Sir Julian Lewis
MP for New Forest East · Conservative · United Kingdom
“I will share with the House one particular case that is representative of many. My constituent, Mrs Gillian Pothecary, lost her husband almost a year ago. She wrote to me in July about her valiant but so far unavailing quest to obtain a civil service widow’s pension.”
“She said: “Mrs Pothecary’s…case falls under the commitment to be fully resolved by early September at the absolute latest. Capita has assured me that her case is on their escalation log and has been flagged for priority handling.” I rang up Gill just before coming into this debate and—you’ve guessed it, Dame Siobhain—she has not yet recei…”
“As the Minister seems to have run out of supportive Back Benchers, I shall endeavour to ask him a helpful and easy question. Accepting that it will be some years, to put it mildly, before we can eliminate our dependency on oil and gas, does he accept in principle that we are more secure if we exploit our own domestic oil and gas resources…”
“I warmly endorse almost everything the Secretary of State has said today, and I genuinely congratulate him on his appointment. In my first speech in this House almost 30 years ago, I promised to support Labour Governments as long as they supported the nuclear deterrent, the conventional armed forces and NATO.”
“On Monday, just as campaigners from the New Forest and Waterside were handing into Downing Street a 32,000-signature petition against the appalling and unfair outcome of local government reorganisation affecting our area, the welcome announcement was made by the Government that the local government reform proposals for Hampshire and three…”
“We are now in a situation that is worse than that at the height of the cold war, so the comparison we have to make is between what we are spending now and what we spent during the cold war, which was, in modern calculating methods, between 4.5% and 5.1% on defence. So let us not talk about increases to 2.7%.”
The complete record
Every one of 3,750 lines we hold for Sir Julian Lewis, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 14 of 75.
“It seems to me that the Government’s good work in this Bill in criminalising the possession of knives with intent will be undermined if the police have to wait for someone to take out the knife and commit an attack before they can discover whether they have a knife. Surely, if there is a separate offence arising from mere possession, as my right hon. Friend says, it is particularly important to enable the police to discover that someone possesses that knife before they have had a chance to do harm with it.”
“It would also help if it were made mandatory for all cyclists to have a bell, so that they could at least warn pedestrians of their approach.”
“Does the Lord Chancellor accept that part of the reason for the loss of public confidence lies with the sort of cases that are clogging up tribunal and court time? As explained by Jawad Iqbal in his column in The Times today, these involve dubious decisions about not being able to deport convicted criminals, such as an Iraqi cocaine dealer who cannot be sent back to his homeland because he is considered to be “too westernised”. Quite apart from the perversity of the result, is it not an insult to the genuine victims of crimes who are held up in getting the judgments that they deserve?”
“I entirely endorse what the right hon. Lady says about the BBC World Service. There used to be a ringfenced grant for BBC Monitoring as well, but now that falls on BBC general income and expenditure. Does she agree that that monitoring service performs an equally crucial role to the World Service in terms of open source information?”
“Would it be fair to say that the step that has been taken to use development money for the immediate or relatively prompt increase in defence spending is essentially a short-term measure that will have to be substituted with long-term measures, given that the increase in defence spending, if it is to fund a security contribution to a divided Ukraine, will be an indefinite commitment?”
“Does the Minister agree that this is at least one area where our co-operation with the United States can continue on the basis of a common mutual interest, given President Trump’s extremely strong attitude to the abuses carried out by the Iranian regime? Is the Minister aware—I think he probably is—that during the previous Parliament the Intelligence and Security Committee completed the classified version of a major report on Iran and all its activities? Does he look forward, like me, to the redaction process being completed soon, so that we can all benefit from the findings of that report?”
“The Minister referred to his support for parish and town councils. Can he explain a little more about the neighbourhood boards? Will their geographical footprint be similar to that of parish and town councils in the 75 areas concerned? If so, would it not have been better to give this role to elected bodies, such as parish and town councils, rather than to unelected new boards?”
