Tag: Clive Lewis

  • Clive Lewis – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Energy and Climate Change

    Clive Lewis – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Energy and Climate Change

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Clive Lewis on 2016-06-10.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change, pursuant to the Answer of 8th June 2016 to Question 39232, how many agency workers were employed by her Department in each of the last five financial years.

    Andrea Leadsom

    The response to Question 39232 provided the financial spend for contingent workers over the last five financial years. This includes temporary workers, contractors and interims.

    The number of temporary workers, contractors and interims engaged as at 31 March in each of the last five financial years is set out in the table . This is historical point in time data which was extracted from our legacy HR database at the first of April each year and cannot be retrospectively validated for accuracy.

    As at 1 May 2016 there were 39 temporary workers, contractors and interims in DECC.

    Number of temporary workers, contractors and interims.

    • 31 March 2011 – 86
    • 31 March 2012 – 137
    • 31 March 2013 – 157
    • 31 March 2014 – 145
    • 31 March 2015 – 104
    • 31 March 2016 – 58
    • 1 May 2016 – 39
  • Clive Lewis – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Ministry of Defence

    Clive Lewis – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Ministry of Defence

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Clive Lewis on 2016-10-07.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, how many investigations were carried out by the Ministry of Defence Police into alleged offences under the Protection of Military Remains Act 1986 in each of the last six years.

    Harriett Baldwin

    The Ministry of Defence Police (MDP) has carried out the following investigations (taking “disturbances” to mean thefts or alleged thefts and not limited to shipwrecks) under the Protection of Military Remains Act 1986:

    YEAR

    2010

    1

    2011

    6

    2012

    1

    2013

    0

    2014

    0

    2015

    1

    The MDP has not received any information related to the illegal salvage of material from HMS Warrior.

    By invoking the principle of Sovereign Immunity, and by designating specific vessels under the Protection of Wrecks Act 1973 and the Protection of Military Remains Act 1986, we endeavour to protect these important sites where we are able. Where we have definitive evidence of desecration of these sites, we will take appropriate action. However, it should be appreciated that, given the large number of Royal Navy wrecks around the world and the vast area they cover, there are limitations on what can be achieved with regard to protection.

  • Clive Lewis – 2015 Parliamentary Question to the Ministry of Defence

    Clive Lewis – 2015 Parliamentary Question to the Ministry of Defence

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Clive Lewis on 2015-10-20.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, whether armed forces personnel have received training for deployment to Syria.

    Penny Mordaunt

    Armed Forces personnel deploying on Operation SHADER – the name of the UK contribution to operations to counter ISIL – receive pre-deployment training appropriate to their role but are not deployed to Syria.

  • Clive Lewis – 2015 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Education

    Clive Lewis – 2015 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Education

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Clive Lewis on 2015-10-20.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Education, on what dates each school within the Inspiration Trust academy chain was first told of the dates of its Ofsted inspection in 2014-15; on what dates the inspections of each such school took place.

    Nick Gibb

    I am informed by Ofsted that five academies within the Inspiration Trust had inspections in 2014/15. Two of these, Great Yarmouth Primary Academy and Hethersett Academy, had no formal designation inspections which were conducted without notice. Two academies had routine section 5 inspections; the Thetford Academy received notification on 3 December 2014 and was inspected on 4 – 5 December 2014 and East Point Academy received notification on 2 March 2015 and was inspected on 3 – 4 March 2015.

    Sir Isaac Newton Sixth Form Free School was inspected in accordance with statutory requirements for 16-19 academies under the framework for inspection of further education and skills provision. The Academy was notified on 27 February 2015 and inspected between 3 and 6 March 2015, in line with normal arrangements for further education and skills providers.

  • Clive Lewis – 2015 Parliamentary Question to the Department for International Development

    Clive Lewis – 2015 Parliamentary Question to the Department for International Development

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Clive Lewis on 2015-10-14.

    To ask the Secretary of State for International Development, whether it is an objective of the Health System Strengthening Framework to support partner governments to increase domestic funding for health services.

