Devolution and the Union

Julian Lewis Excerpts

Thursday 20th November 2014 Commons Chamber

[Angus Robertson]

I am still only in my introductory remarks. It is also important on such an historic day to pay tribute to Alex Salmond on his leadership of the Scottish National party and his premiership as First Minister, both in minority and majority Governments, and for delivering free education in Scotland and the independence referendum.

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

I do indeed pay tribute to Alex Salmond who is a very considerable figure. By resigning, he seems to have recognised the outcome of the referendum. If the referendum had voted yes, that would have settled the issue for all time. Does the SNP accept that by voting no, it has settled the issue at least for a generation?

[Angus Robertson]

I was coming on to make the point that the Scottish National party and the Scottish Government continue to believe that Scotland should, and will in the future, be independent. However, we accept both the result of the referendum on 18 September and the fact that independence will not be the outcome of the Smith commission. What is beyond doubt is that the people of Scotland expect early and substantial change. I am not talking about something that is dependent on English votes for English laws—much as I have sympathy with that as an issue—the West Lothian question or the subsidy argument, from which many people in Scotland will recoil.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Gerald Howarth (Aldershot) (Con)]

I apologise to the House for not having been here at the start of proceedings. I hope Members will understand that I was having lunch with our former colleague, my great friend Mr Geoff Hoon, a former Defence Secretary who now does sterling work promoting British defence exports around the world on behalf of Westland Helicopters and who is currently based in my constituency.

I salute my hon. Friend the Member for Esher and Walton (Mr Raab) and the others responsible for bringing this debate before the House. It is of enormous importance because, first and foremost, we tamper with constitutional matters at our peril. We should be very, very nervous about upsetting constitutional arrangements. There is no doubt that the devolution process, which was started in 1997 by the previous Labour Government, was designed to be a sop to nationalist sentiment, but far from being a sop it actually fuelled it. I took part in the Scotland referendum, along with my right hon. Friend the Member for Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk (Michael Moore). I went up to Scotland and as an Anglo-Scot—my Douglas family are on the borders of Scotland—I found it a very depressing experience. I believe it has opened Pandora’s box.

Reference has been made to the vow. [Interruption.] I will make some progress before I let the Scottish nationalists intervene. The so-called vow issued by the leaders of the three main political parties was, I recall, dismissed at the time by the Scottish nationalists as just a gimmick. Now they have grasped it as though it were the holy grail. It is as though the vow, which was made out of nowhere, is now the very thing on which they hang. I made it clear at the time, as, indeed, did many people I spoke to on the doorsteps in Scotland, that the leaders could only make those promises subject to the will of Parliament. They cannot just make policies—certainly not policies of such constitutional importance—on the hoof. It had to be a decision of this House and the other place. It should, therefore, come as no surprise that it is not being taken for granted by anybody other than the Scottish nationalists.

[Dr Julian Lewis]

I am completely undecided on the correct course to take when a vow that could well have influenced, to some extent, the result of a referendum was given without the authority of Parliament. Does not the whole process show the danger of panic reactions by all three party leaders in the aftermath of a single rogue opinion poll?

[Sir Gerald Howarth]

My hon. Friend makes a valid point. I think that one of the factors that influenced the campaign in the end was my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister speaking directly to the Scottish people about his passion for retaining the Union and his belief in the importance of Scotland.

Unlike my namesake, the right hon. Member for Knowsley (Mr Howarth), I do not sense that there is any enormous appetite in England for a change in our constitutional arrangements. In particular, I do not believe there is the appetite mentioned by the Local Government Association for devolution of further powers to the English regions. Aldershot certainly does not have that appetite, but it may exist in Knowsley.

Select Committee on Governance of the House

Julian Lewis Excerpts

Wednesday 10th September 2014 Commons Chamber

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

My old friend—and he is my old friend—the hon. Member for Lichfield (Michael Fabricant) said that he would not dwell on the past, and then proceeded to spend three quarters of his speech doing precisely that. He could usefully have done at the start of his speech what I am going to do at the start of mine, which is to declare not a financial interest but a personal interest. I suspect that if he had done so, it would have been a slightly different one from mine. My personal interest is that Mr Speaker is an old friend of mine. Not surprisingly, that means that I like him quite a lot most of the time. I believe that, as has been said by others in this debate, he has exceeded all expectations in strengthening the power of Back Benchers to hold Ministers to account in this House.

