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 6 of 75.
“I am a great admirer of the hon. Gentleman; he is courteous and thoughtful, and I always listen to what he says with great focus and attention. He is criticising the dangers of ambiguity, and I agree with that point. Does he accept, however, that we have not cleared up the ambiguity about whether nuclear weapons could ever be on Diego Garcia if the Americans and the British wanted them to be? It is no good saying, as the Minister did, “We never talk about deployments of nuclear weapons.” We are not asking about deployments of nuclear weapons. We are asking about the legal position if the case was that the Americans or the British wanted to have nuclear weapons, temporarily or permanently, on Diego Garcia.”
“This is why some people are concerned that if Mauritius allowed the Americans to have nuclear weapons on the base, although I do not think it would allow that, that would give China an excuse to break the same treaty to which Mauritius is already committed about a non-nuclear Africa, and China would not even get the odium that it otherwise would receive if it started deploying nuclear weapons all over the African continent.”
“Ministers keep saying “How dare you compare this with the Falkland Islands?”, but Labour’s manifesto at the last election gave a commitment to defend the sovereignty of the British overseas territories—not some of them, all of them. If they cannot be trusted on this one, they cannot be trusted on any of them.”
“I have a helpful suggestion. I know that I cannot commit my party as a whole, but let me speak personally. If the Government change their position, I—and, I am sure, my right hon. Friend—will give a personal pledge never to accuse them of having done a U-turn on this matter. We will praise them to the skies, and we will not seek to take party political advantage of their belated acceptance of reality.”
“My hon. Friend is making an excellent speech, but I think he knows the answers to those simple questions. The answer to the question whether Mauritius could stop us having nuclear weapons stored on Diego Garcia is clearly that it would be able to do so. It is clear that the answer to what happens if the Americans say no to changing the 1966 agreement is that this deal to get rid of our sovereignty over the Chagos islands would be dead in the water. The reason that Ministers will not say those things, even though they know them to be true, is that they are afraid of a headline saying, “Minister admits that Chagos surrender can’t go ahead without American agreement”.”
“I must tweak what my hon. Friend just said. Although there is discretion for the Mauritian Government to give permission for a nuclear-armed vessel to visit temporarily, for example, there is no discretion for nuclear weapons to be stored permanently on Diego Garcia.”
“I think there is a further twist, because the Pelindaba treaty not only prohibits the storing of nuclear weapons on the territory of Mauritius, which the Chagos islands would become, but requires an inspection regime. I understand that the country that would carry out the inspection is South Africa, which is somewhat closer to China and Russia—particularly where naval co-operation is concerned—than it is to America or the United Kingdom.”
“Why, when the Government want to do these terrible things, will they not at least have the guts to stand up and admit that that is what they want to do, and that they are not being forced to do it by lawyers whose credentials and jurisdiction are in question, to put it at its mildest?”
“I am extremely grateful to my hon. Friend—as I will always regard him, having known him for the past 40 years and knowing that his patriotism is beyond question—for giving way. Does he agree with me that there is a bit of a pattern here? The Government clearly want to do this surrender deal or giveaway, yet try to shelter behind inconclusive legalistic analysis. Is that not exactly the same as the betrayal of our Northern Ireland veterans, as the Government, when pressed, admit that they wanted to remove the immunity for our veterans anyway, but still seek to shelter behind questionable legal considerations that have not been fully tested?”
“Very specifically, the Minister has read out something about what can be stored on the island. Can that include, and does it include, nuclear weapons? And on the earlier point about a deal, may I remind him of a saying from an earlier context—a different context—which is that no deal is better than a bad deal?”
“The Minister is keeping up a brave face in public, but when he goes back to his colleagues he will have to tell them that the only contribution from his own Back Benches was to disagree with the Government’s position, and to do so bravely and articulately. Does the Minister accept that the reason that this Bill may not go through is the work of the Conservative Opposition in both Houses of Parliament and the words of the leader of the Reform party in Mr Trump’s ear? Does that not show what can be achieved when two parties make common cause in a very worthwhile aim to achieve a vital objective?”