“The Prime Minister’s very capable Defence ministerial team will have told him that even were he able to accelerate investment and expenditure on defence more rapidly than has already been outlined, there would be a considerable time lag, given the complexity of modern equipment, before industrial output could be ramped up. He talks about intensifying planning. Will he include the creation of a defence industrial expansion unit in the machinery that is being set up now? That way, as resources become available, the output of military equipment can be at the fastest possible rate.”
“Leaseholders listening to the Deputy Prime Minister’s very comprehensive statement will have heard her mention the role of developers in remediation for blocks covered in inadequate and dangerous cladding. Can she explain in more detail what happens when developers have defaulted in some way and are no longer in existence, and freeholders then seek to visit the costs of remediation on the innocent leaseholders? I think the legislation covers those situations to some extent, but it would be helpful if the Deputy Prime Minister provided more detail.”
“On that point, did my right hon. Friend see the report in The Daily Telegraph on 26 February that one of the other judges who took part in that judgment, Patrick Robinson, believes that the United Kingdom should be repaying at least £18 trillion in reparations for slavery in the past?”
“The Minister is putting up a gallant fight in a very difficult situation. For the avoidance of doubt, is she saying that there is another court—other than the ICJ—that could compel this country to give up the Chagos islands? If so, will she identify that court?”
“I have a lot of respect for the hon. Lady, and that is why I will have one more go at this: is there any court, other than the ICJ, that could come to a judgment against Britain over the sovereignty of the islands?”
“President Trump says that he wants his legacy to be that of a peacemaker. In his difficult conversations with the President in a few days’ time, will the Prime Minister remind him that the reason the enforced division of Czechoslovakia before the war was a step on the road to disaster, but the division of Germany at the end of the war did not lead to world war three, was that the western half of Europe at the end of world war two was not demilitarised? If there is to be a stable Ukraine after any such enforced division, there must be military protection for the unoccupied half of Ukraine.”
“I entirely agree with the Government that, as the Minister said in her statement, we should not be “paying the price of our country being exposed to fossil fuel markets controlled by petrostates and dictators.” Given that we cannot move completely to clean energy tomorrow, why do the Government insist on closing down and, indeed, concreting over our potential fossil fuel gas reserves until such time as we can move completely to clean energy? Why should we import it from other states while piously saying that we will not extract it from beneath our own country?”
“Although I welcome what the Home Secretary is saying about the need to divert and prevent home-grown terrorism, does she accept that a pattern of terrorism is emerging in continental Europe of undocumented migrants going into countries and committing terrorist acts? Does she agree that it is very difficult for the authorities to prevent anything of that sort if undocumented illegal migrants are released into society when they arrive on these shores?”
“I will resist the temptation to ask the Foreign Secretary if he shares my feeling of disgust at the spectacle of the leader of the free world showering praise and admiration on the killer in the Kremlin. When he speaks to his counterparts, will he try to impress on them that the reason why George Kennan’s containment policy, to which he rightly referred, was so successful in preventing the cold war from turning into the third world war was that contentious territory was not demilitarised and left undefended? It worked in the case of West Germany, and it will have to be the only way that western Ukraine can equally be secured for the future.”
“Will the Government impress on President Trump at every possible opportunity that the reason why appeasement led to world war two was that it left a vacuum in Europe, whereas the reason why the occupation of eastern Europe at the end of that war did not lead to world war three was that the United States filled any possible vacuum and contained further aggression? If he is going for a settlement against the wishes of the Ukrainian people, the least he can do is guarantee directly the security of that part of Ukraine which remains unoccupied.”
“I shall try to avoid the temptation to say that when the Leader of the House, in her upbeat way, describes the Attorney General as an asset, we can all agree at least on the first syllable, and instead ask for a debate on—[Hon. Members: “Oh!”] It took a while! Instead, I will ask for a debate on trends in defence spending during and after the cold war, so that those on both sides of the House have the chance to appreciate that when we are involved in a serious confrontation, we should not be arguing about 2.5%; we should be arguing for a figure much nearer to the 5% that President Trump, for once, is right to demand.”
