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 5 of 75.
“Member for Taunton and Wellington (Gideon Amos)— “24 hours a day, seven days a week, provided by nurses and supported by advice from consultant paediatricians who have completed sub-specialty training in paediatric palliative medicine (also known as GRID training). Despite some improvements, freedom of information…requests published in March 2025 have revealed that less than a fifth…of ICBs currently commission these services on a formal basis. Meanwhile, over a third…are still failing to meet this established national standard. As a result, many families feel abandoned by a complex system which should support them to provide care once their child is diagnosed.” I have been asked by the charity to raise a rather large number of questions, which I am going to cut down to just six, if I can manage to squeeze them in.”
“These services should be planned, funded and provided in a way that enables children and families to access them when and where they need them. The key problem is the one that I am about to set out: “In England, integrated care boards have a legal duty to commission palliative care for children, young people and adults that it considers necessary. Across England and the wider UK, there is huge variance in the extent to which palliative and end of life care for seriously ill children and young people is being formally planned, funded and provided in ways that meet national and regional standards. Of particular concern is children and families’ access to end of life care at home”— we heard this from the hon.”
“Palliative care for children and young people is defined by the charity as “an active and total approach to care, from the point of diagnosis throughout the child’s life, death and beyond.” By embracing physical, emotional, social and spiritual elements, children’s palliative care helps to achieve the best possible quality of life and care for every child with a life-limiting or life-threatening condition and their family. Giving families an opportunity to set out what they need and want is key to this approach. Children’s palliative care is holistic and is provided by a network of services in hospitals, homes and children’s hospices by the NHS and the voluntary sector, including children’s hospices.”
“I begin by congratulating the hon. Member for York Central (Rachael Maskell) most warmly on her exemplary record in campaigning for better palliative care. I will address just one segment of her panoramic presentation, namely the work done by the charity that she briefly mentioned, Together for Short Lives. It provided me with a detailed briefing and I apologise in advance if I make some points that others, who may have received the same briefing, anticipate making. Children’s palliative care enables babies, children and young people with life-limiting conditions, life-shortening conditions or severe medical complexity to live as well as possible until they die.”
“I absolutely endorse everything that the Chairman of the Foreign Affairs Committee has said about the BBC World Service. Will she, in the time available, make a brief comment about its sister organisation, BBC Monitoring? That monitoring service used to receive a modest ringfenced grant from the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, as it then was, but that was done away with, and it is now entirely dependent on the BBC’s wider organisation for its funding. Is not the restoration of that dedicated ringfenced grant for BBC Monitoring, which filters all the most interesting comments that other countries’ broadcasters are making, long overdue?”
“I hope the Chancellor will accept that I have challenged successive Governments over inadequate defence spending. If she does, will she also accept that it is not a wise idea to keep comparing current defence spending with the levels of defence spending “since the cold war”? We are not in “since the cold war” now; we are in a hot war in Europe and an incendiary war in the middle east. Does she know what percentage of GDP Mrs Thatcher spent during the cold war years of the 1980s? I will give her a clue: it was twice what we spend now in terms of percentage of GDP.”
“Will the Government pause any steps in this matter until the judicial review proceedings that are being brought on behalf of the Chagossian people have been resolved one way or another in the High Court?”
“It is very surprising to those of us who are not experts on this matter to hear the Secretary of State say that the police are undertaking such a vast and complex investigation, because the circumstances of this uniquely terrible tragedy do not seem terribly complicated at all. Why is the police inquiry taking so long? Will he at least assure the House, and the country at large, that there is a dedicated unit within the police that is determined to bring this matter before the courts?”
“Following an exemplary local campaign and petition, it is a relief to record that the Post Office has just reversed its decision not to reopen the post office in Lyndhurst, often referred to as the capital of the New Forest. Can the Minister explain whether there is any overall Government plan to co-ordinate the disappearance of banks with the emergence of banking hubs and the expectation that post offices will take on some banking responsibilities? Would it be a possible source of income for post offices if they could charge the banks in exchange for undertaking to take in cheques on accounts held with those banks? At the moment, I believe it is very hit and miss which banks allow people to pay their checks into a post office, and which do not.”
