Julian Lewis MP: speeches

Speeches

• 3 Jun 2026 · Lord Mandelson: Response to Humble Address · Hansard source

  More

  At the beginning of her speech, the Chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee said most powerfully that what happened in relation to Epstein should alone have been a sufficient bar for anything to go further, but even if that had not happened, it was already in the due diligence document, purely on foreign policy grounds: the Prime Minister was told that Mandelson gave a speech at the University of Hong Kong where he claimed that the rule of law and independence of the judiciary remain intact there. In November 2024, I personally challenged the proposed appointment on the grounds that Mandelson had said in a radio interview that the basis for a settlement with Ukraine would be that Ukraine should give up to Russia all the land that Russia had so far occupied, and that Ukraine should give up any hope of ever belonging to the NATO alliance. These were political grounds that should have ruled him out. The Prime Minister knew about them, but nothing seemed to prevent him from following through on his intent to appoint such an unsuitable individual.

• 3 Jun 2026 · Lord Mandelson: Response to Humble Address · Hansard source

  More

  The Minister has shown once again what a decent man he is, and he is doing a very difficult job in defence of somebody who knew a lot more than he did. He was not chief of staff at the time that the Mandelson appointment was being carried out. On page 8 of the first bundle, we have the note from the private secretary to the Prime Minister, which says: “We have sought a due diligence review…and your Chief of Staff”— Morgan McSweeney at the time— “has discussed Peter’s relationship with Jeffrey Epstein which we will go through with you, but your Director of Communications is satisfied with his responses to questions about contact.” However, we also know from earlier in the bundle that the Prime Minister specifically knew that Mandelson had stayed in Epstein’s flat while Epstein was in in jail for the abuse of an under-age girl. The Prime Minister knew all that at the time. What is the purpose of having a box at the end marked for the Prime Minister’s comments on the alternatives he has been given when in fact, as we now know and as has been clearly explained by the Paymaster General, there has been no redaction—the Prime Minister did not comment? Why did the Prime Minister withhold any remarks on this highly contentious matter? Where did he comment? Where did he give his decision? He certainly did not do it in the place that he was supposed to do it.

• 3 Jun 2026 · Lord Mandelson: Response to Humble Address · Hansard source

  More

  As the right hon. Gentleman is going to talk about process, I would be very grateful if he could clear up one matter. I have a high regard for the right hon. Gentleman’s integrity, and so I hope he will not dance around this subject, as has been done by others in the past. In the first tranche of documents there were a number of notes sent by private secretaries to the Prime Minister. If I were allowed to use a prop, I would open the documents to pages 3 and 8, where Members would see notes discussing the situation as regards how to appoint the ambassador, Peter Mandelson and so forth. Under those notes are big boxes headed “Prime Minister Comments”. The normal course of action when a Prime Minister receives a document of that sort is that he notes down his response to it. These boxes are totally blank. My simple question to the right hon. Gentleman is this: are they blank because the Prime Minister made no notes whatsoever or because any notes that the Prime Minister made have been redacted and removed? The Intelligence and Security Committee deals routinely with even more sensitive material, and every time there is a redaction in a publication, there are three asterisks to show that the redaction has taken place. Have there been redactions of the Prime Minister’s notes on these memorandums that were sent to him for decision?

• 3 Jun 2026 · Lord Mandelson: Response to Humble Address · Hansard source

  More

  I am grateful to the hon. Lady for giving way again. She could still develop her case if she talked about parliamentary Committees in general, but I chaired the ISC for four years, and, as I said in an earlier intervention, the ISC has been in existence since 1994. The ISC never leaks. If it did leak, the person who leaked anything would be criminally prosecuted. There is no question, if these vetting documents were shown to the ISC, of its having a chilling effect on anything, because the ISC is hermetically sealed. It does not leak about far more important things than the miserable private life of Peter Mandelson.

• 3 Jun 2026 · Lord Mandelson: Response to Humble Address · Hansard source

  More

  Surely that information would be precisely the kind that could be safely entrusted to the ISC, and it ought to have been entrusted with it.