“May I thank the Minister for the thoroughness and thoughtfulness with which he has made his statement? I think he would agree that there are still issues around speed, quantum, flexibility and care. Am I right in thinking that IBCA does not have any flexibility about the amount of damages paid? If so, can he give a rough indication of what sort of compensation is paid when someone has lost their life as a result of being poisoned by the NHS? Is it the case that people have to make an individual settlement and agreement on what they will accept? If so, is there any professional support that someone, who might be quite ill, can get before signing on the dotted line and possibly signing away their rights to more compensation than they might otherwise receive?”
“Does the Secretary of State accept that the Northern Ireland (Sentences) Act 1998 continues to apply? That means that no soldier and no terrorist, convicted of even the most heinous murders, can serve more than two years in jail. Those are the sort of compromises that have been necessary. When the Secretary of State accepts that the legacy Act would have given immunity to terrorists and soldiers alike, does he not recognise the principle of a truth recovery process, coupled with a statute of limitations, as exemplified by what happened in South Africa? Is what was good enough for Nelson Mandela not good enough for Northern Ireland?”
“Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. Is there any way within the rules of order that I can point out how the divisiveness of the exchanges that we have just had illustrates what happens when a line is not drawn under bitter historical conflicts?”
“If President Trump offered to cancel the tariff on steel imports in return for the UK throwing the appalling Chagos giveaway deal in the dustbin, would the Government agree?”
“Are the Government doing any forward thinking— [ Laughter. ] No, I am being serious—about what will happen when the shooting stops with a ceasefire agreement in Ukraine? Wherever the border between free and occupied Ukraine finally forms will become the new frontline for Europe, so what provision are we making, even now, to be able to secure the future shape and safety of Europe?”
“Am I right in thinking that if the Government take the factors around emissions into account in a future application, it will not be for the court to then say that having taken them into account, the Government have arrived at the wrong decision in wanting to proceed? Surely, it is for the Government to decide whether to proceed, not the courts?”
“I welcome the Minister’s emphasis on energy security. Can he give us some idea of the timetable for when the first small modular nuclear reactors—preferably ones built by Rolls-Royce, which has expertise in this area thanks to its excellent work for the Royal Navy—will be commissioned?”
“I know that the Home Secretary is doing her best to cover the waterfront—almost literally—but is not part of the problem that so many of the criminal gang organisers are outside our jurisdiction? How will these new laws apply to people we cannot reach?”
“Will the Minister consider making available to interested colleagues on both sides of the House a presentation of what actually happens on Prevent and Channel courses? In the absence of that, may I ask him, from his personal knowledge of what happens on those courses, am I right in thinking that they are primarily therapeutic? Would he therefore accept that there are some people, not primarily motivated by ideology but psychotic, extremely narcissist and possibly using or abusing mind-altering drugs, who, no matter how much therapy they had, would still go on to commit atrocities; in which case, what powers exist, in mental health legislation and anti-terrorist legislation, to prevent them from committing such acts?”
“Will the Minister acknowledge the amazing contributions of groups such as New Forest Friends of the Earth, which this very morning have been lobbying their MPs in Parliament Square on warm homes initiatives? They will be coming to the Government with some possibly costly proposals, but I hope that the Government, despite the economic legacy that they allegedly inherited, will give them a sympathetic hearing.”
“I am sure that the Minister appreciates the important role of learning disability nurses in maximising the potential of people with learning disabilities. Will he therefore have a word with his Treasury colleagues about the differential effect of the rise in national insurance contributions? Learning disability nurses who work directly for the NHS are exempt; those who work for agencies contracted by the NHS are not exempt. That is an anomaly, and I would be grateful if the Minister considered talking to his colleagues about it.”
