. It cannot hold water when there are more than two political parties in Parliament. It is frankly not worth the paper that it was not written on.

I think that 15 years is too long for somebody to be elected for. It is very difficult to see how somebody can be genuinely representative and accountable when they sit for fully 15 years. As the hon. Members for Crawley (Henry Smith) and for Suffolk Coastal (Dr Coffey) have said, it is important that we have a system of recall. If somebody is elected and hardly ever turns up, abuses their position or gets into some kind of trouble, there should be some system of recall, just as there should be for this House.

Many Members have said that this issue is not a priority and that we should not deal with it, but I profoundly disagree with them. In the end, it is about how we use power. All the other issues that my constituents of course talk far more about, such as jobs, unemployment, benefits, creating a successful economy, transport, teachers and hospitals, depend on whether we distribute power properly. That is why it is important to have change. Having just a system of appointments is reactionary. It means that we always reflect the past and do not offer a greater future, and it also creates the problem of patronage.

The hon. Member for Gainsborough hopes that the radical left and the radical right will combine to see off the proposals. I hope that everyone unites to improve the proposals, because they certainly need improvement. If the Government are too intractable, the measures will die. However, let us not lose sight of the unsustainability of the present arrangements. Surely, if one wants to tell other people how to live their lives, which is in essence what a Member of a legislature does, the least one can do is to put oneself up for election.

Oral Answers to Questions

Julian Lewis Excerpts

Wednesday 18th May 2011 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

I will look carefully at what the hon. Gentleman says, because I know that he has a deep concern about trafficking, as do many Members of our House. Frankly, the fact that children and young adults are trafficked for sex and other purposes in our world is completely disgraceful, and we have to stamp it out. We have signed up to the directive, as he said, and we were already complying with the terms of the directive. We must do everything we can to stamp out this repulsive practice.

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

Q7. What recent discussions he has had with the Leader of the Opposition on the future of the nuclear deterrent.

[The Prime Minister]

Although I have discussions on many issues with the Leader of the Opposition, the nuclear deterrent has not recently been one of them. That is partly because the Government’s policy is absolutely clear: we are committed to retaining an independent nuclear deterrent based on Trident. My right hon. Friend the Defence Secretary will make a statement to Parliament today announcing our decision to proceed with initial gate.

[Dr Lewis]

I am grateful to the Prime Minister for repeating our commitment to the future of Trident, its renewal and a continuous at-sea deterrent. Would he give his blessing to hon. Members in the Conservative party and on the Labour Benches who, like him, think that the nuclear deterrent should be above party politics, if they formed an alliance on this important issue, just as we did so successfully on the alternative vote?

[The Prime Minister]

I agree with my hon. Friend that it would be better if we could elevate this issue above party politics. Indeed, when we voted to go ahead with Trident it was on the basis of a Labour motion that was supported by most Labour MPs and almost all Conservative MPs. However, I have a feeling that my hon. Friend would never be satisfied, even if I placed a Trident submarine in the Solent, opposite his constituency, and handed him the codes—something, I am afraid, that I am simply not prepared to do.

House of Lords Reform (Draft Bill)

Julian Lewis Excerpts

Tuesday 17th May 2011 Commons Chamber

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

When asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Epping Forest (Mrs Laing) how one would resolve a clash between the two Houses, the Deputy Prime Minister said, “Well, this is why we are going to have different electoral systems, with proportional representation for the reformed Chamber.” Given that he believes that proportional representation is more democratic than first past the post, which of the two Chambers would he believe to be taking the correct decision if there were a clash on the basis that he outlined?

[The Deputy Prime Minister]

As I said earlier, as is set out clearly under the Parliament Acts and in line with the convention that the Government are held to account primarily by this Chamber, the supremacy of this House would remain.

Counter-terrorism

Julian Lewis Excerpts

Tuesday 3rd May 2011 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

Lots of Government Departments had very difficult settlements because, I am afraid, of the financial situation that we inherited. I think the deal with the World Service involving the BBC provided secure funding for its future. Of course it is having to make some economies, but I think it is perfectly possible to make economies and provide a good service at the same time.

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

Although I welcome the Prime Minister’s emphasis on the battle of ideas, does he share my concern that all too many people in all too many Muslim communities do not even accept that bin Laden was responsible for 9/11? What does that say about the failure of the west to get the counter-narrative and the counter-propaganda out worldwide and effectively?