“I congratulate the Home Secretary on having attracted dozens of her Back Benchers to support her, when the Foreign Affairs Minister responding to the urgent question just before could not find a single one to support him on the dreadful Chagos deal. Can the Home Secretary tell us a bit more about how the new structure will be governed? I understand the idea about the national police commissioner at the very top, but what sort of executive key people will there be lower down to ensure that relevance is maintained in rural areas, as opposed to the different needs of urban areas?”
“May I take the Secretary of State back to the earlier exchange about Northern Ireland veterans? I have some good news and some bad news for him. The good news is that I strongly suspect that, at the end of all the raked-up trials held against Northern Ireland veterans, none will be convicted. The bad news is that that is not the purpose of doing all this; the purpose is to put them through a nightmarish ordeal that allows republican terrorists to rewrite history. He should not be quite so satisfied with the state of the Government’s legislation regarding Northern Ireland veterans. It is a disgrace, and it is tearing up something that was working and that could have worked, according to four professors of law who gave testimony to a previous Defence Committee.”
“It is all well and good to say that defence spending has increased since it was realised that the peace dividend is inappropriate for a post-Ukraine invasion situation, but the fact is that during the 1980s, when we were in the grip of the cold war, we were not talking about spending 5% in 10 years’ time or 3.5% in four years’ time; we were spending between 4.5% and 5% of GDP every single year.”
“May I remind the Secretary of State—I know that he knows it, as he has heard it from me and others many times before—that there is nothing about creating a false equivalence between the two? Everybody is equal before the law. If anything created a false equivalence, it was the Northern Ireland (Sentences) Act 1998, which said that no matter how many murders a paramilitary had committed, and no matter how many illegal acts, if any, a soldier had committed, neither of them would ever serve more than two years of a sentence. That equivalence is there. It is not moral equivalence; it is equivalence before the law, and the 2023 Act did not initiate it.”
“It is often said, and rightly, that what is very important is that families should find out the truth about what happened. Which scenario makes it more likely that families will get the truth after all this time? Is it a scenario in which people can be prosecuted on either side, and therefore have an incentive, if they are guilty, to conceal the truth, or is it a scenario such as existed under the legislation introduced by our Government, whereby people are much encouraged to tell the truth about what happened because they know that they will not be punished if they do so?”
“All of those professors agreed that it was possible and legal—regardless of whether they wanted to do it or not—to have a statute of limitation, provided that it was accompanied by a truth recovery mechanism. That is what the legacy Act, which is now being struck down, brought into effect. The legacy Act has a very good chance of surviving further legal scrutiny. It is no argument to say that it has been discredited just because the Government and their supporters do not like it. The truth of the matter is that we have to give immunity to everyone or to no one. If the price of giving immunity to our servicemen is that we give it to terrorists too, then it is a price worth paying.”
“Let me remind the House what I said in Westminster Hall on 14 July last year—six months ago to the day last week—during a debate covering all these subjects. I pointed out that in April 2017 the Defence Committee had published a report, on a consensus and cross-party basis, entitled “Investigations into fatalities in Northern Ireland involving British military personnel”—(HC1064). In the inquiries that led up to the publication of that report, we took evidence on 7 March 2017 from four professors of law: Philippe Sands of University College London, Peter Rowe of Lancaster University, Kieran McEvoy of Queen’s University Belfast and Richard Ekins of Oxford University.”
“I would often put forward an argument that countered something that they had said, they would have no answer to it, and then I would go into the next debate and they would say exactly the same thing over and over again, and I would have to put forward the same argument, and no one was getting anywhere. I feel like that over this point about the supposed equating of service personnel with IRA and other paramilitary terrorists. A few moments ago, the hon. Member for Halesowen (Alex Ballinger) said, “There is no moral equivalence between these people.” Nobody in this debate is saying that there is any moral equivalence between these people. What we are saying is that everybody is equal before the law.”
