Andrew Lewin MP: speeches

Speeches

• 23 Jun 2026 · Defence Spending and Readiness · Hansard source

  More

  Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

• 23 Jun 2026 · Defence Spending and Readiness · Hansard source

  More

  I am not sure that I would agree with the characterisation of sacrificing Ukraine, but I am also not saying that the European Union is blameless. I am saying that we had a period of history after Crimea where much of the west was not investing sufficiently in defence, and it is also the case that the Conservative party was in government at that point in time. The point about 2024 is an important one—we had an important general election for the country. We hear now about the Conservatives prioritising defence, so I looked back at their record and their manifesto. What was their offer to the country on the eve of the general election? It was a big cut in national insurance—a cut that would have cost £10 billion a year. Again, when faced with the decision, two years into the Ukraine war, “Are you going to prioritise defence spending?”, that was not the choice they made, was it?

• 23 Jun 2026 · Defence Spending and Readiness · Hansard source

  More

  But the Prime Minister at the time had the full support of the then Leader of the Opposition and now Prime Minister, so we were united as a House on that. I agree with the hon. Member that Boris Johnson at that moment made the right judgment, but he had the full support of our Prime Minister today.

• 23 Jun 2026 · Defence Spending and Readiness · Hansard source

  More

  I am going to come to a conclusion. I recognise that this Government have lots more work to do, but under this Prime Minister’s watch, defence spending is up—it is higher than at any point in the last 14 years or under the last five Conservative Prime Ministers—and whoever is the next leader of the Labour party will have my support in increasing it further.

• 23 Jun 2026 · Defence Spending and Readiness · Hansard source

  More

  Does the right hon. Lady not agree?

• 23 Jun 2026 · Defence Spending and Readiness · Hansard source

  More

  I will make a bit of progress and then I will let other people in. This might really upset some Opposition Members, so they should brace themselves: this is also the 10-year anniversary of Brexit. It is the case that most Opposition Members present supported Brexit, and I raise it in the context of public spending choices, because it has now been emphatically proven that the decision to leave the European Union has cost our economy tens of billions of pounds. The estimate ranges between 4% and 6% of GDP, which equates to nearly £100 billion. In a scenario where we had remained members of the European Union and had a stronger economy, whoever was making the choices on defence would have been in a far better place to invest.

• 23 Jun 2026 · Defence Spending and Readiness · Hansard source

  More

  I will make some progress and talk about the record of this Government. [ Interruption. ] I know Opposition Members are enjoying it. It is important that we reflect on the progress and the investment we have made. The aid-to-defence spending switch was not a policy that was universally welcomed on this side of the House, but I believe it was a necessary decision and the right decision to make. We have the Type 26 frigate deal, the Typhoon deal with Turkey, 13 new sites for munitions and factories, which are so important for our rearmament, and the armed forces pay rise—the most generous and urgently overdue pay rise for 20 years, which again was delivered by this Government. We have had some authoritative interventions about the changing nature of warfare, and I have much to learn from other colleagues. It is to be applauded that this Government are investing in drone warfare. My hon. Friend the Member for Swindon North (Will Stone) has been a champion for investing in drone factories in his constituency. In just the last week, we have learned about the development of long-range missiles that the UK and Ukraine are working on together without the need for US components. That is a significant and welcome step forward. While I admire many people on the Opposition side of the House, I regret to have to say that at every opportunity to increase investment in defence spending, the last Government did not take that option. I am afraid that the enduring image that has been left with the public is of the last Conservative Prime Minister leaving the beaches on D-Day early. It was a picture that told a thousand words. In politics, parties need to be judged by their record, not just their rhetoric.

• 23 Jun 2026 · Defence Spending and Readiness · Hansard source

  More

  Is the hon. Member therefore excusing the lack of investment between 2014 and 2022? That is what I am not sure of, because there are Opposition Members who have been clear and consistent—they did not serve in the Conservative Government and they thought it was wrong that defence spending fell. I appreciate that he was not here at that time—neither was I—but I do not know if that was his position.

• 23 Jun 2026 · Defence Spending and Readiness · Hansard source

  More

  I am pleased that the hon. Member takes my point, but I am saying that the circumstances had changed. [ Interruption. ] I will make the point: that is why I intentionally picked those two dates—2014, the annexation of Crimea, and 2022, the full-scale invasion of Ukraine. Those two points are indelibly linked, and our failure to act was a decisive moment in history.