[The Prime Minister]

My hon. Friend makes a good point, and that is very much what I was discussing with the right hon. Member for Salford and Eccles (Hazel Blears). Many in that minority of the Muslim community take the view that bin Laden was not responsible for 9/11. That does not mean that they actively back bin Laden; it just means that they have bought in to a narrative of Israeli plots and the rest of it. We must challenge that narrative. We cannot have young people growing up in our country believing that nonsense, and it is incumbent on all of us in the work we do in our constituencies—in mosques, community centres and so on—to challenge that thinking whenever it comes up. We should not believe that we are challenging cultural sensitivities in doing so—we are not. We are making a very clear point about what it means to be part of a modern democracy.

United Nations Security Council Resolution 1973

Julian Lewis Excerpts

Monday 21st March 2011 Commons Chamber

[Edward Miliband]

The hon. Gentleman speaks eloquently of the evil of Colonel Gaddafi in doing that. The care taken by our armed forces, which the Prime Minister has talked about, is incredibly important because they are facing incredibly difficult decisions.

The responsibility to protect recognises that there need to be tests applied to intervention, but also, crucially, that interventions require international authority and consent. In this case, the Arab League endorses a no-fly zone, and the UN Security Council expressed a clear will, with the support of 10 countries. It is worth drawing attention to which countries those are, because they include Lebanon, Colombia and South Africa. A broad spectrum of countries from across the world gave their support to the UN resolution.

There is international consent, a just cause and a feasible mission, but we also need—this is very important—to maintain public support here at home, because this House is not just contemplating expressing its support for an international resolution; it is discussing its position on the use of armed forces. We are a generous and compassionate people, but there will no doubt be some people in the country—indeed, we have heard it in parts of this House—wondering whether it really needs to be us, now, at this time. It is a valid and important question, but in the end, as well as there being the geopolitical questions that the Prime Minister raised, we have to make a judgment about our role in the world and our duty to others. Where there is just cause, where feasible action can be taken, and where there is international consent, are we really saying that we should be a country that stands by and does nothing? In my view, that would be a dereliction of our duty, our history, and our values. Let us not forget that those who have risen up against Colonel Gaddafi are part of a wider movement for reform and democracy that we are seeing across north Africa. We cannot and should not abandon them.

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

I have supported humanitarian interventions in the past, and I am minded to do the same in this case, but the reason why we are expected to intervene, rather than others, is that we are stronger than others. The right hon. Gentleman knows that there has been a huge hole in the defence budget. Does he know from his conversations with the Government whether the funding for what could be a very long-term and expensive operation will be added to the core defence budget, or taken from it?

[Edward Miliband]

I have been given those reassurances by the Prime Minister. Today, as the House debates this question, I want to concentrate on the important issues before us, including the capability of our armed forces, but I have been given that reassurance by the Government.

--- Later in debate ---

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

If I am to follow the good example of those engaging in genuine debate, I should refer to previous comments made tonight. Two of the speeches that have been much praised so far—quite rightly, in my view—were those from the right hon. and learned Member for North East Fife (Sir Menzies Campbell) and my hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border (Rory Stewart). They were praised not only because of their excellent delivery, but—one would like to think—substantially because of their comment and analysis. If I try to marry those two speeches, I come out with two propositions: intervention should be for humanitarian purposes only, and strict limits should be imposed on how we become militarily involved.

As will emerge as I develop my argument, I believe that the most likely result of such an approach—if it is what hon. Members want—would be not dissimilar to what was set out by the hon. Members for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn) and for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell). That might surprise some hon. Members. I shall come back to that point in a moment, but I wish people to think about it a little. It is one thing to praise a speech about having limited objectives in a war, but it is quite another to proceed as if there will not be consequences of limiting those objectives in the way that we should rightly limit them.

In the early 1990s, when I was not in the House, I looked on in horror at what was happening in Bosnia, and I was particularly ashamed of the fact that our Foreign Secretary of the day, when asked why we would not go to the help of the moderate Bosnian Muslims and would not even allow them to have the weapons with which to defend themselves, replied that we did not wish to create a “level killing field”. I thought that that was a disgraceful statement.

[Mr Cash]

Yes, disgraceful.

[Dr Lewis]

My hon. Friend agrees that it was disgraceful.

