Julian Lewis MP: speeches

Speeches

• 1 Sept 2025 · Ukraine · Hansard source

  More

  I am sure that right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House share my disgust at the sight of the killer in the Kremlin having a red carpet rolled out for him that might as well have been stained with the blood of all those who have died in a conflict that is down entirely to him, and to him alone. However, when we talk about meaningful security guarantees, it is perhaps worth remembering that the only reason why, when Germany was divided at the end of the second world war, that was a stable division was that both sides knew that anyone crossing a line would be initiating an international conflict. Surely any security guarantee that does not automatically guarantee the involvement of other states in the defence of Ukraine will not be worth the paper on which it is written.

• 1 Sept 2025 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  Despite his new role in riding to the rescue of the Treasury, is the Pensions Minister still available to fulfil in principle the undertaking he gave me before the recess to have a meeting about the plight of ExxonMobil pensioners and the difficulties in them getting the discretionary surplus benefits to which I think they should be entitled?

• 1 Sept 2025 · Borders and Asylum · Hansard source

  More

  Past waves of refugees who came to this country quite rightly had to identify themselves and come here legally. What percentage, does the Home Secretary think, of people who arrive illegally by small boats do so having torn up their identification documents, and should such people ever be granted asylum?

• 22 Jul 2025 · Music Streaming: Label-led Principles · Hansard source

  More

  Given the Minister’s helpful references of a sartorial nature to his opposite number, may I congratulate him on his carefully understated choice of necktie today? I shall certainly remember to bring my dark glasses next time he is on parade. Can he explain to me—as an ardent Swiftie myself—what protection performers, such as the son of the hon. Member for Rochdale (Paul Waugh), have against their tracks being uploaded by anyone to a service such as YouTube, whereby it is possible for people to enjoy their music without apparently paying them any royalties at all?

• 21 Jul 2025 · Extending the Ukraine Permission Extension Scheme · Hansard source

  More

  I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for making this debate possible. Can he explain to the House the attitude of the Ukrainian Government? Is it the case that most of the people here are dependants—women and children? Given that it was originally thought that Ukraine would be quickly overrun and the circumstances are very different, is it also the case that the Ukrainian Government now want to see more of their citizens coming back to defend the homeland?

• 21 Jul 2025 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  When the Secretary of State talks of such a large reduction in the number of anticipated future primary school pupils, does she attribute any part of that to a wish by certain communities to develop a parallel education system, rather than engaging in full integration with this country?

• 21 Jul 2025 · Middle East · Hansard source

  More

  The Foreign Secretary states that he believes in a two-state solution—as I have done since at least the 1973 Yom Kippur war—but that Hamas must not be a part of it. Does he agree that the best chance there ever was for the two-state solution was when Israel withdrew in 2005 from the Gaza strip? Hamas was elected in January 2006 and has been in power there ever since and is still managing to hang on. Does he accept that if ever the Government did recognise a Palestinian state, it would have to be the west bank without the Gaza strip, given the internecine slaughter between Hamas on the one hand and the Palestine Liberation Organisation on the other that followed the last withdrawal?

• 21 Jul 2025 · Infected Blood Inquiry: Additional Report · Hansard source

  More

  It was in 2015 that I first raised the case of my constituent, Lesley Hughes, who was infected with contaminated blood in 1970 and discovered the reason for four decades of ill health in only about 2010, so it is great that this progress has been made. Very large sums of money will be paid in compensation, so can the Minister outline what provision there will be for the recipients to receive financial advice to make sure that they are not taken advantage of by unscrupulous people—for example, people trying to tell them how to make a claim that they can make directly?

• 21 Jul 2025 · Asylum Hotels: Migrant Criminal Activity · Hansard source

  More

  The Minister says that an asylum seeker convicted of an offence will not be granted asylum. Does she have some special method of sending them back to a country to which we cannot send anyone back if they have broken into our country illegally? Otherwise, what does her sanction amount to?

• 21 Jul 2025 · Victory over Japan: 80th Anniversary · Hansard source

  More

  May I say how important it is that both Front Benchers have emphasised the atrocities that were committed against prisoners of war? Just as we remember the Nuremberg trials, we remember the Tokyo trials, at which many war criminals were convicted and subsequently executed. Is it not a measure of the importance of unconditional surrender that that at least removed the aura of divinity from the Emperor so that the fanaticism of religion was excised from Japanese society?

• 16 Jul 2025 · Sudan · Hansard source

  More

  Will the Minister explain to the House what, in practical terms, the Security Council could do, even if all its members were neutral on the question of backing one side over the other? If two sides are determined to fight one another and neither is dependent on outside military assistance to pursue the conflict, is there anything practical that the Security Council could do, even if it was united and in agreement on the need for an intervention?

• 16 Jul 2025 · Financial Services Reform · Hansard source

  More

  Whenever I listen to the excellent Times Radio and other commercial broadcasters, I am always favourably impressed by the fact that at the end of every positive advertisement for a financial product, three words are said: “capital at risk”. Can the Minister assure the House that in the review of risk warnings that will be undertaken, that fundamental red flag, at the end of people pushing us to invest our money in some grand and profitable enterprise, will not be left out?