[Michael Fabricant]

indicated assent.

[Dr Lewis]

I am delighted to put it on the record that my hon. Friend agrees with that.

As a result of all that, I try to help Mr Speaker extricate himself from time to time from the holes that he occasionally digs for himself as a result of his passion for modernisation. For that reason, I ask the House to discount my bias. It is also for that reason that I welcomed the proposals in the motion and happily agreed to sign it at the request of various hon. Friends who have spoken.

As I said in a point of order a few days ago, had anybody asked me about the matter even six weeks ago, or certainly six months ago before this dispute came up, I would have thought that the definition of the Clerk was all the definitions we have heard in the debate except one: chief executive officer. In our minds, the Clerk is rightly associated with being the top procedural officer. That is what I have always regarded him as. Had anyone asked me before the dispute began to describe the functions of the Clerk, I would not have had the faintest idea that he was in a position to overrule everybody else on management matters. That is an anachronistic position.

Therefore, when the Committee is set up, I suggest it asks itself these four questions. First, should a top CEO be expected to be a top procedural adviser too? Secondly, should a top procedural adviser be expected to be a top CEO too? Thirdly, should two such different roles be combined by default in future as they have been in the past? Fourthly, should the top procedural adviser be allowed, if the roles are separated, to overrule the top CEO on management matters, or vice versa on procedural matters? My answers to those questions are clear: no, no, no, no.

The reason for my answers is not only that I have wanted for years to emulate the late, great Margaret Thatcher on the Floor of the House, but that I profoundly disagree, with the greatest respect, with the right hon. and learned Member for North East Fife (Sir Menzies Campbell). It is not a question of having a single chain of command, because we are not talking about a single management function. We are talking about two separate functions, which means that the people at the top of them should have authority in each.

Business of the House

Julian Lewis Excerpts

Thursday 10th April 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lansley]

I cannot immediately promise a debate. The subject might lend itself to an Adjournment debate or a debate through the Backbench Business Committee, as Members on both sides of the House, on a non-party basis, are rightly interested in these issues. HS2 affords a substantial opportunity to increase freight capacity on the railways, which should be part of the debate when we come back. It is not simply about a transfer from road to rail; it is about trying to introduce some of the new technologies that may dramatically reduce the impact of road traffic on air quality.

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

This is two for the price of one, because I am asking this question with the strong support of my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Beckenham (Bob Stewart), who cannot be here this morning. Given that women’s rights are currently so much in the minds of the Government and the Opposition, may we have an urgent statement on the continuing scandal of the cancellation of service widows’ pensions when they remarry or cohabit? The cost to the Ministry of Defence of removing this archaic rule would be £250,000—less than that when we take away the cost of policing the rule. This is an anachronism that ought to be removed as soon as possible.

[Mr Lansley]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising this issue. I will, of course, ask my hon. Friends in the Ministry of Defence to reply in detail. He will understand that if service personnel die as a direct result of service, their widow still receives their pension, even if the widow were to remarry or cohabit. The treatment of widows where the spouse’s death is not as a result of service is broadly the same as for other public service pension schemes. The armed forces pension scheme 2005, and the new pension scheme to be introduced in 2015, will continue to pay widows a pension irrespective of how their spouse died. There are further detailed points that I know my hon. Friends in the Ministry of Defence will want to convey to him and other Members.

Business of the House

Julian Lewis Excerpts

Thursday 9th January 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lansley]

The hon. Lady may not have noticed, but following the debate on the European Union (Approvals) Bill [Lords] on Monday there will be a general debate on welfare reform and poverty, which was selected by the Backbench Business Committee. I do not agree with her about the reasons people are accessing food banks, of which there are many, but the points she wishes to raise could legitimately be raised in that debate.

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

May I express my personal sadness at the loss of Paul Goggins, with whom I worked closely on the Intelligence and Security Committee over the past three years? He was a patriotic humanitarian who reflected the greatest credit on the Labour party and on Parliament.

May we have a statement from a Defence Minister on the slow progress of the sale of the freehold of Marchwood military port in my constituency for not very much money and possibly to a company, Associated British Ports, that poses a threat to the New Forest with its burgeoning plans to build a container port on the edge of that precious area?