“The hon. Member for Stevenage (Kevin Bonavia) mentioning Storm Shadow reminds me of the fact that, particularly in the early days of the conflict, there was resistance, often from the other side of the Atlantic, to supplying Ukraine with some of the longer-range missile systems that are necessary to inflict pain on Russia in its centre. Now that President Trump’s contribution has been reduced to supplying weapons that the Europeans have to pay for before they can go to Ukraine, do we have greater freedom to supply longer-range, more effective weapons to Ukraine, or are we still somewhat beholden to the wishes of people on the other side of the Atlantic?”
“Has the Minister had any opportunity to form conclusions about whether excessive involvement with social media and other online potential harms has contributed to an apparent significant increase in the levels of mental health disorders?”
“Is it not likely that, with the awards ceremony last night, the Government would have won the BAFTA for “One Scandal After Another” had they entered? The facts in this matter are not in dispute: the organisation Labour Together did not declare massive donations and was fined as a result; and in response, its head, now a Labour Minister, sought to gain dirt on the journalists who had truthfully reported the matter. Why does this need to be investigated? The facts are clear and the position is indefensible. I regard the three Ministers present as decent people and as gentlemen. Are they not sick of being put forward to defend the indefensible?”
“In his annual report covering 2023 to 2025, which was published on 15 December last year, my successor as chairman states: “The Committee in the last Parliament became very seriously concerned that the vital scrutiny that the ISC provides was being undermined by continued interference by the Cabinet Office in the Committee’s Office… The root of the problem lies in the control exerted over the Committee’s staff and resourcing by the Cabinet Office.” This is an opportunity to let the ISC have what it has asked for and wanted for years, which is independence from the Cabinet Office. Will the Minister please take that message back?”
“In response to an earlier question about the role of the Intelligence and Security Committee in relation to the Cabinet Office, the Minister rightly said that the ISC is concerned about its independence. As its former chairman, I can vouch for the fact that it was particularly concerned about the dominant role that the Cabinet Office had in its affairs.”
“May I invite the Secretary of State to expand a bit on her vision of what happens at the end of a SEND child’s education? She mentioned the idea of independence—and, presumably, socialisation—to advance in society. In what way will her Department try to shape the course to enable children born with a disadvantage to function productively in the real world at the end of the process?”
“Will the Secretary of State assure me that when he and his colleagues take decisions on this and similar issues, the fact that it is a Labour-led council asking for the guidelines not to be followed will not weigh on them in an appropriate way?”
“I realise now that it was simply fresh legal advice that led to this change of policy, rather than anything to do with the court case brought by the Secretary of State’s least favourite political party. Does he agree that the Government, in handling local government reform, should give at least an appearance of being impartial? Despite the Government’s consistent advice that the existing district and borough council areas should be seen as the building blocks for the new unitary authorities, Labour-controlled Southampton city council is still insisting on trying to dismember the New Forest East constituency by going for boundary changes that would strip off the Waterside, near Southampton, from the New Forest, to which it has always looked.”
“We know what happens in the end: there is enough public protest to ensure that there is action. I hope that the level of public awareness is no less for this cause than it is for other, similar scandals because all the victims were women. That would be even more disgraceful than that this all happened in the first place.”
“It is to recognise that there will be tremendous complexity in individual cases, but at least these mesh-injured ladies would get a minimum of help—I think £25,000 has been suggested—straightaway, while the more complex calculations can be done later. Yet despite that being the very point of an interim scheme—that we can do this quickly and work on the harder parts subsequently—we have seen no progress. What does that remind us of? It reminds me of the Post Office. It reminds me of the infected blood scandal. What do all those things have in common? A large number of people who have been injured in some way or another—either physically, or with their character or freedom damaged, often beyond repair—and who are owed very large sums of money by way of redress or compensation.”
