Lord Lansley: ...not think that it is too self-indulgent. What we are doing here is very important; even since we published this report there have been things, such as the negotiating objectives on CPTPP, the AUKUS defence agreement and the Ukraine export credit deal, which gave the House the opportunity to debate military support to Ukraine in literally the first or second week after the new year—I...
Lord Lansley: ...to come on to later, which give us further assurance on this—I think we are in a position where the conditions in Clause 1 would be wide enough without the benefit of my Amendment 2. In my own defence, I tabled Amendment 2 back in early July, so I am slightly defending Amendment 2 in the light of having not, at that point, seen all the amendments that are coming forward, not least from...
Lord Lansley: ...additional statute with the originating data protection legislation. That is where it ended up, and that is why “taken into account” is the appropriate language. It would not be “considered a defence”, because that would conclude that it had not been weighed properly in the way that the court expected. It expected these two things to be considered alongside one another. That is...
Lord Lansley: ...regime is the means by which Ministers exercise control of the export of sensitive assets. There are two units involved. The Export Control Joint Unit is made up of officials from the Ministry of Defence, the Department for International Trade and the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office, and there is the unit for the national security and investment regime. The interaction between...
Lord Lansley: ...We might want to be more autonomous in terms of our supply chains, but this is not the mechanism for doing that. This Bill is about national security and it is rightly focused on that—“project defence”, as my noble friend on the Front Bench referred to it. If we want resilient supply chains, we must have mechanisms which focus on that, but let us not confuse them with the proposition...
Lord Lansley: ...difficulty with it. Trying to write down what public interest the Secretary of State has to weigh up seems to be intensely difficult, as distinct from the economic interest test. It might include defence industries and security interests, and we see that coming through in relation to competition. We also see it in broadcasting and competition regimes. There are a range of...
Lord Lansley: ...out, the amendment must, of necessity, relate to procurement that is affected by the government procurement agreement, which is a subset of total public procurement. For example, the Ministry of Defence will largely be outside the GPA and, on the last figures I saw, its SME procurement was 13%. There is certainly an issue about how the Government are going to achieve their overall...
Lord Lansley: ...to create a criminal offence for those kinds of administrative oversights. If someone has failed to comply with the register but has applied due diligence, it is important that they would have a defence of due diligence against a criminal offence; however, where a civil penalty is concerned on something like an administrative oversight, there should not really be that kind of defence. So...
Lord Lansley: ...but there is not scope for a civil action to be taken by the registrar; that forms part of the current legislation and should form part of any change to the powers. There should be a due diligence defence, which the noble Lord seems to have omitted from his legislation which would replace the existing Part 1, and there should be both a power to charge those who are on the register so as...
Lord Lansley: ...of GDP, the NHS budget is falling. To be sustainable, we could easily set ourselves the objective that it should not fall any further. In a world where we can commit ourselves to 2% of GDP going to defence and 0.7% to international development aid, I am sure we could make a similar commitment of 7% or something of that order to the NHS as a floor for its future funding. That would be...
Andrew Lansley: ...barracks in my constituency. Does he share my concern that the programme failed to maintain discipline, and the consequences of that were very serious in my local community? Will the Ministry of Defence account fully to my constituents for the failures in the delivery of the programme, and does the Prime Minister agree that the Libyan soldiers should now be repatriated to Libya, and that...
Andrew Lansley: ...wish my right hon. Friend a happy birthday? I am sorry to report that due to an administrative error, he was sent an incomplete and inadequate response to his letter to the Minister responsible for defence equipment, support and technology, the Under-Secretary of State for Defence, my hon. Friend the Member for Ludlow (Mr Dunne). That did not follow the proper process, and I assure my...
Andrew Lansley: I will ensure that either I or a Minister in the relevant Department writes to the hon. Gentleman about that matter. However, he will have noted, if he was in his place, that a debate on defence spending will take place later today. I am sure it would not be regarded as out of order for him to make the points he wishes to make then and to ask that question again.
Andrew Lansley: ...prices. Thursday 19 June—Motion to approve a statutory instrument relating to terrorism, followed by a general debate on the UK’s relationship with Africa, followed by a general debate on defence spending. The subjects for both debates were determined by the Backbench Business Committee in the last Session. Friday 20 June—The House will not be sitting. The provisional business for...
Andrew Lansley: ...progress with it. We have already introduced five Bills in this Session—three in the other place and two here—and we will introduce further Bills in due course. The hon. Lady also asked about defence spending. I have announced a debate on defence spending, which will take place next Thursday following the recommendations of the Backbench Business Committee. It will give my colleagues...
Andrew Lansley: ...am grateful to my hon. Friend for his question and he is absolutely right: I was very surprised and disappointed that the Opposition did not choose to debate matters relating to foreign affairs and defence. Of course, the Backbench Business Committee will enable defence issues to be raised next week, but this was the second year in a row that the Opposition did not choose to debate foreign...
Andrew Lansley: ...announced. Thursday 19 June—Motion to approve a statutory instrument relating to terrorism, followed by a general debate on the UK’s relationship with Africa, followed by a general debate on defence spending. The subjects for both debates were determined by the Backbench Business Committee in the last Session. Friday 20 June—The House will not be sitting. I should also like to...
Andrew Lansley: ...issues require time during debates on the Queen’s Speech—it is the Opposition’s choice in these matters—but for two years in a row they have chosen not to debate foreign affairs or defence. Frankly, this year, when the events in Syria and Ukraine are immediate, critical and of widespread concern, it is regrettable that the Opposition did not give the House an opportunity to have a...
Andrew Lansley: I must confess—the hon. Gentleman will no doubt correct me if I am wrong—that I do not recall a debate taking place previously on the US-UK mutual defence agreement.
Andrew Lansley: ..., in the run-up to the NATO summit, which we are pleased the United Kingdom will be hosting in Wales at the beginning of September, those issues will be important in themselves, and the UK-US defence relationship is an instrumental part of that. On the point about a statement following the G7, the fact is simply that this Prime Minister has made more statements than any of his predecessors...