• 23 Jun 2026 · Defence Spending and Readiness · Hansard source

  More

  It is a privilege to follow the right hon. and gallant Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith), who gave an incredibly authoritative speech. I also commend the hon. and gallant Member for Spelthorne (Lincoln Jopp), who spoke powerfully. I have not served, but whenever I speak on this subject, I say that this House is richer because of the service of people on both sides, including the former Minister for the Armed Forces—my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham Selly Oak (Al Carns)—and our exceptional Minister for the Armed Forces. It is Armed Forces Week, so I thank everybody in this country who has served and continues to serve. I particularly thank Stuart Mendelson, who set up an initiative in Hertfordshire called the Muster Point. It has a simple premise: to bring veterans together to meet, to socialise and to build networks and connections. He has had great success in doing that in Stevenage, working with my hon. Friend the Member for Stevenage (Kevin Bonavia), and we are in the process of extending it to Welwyn Hatfield. I want to put on the record my thanks to Stuart. This is also the first time that I have had the opportunity to address the Chamber since the Prime Minister announced his resignation. It is a moment of regret for me, and I want to put on the record my thanks to him for all his service to my party and the country, and also for the fact that when he leaves office, most likely in a few weeks’ time, defence spending will be higher than it was at any point during the terms of the five previous Prime Ministers. The tone of the House has changed somewhat since the initial speech by the shadow Secretary of State, the hon. Member for South Suffolk (James Cartlidge), but I will re-inject a bit of politics, because I think it is important on Opposition day that we assess whether the rhetoric of one party matches its record in office. I want to go back to 2014, to the moment when Crimea was annexed by Putin—the moment, as people on all sides of politics would agree, when we should have realised the depth of the threats that we faced in Europe. At that time, defence spending was 2.2%. I had a look at what defence spending was in 2022, the moment when the full-scale invasion of Ukraine began. Defence spending in that eight-year period fell to just under 2.1%. I am afraid that when the Conservative party was in office, it did not heed those warnings.

• 23 Jun 2026 · Defence Spending and Readiness · Hansard source

  More

  I am pleased that we were on the same side in 2016, and maybe we will be at some point again in the future. Let me fast-forward to 2024, because that was an important moment for the country.

• 18 Jun 2026 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  T2. There are not one but two England teams that currently have a 100% record of success in world cups: not only did the men’s football team have a cracking result against Croatia last night, but the England women’s cricket team have won two from two in their world T20 tournament games so far. Will the Minister say a little more about how we will capitalise on the success of the women’s world T20 and ensure that cricket is a sport that grows and is available to all?

• 15 Jun 2026 · Defence Investment Plan · Hansard source

  More

  The past is a story of the Conservatives hollowing out our defence, the present is a story of this Government spending more than the Conservatives did at any time in their 14 years, but my question is about the future. Our brave allies in Ukraine have revolutionised warfare— [ Interruption. ] The Opposition might want to listen to this, as it is serious. Our allies in Ukraine have shown the effectiveness of drone technology and are turning the tables on the Russians, so how can we learn from them in the defence investment plan?

• 11 Jun 2026 · Business of the House · Hansard source

  More

  Hatfield is a vibrant town, and we have much to be proud of, but we have a serious antisocial behaviour problem in the Parkhouse Court area. There is daytime drinking and visible drug use, and the problem is compounded by the fact that it is happening just yards away from Safari Stars nursery. It is completely unacceptable. I have visited twice and raised it with the chief inspector and the leader of the council, but things are not moving quickly enough, particularly on the need for a public spaces protection order to give the police the powers they need to move people on and sanction them. Will the Leader of the House make time for a debate on how we can expedite the establishment of a public spaces protection order, especially when there is a risk to children?

• 11 Jun 2026 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  T3. It is a good time to be a commuter in Welwyn Hatfield. Trains from all five of our stations are now back under public control, and we have fast trains from Welwyn North to London King’s Cross, which have been a big success. We are right on track. However, does the Secretary of State agree that it is really important to support commuters all across my wonderful constituency and that we should look at all options for increasing the number of trains serving Hatfield and Welwyn Garden City, especially during peak time?

• 19 May 2026 · Energy Security · Hansard source

  More

  The right hon. Lady talks of absurd positions. I did a little research before the debate today. I went back to 21 May 2024, just before the last general election, and in this House, in her capacity as Secretary of State, she said that she believed in net zero. She said: “We are on track to reach net zero by 2050, and we will do so in a way that brings the public with us.” —[ Official Report , 21 May 2024; Vol. 750, c. 724.] Her position now is that she does not believe in net zero, and does not believe that it is desirable or achievable. Is that not absurd?