“This scheme should be based on the principles of restorative practice and be co-designed with harmed patients.” Recommendation 3 was: “The government should create a two-stage financial redress scheme comprising an Interim Scheme and a Main Scheme.” Recommendation 4 was: “The Interim Scheme should award directly harmed patients a fixed sum by way of financial redress. These payments should start during 2025.” Recommendation 8 was: “Both the Interim Scheme and the Main Scheme should be administered by an independent body which commands the confidence of patients.” What is the point of an interim scheme?”
“Despite the injuries she suffered personally, she has been a rock and a leader for other mesh-injured women in or near my constituency. I hold her in the highest esteem; in fact, I salute her courage. What she has to say is, in a sense, an argument that has already been won. The Cumberlege report won that argument, and the Hughes report wanted to recommend what should happen next. I am delighted to see Henrietta Hughes in the Gallery—and seemingly acknowledging that I am right about that difference between the two reports. Let me briefly quote from Henrietta Hughes’s admirably concise list of 10 recommendations. Recommendation 1 was: “The government has a responsibility to create an ex-gratia redress scheme providing financial and non-financial redress for those harmed by valproate and pelvic mesh.”
“I will try to add something new to the excellent start to the debate by both the previous speakers, who showed a great command of the overall situation, by quoting my constituent Emma, who got in touch with me yesterday after learning that the debate would take place. I will briefly summarise her concerns, which she set out in the following way: “In the main, the point is that so many have been injured, left on NHS waiting lists, paying for prescriptions and transport to and from appointments. Not being able to work—or restricted working hours. Limited access to PIP…Very little support for those who had mortgages due to the benefit system not supporting mortgage costs” and “loss of pension contributions, as none of us is getting any younger.” This lady is exceptionally strong.”
“I appreciate that the Minister does not have primary responsibility for this area, but it worries me that we are hearing an awful lot about process. What I fear is really going on is that Ministers have been told at the highest possible level, by the Chancellor or a Treasury Minister, that the money for redress will not be made available and they have to take that as their starting point. She may not be able to confirm this now, but I would like an answer as to whether a conversation of that sort has taken place.”
“Does the Minister know whether or not minutes were taken at the key Washington meeting in February last year? If they were not taken, why not? Why was Lord Mandelson, a political appointee, not required to sever any links with his former activities and business that could have given rise to a conflict of interest in his role as ambassador?”
“It is certainly a cause of great concern if an AI machine now has access to people’s private home addresses. What investigations have the Government carried out to establish how much personal information that should not have been released is now out there for anyone, no matter how ill-intentioned, to dial up at will?”
“Does the Secretary of State agree that the Mandelson scandal illustrates the reputational risk and damage that can be done by ignoring aspects of criminal exploitation? Does he know whether there is a difference in the cost of solar panels that are imported from China compared with other possible sources? What sort of safeguards do the Government have to ensure that we are not encouraging people to put on their roofs the products of criminal activity and forced labour exploitation?”
“Does the Minister accept that the IRGC is responsible for many acts of terrorism? While we appreciate the difficulty that arises from its being a state organisation and the reluctance to proscribe a state organisation, is it not a fact that Jonathan Hall, the independent reviewer of terrorism legislation, has come up with a formula to allow that to happen? If so, why do the Government not bring it forward with the maximum speed?”
“I am sorry, but this is really hopeless. I mean no disrespect to this particular Minister, but I am sure that you, Mr Speaker, have noticed, as I have, that whenever something indefensible comes up, the Government always put middle-ranking or junior Ministers on the frontline. Perhaps the Foreign Secretary is abroad or perhaps she is in her sick bed, but otherwise, why is she not voluntarily making a statement, rather than sending someone else to take the flak? This is really not fitting for the outrage that hon. Members—there are hon. Members on both sides of the House—feel about the fate of Jimmy Lai.”
“What more did he need to know to realise that that man should never have been allowed within a mile of the post of ambassador to America?”
“It is notable that despite the Government’s huge majority, they have run out of people to stand up and defend their position. The Minister is—I am not being patronising—a very intelligent man. I therefore ask that he does not insult the intelligence of the rest of us by talking about the Prime Minister having believed Mandelson’s lies after he asked him questions. We now know from the forensic questioning by the Leader of the Opposition that the Prime Minister knew that the relationship between Mandelson and Epstein carried on—“ongoing” was the word—after Epstein was jailed for offences related to paedophilia and prostitution. The Prime Minister apparently chose to ask more questions after that, and was lied to.”