• 3 Jun 2026 · Lord Mandelson: Response to Humble Address · Hansard source

  More

  rose —

• 3 Jun 2026 · Lord Mandelson: Response to Humble Address · Hansard source

  More

  I entirely agree with what the hon. Lady is saying. Does she agree with me about this? We have established clearly that those blank boxes, in which the Prime Minister could have made a comment when he was given the crucial information and the options leading up to the appointment of Mandelson, were intentionally blank. They are there precisely for the Prime Minister to record his response and, indeed, his decision. The fact that they were not redacted, but were genuinely blank, suggests to me—I cannot think of any other explanation—that the Prime Minister did not want to fill them in because he knew that there was something shameful about the appointment he was about to approve, and he did not want it on the record.

• 3 Jun 2026 · Lord Mandelson: Response to Humble Address · Hansard source

  More

  I think it is worth just putting on the record the actual words from that due diligence note, which can be found on page 11 of the first volume. It talks about a 2019 report commissioned by JPMorgan: “The report cited Epstein’s personal records which showed contact beginning in 2002 and continuing throughout the 2000s. After Epstein was first convicted of procuring an underage girl in 2008, their relationship continued across 2009-2011, beginning when Lord Mandelson was business minister and continuing after the end of the Labour government. Mandelson reportedly stayed in Epstein’s House while he was in jail in June 2009.” That is from a document which it is not in doubt the Prime Minister saw, yet he went ahead with making this appointment.

• 3 Jun 2026 · Lord Mandelson: Response to Humble Address · Hansard source

  More

  I want to clear up the point about precedents. It may be that I am wrong about this, but I do not think there is any precedent for the House deciding that the Intelligence and Security Committee specifically should look at material that was to be redacted before it went to the public. The Intelligence and Security Committee, as the Minister well knows, was founded in 1994. Since that time, there has never been even one leak from the Committee. So there is no comparison between making things available to the Intelligence and Security Committee—the only parliamentary body entitled to see highly classified material, and one which never leaks—and to any other body. While he says, “This is all led by officials. It is okay for the officials to see it, but not to release it to anyone else,” the reason the ISC was chosen for the motion is that it is within the ring of secrecy, and that is unaffected by any precedents regarding bodies that do not have that special status.

• 3 Jun 2026 · Lord Mandelson: Response to Humble Address · Hansard source

  More

  I disagree with the right hon. Lady’s analysis because the whole point of what we have been saying from the Opposition Benches is that the Prime Minister himself knew about these points: he knew what Mandelson had done in relation to Epstein; he knew what he had said in relation to justice in Hong Kong; and he knew what Mandelson had said in that radio interview because I had challenged him about it. I must say, although it may not meet the high standards of court litigation, that when the Prime Minister brushed aside my challenge to him on 21 November, he sat down with a very notable and ingratiating grin, and I turned to the person sitting next to me and said, “He’s definitely going to appoint Mandelson.” It was his decision.

• 2 Jun 2026 · Milburn Review: Interim Report · Hansard source

  More

  Returning to the important points about mental health made by the hon. Member for York Central (Rachael Maskell), I draw the Minister’s attention to paragraphs 424 and 425 of the report, which states: “It is mental health conditions that are now the most commonly reported health condition among NEET young people…This explosion has primarily been in mental health issues such as anxiety and depression, rather than in serious mental illnesses”. We can all have our different ideas as to what might be causing this upsurge—I think there has clearly been a loss of mental resilience among young people—but does the Minister agree that, given that this is such a large part of the problem, further detailed research and analysis need to be done on why so many young people are so much more anxious and feel that they cannot cope?

• 2 Jun 2026 · Murder of Henry Nowak · Hansard source

  More

  Is it normal police practice to handcuff a person who is lying helpless on the ground and clearly offering no resistance? Given the Home Secretary’s admirable and utter rejection of differential treatment of people according to their race, will she undertake to examine and withdraw the policing policy document identified by the shadow Home Secretary as embodying precisely such differential treatment?

• 1 Jun 2026 · Lord Mandelson Humble Address: Government Response · Hansard source

  More

  I think the country has a right to know how the Prime Minister reacted at the end of Mandelson’s vetting process. Have the Prime Minister’s comments on the outcome of the vetting been released, are they being withheld, or are we expected to believe that he made no comment about it at all?

• 1 Jun 2026 · Armed Forces Day · Hansard source

  More

  I fear I know the answer to this question in advance, but I shall ask it anyway. Would one way of reconnecting society with the armed forces at Armed Forces Day not be to revisit the testimony given to the then Defence Committee in March 2017 by four eminent professors of law? It showed how it is possible to protect veterans from being hauled before the courts for using lethal force against terrorists in the act of committing terrorism. That testimony deserves revisiting. Will the Government re-examine it and reinstate the immunity and the investigative processes that enable that protection to be done?

