Julian Lewis MP: speeches

Speeches

• 2 Jul 2025 · Prevention and Suppression of Terrorism · Hansard source

  More

  I must say that I never thought the day would arise when I as a non-lawyer would be advising a Government of lawyers that they need to be sure of the legal basis for what they are doing. As I said in an intervention on this subject on 23 June, “it would do the country and the Government no favours if they were to lose in court a challenge to the process of proscription, because whereas the secret sabotage of planes would certainly have been an act of terrorism leading to proscription, the fact is that this was a performative act that these people announced they had done.” —[ Official Report , 23 June 2025; Vol. 769, c. 893.] My question for the Government is this: will they at least adopt a belt-and-braces policy when it comes to the prosecution of the people who did that terribly irresponsible and wrong-headed act of sabotaging those planes? Will they also prosecute them on the basis that they have done criminal damage, and have attacked the forces of the Crown and thereby done something that borders on sedition? Otherwise, by using the wrong aspects of the law to pursue people who did some very bad things indeed, I fear the Government will end up scoring an own goal, and these people will walk free with a court triumph under their belt. Although it is justified by the unacceptable behaviour of the perpetrators, I am not convinced that the policy that the Government have adopted will stand up in court, when there are plenty of other legal methods that could be used to deal with this form of extremism. It is extremism, but it does not, in my opinion, pass the threshold to be classified as terrorism, in the legal sense. If I had been able to accept the Minister’s offer to have a word with me on Privy Council terms before the debate—I thank him for that offer, and I am sorry that I was not able to take it up—he may have been able to tell me things about Palestine Action that would have convinced me that it crossed that threshold. However, if the Minister is not able to say those things in public—there may be very good reasons why he is not—then I suspect he will not be able to tell them to the courts, either. Nobody can accuse me of being soft on anti-militarist extremist groups, but I say to the Government, with the best will in the world, that they must adopt a legal belt-and-braces policy when it comes to prosecuting this group, and not rely on this proscription alone, because I fear that I see trouble ahead from m’learned friends.

• 2 Jul 2025 · Defence · Hansard source

  More

  On the point about not enjoying community support, when we were having these debates in great detail, the highly divided communities would always stand up and say how this was unacceptable and that was unacceptable, and then their representatives would quietly come up to us and say, “For goodness’ sake, go on doing what you are doing.” The Minister may have some legal problems to overcome, but let him not be fooled by what is said in public about what really needs to be done.

• 4 Jun 2025 · Regional Growth · Hansard source

  More

  I know that the Minister is drawing his parameters rather tightly today, but can he give us at least a hint of what impact the Treasury’s consideration anticipates for the defence investments in the regions resulting from the recent strategic defence review, given the closeness with which his Department was involved in the formulation of that review?

• 29 Apr 2025 · Kashmir: Increasing Tension · Hansard source

  More

  I am sure the Government recognise that the strategic aim of this sort of terrorist atrocity is to provoke indiscriminate retaliation and undermine peaceful relations between neighbouring countries between which there may be some history of hostility. Will the Minister impress on the Indian Government the necessity of focusing on the actual perpetrators and not on the wider community, and will he impress on the Pakistani Government the importance, in good faith, of tracking down those responsible?

• 22 Apr 2025 · Sentencing Guidelines (Pre-sentence Reports) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I do not think anyone is questioning the firm action the Lord Chancellor is taking. The point my hon. Friend the Member for North West Norfolk (James Wild) made is: why should it be necessary for her to take that action? Surely, if the Sentencing Council cannot see the distinction she makes between its proper role and Parliament’s proper role, it is not fit to do the job.