“It is very rare—in fact, I cannot think of a previous occasion over what is approaching 29 or 30 years in this House—that I have heard a statement from a Select Committee, every word of which I entirely agree with. This is one of those occasions, and I congratulate the Committee and the Members who were involved in the preparation of this excellent contribution.”
“I hope I am not stretching the boundaries of the debate excessively, but I would be interested to know whether the agreement has any implications for defence exports to India and, if it does, what safeguards would be in place, given the unhealthily close relationship between India and Russia.”
“It has been for years a matter of mystery and speculation where Epstein acquired his vast wealth. Does my hon. Friend think that the Russian connection may provide the definitive answer to that mystery?”
“Mandelson was not just a key member of New Labour; he was its inventor. He was the man who replaced the Labour flag’s implements of horny-handed toil with the red rose—the brander par excellence. I think people were also afraid of him; I am not the first person to describe this as the “Scandalson” story, and I am sure I will not be the last.”
“Does my hon. Friend, who is very experienced, believe that one of the lessons of inherent necessity for political survival is the ability to learn from mistakes? Therefore, given that a new ambassador will take Mandelson’s place—I do not think a permanent appointment has yet been made—does he think the Prime Minister will have enough good sense and wit to appoint a diplomatic professional to the role, or will it be another ill-starred flunky whom he favours for political and personal reasons?”
“No subsequent lies or revelations alter the fact that the Prime Minister appointed Mandelson when he knew that he had been in that ongoing relationship.”
“I will try to make the same point as my hon. Friend the Member for Bexhill and Battle (Dr Mullan), but in a less emotional way. Today, the Prime Minister was asked directly, “did the official security vetting that he received mention Mandelson’s ongoing relationship with the paedophile Jeffrey Epstein?” He replied, “Yes, it did.” The Minister says that Mandelson lied to the Prime Minister, but the point is that the Prime Minister knew that the relationship was ongoing. Even if Mandelson lied about some other aspects of the relationship, can the Minister not see that the fact that there was any ongoing relationship at all with a man who had been imprisoned for paedophilia and prostitution was an impossible position to defend?”
“Will the Minister please get on with doing that? The fact is that the independent reviewer of terrorism has signalled a way in which something analogous to proscription can be done to the IRGC, even though it is a state body. Does the Minister accept that there is an analogy between the IRGC and the Gestapo and Hitler’s SS, both of which were designated as criminal organisations by the Nuremberg tribunal? Would he be as slow to act if we were operating in that context? For goodness’ sake, get on with it and implement the findings and recommendations of Jonathan Hall.”
“What is known about the number of other people who have been radicalised by Islamist extremist prisoners in those parts of the prison estate that are not separated out like the units with which he is primarily concerned today?”
“I entirely agree with what the Justice Secretary says about the dangers of deception. It is also concerning to note that people are now trying to use a mental health argument to get out of separation centres, given that anyone who holds a fanatical Islamist, Nazi or revolutionary view from some other doctrine has, by definition, a mental health question mark over their personality. I appreciate that he may have to write to me afterwards, but can he indicate what proportion of people imprisoned for terrorist offences related to Islamism are in separation centres, and what proportion are in the rest of the prison estate?”
“The Prime Minister’s position seems to be that if a bully is big enough, rich enough and powerful enough, the pragmatic thing to do is to pay into his protection racket. Can he at least show some sign of moral compass by accepting the fact that China is a repressive, brutal, communist, totalitarian state that dishonoured all the provisions of the Hong Kong agreement?”
“Can the Minister not see that it is in the Labour party’s interest, as much as it is in the national interest, that this issue of stripping Mandelson of his peerage should be resolved as soon as possible and that wider legislation is brought in subsequently? The Minister may be a little young to remember when the late John Prescott compared Mandelson to a scorpion in a jam jar that he was holding, but can he explain to the House the fatal fascination of Labour leader after Labour leader appointing this man to post after post, given his chequered record of corruption and multiple resignations?”