Christmas Adjournment

Julian Lewis Excerpts

Thursday 19th December 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Amess]

I absolutely agree with my right hon. Friend. I have been here so long that one of the officers who carries a gun came up to me and asked, “Do you remember taking me around the House of Commons when I was a schoolboy?”, so I understand that things have changed dramatically in the time I have been here. I am not complaining about that; what I am saying is that there seems to be constant change in personnel. I think it would be better to have an established group who understand how the place works. I certainly do not approve of the constant, huge change.

I worry about this place. The damage started in 1997, when huge powers went to quangos. If the place were shut for a few weeks, would anyone notice? That is what I worry about. Where has the power gone from this place? I fully accept that I am no longer fashionable: I do not send e-mail Christmas cards, I am not on Twitter, I do not blog and I am not on Facebook.

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

My hon. Friend’s very life is a statement of fashion. On his point about where power has gone, this year’s Session must be the first time that Parliament has stopped a war on which the Executive were hellbent.

[Mr Amess]

I am so glad my hon. Friend has reminded me of that. I tell everyone that it has been a long time since my being here has made a huge difference, but I and other colleagues certainly made a difference over Syria. If only I had had the good sense to do that earlier on Iraq, things might be different.

My second moan is about the Chilcot inquiry, on which £7.4 million has been spent. I want the results, just as I did on Leveson. I have asked lots of questions and I am told that the reason for the delay is the huge number of recorded conversations involving the two previous Prime Ministers and President George W. Bush, but I am certainly not going to shut up on this matter. I want the Chilcot report and I want to know exactly what went on behind the scenes.

The Freedom of Information Act has led to all sorts of consequences for all of us. It is crazy that people can make requests without us knowing who they are or their addresses. Why do the media host abusive remarks that are very offensive to constituents and, occasionally, politicians, although, of course, we have extremely broad backs? It is absolutely gutless that we do not know who the people are or their addresses. There is no reason for the media to host such very offensive remarks, which are often about constituents.

On air pollution, there is a hidden killer among us, in the very air we breathe: small particles—particulates—created largely by processes of combustion. Once breathed in, they attack the cardiovascular system and cause excess mortality. The proportion of mortality caused by particulates in England is 5.4%, but in my constituency the figure is 5.7%.

Some of the environmental damage arises out of burning coal or biomass, but a lot also comes from the tailpipes of cars. In fact, particulate emissions from diesel have been increasing.

Road fuel gases offer impressive reductions in particulate loads. In fact, particulate emissions from cars running on road fuel gases are negligible. Thanks to a concession from a previous Conservative Government, fuel duty is lower on road fuel gases than on petrol and diesel.

Business of the House

Julian Lewis Excerpts

Thursday 7th March 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lansley]

The hon. Gentleman may by all means seek to secure an Adjournment debate on these issues, and I will certainly talk to my BIS colleagues about the points he raises, but in this context he might like to celebrate the fact that employment in this country has risen by over 800,000 since the election and more than 1 million private sector jobs have been created. If his constituency’s experience is contrary to the national trend, he might like to consider what further measures to stimulate employment will be needed in his constituency, especially as the area in general is seeing employment growth.

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

May we have a statement from the Justice Secretary about the need to restore honesty in sentencing, with particular reference to the fact that convicted terrorists stand to benefit from being released halfway through their sentences, with the extra burden that will inevitably place earlier than necessary on the police and security services?

[Mr Lansley]

As my hon. Friend knows, the type and length of a sentence imposed is a matter for the courts, but severe maximum penalties, including life sentences, are available for terrorism offences and terrorists frequently receive long custodial sentences. He will also know that extended sentences imposed on those convicted of a specified terrorist offence attract eligibility for parole consideration at the two-thirds point of the custodial period, with automatic release only once the custodial period has been served in full. I can assure him that our right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Justice is keen to ensure public protection and keeps these matters under close review.

Business of the House

Julian Lewis Excerpts

Thursday 14th February 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lansley]

The hon. Lady will be aware that this Government allocated an additional £30 million to the discretionary housing payment budget, taking it to £195 million. This is specifically aimed at helping disabled people who live in significantly adapted accommodation, and foster carers.

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

Given that an in/out referendum and cutting the EU budget are both now mainstream Conservative policies, may we have a debate in Government time on redefining the term “rebels” as people who are usually only a couple of weeks ahead of their time?