• 1 Apr 2025 · Foreign Influence Registration Scheme · Hansard source

  More

  Two of the four ugly totalitarian sisters have been included in the list so far, and I trust that China and North Korea will both be added to the enhanced tier in the fullness of time; but will the Minister take back to the Government the message that the House is concerned about the building of the biggest Chinese communist embassy in western Europe—in fact, the biggest embassy—in London? It is not clear why the Government needed to call it in on security grounds, given that the local authority wanted to refuse permission completely. Will the Minister also explain the differential between the penalty that people will face when exposed for acting on behalf of a foreign power if they have registered and the penalty that they will face if they have not registered?

• 31 Mar 2025 · Birmingham City Council · Hansard source

  More

  May I give the Minister some friendly advice and suggest that he does not try to write this off as a little local difficulty? I am half expecting to hear him use the phrase, “Crisis, what crisis?” He cannot be blamed for not remembering the winter of discontent—using the wonders of Wikipedia, I see that it happened a year before he was born—but I can assure him that the Callaghan Government and the Labour party never shook off the pungent smell of the rubbish piling in the streets on their watch. He really does not want to have the same thing happen to him.

• 11 Mar 2025 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  When someone enters this country illegally from another country to which we are not allowed to deport them, and when they have previously expressed support for terrorism and terrorist organisations, but not in this jurisdiction, is the Secretary of State content that the Government have enough powers to protect the community from such a person walking free in our society?

• 5 Dec 2024 · Cumberlege Review: Pelvic Mesh · Hansard source

  More

  That being said, Mr Stringer, I am absolutely delighted that the hon. Lady made that intervention. When someone of her expertise and experience says that even she had not realised the scale of this issue, it shows the magnitude of the task that faces us. This is every bit as bad as we heard in the excellent introduction from the hon. Member for Harlow (Chris Vince)—I apologise for not paying tribute to him earlier. He has done us all a great service by bringing this debate to Westminster Hall. This is on a level with the infected blood disaster, and it deserves the same level of treatment and remediation in so far as that is possible. Reverting to the written question I asked, the Minister of the State at the time answered: “There are no current studies specifically relating to new and improved techniques for the removal of eroded surgical mesh. However, there are five studies ongoing on surgical mesh implants and the National Institute for Health Research welcomes funding applications for research into any aspect of human health, including on the removal or implantation of vaginal mesh. There are currently no plans to establish a unit in order to train mesh removal specialists.” I want to quote a third and final written question of those 15. Question 124936, from February 2022, stated: “To ask the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, what recent progress has been made in establishing the South East Regional specialist centre for the treatment of women damaged by mesh implants; and whether checks will be carried out to ensure that such women, when seeking remedial treatment from that specialist centre, are not placed in the hands of surgeons who were responsible for (a) implanting the mesh originally, (b) denying that anything had gone wrong with the implants and (c) claiming that women reporting extreme physical pain from the implants were imagining it.” After a fairly long paragraph in reply, the answer concluded: “Patients can discuss their choice of surgeon with the multi-disciplinary team if they have concerns regarding a specific clinician and can also discuss a referral to a surgeon in another specialist mesh centre.” Think of the conversation that would require. A patient would have to explain to the person who had—to quote my right hon. Friend the Member for Wetherby and Easingwold—“butchered” them that, because they did not want to have his or her ministrations any further, they wanted to be referred to somebody else a long way away. Good luck with all that. I will briefly touch on some points raised by people in the community of damaged women. I have been told about difficulties regarding personal independence payment applications. It has been suggested that staff managing PIP applications and renewals need better training and understanding of mesh injury. There has been some progress, apparently, in the gradual acceptance that many women had not given informed consent at the beginning, and this is perhaps beginning to make itself felt in relation to the legal actions that some people are undertaking. Just imagine being in constant pain and having the burden of undertaking those legal actions. There is concern that mesh removal centres do not seem to have the same approach across the board for treatment or surgery. There are also very lengthy waiting lists if someone opts for a second opinion, for the reason I have already explained or any other reason. Mental health support and counselling is not readily available, which is another gap. We have already heard an excellent contribution by the hon. Member for Shipley (Anna Dixon) noting that the 10-year limitation for legal action on medical devices needs to be reviewed, because by the time some women have confirmation that the mesh is the problem, the 10 years could well have passed. I have already mentioned that the Government ought to be looking to assist the legal cases against the pharmaceutical company or companies. It would be interesting to know whether the Government are making any progress on the subject of interim payments, which I believe the Cumberlege report recommended prior to any more bespoke payments based on individual circumstances. Will the Government encourage the yellow card Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency reporting to be made mandatory? If people are not reporting in when these things go wrong, how can we be sure of the scale of the problem? Finally, it is noted that there is a clear need for transparency for the public to be aware of exactly what payments medical professionals in the health sector receive from the pharmaceutical industry when they recommend these “routine procedures” that so often go wrong. I conclude with a case that I have deliberately anonymised. Nothing should be drawn from where I happen to represent as to which surgeon in which mesh centre I might be referring to. This is what one victim has said about someone I will call surgeon X. He “operated on me in 2009 to insert the mesh, which was described as a simple procedure that would solve my problems. Mesh was eroding through the vaginal wall immediately, and I had seven further ‘repair’ surgeries, which did not solve the erosion problem. In 2016, he advised me he could remove the mesh, so I paid privately for the surgery. During the surgery, nerves were damaged, causing severe pain and limitations, and the mesh was not all removed. I am left with the pain and limitations permanently, and have been told by another surgeon that full removal is now not possible. This surgeon is the clinical lead of the mesh centre” local to her. She concludes: “No surgeon should ever be allowed to cause damage to multiple patients, yet not only continue to perform the same surgeries, but to be head of the very centre which should be helping women. I feel sick at the thought of passing him in the street, let alone needing to see him as a health professional. I am sure we all feel the same.”