• 20 May 2026 · Defence Readiness · Hansard source

  More

  As my hon. Friend knows, the then Defence Committee did two reports into this question, and in the course of those inquiries, we interviewed four eminent professors of law, including one particularly famous left-wing one. We did not ask them what they wanted to happen; we asked them what could legally be done about a statute of limitation. They all agreed, however reluctantly, that it would be legal to have a statute of limitation provided that it was coupled with a truth recovery process that met the requirement for an investigation to occur. Their other key condition was it should be applied to all people involved in the conflict. The Government could pursue the line that those four professors of law took, but they do not want to do so. They are happy to shelter behind court judgments that they could appeal against but will not.

• 20 May 2026 · Defence Readiness · Hansard source

  More

  The hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne North (Catherine McKinnell) has such a sunny personality that I always feel cheered up after listening to her contributions, even when she is the bearer of somewhat disappointing news about the economy. I was also impressed by the speech of the former Secretary of State for Health, the right hon. Member for Ilford North (Wes Streeting), who is just about to escape from the Chamber. However, it did leave me wondering what my headline would be if I were a parliamentary sketch writer. I think it would be, “Why on earth did he resign?” It sounded much more like a manifesto in a leadership campaign than a trigger for calling one, but there we are—we all have our own motives. The right hon. Gentleman made a point that is of great relevance to this debate, which I promise I had already written down before I heard him make it: the comparison between the terrible experience of the pandemic and the terrible experience of a country involved in a full-scale war. There were, of course, casualties during the pandemic, and there was the determination to learn from it. The outcome is that we are a lot better prepared for the future, should another deadly virus attack us. As a result of the lessons learned during the pandemic, we will be in a much better position to develop effective vaccines far more quickly. However, I am afraid the real parallel is not a very happy one. It is a fact that if someone had said before we knew we were going to have the pandemic, “You need to invest a considerable sum of money in developing a system that enables you to develop vaccines quickly in response to the emergence of a new deadly virus,” we probably would not have done it. That is where the parallel lies with wartime situations, because for many years, defence-minded Members on both sides of the House have been urging successive Governments to spend a lot more on defence. If those warnings go unheeded and this country ends up in a full-scale armed conflict with a peer adversary, we will not be talking about spending 3% or 4% of GDP on defence; we will have to spend 30% or 40% of GDP on defence. We do not wish to get to that situation, because it would lead to not only economic loss—think of the human cost. If, by investing in defence in peacetime, we can deter a potential enemy from starting a war, we not only save the treasure; we save the blood that is otherwise shed so copiously. As we know, Russia is spending something of the order of between a third and a half of its gross domestic product on military power. In the past, the Defence Committee has looked at the question of what this country has spent historically. In a report entitled “Shifting the goalposts?”, and a second report entitled “Shifting the goalposts: an update”, the figures show that my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith) was completely correct. He said that in the mid-1980s, when he was serving, we were spending something of the order of 5% of GDP on defence. In fact, the figure given in 1983-84 was 4.4%, and in 1984-85 the figure was 4.5%. In reality, however, that was because we had higher criteria than the other NATO powers for what counted as defence expenditure, and we adopted their lower standards later. Looking back, we can see that the figures were actually 5.3% in 1983-84 and 5.5% in 1984-85. Those are very big figures. People talk about the way in which the peace dividend was taken, but as the shadow Secretary of State for Defence, my hon. Friend the Member for South Suffolk (James Cartlidge), pointed out, 1996-97—the year in which Tony Blair took over from the Conservative Government—was already at least half a dozen years after the end of the cold war, if we understand that to have taken place in 1991 rather than in 1989 with the fall of the Berlin wall. At that time, we were still spending 3%. That was the figure then, so as the current Chair of the Defence Committee, the hon. Member for Slough (Mr Dhesi), rightly said in an admirably objective speech, given that Russia is preparing for conflict now, we are responding too slowly and “time is short”, given the urgency of the situation. When we talk about achieving figures of 3% in a few years’ time and 5% in a few more years’ time, I would ask the House: does the killer in the Kremlin intend to give us that time? If we want to deter him from taking a step that would be to the detriment of the world, we need to invest now and, as in the case of the pandemic, find the money now. If a war broke out tomorrow, we would find the money at once, so let us find it today and diminish the chance of that terrible conflict happening the day after.