“In the limited time available, I shall try to address a few of the basic issues, including those on which I intervened earlier. It became fairly obvious towards the end of the Secretary of State’s remarks, as a result of questioning from my colleagues on the Opposition Benches, that although there was much in his speech suggesting that he had to do what he is doing today, he is really doing it because he wants to do it. It was in the Government’s manifesto that they were going to repeal the legislation, and he is seizing the chance to strike it down at the first possible opportunity. Sometimes one gets into a position of almost wondering about the futility of entering into a debate. Forty years ago, I used to debate against the same people again and again over the question of whether Britain should one-sidedly give up its nuclear weapons.”
“Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that the people on this side of the argument who oppose what is happening today, do so not because we do not wish people who did wrong to face justice, but because we know that these cases will almost certainly fail, just as the case against Soldier F failed? As my hon. Friend the Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Alex Burghart) said, the punishment is the process. People will be put through unnecessary hell before they are acquitted. That has nothing to do with justice.”
“I am sure the entire House endorses what the Foreign Secretary has just said. In a week when the Government are sadly letting down Hongkongers in London, Chagossians in exile and Northern Ireland veterans in retirement, can we absolutely rely upon continued support for Ukraine’s gallant resistance to atrocious Russian imperialism?”
“Last week, as the Secretary of State will recall, some of us were loudly heckled for suggesting that X was beginning to give way on Grok. Now we know that that was true, so events are moving fast. Can the Secretary of State at least assure us that she will immediately—during the consultation and anything that follows on from it—instruct the civil servants who would have to prepare for a practical ban to get on with the task provisionally, so that no time is wasted?”
“I do not think I am breaking the Official Secrets Act if I gently point out that when I used to chair the Intelligence and Security Committee, I repeatedly deprecated the use of the word “mitigation”, because it covers such a wide range of sins, but leaving aside security considerations just this once, does the Minister accept, as he should, that this is a colossal propaganda win for totalitarian, communist China? Is there any argument that was used in favour of China getting this embassy that would not have carried exactly the same weight if totalitarian, imperialist Russia had wanted to buy this building? Would the Government have stopped Russia from doing it, and if they would have done, on what grounds?”
“I declare a sort of interest, in that many members of my family were murdered in the Holocaust. I understand the meaning of the term “Holocaust” to be the Nazis’ mass extermination of the Jews during their period in power, both in their own country and in the countries they occupied. I have not followed the progress of the Bill as closely as I should have done, but I get the impression that there is some move away from keeping it specific to that terrible crime, towards widening it to cover massacres in general and other terrible racial crimes. I think the intention behind the Bill and the museum was that it should be about the extermination of the Jews by the Nazis and their associates. Can the Minister confirm that that is still the situation?”
“The Minister seems to be putting an awful lot of faith in the good intent and reliability of the Mauritian Government. They are a close ally of China, which, he might remember, gave us cast-iron guarantees about the future of the Hongkongers once the lease on Hong Kong was given up. I gently remind him that the 2024 Labour manifesto, entitled “Change”, stated: “Defending our security also means protecting the British Overseas Territories and Crown Dependencies, including the Falklands and Gibraltar. Labour will always defend their sovereignty and right to self-determination.” Can he look the Chagossians in the Gallery in the eye and tell them that that is what the Government are now doing?”
“Has my right hon. Friend noticed that the Minister, who is, shall we say, a flexible friend in the cause of the Government’s policies, has been relying on the fact that, in the past, other Members of Donald Trump’s Government in America have been saying supportive things about the Bill? Would she like to cast a wager with the Minister, as I would, that 24 hours after Donald Trump changed his tune, the Government will change their tune in exactly the same direction?”
“Last Tuesday afternoon, President Trump took a short break from attacking America’s NATO allies to write on Truth Social the following: “Iranian Patriots, KEEP PROTESTING—TAKE OVER YOUR INSTITUTIONS!!!” He added: “HELP IS ON ITS WAY.” Have the Government the faintest idea of what he was talking about?”