• 5 Dec 2024 · Cumberlege Review: Pelvic Mesh · Hansard source

  More

  Listening to the heartfelt contributions of so many new colleagues, I get the impression that most if not all of them had, like me, never heard of this problem until a constituent walked into their surgery and told them of the terrible experience that they had had. I have a practical suggestion: at the end of this debate, which will no doubt follow in the footsteps of several previous debates that were equally well informed, passionate and horrifying, we should perhaps put our names to a joint letter to a man called Nick Wallis. He is a freelance journalist who did a wonderful thing: he researched the Post Office Horizon system disaster and wrote a book called “The Great Post Office Scandal”. If I remember correctly, it was serialised for a week on Radio 4, and subsequently he was the consultant to the remarkable production, “Mr Bates vs. The Post Office”. We can have these debates regularly, as we have been doing, and we can upset and horrify each other by recounting our constituents’ pain and the appalling negligence that led to these terrible outcomes, but until the issue grasps the public imagination, I do not think people will get anywhere. Interestingly, one point that has not been mentioned is the possible responsibility and liability of the large pharmaceutical company that manufactured the mesh in the first place. What research did it undertake? What responsibility does it have? What help can the Government give people who have been irreparably harmed to go after that company for compensation? There has been one great positive development, which has been referred to several times, and that is the magnificent work of Baroness Cumberlege, who certainly did the whole community of damaged women the best possible service in conducting that excellent review. The question is to what extent will her recommendations be implemented? I pay tribute in particular to my right hon. Friend the Member for Wetherby and Easingwold (Sir Alec Shelbrooke), who spoke earlier, and the hon. Member for Washington and Gateshead South (Mrs Hodgson), from whom we are about to hear, for their exemplary leadership of the all-party parliamentary group on this terrible disaster and for keeping the flame burning all these years. I say “all these years” because it has been a long time. Looking back on my own website to check my contributions, I see that this is now the fourth full- scale debate in which my colleagues and I have gone over the same ground. If anybody is interested, the dates of the previous three debates, which were packed with testimony and interesting information, were 19 April 2018 —slightly longer ago from now than the entire duration of the second world war—8 July 2021 and 3 February 2022. It would not be appropriate for me to go over in detail what has been said previously, as it is all there on the record, but it is important to recognise that we are talking about thousands and thousands of damaged women—10,000 at the very least, and as we have heard, some estimates put the number as high as 40,000. Treatment centres have been mentioned, but there is a particular question about who has the skill to practise in the treatment centres. Who will put themselves forward as being appropriately skilled? It will be the very people who inserted the mesh in the first place. In one of the earlier debates, I cited a constituent who was 35 when she was given what was described to her as “routine surgery”, 16 years before the debate in question took place. I said then: “She was initially told that it was her fault that her body was rejecting the two mesh implants. She then went through a cycle of implants, the removal of protrusions and eroded segments and seven bouts of surgery. Three TVTs—trans-vaginal tapes—are still inside her, she suffers chronic pain from orbital nerve damage, constantly needs painkillers and has had constant side effects, indifferent treatment and a refusal to admit fault or to refer her to an out-of-area specialist in mesh removal.” —[ Official Report , 19 April 2018; Vol. 639, c. 508.]