“I have been enjoying the Minister’s lively presentation, but then I do not live under a potential new flightpath. Are the Government consulting their Back Benchers about the possibility of aviation and airport expansion versus net zero? If so, will they be advising them to clean up what they have said on this subject on the internet before it is hoovered up by the Opposition in preparation for the next general election?”
“If Labour colleagues are going to insist on reiterating that the last time 2.5% of GDP was spent on defence it was by a Labour Government, I suppose I have to point out that the last time 3% was spent by any Government it was by a Conservative Government, and the last time 4% was spent by any Government it was by a Conservative Government. Both those figures were some time after the fall of the Berlin wall. When the Berlin wall was still up, under the present accounting system we were spending up to 5.5% on defence, so please can everyone stop obsessing about 2.5% and when it will come in, because we need a lot more?”
“If Putin’s Russia is the greatest threat to peace in Europe, the second greatest threat must be any American decision to turn their back on NATO. Can the Secretary of State assure us that he will do everything in his power to convince his new counterparts in the United States Administration of the seriousness of the threat that Russia poses?”
“I trust that the Home Secretary agrees that the courage shown by the dance teacher and the member of the public who intervened should be recognised appropriately. What troubles me is that we seem to have a subtext here of saying that if only that particular ticking time-bomb had been successfully referred to Prevent, it could have stopped him doing what he did. Assuming that someone so committed to fanaticism would not respond to Prevent, will the Home Secretary share with the House what measures are in place to keep such terrible events from happening? Do terrorism prevention and investigation measures, for example, apply in a case like that?”
“It seems that the Chair of the Treasury Committee has come to the firm conclusion that the Office for Value for Money is itself not value for money. In carrying out her investigation of this body, which appears to have been set up only for a very limited period, she must have asked it what its terms of reference are, why it has been set up only for a limited period and what it is intended to achieve. My guess is that the answer has something to do with the ability to search just about anywhere across the spectrum for any project that causes concern. Did she get an answer of that sort? She must surely have got some sort of answer.”
“Tornado, Typhoon and Tempest has a sort of ring to it. I understand why we are using the term GCAP, but its presentation leaves a lot to be desired. One reason is that it is so much more than just the Tempest airframe—autonomous aircraft will fly in conjunction with it. How confident is the Select Committee Chair that all this can be done in a fast-moving landscape and in just a 10-year programme?”
“The Minister needs to be clear when he sums up: do the Government accept that there was maladministration, as the report sets out, or are they trying to deny that fact? In paragraph 20 of the report, the ombudsman says: “While it is unusual for organisations we investigate not to accept and act on our recommendations, we have no powers to compel them to comply. When an organisation does not comply with our recommendations, we can lay a report before Parliament so that Parliament can act to protect citizens’ rights.” That is what the ombudsman expects, and that is what the WASPI women have every right to expect too.”
“In trying to justify their policy of inaction, the Government seem to be oscillating between two positions: on the one hand, they keep suggesting that they simply cannot afford to give any compensation at all, but in the next breath they seem almost to be challenging the contents of the ombudsman’s report, relying on a dodgy poll that suggests that 90% of the affected women knew about the changes. Well, if the Government can rely on dodgy polls, so can I. I happen to be married to a WASPI woman, and on a dodgy poll of one I can tell the Government that she did not know and did not get a letter, and she has no particular motivation for claiming otherwise, given that it would not have affected her career choices.”
“At a rough count, there are in excess of 50 colleagues here from a range of parties. I hope every one of them pledges to join the all-party parliamentary group on state pension inequality for women, ably led by the hon. Member for Salford (Rebecca Long Bailey). This boils down to a question of credibility and respect. What credibility and respect can there be for ombudsmen’s reports if they are ignored? What credibility and respect can there be for Members of Parliament, ranging from the now Prime Minister to foot soldiers such as me, who parade with placards saying we will fight and campaign on behalf of the WASPI women, if we do not follow through on those commitments? I want to raise one particular point that bothers me, and then I will let others continue the debate.”