I looked on with horror and impotence while the world and Britain stood by. Then, partly for that reason, in 1998, during my first term in the House, I was one of just three Conservative Members—if I remember correctly, the others were the now Lord Cormack and the late Michael Colvin—who actually called for military intervention against Milosevic in relation to Kosovo a year before the intervention actually happened. I therefore have a track record of supporting humanitarian intervention. I say that because I have grave reservations about what we are doing now. I will—very reluctantly—support the motion in the Lobby tonight, but I want hon. Members to realise the consequences that are likely to follow.

In such a situation, we need to ask ourselves four questions: who should intervene, how should the intervention be carried out, who should pay for it and what will be the result? Who should intervene? The answer is: those who are willing and strong enough to do so. How should it be done? Here we get to the nub of the matter. We can intervene in such a conflict by using what has been called air power but is actually the use of precision weapons from the sea and the air. We can intervene using such power only, which is what we say we are doing, or by introducing troops. If we confine ourselves to using precision weapons from sea platforms or the air, we should not expect Colonel Gaddafi to disappear.

The question of who should pay is terribly important. Throughout our years of opposition, we said that Labour Governments had let defence fall too far down our list of priorities. However, I have not noticed us proposing to increase the proportion of GDP we spend on defence. I note that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence is here. I have asked the Foreign Secretary this question twice, and he has brushed me off twice. Will this campaign be paid for out of the existing core defence budget, or will it be met by additional funds from the Treasury reserve? We have to know.

Finally, what will be the outcome? It will be entirely dependent on whether ground troops get involved. We have ruled out ground troops. If the Arab League wishes to see Gaddafi removed, it may have to supply ground troops, but we will not do so. We are left with a situation in which we are making a limited intervention to stop people being massacred. However, let us not fool ourselves into thinking that this will result in the removal of Colonel Gaddafi. Unless there is a coup or ground troop involvement by Arab states, Colonel Gaddafi will probably survive. He will lose control of part of the area, and we will have a long-term commitment to look after the remainder of Libya. For that, payment must be found.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)]

I have some reservations about what we are doing. I am pleased to see the Foreign Secretary in his place; I hope that he will answer some of the reservations that have been voiced today.

My first point is a House of Commons point, because I received an absolute assurance from the Leader of the House two weeks ago on the Floor of the House that before we went to war in future, there would be a substantive vote in the House of Commons. When we went to war in the Falklands, the House of Commons sat on a Saturday. We have to establish the principle—this is not just a House of Commons point; it is a serious and important constitutional point—that in future when we go to war, the House of Commons should vote first.

Secondly, I have a number of questions about what we are doing in this operation. I voted against the Iraq war, because although it was ostensibly about dealing with weapons of mass destruction, in fact, as we know, it was about regime change. A lot of people have said that the current situation is very different, but is it? We are told that it is about humanitarian objectives, but is it not, in fact, about regime change, just as in Iraq? We need to ensure that our objectives are entirely and only humanitarian, and about protecting the people in Benghazi.

In one sense, the current situation is very different from the situation in Iraq, because at least there we were determined to go in and achieve regime change. Speaker after speaker has asked what we are going to achieve with the current operation. People say that we cannot always foretell the future and that that is not an excuse for doing nothing, but surely if we set off on a journey, it is generally a good idea to know the destination. Planes do not occupy ground. Missiles can destroy tanks, but they do not destroy regimes. Bombing Tripoli might bolster the regime’s support among the population there—indeed, it already has.

I have already asked the Prime Minister on the Floor of the House—no answer can be given—what will happen if the current operation just produces a stalemate. What will we do then? Will we be able to resist the moral pressure to get more and more involved, and to send in troops? There is absolutely no enthusiasm in this country for getting involved in a third war in the Muslim world. Aircraft can stop things happening—they can stop tanks entering Benghazi and I will support the operation to that extent—but they cannot make things happen.

A lot of lazy thinking has gone on along the lines that the regime was so unpopular that simply imposing a no-fly zone would make it fade away. Will that happen? Where is our strategic interest in Libya, which after all is 1,500 miles away? What are Egypt and Tunisia doing? They are its neighbours. Why is there not a single Arab plane in action at this moment?

We know that the first casualty of war is truth. The second casualty may well be a UN resolution, so that we are sucked into something far beyond what we have voted for. What are Russia and China doing, or rather not doing? Why is Iran silent? Is it because it supports Islamist irregulars in the east and is already there? Why would Gaddafi need to contest a no-fly zone if he can simply infiltrate troops? Is this a humanitarian war or is it a military war to change the regime? Will our efforts simply make Libya into another long-term brutal Sudan-type war?