• 12 Nov 2024 · House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  The elements that make up the House of Lords consist of different groups of people: some have got there by accident of birth and are now going to leave; some have got there as the result of political horse-trading of some sort, and perhaps should not have been put there in the first place; but a great many have got there, as I said earlier, by having reached the heights of their various professions and having proved themselves to be outstanding intellectuals who can bring a level of specialisation to the scrutiny of legislation. Even if we in this House were on exactly their same level of accumulated knowledge, we cannot bring that same level of scrutiny because of the demands we face on our time and in looking after our constituents, which inevitably works to the cost of the amount of attention we could give purely to focusing on improving legislation. I wish to place on record that the reason why I became an ardent advocate of an unelected second Chamber—and why I would rather have no second Chamber at all than two elected Chambers—is precisely that it is impossible to whip such a Chamber to prevent people with good ideas from persuading peers of the virtue of those ideas. Members of an unelected second Chamber are able to have at least a sporting chance of amending legislation in good ways that would not get beyond first base in this House, because the elected Members, for the most part, almost all the time, obey the whipping. Before I was an MP, when I was a political activist, I and my colleagues managed to get four pieces of legislation into law. Since I have been an MP, I have got only one, on the privacy of Members’ home addresses, on to the statute book, because, exceptionally, that was a free vote. How many free votes happen in this House? Hardly any. The equivalent of free votes in the upper House happen all the time. We required postal ballots for trade union elections, which was incorporated into the Trade Union Act 1984 and the Employment Act 1988. We outlawed political indoctrination in schools, which was incorporated into the Education Act 1986 and carried forward in the Education Act 1996. We prohibited local councils from publishing material that “promotes or opposes a point of view on a question of political controversy which is identifiable as the view of one political party and not of another”, which was incorporated into section 27 of the Local Government Act 1988. Finally, we more strictly defined the concept of “due impartiality” in the coverage of politically contentious issues on television and radio, which was incorporated into the Broadcasting Act 1990. Every one of those measures was got through the House of Lords first, and then either adopted in the House of Commons directly or brought forward by the Government in their alternative proposals. We do away with the expertise of the House of Lords at our peril. All we will be left with are machine politicians, whether they are in one elected House or two elected Houses, and that is to the detriment of our democracy, not to its enhancement.

• 22 Oct 2024 · Sentencing Review and Prison Capacity · Hansard source

  More

  The Lord Chancellor speaks with great clarity and determination on this issue, and I am sure that she will remember last week promising me a ministerial meeting involving my constituent, Andrew Duncan, and a specialist team. They are working on a new concept of community detention that I believe is tailor-made for the vision that the Lord Chancellor has outlined to us today. Can she confirm that the meeting will go ahead, notwithstanding the extra opportunity to give evidence to the Gauke review in due course?