    Grant Shapps

    DFID’s health systems strengthening framework will set out how the UK should support countries to build strong, resilient health systems in future, both through its own resources and through its partner organisations. This will help countries to make sustainable progress towards the global goal of ensuring healthy lives and promoting well-being for all at all ages. A strong health system recognises the links between different health issues and provides integrated services to address them. Sustained financing is essential to good quality service provision and the framework will include support for greater domestic resource mobilisation and better public financial management. It will prioritise those who would otherwise be left behind, including the poorest, the most marginalised and those who are hardest to reach.

  • Clive Lewis – 2015 Parliamentary Question to the Department for International Development

    Clive Lewis – 2015 Parliamentary Question to the Department for International Development

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Clive Lewis on 2015-10-14.

    To ask the Secretary of State for International Development, when she plans to publish the new Health System Strengthening Framework.

    Grant Shapps

    In the government response to the International Development Committee’s report on Strengthening Health Systems in Developing Countries, DFID proposed to develop a framework for future work on health systems. DFID is developing the framework in consultation with the Department of Health and other UK institutions. DFID is due to update the Committee on progress against its recommendations, including the health systems strengthening framework, in November 2015.

  • Clive Lewis – 2015 Parliamentary Question to the Department for International Development

    Clive Lewis – 2015 Parliamentary Question to the Department for International Development

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Clive Lewis on 2015-10-14.

    To ask the Secretary of State for International Development, what groups of people will be prioritised by the new Health System Strengthening Framework.

    Grant Shapps

    DFID’s health systems strengthening framework will set out how the UK should support countries to build strong, resilient health systems in future, both through its own resources and through its partner organisations. This will help countries to make sustainable progress towards the global goal of ensuring healthy lives and promoting well-being for all at all ages. A strong health system recognises the links between different health issues and provides integrated services to address them. Sustained financing is essential to good quality service provision and the framework will include support for greater domestic resource mobilisation and better public financial management. It will prioritise those who would otherwise be left behind, including the poorest, the most marginalised and those who are hardest to reach.

  • Clive Lewis – 2015 Parliamentary Question to the Department for International Development

    Clive Lewis – 2015 Parliamentary Question to the Department for International Development

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Clive Lewis on 2015-10-14.

    To ask the Secretary of State for International Development, how the Health System Strengthening Framework will address the links between different health issues.

    Grant Shapps

    DFID’s health systems strengthening framework will set out how the UK should support countries to build strong, resilient health systems in future, both through its own resources and through its partner organisations. This will help countries to make sustainable progress towards the global goal of ensuring healthy lives and promoting well-being for all at all ages. A strong health system recognises the links between different health issues and provides integrated services to address them. Sustained financing is essential to good quality service provision and the framework will include support for greater domestic resource mobilisation and better public financial management. It will prioritise those who would otherwise be left behind, including the poorest, the most marginalised and those who are hardest to reach.

  • Clive Lewis – 2022 Speech on the Public Order Bill

    Clive Lewis – 2022 Speech on the Public Order Bill

    The speech made by Clive Lewis, the Labour MP for Norwich South, in the House of Commons on 23 May 2022.

    It is always an experience to speak after the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent North (Jonathan Gullis)—what kind of experience, I do not think parliamentary etiquette allows to me to express, but it is an experience none the less.

    I would like to comment on some of the engagement tonight from Government Members, because it is quite instructive. It is like a one-sided equation. They want to make this issue about the disruption to individuals and the cost to business, and although that is one side of the equation, there is another side to it: the disruption that the climate crisis is bringing to people around the world already and to this country. One thing that the House may or may not know is that, between 2010 and 2019, it is estimated that 5 million people have already died from the effects of the climate crisis. I understand that Government Members want to talk about an individual in an ambulance, an individual who has been disrupted, but we should think about the global disruption and what is happening around the world. Some 800,000 of those people were in Europe. This is not just happening elsewhere—it is happening here and now.

    Jonathan Gullis

    I am not in denial about the importance of dealing with the climate emergency, but does the hon. Gentleman accept that those who are leading these so-called protests should be leading by example? Saying that they do not care about insulating homes, or insulating their own home, does not send a very good message from the top when they are trying to convince the nation to follow their lead.