• 15 Jul 2025 · Afghanistan · Hansard source

  More

  What worries me more than the lifting of this super-injunction is the fact that we have closed down all the Afghan schemes at the very time that undocumented Afghans who felt it necessary to flee to Iran and Pakistan are being rounded up for forcible repatriation to an Afghanistan led by the Taliban. I understand that the investigation into our obligation to the Triples—the special forces that our forces trained—will continue, and I welcome that. Will the Secretary of State confirm that despite the closure of the schemes, anybody who is found to have worked closely with our armed forces and is in imminent danger can still be rescued and admitted to this country?

• 14 Jul 2025 · State of Climate and Nature · Hansard source

  More

  I agree with the Secretary of state that it is very important that other countries follow our example. Of the five countries that are the worst emitters of greenhouse gases, emitting over 50% in total—the USA, Russia, Brazil, India and of course China—can he tell us how many have adopted similar legislation? What hope does he have that those five in particular will follow our example?

• 14 Jul 2025 · Northern Ireland Veterans: Prosecution · Hansard source

  More

  I share the dismay shown by the hon. and gallant Member for North East Derbyshire (Louise Jones) and others, when decrying the fact that the legacy legislation gave—I use her own words—“immunity to terrorists”. What nobody has yet spelled out is why it gave immunity to terrorists. There is a simple answer to that: it could not give immunity to our armed forces without giving immunity to terrorists as well. Unless hon. and right hon. Members can come up with some brand new alternative—one that defeated the scrutiny and the inventiveness of successive Governments in trying to grapple with that problem—the question they have to ask themselves is, if the price of giving immunity to our veterans is that we have to give theoretical immunity to terrorists, most of whom have had practical immunity from prosecution for many years, and hardly any of whom are ever likely to be prosecuted, is that price worth paying? We cannot have it both ways. Something that was rightly said earlier in the debate is that people should be trying to work across party lines to come to a solution on this, and I think that I can honestly claim to have been trying to do that for rather a long time. In 2017, the Defence Committee, which I was then chairing, published a report entitled “Investigations into Fatalities in Northern Ireland involving British Military Personnel”—HC 1064, if anyone is interested. The purpose of that report was to examine in great detail what the legal options were to enable the Government of the day to protect our veterans. That report was published in April 2017 but, prior to that, on 7 March, we had a hearing—of which I have made the Secretary of State and the Veterans Minister aware—in which no fewer than four top professors of law took part, with a variety of views, preferences and personal attitudes towards what had happened in Northern Ireland and so forth. We were not asking them whether they approved of amnesties; we were asking them what was and was not legally possible. What they told us was this, and I am quite disappointed that no one has uttered these words, as far as I can tell, in the entire debate: it is possible to bring in a statute of limitation, and the requirement by law that something being investigated need not lead to somebody being prosecuted. Professor Philippe Sands, someone not unknown to the Government, stated in that hearing: “The obligation to investigate is not an obligation to prosecute. It is not an obligation to take any particular steps. It is simply an obligation to find out the facts of what has happened, and ascertain.” What was made clear in that discussion with the four professors of law was that if a Government were not to find themselves guilty of behaving with impunity, a statute of limitation had to apply to everyone. That is where people get upset, because the people who support our armed forces do not want it to apply to the terrorists, and the people from the republican movement do not want it to apply to our armed forces. But the fact is that if we are to protect anyone from prosecution in these circumstances, we have to protect everyone. Someone who just focuses on the group of which they disapprove being protected is ducking the hard choice that we have to face. Someone mentioned trying to follow the model of Nelson Mandela. That is a very good point, and it is precisely what the legislation was intended to do. We satisfied ourselves that a truth recovery process, coupled with a statute of limitation—in other words, immunity—for people who gave their evidence to the truth recovery process, similar to what Mandela did in South Africa, was a way in which this problem could be laid to rest. When the Government say that they plan to give our soldiers every support, it sounds to me that they accept the fact that cases are going to be brought, and they are going to try and support the soldiers. But the punishment is the process. It is true that probably hardly anyone will end up going through the process to the end. Let me insert something else that I referred to in an earlier intervention: people on both sides of the debate say we must not equate this and that, and I certainly do not equate soldiers with terrorists morally, but in applying the law, the law has to be equal for everybody. In fact, that has already been recognised in the Northern Ireland (Sentences) Act 1998, which limits the time that anybody can serve in jail, even for the most heinous murders, to two years. That is the only time someone can serve in jail. There may be people who have had relatives murdered who will derive great satisfaction from the fact that, after all this time, the murderer will go to jail for such a short period. But the reality is that the punishment does not fit the crime, and at first some of us thought that this was just a free pass for the IRA. I will not name the Minister concerned, but I and someone from the Labour Benches with a strong service background, who is now a Minister, went to meet the Sinn Féin MPs in Parliament—because they do have a presence here, even though they do not come to the Chamber. They said that they believed that the two-year limit applied to the soldiers as well as to their own allies. We looked into it and checked it with Ministers, and that was found to be correct. The fact is that we are already compromising. We are already treating both groups the same.