• 22 Oct 2024 · Commonwealth Parliamentary Association and International Committee of the Red Cross (Status) Bill [Lords] · Hansard source

  More

  What a pleasure it is to follow such a splendid maiden speech by the new hon. Member for Ilford South (Jas Athwal). As a third-generation immigrant myself, whose family lived in the city of Swansea for more or less exactly 100 years, I know precisely how he feels in his gratitude to the place in a new country that gave him every opportunity to develop his talents and abilities to the point at which he deservedly finds himself in this place. I am sure he will make maximum use of that opportunity. I particularly welcome his warm reference to his predecessor, Mike Gapes, who served in this House for no fewer than 27 years and was the epitome of moderate, patriotic Labour. He won respect on the Conservative side of the House as well as on his own side, and it was sad that a point came when he felt he could no longer remain a member of the Labour party, although I am glad to see from his Wikipedia entry that he is back in the fold today. This uncontroversial Bill seeks to change the status of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association and the International Committee of the Red Cross, to convert each of them into what is known as a body corporate. These are sensible proposals, which I broadly support. However, as stated during the Sir David Amess Adjournment debate on the rising of the House on 12 September, there is one other organisation, with which I am rather familiar, that requires the same change in status as the CPA and the ICRC, to make it into a body corporate too. That organisation is the office that supports the Intelligence and Security Committee of Parliament, and this Bill presents us with the timeliest opportunity to achieve that necessary change. Indeed, it is a perfect fit, so I trust that the House will bear with me while I explain the serious conflict of interest that has arisen, why that conflict matters to Parliament and how it can easily be rectified with a simple addition to the Bill before the House today. For the benefit of newer Members in the Chamber, I should explain that the ISC is a cross-party Committee of both Houses of Parliament created by statute in 1994. Under the Justice and Security Act 2013, the ISC was given the legal responsibility for overseeing the UK’s intelligence community on behalf of Parliament, yet Parliament’s intent, as expressed in that Act, is currently being undermined. Right hon. and hon. Members might be surprised to learn that the ISC’s office, with a very small number of staff, belongs to the Cabinet Office, despite the ISC overseeing certain sensitive organisations within the Cabinet Office. They would be right to be surprised, because that is indeed a fundamental conflict of interest, which is why, when the Justice and Security Act was passed, the Cabinet Office was supposed to be only the temporary home of the ISC’s office. Yet here we are, more than 10 years later, with the Committee staff still beholden to, vulnerable within, and unfairly pressured and even victimised by the very part of the Executive that the Committee is charged with scrutinising and holding to account on behalf of Parliament. The Executive should not be able to constrain and control the Committee’s democratic oversight on Parliament’s behalf by exerting control over the ISC’s small staff team to prevent them from doing their job independently. Such control means that part of the Cabinet Office can—and does—starve the team of resources so that the ISC’s staff are unable to fulfil the Committee’s legal responsibilities. That completely contravenes and disregards a clear ministerial undertaking given by the then Deputy Prime Minister, my right hon. Friend the Member for Hertsmere (Sir Oliver Dowden), before the recent general election about vital extra resources for the ISC staff. Control by the Cabinet Office also means that it can stigmatise and penalise the ISC’s staff, blaming them for the Committee’s robust scrutiny, with damaging consequences for their future careers in the civil service. Such deplorable behaviour has included repeatedly