    Clive Lewis

    That individual has made their comments, but I guess the question we have to ask is who are the criminals. Are the criminals those individuals who are trying to come together collectively to stand up against a Government who are failing them on the climate crisis, or against billion-pound corporations with pockets deep enough to buy influence in Parliament and across politics? Are the criminals those individuals who are trying to use the only apparatus that they have to stand up and speak up for what they feel impassioned about? I would argue that the real criminals are those who are wilfully pushing to extract more oil from our oilfields and who are pushing us off an existential cliff edge. I think that this country and the British people increasingly understand that those are the people who need to be held to account.

    Members need not take my word for it; they should listen to that socialist radical, the Secretary-General of the UN. The hon. Gentleman may think that the Secretary-General is woke, but I think he is increasingly important to global politics. He wrote:

    “Climate activists are sometimes depicted as dangerous radicals. But the truly dangerous radicals are the countries that are increasing the production of fossil fuels.”

    Cue our own Government attempting to do just that.

    Opposition Members know all too well this Government’s track record of attacks on human rights, democracy, the poor, the vulnerable, trade unions, justice and migrants. Undermining our democratic right to protest goes against the very essence of what it means to live in a democracy.

    Again, hon. Members do not have to take my word for it. The Joint Committee on Human Rights described proposals set out in the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022 as “oppressive and wrong”. The Equality and Human Rights Commission stated that measures in it undermine human rights legislation. Former senior police officers described it as “harmful to democracy”. Some 700 legal academics called for it to be dropped. UN special rapporteurs and top human rights officials warned that it threatens our rights. More than 600,000 members of the public signed a petition against it.

    What possible motivation could the Government have to push through such an authoritarian and regressive Bill? I think that that is a legitimate question for Opposition Members to ask. The Bill is so regressive and anti-democratic that even Conservative Members are baulking at its sweeping, draconian powers.

    Let us take a look at the Bill’s provisions on protests involving critical infrastructure. Like so much of this Government’s agenda, they have been lifted directly from the hard neo-con right in the US. A Bloomberg News exposé from 2019 uncovered extensive lobbying by the oil and gas industry to criminalise protest near extraction sites. We know that the Conservative party has received more than a million pounds from the oil and gas industry in the past few years, so it is legitimate to ask what the Government’s motivations are for the Bill.

    Jonathan Gullis

    The hon. Gentleman talks about motivations. May I ask about the Labour party’s motivations from the millions that it takes from trade unions?

    Clive Lewis

    Trade union money is the cleanest money in British politics. [Laughter.] The hon. Gentleman can quote me: it is the cleanest money, because we declare it and because we are representing the interests of workers, which is why our party was set up. We have no shame; we are proud of where our funding comes from.

    As many Opposition Members have seen, much of the money that funds the Conservative party has come from the kleptocrats of Russia, with whom Conservative Members have more in common than with the people of this country.

    Tom Hunt

    Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

    Clive Lewis

    No, I will make some progress.

    The issue of freedom goes to the heart of the Bill. Conservative Members revel in being the so-called party of freedom, but let us interrogate that a little. Some freedoms are zero-sum, but unfortunately many are not. As Isaiah Berlin explained, freedom for the pike means death for the minnow.

    Conservative Members often talk about freedom—freedom for people to go about their lives and so on—but we must ask a critical question: freedom for whom and freedom against whom? That is what they do not explain. Freedom from trade unions is freedom for corporations to exploit their workers. Freedom from regulation and red tape, as Conservative Members call it, is freedom for corporations to pollute our rivers and restrict our freedom to swim or fish. Freedom from tax, another Conservative staple, is freedom from the redistribution that is essential for fairness and social mobility.

    Now freedom is being mentioned again, and this time it is freedom from protest. That means freedom against the public’s right and ability to hold big business and the Government to account for the climate destruction that they are undertaking. Opposition Members know which side Conservative Members are on. Increasingly, so do the British public. You may wrap this up in the ability of law and order to hold back the unwashed masses, but actually they are the people who are fighting for all our freedoms, for our future and for a world without a climate crisis fuelled by your friends in the big corporations and the oil sector. That is the reality.