• 14 Jul 2025 · Northern Ireland Veterans: Prosecution · Hansard source

  More

  I was about to finish, but I will give way.

• 14 Jul 2025 · Northern Ireland Veterans: Prosecution · Hansard source

  More

  When we are talking about victims of terrorists, I would ask, first of all, how likely is it that terrorists who have not been prosecuted all these years are going to be prosecuted in the future? Secondly, how do people think the victims felt in South Africa when a line was drawn for the sake of enabling the society to move forward? What the legacy Act did was the least worst option. As we have heard, the reality is that there is no obligation to act on the finding of incompatibility with the ECHR. The Joint Committee on Human Rights published a report entitled “Proposal for a Draft Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Act 2023 (Remedial) Order 2024”, which states in paragraph 20: “It is a discretionary remedy, meaning the courts do not have to issue such a declaration”— of incompatibility with the ECHR— “when they find a provision to be incompatible with Convention rights. A declaration of incompatibility has no legal effect and does not affect the ongoing validity of the incompatible legislation. It is merely a tool by which the courts can draw attention to an incompatibility; it is then for the Government and Parliament to decide what action, if any, to take.” Indeed, section 4 of the Human Rights Act 1998 states that a declaration of incompatibility “does not affect the validity, continuing operation or enforcement of the provision in respect of which it is given; and…is not binding on the parties to the proceedings in which it is made.” I accept that there are other legal problems, but the impression that I get from the Secretary of State, whom I have known for many years and much admire, is that he has set his face against this route of a statute of limitation, coupled with a truth recovery process, and is not really listening. That is why we are not fighting to keep in place the one thing that could give protection to our Northern Ireland military veterans.

• 14 Jul 2025 · Northern Ireland Veterans: Prosecution · Hansard source

  More

  Will the hon. Lady give way?

• 14 Jul 2025 · Northern Ireland Veterans: Prosecution · Hansard source

  More

  The only likelihood of ever finding out what happened to Captain Nairac’s body would be if somebody came forward to the truth and reconciliation body, which is part of the legacy Act, in return for immunity, and told people where it was. There will be no other way of finding out.

• 14 Jul 2025 · Northern Ireland Veterans: Prosecution · Hansard source

  More

  I am thankful to the hon. Lady for her service. She has not yet mentioned the Northern Ireland (Sentences) Act 1998, which precludes anybody who has been found guilty, even of murder, from serving more than two years in jail, whether they are a veteran or whether they are a terrorist. Does she accept that a degree of equality and of compromise have crept in, and will she bear that in mind when she talks about accountability for terrible crimes?

• 10 Jul 2025 · Disabled Bus Passes · Hansard source

  More

  I have been waiting with bated breath to see if the hon. Gentleman would come on to companion bus passes. I thank him for the leadership he has shown on this issue and for co-tabling—with me, the hon. Members for York Central (Rachael Maskell) and for Epsom and Ewell (Helen Maguire), and the inimitable hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), who sadly is on his way to Northern Ireland this evening—early-day motion 1638 specifically on companion bus passes for the disabled. This is where a disabled person cannot use a bus alone. We have the strange situation where in two-thirds of authorities his or her disabled bus pass is allowed to cover a companion to go with them, but in one-third of local authorities it is not. I cannot think of anything more futile than giving a free pass to somebody to use a bus service which they cannot use without a companion for whom they have to pay.

• 10 Jul 2025 · Disabled Bus Passes · Hansard source

  More

  The Minister, I think, has conceded a key point: he has admitted that some duties are discretionary to councils, and some are statutory. The point about companion bus passes for those disabled people who cannot use a bus without a companion is, as early-day motion 1638 makes abundantly clear, that inclusion of the free companion bus pass should be statutory specifically for those disabled people who cannot use their bus pass without a companion. There is nothing discretionary about that; they simply cannot use the bus pass without the companion. Therefore, it should be part of the same statutory element by which they get the free bus pass in the first place.

• 9 Jul 2025 · Trial by Jury: Proposed Restrictions · Hansard source

  More

  Does the Minister agree that one of the worst features of the US justice system is the extreme process of plea bargaining, which gives such a huge differential if somebody pleads guilty that it creates a perverse incentive to do so, even if they are innocent but not confident that they will be acquitted? Can she guarantee that we are not going down that route, with a 40% discount for pleading guilty coupled with early release for other reasons?

• 9 Jul 2025 · LGBT Financial Recognition Scheme · Hansard source

  More

  I congratulate the hon. Lady on bringing this subject to the Chamber. Is she as mystified as I am by the fact that, when serving in the armed forces was at its most dangerous and there was conscription—namely during the second world war—people were only too happy for warriors of any sexuality to participate, and that many people of non-heterosexual orientation won gallantry medals, with no questions asked and full admiration rightly expressed?

• 9 Jul 2025 · Birmingham Pub Bombings · Hansard source

  More

  I am very glad that the Minister has concentrated on the truth and justice aspect of the legacy Act. Can he reassure the House that in their proposals to repeal the legacy Act, the Government are not going to lose the opportunity of having the trade-off, as it were, between immunity from prosecution and truth recovery, which was always the basis of the legacy Act?