downgrading highly positive assessments, submitted by me as ISC Chairman at the time, of staff performance in recent years. In reality, the members of the ISC in the last Parliament valued the Committee’s staff very highly indeed, as I believe all members have since the Committee was first established 30 years ago. We certainly found the arrangements that I have described totally unacceptable. The ISC therefore formally resolved, by a unanimous vote across all three political parties on the Committee, that it is essential for parliamentary democracy and its scrutiny system for the Committee’s office to move out from under the control of the Executive—that is, from the Cabinet Office—and instead to be established as an independent body corporate with a link to Parliament rather than to the Executive. That unanimous decision was confirmed by the members of the Committee at its meeting on 19 March, following expert and authoritative external advice that it is within the ISC’s power to take such a step and to determine the suitable mechanisms for implementing it. That constitutional change, which the Cabinet Office has predictably attempted to ignore, is essential to protect the separation of powers. It is also extremely easy to achieve. It requires a very short amendment to the Justice and Security Act to change the status of the ISC’s office. The amendment would establish the office as a body corporate to support the Intelligence and Security Committee of Parliament and safeguard the independence of the Committee itself. I had hoped that the amendment would be included in the new legislative programme. Unfortunately, but unsurprisingly in the Committee’s absence since Parliament was dissolved for the general election, the Cabinet Office has hitherto managed to block it. However, that is to underestimate the previous members of the Committee, from both sides of the House and in both Chambers, who are convinced that the Committee’s office cannot and must not continue to be controlled by the Cabinet Office. The Bill, in seeking to change the constitutional status of the CPA and the ICRC and allow better provision for their staffing arrangements, is the ideal vehicle through which to achieve the same for the ISC’s beleaguered office. It is the obvious place to include a short amendment to the Justice and Security Act to change the status of the ISC’s staff organisation too. We must not pass up this opportunity: parliamentary time is precious, and there may not be another suitable vehicle during this Parliament. As a measure to secure democratic oversight, I am confident that the amendment should and would secure cross-party support in both Houses. Prior to the election, both the then Government and the then Opposition seemed to accept that this reform was needed, which does rather beg the question why it has not yet happened. I intend to return to the issue at a later stage of the Bill with an amendment, and I trust, for the reasons I have set out, that the House will support it. Having chaired the Intelligence and Security Committee for the past four years, and having also served on it throughout the 2010-15 Parliament, I reiterate what I said in 2019 after more than four years as Chairman of the Defence Committee: it is better to stop while people wish you to carry on, than to carry on until people wish you to stop—[Hon. Members: “Hear, hear.”] I am glad to have that endorsement. Hopefully, I can still be a friend of both Committees on the Floor of this Chamber, while giving support to my successors in office. It was as extraordinary as it was shameful that no Prime Minister saw fit to meet with the Intelligence and Security Committee during the entirety of the last Parliament, although to her credit, during her short time at No. 10, Liz Truss did offer to do so. Perhaps the latest occupant of Downing Street will show greater respect towards a body that has consistently undertaken sensitive inquiries, and produced reports of the highest quality and the soundest judgment over the past 30 years, largely because of the calibre and integrity of its professional director and her dedicated staff. Let us now do the right thing by them all.