• 20 May 2026 · Processed Russian Oil Products: Sanctions · Hansard source

  More

  Before the Minister pointed it out himself, I was going to acknowledge his long and honourable record of opposing the killer in the Kremlin when he was on the Opposition Back Benches. I have no reason to believe that he has changed his mind, but does he agree with me that this complex issue has been handled very, very clumsily, to put it mildly? Would it not have been better to have made a statement, rather than having to respond to an urgent question? Were the Ukrainians given this quite complicated explanation in advance? Will he not concede that if we had not embarked on quite such a doctrinaire journey against further drilling in the North sea, we might not have been put in the position of having to make such an unsavoury and unpalatable decision?

• 19 May 2026 · Lord Mandelson: Government Response to Humble Address · Hansard source

  More

  In more than 30 years of its existence, the Intelligence and Security Committee has never once suffered from a leak. Therefore, anything that is disclosed to it, no matter how sensitive, is not going to be published. Therefore, the question of it undermining the security vetting process if such raw data were published does not arise, because the ISC is the one parliamentary body guaranteed to ensure that that does not happen. So can the Minister stop obfuscating on that aspect and can he confirm that, irrespective of the question of the raw data, what will definitely be made available to the ISC, if it has not been already, are the annotations and the documents that show how an initial failure to pass vetting for Lord Mandelson became a decision to approve him and state that he had been successful in getting through the process?

• 18 May 2026 · Youth Justice · Hansard source

  More

  May I ask the Justice Secretary to explain a bit more about the intensive community placements to which he made brief reference? Can I put to him a particularly challenging scenario? Imagine that we have, say, a single parent—a single mum—who is very much afraid of her own adolescent child. She is aware that that child has been getting machetes and other violent accessories through internet-related delivery services. Let us imagine that she does what she is supposed to do, and what we would all think she ought to do, which is to report the child. Given that no offence has yet been committed by the child, what protection will be offered to her against potentially lethal violence from her own adolescent son?

• 28 Apr 2026 · Referral of Prime Minister to Committee of Privileges · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the Minister for giving way. Would not “full due process” have required the vetting to be completed before announcing the appointment, as was advised by the then Cabinet Secretary and then ignored or overruled by the Prime Minister personally?

• 28 Apr 2026 · Referral of Prime Minister to Committee of Privileges · Hansard source

  More

  On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Out of 190 questions for written answer that I have put down in this Session, which is coming to its close, all but one have been answered. The exception is one that I mentioned on the Floor of the House yesterday during the statement by the Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister. He responded: “I always ensure that I honour parliamentary questions in a timely fashion.” —[ Official Report , 27 April 2026; Vol. 784, c. 598.] The last day for answering this question is today, and it so far has not been answered, so I wonder if I might give the Chief Secretary the opportunity to answer it now. It is this: “To ask the Prime Minister who first suggested to him that Peter Mandelson should be appointed as Ambassador to the United States.”

• 28 Apr 2026 · Referral of Prime Minister to Committee of Privileges · Hansard source

  More

  Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

• 28 Apr 2026 · Referral of Prime Minister to Committee of Privileges · Hansard source

  More

  rose —

• 27 Apr 2026 · Dunmurry Police Station Attack · Hansard source

  More

  Given what the Secretary of State said about the nature of the Lurgan bomb, it sounds as if these weapons are unsophisticated and presumably not detonated remotely. This must mean that the delivery drivers were in exceptional peril, because such crude devices could have gone off at any time. Will the Secretary of State confirm that he is liaising closely with people in the Republic of Ireland, and that their attitude is nowadays one of complete support for the discovery and prevention of a new version of the terrorism of the troubles?

• 27 Apr 2026 · Lord Mandelson Humble Address: Government Response Update · Hansard source

  More

  The Government are keen to emphasise their transparency in the course of dealing with the Humble Address requests and demands, so here is an opportunity to put that to the test. Last Tuesday, I put down a question for written answer by the Prime Minister: “To ask the Prime Minister who first suggested to him that Peter Mandelson should be appointed as Ambassador to the United States.” It was accepted and published as such by the Table Office. Subsequently, it has been transferred to the Cabinet Office, for which he has responsibility. It is due to be answered tomorrow. Will the Minister give the answer to that question tomorrow, on time and substantively?