“Let me turn to another parallel with the 1930s—the fact that Putin made one big error. He signalled by his early occupation of Crimea what his intentions were, but he was not then able to carry them out for quite a few years, in which time the defensive capability of the Ukrainians had massively increased with the surreptitious help, I suspect, of certain western powers, including ourselves. As a result, Ukraine was able to put up a much stronger defence than anybody who was not part of that secret rearmament and training programme would have anticipated.”
“Given that that is Putin’s attitude, one thing that we can certainly deduce from the present situation is that there is no such thing as a peace deal to be had with Vladimir Putin and his cohorts. The fact is that if there is a deal of any sort—if there is a ceasefire—it is for one reason and one reason only: that Putin feels at the time of such a deal or a ceasefire that he cannot successfully go further. If then there is a cessation of fighting for a while, we can be equally sure that the moment Putin thinks he can go further, he will start all over again. So there is absolutely nothing to be gained, in terms of good will, or a basis for future relationships or stability, by giving any concessions to Putin whatsoever in terms of land exchanges or recognition of occupation.”
“If those of us who saw the Soviet Union at the height of its power in the mid-1980s had been told that one day the Governments in exile of those three absorbed republics would be able to step forward and pick up the torch of democracy owing to the collapse of their overlords, we would have said, “Well, we would love to think that would happen, but do we honestly think it is going to happen in our lifetimes? Probably not.” But it did, and when it did, the implosion was dramatic, unexpected and complete. [Dawn Butler in the Chair ] Yet there are some people who regard the break-up—the dissolution—of the Soviet empire as a geopolitical disaster. Hon. Members know to whom I am referring in particular: Vladimir Putin.”
“Having listened to all the excellent preceding speeches, I have to say that occasions such as this make me proud to be a Member of the British Parliament. I congratulate everyone who has spoken with such a united voice. If I may, I will just make some brief elaborations on the opening comments and superb contribution of the hon. Member for Leeds Central and Headingley (Alex Sobel). He referred in particular to the non-recognition of the Baltic states, and it is worth looking at that a little more closely. The Baltic states were occupied and incorporated into the Soviet Union for approximately half a century; never did this country recognise that.”
“Yes, that is entirely the sort of contribution that I have in mind. As a result of that, when Putin was ready to take his next bite, the Ukrainians were able to prevent him, yet many people, including me, thought the most that we could probably do was to offer the Ukrainian Government a Government-in-exile headquarters in London when the whole country was overrun. The whole country was not overrun. Hopefully, the whole country never will be overrun, but those parts of it that have been overrun must never be recognised as belonging to the successors of the Soviet Union—namely the gang around Vladimir Putin, the killer in the Kremlin.”
“I am a little worried that the Minister is confusing Ministers coming to the Dispatch Box and not answering questions with proper scrutiny of what is going on, so here is a very specific question for her. She has heard previously about the Pelindaba treaty. Mauritius is a signatory, and all signatories have to declare their territories to be nuclear-free zones, effectively. If in the future the Americans, with our agreement and approval, wish to have some nuclear weapons permanently or temporarily on the base at Diego Garcia, will they be able to do so if Mauritius has sovereignty over the islands?”
“The hon. Gentleman is making a number of serious points. Does he see, as I do, a sort of parallel between President Trump’s egregious suggestion that NATO troops were, allegedly, not on the frontline and this issue of Diego Garcia? The fact is that President Trump makes certain comments and then, when confronted with the truth, has to try to elaborate on them, even if he will not go so far as to say the dreaded words “I’m sorry.” Is that not what is happening here? The Americans did not realise the extent to which giving up sovereignty over the base would compromise their military situation, and we have not heard anything to say that Mauritius could not stop any nuclear weapons ever in future being on Diego Garcia.”
“If we transfer sovereignty to a country that is signed up to be part of a nuclear-free zone, that is bound to call into doubt the ability to have nuclear weapons there in the future. Can he clear up that point?”