• 17 Oct 2024 · Criminal Justice System: Capacity · Hansard source

  More

  May I reach out across the party divide to say that I warmly welcome what the Justice Secretary said about punishment and rehabilitation? By coincidence, I have just written to her—she will not have seen the letter yet—about the work of my constituent, the publisher Andrew Duncan, in co-ordination with a panel of experts that includes a psychology professor, a former governor of Pentonville, a Probation Service specialist in reducing reoffending and a central London magistrate, on a new concept of community detention. My request is that either she or the Minister she thinks most appropriate will agree to have a meeting with my constituent, a few members of his team and me. As a right-of-centre politician, I am sometimes sceptical of alternatives to prison. This one sounds really interesting, and I think it would not be a waste of her time.

• 12 Sept 2024 · Sir David Amess Adjournment Debate · Hansard source

  More

  I congratulate the hon. Members for Bexleyheath and Crayford (Daniel Francis) and for Reading West and Mid Berkshire (Olivia Bailey). It is daunting to undertake a maiden speech, but both of them did so with panache and with passion, and my hon. Friends and I are grateful to them for sharing their insights with us on this very, I hope, non-partisan occasion. Both hon. Members rightly spoke about the aspects of their constituencies in which they take pride, and that gives me a cue to put in a brief word for the Waterside Arts Festival, which has been going on this week. Sadly, I have had to miss most of it, being up here in Westminster, but last Saturday, on a very rainy day, I was privileged to see a few of the offerings of this cultural feast, which is supported by Culture in Common and Arts Council England. One was a remarkable pair of acrobatic dance artists, Olivia Quayle and Jan Patzke, who operate under the title of Joli Vyann. One artist uses the body of the other as a sort of climbing frame, ultimately ending up standing unsupported on one foot on the head of the other artist. That is not something I have ever seen even on television, let alone live, and it was quite impressive to see it on a rainy Saturday afternoon in Hythe, in Hampshire. Another theme was cartoonists, and there was a remarkable, fascinating talk by Clive Goddard about not only technique but the effort involved in a cartoonist ensuring that his or her precarious life as a freelancer somehow makes economic sense. Next year will mark the 80th anniversary of the end of the second world war, so anyone old enough to have fought in that terrible conflict must now be at, or very close to, their 100th birthday. On suitable occasions, I have previously referred to friends among the wartime and early post-war veterans who are now no longer with us. They have included world war two Mosquito pilot Doug Gregory DFC, who flew a replica world war one biplane fighter at air displays until the age of 90, and who died in 2015 at the age of 92; Fleet Air Arm telegraphist air gunner Norman “Dickie” Richardson DSM, who flew from HMS Victorious in the far east, and who died in 2020 aged 96; and my late father-in-law, Malayan emergency supply drop navigator Frank Souness DFC, who died at the end of 2022 aged 92. It is not surprising, but still sad, that this year has seen the passing of the last of my second world war friends, all of whom lived in New Forest East. There was Marion Loveland, who reached the magnificent age of 102 and who was a lady of grace, poise and elegance. She was born on 6 June 1921 and was a Wren third officer at HMS Collingwood on her birthday in 1944 as D-day began. Her moving and dignified television interview, recorded earlier this year shortly before her passing, and telling how her fiancé, a decorated Royal Marines commando, was killed landing on Sword beach on 6 June—D-day and her birthday—is still available to view on the ITVX website, and I commend it to right hon. and hon. Members. Then there was the wonderful Liz Gregory, the widow of Doug, whom I mentioned earlier. She helped him build his replica SE5a world war one biplane fighter in their back garden—as one does—and unfailingly supported him in all his flying adventures and escapades. This great lady lived to the age of 95, and Members can read all about her in Doug Gregory’s fascinating autobiography, “Aeroaddict”, published by Little Knoll Press—if I were not forbidden from brandishing props in this presentation, I would wave it around at this point— [Laughter . ] Finally, just last month, we lost Dr Arthur Page at the age of 100. He was a comrade of Dickie Richardson in 849 Squadron, Fleet Air Arm, on HMS Victorious. Arthur also flew in the famous Palembang raids against the oil refineries in Sumatra and on many other dangerous missions in the far east. Both The Times and The Daily Telegraph published remarkable obituaries of this fine and gallant officer, who quietly resumed his interrupted medical studies after the war and served as a GP in Totton, in my constituency, for more than 30 years. He too continued to fly—until the age of 75—and Members can read about his and Dickie’s adventures in “Palembang and Beyond”, a book written by the late Mike Roussel. Again, I am not allowed to brandish it in the Chamber, but it is an eminently worthwhile read. Although all those outstanding individuals have now gone, the example they set will long continue to inspire those who knew them and generations yet to come. In the time remaining, I shall return to a continuing constitutional issue, which I previously