“If a future political researcher decides to write a thesis about the influence of adverse opinion polls on the cancellation of local elections in Britain, will the Minister, amiable as she always is, make herself available?”
“The Intelligence and Security Committee was set up specifically to fill a gap in oversight whereby this House could not directly look at highly classified and sensitive information. Having chaired that Committee throughout the previous Parliament, when we undertook our very detailed and sensitive inquiry into China—the published version of which was quite well received, to put it mildly—I can assure the Minister that absolutely no aspect of this matter could not be shared with the ISC. Can she tell the House whether the National Security Adviser has discussed with the ISC and briefed it on the security aspects of this proposal, the proceeding of which enjoys such hostility on both sides of the House?”
“If I understand correctly the presentation of Sir Andy’s independent report by the Home Secretary, it says that the police knew that the visiting fans were not likely to attack the home community. Does it make clear whether they thought that the home community were likely to attack the visiting fans, because if they thought that and then inverted reality to blame the visiting fans, that would surely put the chief constable in an absolutely impossible position.”
“I have previously suggested that to have an occupied eastern part of Ukraine under Russian control while the western part of unoccupied Ukraine was left as a military vacuum would be a recipe for disaster. However, it is of concern that the alliance that stood firm at the end of world war two to ensure that West Germany did not get encroached upon by Soviet forces from the east is not still in being, as far as Ukraine is concerned, because of the ambiguous attitude of President Trump. Does the Minister have a view on why President Trump is so clear when it comes to dictatorship in and aggression by Iran, yet has such a strangely different view when it comes to the same two features of Russian behaviour?”
“Has the Intelligence and Security Committee had an opportunity to question the National Security Adviser—not the deputy—about this matter? If the Minister says that he does not know, then he is the wrong Minister to be answering this urgent question. If he says that he does know, but he cannot say because that information is highly classified, let me assure him that the identities of witnesses interviewed at that level by the Intelligence and Security Committee are not private, but published whenever the Committee is minded to do so. Will he answer the question in a straightforward way: was the ISC given the opportunity to question the National Security Adviser?”
“My question is this: if my hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Stamford (Alicia Kearns) were to reapply to Mr Speaker for a similar urgent question in anticipation that an appropriate Minister—a Security Minister—will be put up to answer it, would that be within the rules of parliamentary order and practice?”
“On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I was hoping to ask this point of order of Mr Speaker, because it is a little difficult for you, not having been here for most of the urgent question. At the start of the urgent question, Mr Speaker made it clear that he was surprised that a Minister was being put up who would not be able to answer questions, being a Planning Minister, rather than a Security Minister being put up, who would be able to answer questions. In my 28 years in this House, I have attended many ministerial statements and the questioning that follows, and many urgent questions since they were introduced. Never before has there been an occasion that I have seen where every question asked on both sides of the House was deeply hostile, as was the case today, regarding what the Government were proposing to do.”
“In March, it will be the fifth anniversary of the signing of the comprehensive strategic partnership between Iran and China, an unholy alliance between religious fanatics and communist totalitarians, to whom we are regrettably about to award a super-embassy, complete with secret dungeons, in London. Will the Foreign Secretary tell me what estimate the Government have made of the dependence of the Iranian regime’s survival on its support from China, not least the huge export of Iranian oil to China?”
“In taking that action, X has blinked, but the pressure must be ramped up in a graduated way.”
“The Minister knows that I have a high regard for his commitment and integrity, and that I have pressed successive Governments for more defence investment, so leaving aside the party politics, will he confirm whether or not the Government accept what the hon. Member for Yeovil (Adam Dance) has estimated, which is that, if this contract is not concluded successfully by March, then it will be too late to secure the future of Yeovil as a helicopter centre of excellence?”