[Mr Lansley]

In the spirit of remembering Harold Wilson —oh, the hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr Sheerman) has left the Chamber—who said that a week was a long time in politics, I suggest that in rebellions, a fortnight is an eternity.

Business of the House

Julian Lewis Excerpts

Thursday 12th July 2012 Commons Chamber

[Sir George Young]

My right hon. Friend the Minister of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs has made it clear that we are proceeding with changes to the licensing system in the short term, but we are committed to legislating in the longer term. If the hon. Lady looks at the written ministerial statement, there is a clear reference to draft legislation.

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

The almost complete absence of Liberal Democrats from their Benches today suggests that most of them may already have abandoned the marital home, but despite that massive handicap, may we have a debate on a votable motion in Government time on the future of the nuclear deterrent? Members from both sides of the House would very much like an opportunity to express their views on such an important matter, because we have not had a chance to do so since 2007.

[Sir George Young]

I understand my hon. Friend’s interest. He will know that the Minister for the Armed Forces is undertaking a review, which I think was the subject of an exchange at recent Defence questions. A good opportunity to have a debate on that issue will be when that review is completed.

House of Lords Reform Bill

Julian Lewis Excerpts

Tuesday 10th July 2012 Commons Chamber

[Ms Eagle]

All Labour Members stood on a manifesto that promised a referendum, and my hon. Friend makes an extremely good point.

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

I support the point made by the hon. Member for Dudley North (Ian Austin). I was first elected to this House in 1997, when the question of replacing the pound with the single European currency was active. The Government and the Opposition said, “Wait and see—we’ll let you know after the election whether we’ll keep our own currency,” while the Liberal Democrats said that they were going to scrap it and replace it with the euro. The electorate had no choice on that matter. I think that everyone agrees today that there should have been a referendum if there had been such a proposal.

[Ms Eagle]

We had a triple lock on that issue.

--- Later in debate ---

[Stephen Lloyd (Eastbourne) (LD)]

It is a privilege to speak in this debate. I am a new MP; I have been in the House for only two years. Yesterday, I sat for a number of hours listening to the various speeches, and I found some of them quite surreal. As I understand it, there is a majority in this House who support House of Lords reform. The three political parties have had it in their manifestos for many years—or for ever, in the case of the Liberals—but I genuinely found some of the speeches in yesterday’s debate surreal. Reflecting on some of the contributions of my colleagues on the Government Benches, I noted that a number of them who spoke so actively, nay aggressively, against democratising the other place happen to be very Eurosceptic. Over the last couple of years or so, I have often heard them express their loathing of the European Union as an institution, usually by saying that it is undemocratic, unaccountable and thrives on patronage. Curiously, however, many of them spoke yesterday about how much they loved the House of Lords. I found that surreal.

[Dr Julian Lewis]

On that very point, when the power of the European Union and its institutions is reduced to the low level of the power of the House of Lords, a lot of us Eurosceptics will be very happy indeed.

[Stephen Lloyd]

I look forward to that day because it will mean that the hon. Gentleman will be supporting the democratisation of our Parliament, which I think is a good thing.

Equally, a number of esteemed colleagues on the Government Benches expressed outrage at the alleged threat from the Liberal Democrats over this Bill. I must admit that I found that quite rich because unless my memory confuses me, many of those very colleagues, outraged at the perfidious Liberal Democrats’ threats over the Bill, have been vituperatively threatening the Liberal Democrats—day in, day out—ever since the coalition came into being. To misquote the esteemed Corporal Jones from “Dad’s Army”, “Perhaps they don’t like it up ’em.”

--- Later in debate ---

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

It is a pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Frank Dobson), especially as what I have to say will illustrate in a practical way the point at the heart of his speech, which was the importance of the specialist role of the upper House as presently constituted.

In a marvellously robust speech yesterday, the right hon. Member for Salford and Eccles (Hazel Blears), who is in her place again today, described the proposals in the Bill as a deceit.

“They are expressed in the language of high moral purpose”,

she said,

“but they are really about pretty low politics.”—[Official Report, 9 July 2012; Vol. 548, c. 71-72.]

She was absolutely correct. Having failed to gain an AV armlock on the Commons, the Liberals are aiming for a PR stranglehold on the Lords. Since legislation must pass through both Houses of Parliament, this will require perpetual appeasement of Lib Dem demands, even if the Conservatives or Labour win an overall majority in the Commons at the next election.