raised in the debate on the King’s Speech. With the election of Select Committee Chairs having just taken place, we must hope that the Prime Minister, after consulting the Leader of the Opposition, will soon present to the House nominations for membership of Intelligence and Security Committee of Parliament. The matter is pressing, not just because the Committee was about to complete a key inquiry when the election was called, but because of the fact that, while there is no Committee, its dedicated expert staff are left vulnerable to the tender mercies of some of those whom it oversees. That is of serious concern. For the benefit of new MPs, I should explain that the ISC is a cross-party Committee of both Houses of Parliament created by statute. Under the Justice and Security Act 2013, the ISC has the legal responsibility for overseeing the UK’s intelligence community on behalf of Parliament and its Members. After confirmation in both Houses, its members choose their own Chairman from among their nine members. Right hon. and hon. Members may be surprised to learn that the ISC’s office—with a very small number of staff—belongs to the Cabinet Office, despite the ISC overseeing several sensitive organisations within the Cabinet Office. They would be right to be surprised, because that is indeed a fundamental conflict of interest. That is why, at the time of the Justice and Security Act, the Cabinet Office was supposed to be only the temporary home of the ISC’s office. Yet here we are, more than 10 years later, with the Committee’s staff still beholden to, vulnerable within, and unfairly pressured and even victimised by the very part of the Executive the Committee is charged with overseeing. The Executive should not be able to constrain and control the Committee’s democratic oversight on behalf of Parliament by exerting control over the Committee’s small staff team to prevent them doing their job independently. Such control means that part of the Cabinet Office can and does starve the team of resources, so that the ISC’s staff are unable to fulfil the Committee’s legal responsibilities. That is in complete contravention and disregard of a clear ministerial undertaking given by the then Deputy Prime Minister, my right hon. Friend the Member for Hertsmere (Sir Oliver Dowden), before the election. It also means that they can stigmatise and penalise the ISC’s staff, with damaging consequences for their careers in the civil service. The outgoing members of the ISC value the Committee’s staff very highly indeed, and we found such treatment to be unacceptable. In the last Parliament, the Committee therefore formally resolved, by a unanimous vote across all three political parties on the ISC, that it is essential for parliamentary democracy and its scrutiny system that the Committee’s office must move out from under the control of the Executive—that is, the Cabinet Office—and should be established instead as an independent “body corporate” with a link to Parliament rather than to the Executive. That unanimous decision was confirmed by the members of the Committee at its meeting on 19 March 2024, following expert and authoritative external advice that it is indeed within the ISC’s power to take such a step and to determine the suitable mechanisms for implementing it. This constitutional change, essential to protect the separation of powers, is easy to achieve. It requires a very short amendment to the Justice and Security Act to change the status of the ISC’s office. The amendment would establish an independent office to support the Intelligence and Security Committee of Parliament to safeguard the independence of the Committee itself. It had been hoped that the amendment would be included in the new legislative programme. Unfortunately, but unsurprisingly in the Committee’s absence, the Cabinet Office has hitherto managed to block it. However, this is to underestimate the previous members of the Committee, from both sides of the House and in both Chambers, who are convinced that the Committee’s office cannot and must not continue to be controlled by the Cabinet Office. There is already, in the legislative programme, an obvious vehicle for achieving the necessary change: the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association and International Committee of the Red Cross (Status) Bill is designed to change the status of those two organisations. It is therefore the obvious place to include a short amendment to the Justice and Security Act to change the status of the Committee’s organisation, too. As a measure to secure democratic oversight, I am confident that it should and would secure cross-party support in both Houses. Prior to the election, both the then Government and the then Opposition seemed to accept that this reform was needed, which does rather beg the question why it has not happened yet. I trust, in conclusion, that the Government will ensure that this change is not being blocked somewhere by forces unknown, and will ensure that it is now taken forward, together with the emergency uplift in resourcing that was approved by the then Deputy Prime Minister before the general election but which has been disregarded by the Cabinet Office since. This is urgently required if the new Committee is to have sufficient efficient staff to be able to meet and function fully when it is reconstituted. The Government should recognise that this cannot wait. Too much valuable time has been lost already.

• 22 Jul 2024 · NATO and European Political Community Meetings · Hansard source

  More

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