  • Clive Lewis – 2022 Speech on Achieving Economic Growth

    Clive Lewis – 2022 Speech on Achieving Economic Growth

    The speech made by Clive Lewis, the Labour MP for Norwich South, in the House of Commons on 18 May 2022.

    Unlike the Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport, I stand not as a conduit of God but as a heretic shaking my metaphorical fist at the crumbling edifice of economic orthodoxy.

    The title of today’s debate is “Achieving Economic Growth,” but to what end? For more than 70 years, successive Governments preened themselves in the mirror and admired what they saw—growth. That mirror is better known as gross domestic product and it has become our key metric for judging how beautiful we are as both an economy and a society. We use it to gauge progress and as a proxy for our collective wellbeing, yet the mirror we have been staring into all these years is less of the bathroom variety and more of the fairground variety, reflecting a distorted image at odds with the reality confronting many of our constituents over those long decades.

    Growth is an illusion that is partly responsible for driving three of the key challenges we now face: rising inequality, the erosion of democracy and the climate crisis. We have had GDP growth, albeit sluggish, over the past 12 years. Hence, by our main metric of choice, our collective wellbeing should have increased, even if only incrementally. That is the logic of the message we tell our constituents, “You’ve never had it so good because the economy is growing.”

    Yet, by focusing on growth, we too often evade the hard political questions about distribution. If the economic pie is growing, the proportional size of the slice matters less, but the issue still gnaws away at people’s sense of fair play. Back in 2016, during a Brexit debate, a remain campaigner told his audience:

    “If we leave the EU, GDP will fall.”

    He was, of course, as we have seen, correct, but that is not the point I wish to make. The point is the heckle from a lady in the audience, which came back:

    “That’s your bloody GDP. Not ours.”

    She knew that for millions like her the proceeds of growth were never fairly shared and that, when the economy grew, the overwhelming beneficiaries of that growth were the rich and powerful, not her. Even when it was growing but not fast enough for its main beneficiaries, it was the public services that she relied on that had to be discarded—again, in the name of economic growth.

    That leads us on to the second great challenge of this century: defending democracy, not just from external threats, such as Russia, but from within. Why? Because if people do not see the reality of their lived experience reflected in the political discourse of their politicians and do not hear their reality being discussed in this place, that gulf is dangerous. Citizens end up believing they are being deceived, and nothing is more dangerous or destructive to our democracy. We must understand that our constituents’ buy-in to any political economy depends not just on their absolute wealth, but, rather, on their relative wealth to those around them. As has been repeatedly demonstrated, the more unequal a society is, the less satisfied its citizens will be. That results in political instability, higher crime rates and higher levels of mental health illness—and we wonder why demand for mental health services is going through the roof in this country.

    Let us, for the sake of argument, park both democracy and inequality to the side for one moment and ask ourselves: how do we square unlimited growth on a finite planet? It is a fair question but one that never gets a remotely convincing answer. Apparently, it is through increased resource use efficiency and productivity gains. In the next half of this century, the global economy will triple the number of people who will enjoy western levels of consumption, to 3 billion,. That is despite the fact that the l billion of us already consuming that much are using 1.6 times more of the planet’s resources than is sustainable—you can do the maths. In other words, the growth delusion is a fallacy that will drive climate and ecological destruction and kill us all. Only in the warped reality of our current growth-obsessed economic model is expansion without end seen as a virtue. In biology, it is called a cancer.

    Bobby Kennedy knew this truth more than 50 years ago when he made his now famous speech on the limits of GDP growth as a metric for success. He understood that GDP is mercenary, blind to morality and indifferent to suffering. GDP growth loves pollution, especially if it has to be cleared up. It relishes crime, especially if more prisons must be built. It delights in war, especially if countries require rebuilding in the aftermath. That does not mean there is no place for GDP as an economic tool but, if we are to successfully face the existential challenges of this century, we need new political tools for measuring wellbeing, the health of our democracy, and the ecological and climate cost of our economic activities.