It is often assumed that there are good guys and bad guys, but in fact Cyrenaica, in the east and controlled by the rebels, has always been separated from Tripolitania in the west. The two parts only became one state in 1934 and there has been a long-term dispute or semi-civil war between them for a long time. Indeed, in the 18th century Tripolitania invaded Cyrenaica and there were many massacres. History is extremely complicated; this region is very complicated, and we need to understand what is going on.

I was pleased to see the Defence Secretary in his seat. The old adage from Theodore Roosevelt is:

“Speak softly and carry a big stick”,

but we have been in danger of speaking loudly and breaking our sticks in two in the strategic defence review. Reading the British press, one would imagine that the whole world is hanging on to our words. They are not. I was reading the French press, and there was little mention of Britain. In Italy, no doubt, they believe that Berlusconi is taking the lead. There is only one capital that matters and that is Washington.

Oratory is not enough; we need air power. How many Tornados do we have? I believe that the strategic defence and security review was a disaster—as big a disaster as the Nott review, which was finally overtaken by the Falklands war. I hope that this operation overtakes the disastrous defence review. France has an aircraft carrier; Spain has an aircraft carrier; Russia has an aircraft carrier; the USA has 11 aircraft carriers; and we have to fly a round trip of 3,000 miles to impose our military force. By the way, all we have done is send three Tornados and two cruise missiles.

[Dr Julian Lewis]

I am glad that my hon. Friend raised that point, which I did not have time to raise. Although it is true that in this case we can get by from land bases, when it comes to the fuel costs of flying a single mission, a Harrier from a carrier would have cost £5,750, one from Sicily or southern Italy costs about £23,000 and one from the United Kingdom costs £200,000.

[Mr Leigh]

My hon. Friend makes the point. We could have had a carrier just 100 miles off the coast. The Prime Minister could have been sending our power. The Army is primarily a projectile of the Royal Navy and the defence review has been an attack on our traditional maritime and air power. I hope that we will use this operation to learn lessons about that.

In conclusion, I believe that we should review the strategic defence review, and that we should state firmly that our operation is simply and only a humanitarian exercise to save people in Benghazi and that there is absolutely no intention of our trying to achieve regime change.

Oral Answers to Questions

Julian Lewis Excerpts

Wednesday 9th February 2011 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

I am looking at this decision. It is an important decision, and I know that there is great work being done in reflecting on what jobs can be saved in Newport and Liverpool, where the two competing offices are. I am very happy to arrange for the hon. Lady to meet my hon. Friend the Minister for Immigration, because he is the one who will have to make the decision, so that he can hear from her and the hon. Member for Newport West (Paul Flynn) directly.

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

Q4. What assessment he has made of the effect of coalition politics on the future of the UK’s nuclear deterrent.

[The Prime Minister]

We have made it clear that we are committed to maintaining a nuclear deterrent based on Trident. That is why it was excluded from the strategic defence and security review, and why we commissioned a separate value-for-money study. The replacement of Trident is going ahead, and initial gate will be passed soon. As set out in the coalition agreement, the Liberal Democrats will continue to make the case for alternatives.

[Dr Lewis]

When the coalition was being formed, my right hon. Friend promised a meeting of all Conservative MPs that the Liberal Democrats would support the replacement of Trident. As we know, the key decision has been postponed until after the next election, and the Liberal Democrats, from their president downwards, have been boasting that this was their achievement. Will the Prime Minister give a pledge to this House and to the country that in the event of another hung Parliament, if the Liberal Democrats demand as the price for another coalition the scrapping of Trident, he will refuse to pay that price?

[The Prime Minister]

First of all, let me make this point. The replacement of Trident is going ahead. The investment is going in; the initial gate will soon be passed. The reason for the delay is that we had a value-for-money study because we desperately need to save some money in the Ministry of Defence, so that we can invest in front-line capability. That is the argument there. In terms of the future, all I can say to the hon. Gentleman is that I am in favour of a full replacement for Trident, a continuous at-sea deterrent and making sure that we keep our guard up. That is Conservative policy; it will remain Conservative policy as long as I am the leader of this party.