Yet much more is at stake than the institutionalisation of third-party power by creating an upper House based on proportional representation, for we will lose the ability to improve legislation—the point made by the right hon. Member for Holborn and St Pancras—by considering amendments purely on their merits.

Yesterday, the hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (John Thurso), a Lib Dem and a former Member of the second Chamber, said at column 54:

“First, in my view the House of Lords is broke. It does not actually work”,

and at column 55:

“Secondly, we need to take the best of what exists. For example, the reason the House of Lords works well is that the Whip is lighter”.—[Official Report, 9 July 2012; Vol. 548, c.54-55.]

I shall now explain from personal experience why he was right in column 55 and wrong in column 54.

In the 15 years since I entered Parliament, I have managed to change the law only once, when the Labour Government allowed a rare free vote on a matter affecting the security of MPs. But in the 15 years before I entered Parliament, I worked closely in connection and in co-operation with a small group of peers and, between 1984 and 1990, it proved possible to alter the law on three important occasions. This was entirely because of the way the House of Lords works.

Consider the Trade Union Act 1984, when we briefed the Lords on the merits of postal ballots for union elections, compared with the counting of heads at tiny branch meetings. Dozens of peers were persuaded and, despite the best efforts of Government Whips against them, an appropriate amendment was carried. Back in the Commons, the same amendment stood no chance of success because of the much tighter controls on Back Benchers. Nevertheless, in response to the Lords amendment, the Government decided to offer a proposal of their own—to try making postal ballots the norm and to create central registers of trade union members. Four years later, this led directly to the introduction of compulsory postal ballots, as the Lords had originally proposed. If the upper House had been predominantly elected, and especially if it had been elected on a PR list system, the initial amendment, which eventually led to the introduction of postal ballots, would never have been passed.

Even more clear-cut were the changes to the Education Bill in 1986 and to the Broadcasting Bill in 1990, both of which were amended in respect of the balanced treatment of politically controversial issues. In each of those cases, the more independent-minded peers were willing to listen to, and be persuaded by, arguments that when such subjects were presented in the classroom or in the media, it must be done in an even-handed manner. Such was the strength of their case that the amendments made in the Lords to both those Bills were allowed to remain intact when they returned to the Commons.

An upper House filled mainly from party lists of professional politicians would have been no more receptive to any of those arguments than the House of Commons, where almost all the votes are strictly whipped and where defying the Whip is seen as an act of career-changing rebellion. The willingness of Members of the House of Lords to judge arguments on their merits, and to amend legislation accordingly, stems not just from the limited discipline which can be imposed upon them, however. It derives, in large measure, from the fact that many peers are appointed after reaching the summit of their professions. They therefore have an expertise which full-time MPs might have achieved had they not switched careers to enter the Commons.

It is not the same to be a potential expert who decided instead to become a full-time politician in mid-career as it is to be an actual expert, who entered the Lords after reaching the top of the medical profession, the armed forces, business, the Church or the arts. Even the ex-MPs in the Lords have generally left further career ambition behind them. By contrast, young full-time politicians may well be able to see the strength of an argument for amending a Bill, but their careers are still in front of them and only a minority will put ambition aside.

This dismal Bill would be the end of the House of Lords as a place where laws are fine-tuned, and I urge all colleagues to reject it.

Business of the House

Julian Lewis Excerpts

Thursday 14th June 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

Order. A great many right hon. and hon. Members are seeking to catch my eye. I remind the House that there is a statement on banking reform to follow, and then a very heavily subscribed debate on mental health under the auspices of the Backbench Business Committee. I am keen to accommodate as many colleagues as possible, but if I am to do so I require short questions and short answers.

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

At this time of year, local groups such as New Forest’s Normandy Veterans Association commemorate the greatest amphibious invasion in history. In two years’ time, it will be the 70th anniversary of that invasion. May we have a statement from a Defence Minister indicating whether there will be Government support for the surviving veterans to revisit the beaches in 2014 for the 70th anniversary commemorations?

[Sir George Young]

Let me begin by commending the fortitude and bravery of those veterans who, 70 years ago, landed on the beaches of Normandy. At this stage, planning for 2014 is in its incipience, but we will mark this important anniversary. The Ministry of Defence plans to work closely with the Normandy Veterans Association, and once planning gets under way, we will discuss with it some key issues, particularly what support we will be able to give to those who want to go to Normandy in person to take part in the commemorative service.