“Does the Secretary of State agree that, in responding to a threat of this magnitude, a graduated response is required, and is she tentatively encouraged by the fact that X has decided to say that users cannot be anonymous in doing that sort of mischief? [ Interruption. ] Wait for it. I do not think X is taking that step out of the goodness of its heart. [ Interruption. ] Please do not shout me down. I think that X is taking that step because it is afraid of the sanctions that will come next. Should the Minister not be encouraging Ofcom to impose the appropriate level of sanctions, and to threaten to move to the next stage, so the big tech companies know that if they persist, they will be fined again and again and, ultimately, stopped from broadcasting?”
“I am very impressed by the Minister’s opening speech and his lightness of touch, but can he explain to the Committee how he reconciles the litany of good effects with the number of U-turns carried out since the Budget was put forward?”
“I am very grateful to the hon. Gentleman for bringing this debate to Westminster Hall. I have come along to learn more about the situation, which is, frankly, puzzling. Is the regime motivated by some form of extreme religion of its own? Is it just ultra-nationalism? Is it doing all this persecution to repress the people and keep them in a form of captivity, or to drive people whom it does not like because of their identity out of the country completely?”
“The Minister mentioned the UN Security Council, and we heard earlier from the hon. Member for Leicester South (Shockat Adam) about what he perceives to be a potential weakness in the regime, which is being propped up by outside forces. Is it true that Russia has been most supportive of the regime, has supplied most of its aerial capability to bomb, strafe and kill civilians, and has been blocking moves against the regime on the Security Council? What assessment have the Government made of the survivability of the regime without military support from Russia?”
“I congratulate the Committee on its report, and I know that it took evidence from authoritative experts, such as the excellent Elisabeth Braw. Can the Chair explain to the House whether his findings were compatible with the alarming headline in today’s Daily Mail about another report from the Council on Geostrategy think-tank, which claims that cutting just 60 cables going in and out of the UK could affect 99% of our data? Is there more resilience in the system than that would seem to suggest?”
“Will my right hon. Friend explain to the House who actually does the research that leads to people being identified for sanctioning, whether there is resistance in such places as the City of London, which no doubt could make enormous financial profits from having illicit money deposited there, and whether such places are incentivised to turn a blind eye when attempts are made to camouflage the real sources of the dirty money flowing in?”
“In support of what the hon. Gentleman is saying, does he agree that it is significant how important even a single ship of this fleet is to the Russian authorities that in desperation yesterday, in a final attempt to stop it being seized, they allowed the Russian flag to be put on one of the vessels, in the hope that that would deter the Americans from gaining control of it? Fortunately, it did not.”
“I would like to say, in support of what the hon. Lady has been saying, that surely a distinction of which we need to be aware is that, whereas the judge is a specialist in deciding what the law says and how it should be applied, he or she is not a specialist in deciding whether someone is telling the truth or not; and in that sense, we are far more likely to get the right answer from a group of people considering it together, as a collectivity, than from an individual, no matter how eminent in the intricacies of the law.”
“Do the Government accept that if you will the ends, you must will the means? The end of the cold war has been mentioned a number of times. It is a fact that at the end of the cold war, we were spending 4.3% of GDP on defence—that was 3.5% under the old way of calculating it—and in the early years of the cold war we were spending in excess of 7%. Can the Secretary of State at least indicate to the House: what is the earliest year in which a Labour Government anticipate spending 3% of GDP on defence?”
“I am extremely grateful to the Minister for giving way. On the point about regulators, the industry has issued a brief, which points out, quite sensibly, that these regulators are going to have a lot of extra duties to perform and they will therefore need extra resources to be able to perform those duties, but the extra resources they require will only be unlocked when the Bill has passed. Is there not a danger of a transition period where duties will be laid on regulators to fulfil their role before they have the resources to carry it out?”
“I do not think I heard the Minister mention anything about the risk of cyber-attacks on local government. Does my hon. Friend agree that that is another potentially juicy target for people who wish to cause major mischief?”
“Does the Minister agree that if Ukraine is divided by force, then we democracies must make sure that western, free Ukraine is not a military vacuum either?”