Oral Answers to Questions

Julian Lewis Excerpts

Tuesday 18th January 2011 Commons Chamber

The Deputy Prime Minister was asked—

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

1. What process he plans to follow to develop and implement proposals for a wholly or mainly elected second Chamber.

[The Deputy Prime Minister (Mr Nick Clegg)]

I am chairing a cross-party Committee to look at all aspects of House of Lords reform. We plan to publish a draft Bill in the coming period for pre-legislative scrutiny by—we hope—a Joint Committee of both Houses. Then it will be for the Government to decide on the introduction of the Bill.

[Dr Lewis]

Given that an all-elected upper House would, in effect, double the number of MPs while resulting in hundreds of highly skilled and eminent men and women being thrown out, what effects does the Deputy Prime Minister think will be applied to the legislative process as a result of this brilliant idea? Will it lead to greater effectiveness, greater prestige or just more machine politics?

[The Deputy Prime Minister]

My own view, as someone who has always supported greater democracy in the other place and greater accountability to the British people, is that the legitimacy of the other place would be enhanced. There are plenty of other bicameral democracies around the world that have two elected Chambers of different size with different mandates, elected even by different systems, which work extremely well in striking the right balance between effectiveness and legitimacy.

Prisoners (Voting Rights)

Julian Lewis Excerpts

Tuesday 11th January 2011 Westminster Hall

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

The contribution made by my hon. Friend the Member for Esher and Walton (Mr Raab) was so excellent that I would happily have given up the two minutes remaining to me to hear even more from him. This is the situation in which we find ourselves: a democratic Parliament in a democratic country is being told that we are not allowed to decide primarily moral issues, by unelected judges in a court set up to deal with the trashing of human rights by dictators and by countries very different from ours. Winston Churchill was quoted earlier. He was a great war leader, but he was not famed for consistency in domestic politics. His twice crossing the Floor of the House is evidence enough of that. Were he here today, and had we a vote on the matter, I venture to suggest that he would not vote to give convicted prisoners the vote.

People do not go to prison for light offences these days, they go because they have done something seriously wrong. The real problem that we face is that judges all too often assert rights that really ought to be qualified rights as absolute rights. Even the right to life is not absolute, because it is infringed when countries legitimately go to war. Where the line is drawn should be a matter for democratic politicians, not unelected judges.

To conclude my remarks in the all too brief time that those of us who are against giving prisoners the right to vote have been allowed by those who spoke earlier and who are in favour of giving prisoners that right, I ask the Minister this: when the time comes, if the Government feel that they cannot draw the line in the sand, which I would love them to do, will they at least do the absolute bare minimum to comply with the judgment, because that is certainly not what they are proposing to do at the moment?

NATO Summit

Julian Lewis Excerpts

Monday 22nd November 2010 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

The hon. Gentleman makes me sound terribly busy, anyway. I think I will just leave it at that.

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

The new NATO strategic concept approved at Lisbon rightly states that, as long as other countries have nuclear weapons, so will the NATO alliance. Some of us would like to see the same apply to the United Kingdom. What reassurance was my right hon. Friend able to give to our NATO allies that Britain’s Trident replacement programme will go ahead after the next election, given that, if the Liberal Democrats were again to hold the balance of power, that would almost certainly not happen?

[The Prime Minister]

My hon. Friend and I go back years on this issue, to the time when we almost shared an office. At that time, we were fighting a very unilateralist Labour party that wanted us to give up our nuclear weapons and get nothing in return. The assurance that I can give my hon. Friend is that I believe that while others have nuclear weapons, we should retain ours. That is why I said what I said in the statement. He is being a little unfair, however, because in this Parliament, we will be spending many tens or even hundreds of millions of pounds on the preparation for our Trident replacement—which is on schedule to go ahead—to ensure that there is continuous at-sea deterrence and no capability gap between the deterrent that we have now and the deterrent of the future. The Government, including the Liberal Democrats, are fully committed to that.

Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill

Julian Lewis Excerpts

Tuesday 2nd November 2010 Commons Chamber

[Sadiq Khan (Tooting) (Lab)]

I welcome the Deputy Prime Minister to the Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill. He may have missed the contribution made by the hon. Member for Epping Forest (Mrs Laing), who reminded us that the first and only time that he graced the Chamber with his presence was on Second Reading on 6 September 2010. He reminds us of Alfred Hitchcock in those classic films in which he has a walk-on part and then comes back at the end for a bow. However, unlike Hitchcock, the right hon. Gentleman brought a posse with him for fear of being lynched—lynched by either that lot, the Liberal Democrats, or that other lot, the Conservative Back Benchers, never mind us lot in the Opposition.