“I thank the Minister for a very positive recent meeting on an unrelated subject. Is the main problem here the detection of the incoming drones, or the ability to impede the deliveries once they have been detected?”
“Thank you, Mr Speaker. Does the Minister accept that it would greatly assist the police to investigate crime in Newcastle-under-Lyme, and indeed elsewhere, if they were not spending an estimated 60,000 hours investigating and recording so-called non-crime hate incidents?”
“Can I encourage the Minister to come out of combat mode for a second and consider a constructive proposal? If we are not to become re-dependent on gas when the wind does not blow and the sun does not shine, and we do not want to be dependent on foreign countries indefinitely, can he see a future role for modular nuclear reactors?”
“Since we last discussed this horror on 29 October, I am not aware of any major news coverage of it. How is it that it goes so under-reported? Is it simply too dangerous for journalists to be there? The Minister stresses the wish for no other country to intervene, but is it not the case that genocides tend to go on until someone stops the people committing them?”
“I revert to the article in The Times mentioned by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Spelthorne (Lincoln Jopp), headlined: “Rachel Reeves using AI to reply to Treasury emails”.”
“I beg your pardon, Madam Deputy Speaker. I did not want to misquote the headline. Nevertheless—as we now all know who she is—I discover that, instead of corresponding with her civil servants, as I thought, I am engaging with something called a “correspondence triage automation tool”, which is used for “the automatic matching of correspondence with appropriate standard responses”. That might give us cause to chuckle, but can we at least have an assurance that when we write to Ministers, even if they are not replying, they will at least be informed of the fact that concerns have been raised by Members of this House?”
“Continuing the Cyndi Lauper theme, I am sure the Minister agrees that we have to see these touts in their true colours. The fact is that they will try to find ways around these eminently praiseworthy proposals. Let us imagine that the Minister gets his cap in place; what is to stop an undercover operation going ahead with a large number of individuals trying to make a small number of sales each on a website such as eBay? How would the Minister be able to enforce the cap in a situation like that?”
“Military history books are full of examples of the difficulty that defence scientists had in selling their revolutionary ideas to military chiefs and civil servants. Given the nebulous nature of artificial intelligence, was the Sub-Committee satisfied that there is a specialist cadre in the Ministry of Defence that is intellectually equipped to make appropriate assessment of schemes that are put forward for new weapons systems?”
“I applaud my hon. Friend for the point that she is making. I, too, have had representations from excellent home-schooling parents. Does she think that there is a way, with reason and understanding on both sides, for a balance to be struck between the need to safeguard the right of responsible parents to home-school their children and the need to prevent the abuse of children by parents who have other, more sinister, objectives?”
“No one should be surprised, as I have said before, when a communist totalitarian state behaves like a communist totalitarian state. Does the Minister agree that there is a little pattern emerging here? Every time a senior British politician—be it the Prime Minister or the Chancellor—is going on a visit to the Chinese, something particularly egregious is done. That suggests to me that they are trying to rub our noses in it, and that they are not interested or concerned about anything we say on human rights abuses.”
“It sounds like the Government are not very keen to talk about Diego Garcia with President Trump, but when people as diverse as President Trump and Lord Neil Kinnock agree that NATO countries should be spending between 3% and 4% on defence, would it not be sensible to take them seriously?”
“The key point is the one made by my hon. Friend the Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Dr Spencer) about the distinction between private assets—even such tainted ones as are held by oligarchs—and state assets. The mover of this motion, the hon. Member for Tunbridge Wells (Mike Martin), will correct me if I am wrong, but the $300 billion-worth of assets referred to in the motion are state assets. In a publication by the International Institute for Strategic Studies in May last year, no fewer than 11 professors and other legal experts were unanimous in saying that when it comes to state assets, there is no legal obstacle for seizure by a third-party state, such as ourselves.”