Ironically, the Deputy Prime Minister, who was so keen on this Bill and who directed it, has made no attempt to play a role in it. The real reason, of course, is that he is not the architect. The architect is his chum the Prime Minister, who has just walked out, now that he has seen that his friend is safe.

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

As the right hon. Gentleman is less than overwhelmed by the prospect of this Bill, would he care to say which Hitchcock film he has most in mind? Is it “Vertigo”, “Sabotage” or “Psycho”?

[Sadiq Khan]

It is all the films that have a bad ending. Most right hon. and hon. Members will agree—some publicly and others privately—that as things stand, this is a deeply unsatisfactory piece of legislation. It has its genesis in the party political horse-trading that characterised the coalition talks and which is all too evident. I remind the House and those in the other place of what this Bill means unless the other place overturns some of the clauses passed here: a referendum on AV on 5 May 2011, which was not in the manifesto of either of the coalition parties, so there is no mandate for it; a reduction of elected Members in this House from 650 to 600, which was not in the manifesto of either coalition party, so there is no mandate for it; the abolition of public inquiries for boundary commission proposals, which was in neither of the coalition parties’ manifestos, so there is no mandate for it; holding the next general election with new boundaries based on purely mathematical formulae, save for two exceptions, of 600 seats, which again was in neither of the coalition parties’ manifestos, so there is no mandate for it.

We will soon have before us a new Bill that will set in stone the date of the next general election—5 May 2015. Once again, that was in neither of the coalition parties’ manifestos and there is no mandate for it. The Prime Minister and his chum, the Deputy Prime Minister, will sell these reforms in public as democratising measures that herald the dawn of a new politics. Behind closed doors, however, they offer a different rationale, as was revealed by the hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr Field). On the day of Second Reading—the last time the Deputy Prime Minister came to this Chamber for this Bill—the hon. Gentleman said that

“the current proposals for AV and the reduction in number of parliamentary constituencies are being promoted by party managers as an expedient way to prevent our principal political opponents from recapturing office.”——[Official Report, 6 September 2010; Vol. 515, c. 47.]

I know that the Whips have kept the hon. Gentleman out of the Chamber this evening.

This Bill is the product of a straightforward political bargain. In exchange for a referendum on the alternative vote, which the Conservatives opposed, the Liberal Democrats signed up to a review of constituency boundaries that the Conservatives favoured. As such, it has come to be regarded by the leadership as an unalterable document that must be accepted totally and unquestioningly.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mrs Laing]

I assume that the hon. Gentleman is referring to the acts of the last-but-one Prime Minister, Tony Blair, who packed more members of the Labour party into the House of Lords than any previous Prime Minister had done. And no, I do not think it is fair, but that is not relevant. I am sure that his party will be pleased to hear his criticism of its hero, Mr Blair.

I have had more difficulty in supporting the first part of the Bill, although it is obvious that we have to have a referendum because it is part of the deal done between the two parties in order to form the coalition agreement. We need a coalition Government in order to give the country the stability that we require to deal with the horrific economic circumstances left behind by the last Labour Government.

[Dr Julian Lewis]

I am sorry to make an unhelpful intervention on my hon. Friend, whom I greatly admire, but my understanding of a deal for a coalition Government is that when a bargain is made, both sides stick to it. That is why I voted for this Bill on Second Reading, despite my objections to it. Subsequently, however, the part of the bargain that induced me to endorse the deal—namely, the fact that we were told that the Liberals would accept the renewal of the Trident strategic nuclear deterrent—was dishonoured. That is why I shall be voting against the Bill on Third Reading.

[Mrs Laing]

My hon. Friend makes a very good point, but it does not change my arguments about the Bill. I appreciate his point, but I still say that we should have a coalition in order to provide the stability that the country needs in the aftermath of Labour’s economic disasters. It is therefore necessary to have this Bill and to have a referendum.

It is a great pity that the referendum is to be held on the same day as other elections. We have heard many very well put arguments, particularly from Members from Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, about why the referendum should not take place on the same day as their national elections. Nor should a referendum go ahead without a threshold. That could result in a vote on a derisory turnout of some 15% changing our constitution. That is quite simply wrong, but I realise that the Government are not going to accept that argument because, once again, these provisions are in the coalition agreement, by which we are bound.