• 19 May 2026 · Energy Security · Hansard source

  More

  It is a real pleasure to see you back in the Chair, Madam Deputy Speaker—the model of calmness and authority. After the week my party has had, there is virtue in the stability you represent in that Chair. I am pleased to be back in this Chamber for the first time in this Session of Parliament to talk about policy and not personality, and to focus on one of the biggest issues our country faces: our energy security. The decision by the United States and Israel to strike Iran on 27 February has seen thousands of lives lost, billions expended in weaponry, a stalemate in the strait of Hormuz and a global energy crisis. For many countries the situation has become very grave, very quickly. In the UK, at the pump on the day before the strikes the price for petrol was £1.35 per litre and for diesel was £1.43. The average prices now stand closer to £1.58 and £1.86 respectively. While we are relatively less reliant on the strait of Hormuz than many countries, our exposure to the fossil fuel rollercoaster that is the global market means we are being hit hard, too. The choice before is simple: get off the fossil fuel rollercoaster and accelerate our transition to green and clean energy, or people and the planet will continue to pay the price for our reliance on gas and oil. A word on climate change: records on global temperatures date back to 1850, yet the past 11 years have been the 11 warmest years on record. We must pursue the transition to clean and green energy for our political and economic security today and for the tomorrows of all the generations yet to come. When it comes to embracing green technology, the public are already voting with their feet. The CEO of Octopus Energy has reported a 50% increase in demand for solar panels and a 30% uplift in demand for heat pumps within weeks of the conflict in Iran starting. This is welcome news, but the transition to green, clean and home-grown energy is not a challenge that the market alone can fix. I am proud of the record of our Labour Government in the past two years: two renewable energy auctions, with bids for enough energy to power 23 million homes; ending the de facto ban on onshore wind; and scaling up the social housing warm homes fund, including more than £6 million for Welwyn Hatfield borough council in my constituency, which will see more than 600 council homes retrofitted in my community. But we have to go further, and I hope that the energy independence Bill can be a focal point for the Government. We have to innovate. I was with the Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister in January when he made an excellent speech on how to speed up the delivery of policy, which is something so many colleagues have talked about today. He talked about learning the lessons of the vaccine taskforce model and applying it more universally. I encourage colleagues in the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero and the Cabinet Office to work together with this model in mind, and particularly with a view to speeding up the all-important connections to our grid. We have to work with the private sector. Ocado, which I am proud to say has its national headquarters in Hatfield, has been in touch with me about its ambition to speed up grid connections and the importance of an EV charging infrastructure that allows it to transition to electric vehicles. I am also pleased that Mitsubishi Electric Europe, working in Hatfield, is training gas engineers to transfer from boilers, so that their skills can be applied to heat pumps in the future. Most importantly, however, we have to make clear that the green transition will work for everyone in our society. The warm homes social housing fund is one of the most important parts of that plan. Retrofitting the homes of people on low incomes demonstrates beyond doubt that this is not some elite project—as Conservative Members want us to believe—but one that will ultimately get bills down for the people who need it most. If the Conservatives and Reform wish to cling to fossil fuels and the global markets, it is their job to explain the cost to their constituents, but clean, green and cheap energy is the future, and this Labour Government are right to strive for energy independence.

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

  More

  In advocating for the motion, the Leader of the Opposition— [Interruption.] She is just returning to her place; I knew she was waiting for me. Her essential argument, I believe, was that we in this House had not spent enough time debating this issue, and that perhaps just one more Committee would be the answer. Before we began our debate today, there had been five statements and two debates: more than 13 hours of debate in the House of Commons. That is my count of how long we have been discussing the Mandelson issue. That is a conservative estimate—small c—because it cannot account for Prime Minister’s questions and all the other ministerial questions. It is also, of course, distinct from the important hearings being held by the Foreign Affairs Committee, as well as those of the Intelligence and Security Committee, as it forensically carries out its work in compliance with the Humble Address and the release of all papers relating to Mandelson’s appointment as ambassador to the United States. I do not think that the British public believe that just one more Committee is the answer, but I want to set out why I think we are at an important juncture and to look at three actions that the Government have taken: the apology from the Prime Minister, the action taken across Government Departments and the ongoing scrutiny still being applied to this case. The Prime Minister has offered repeated and unconditional apologies from the Dispatch Box and when he has been asked questions by the media, including to the victims of Epstein. He has made clear that this was an error of judgment. A message of contrition has been heard by people in this House and across the country. We all make mistakes; that is not in dispute. Let us turn next to the action that has been taken and continues to take place across Government. More than 300 documents have already been released to the Intelligence and Security Committee, in full compliance with the Humble Address. That is really important. I was part of the debate—a good debate in this House—about giving the Intelligence and Security Committee oversight of the process. At the time, the Opposition said that that was an important thing to do and there was consensus across the House.

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

  More

  The right hon. Gentleman is very kind; I will see him on the cricket pitch in a week’s time. There is a serious point, in that there are a number of very senior civil servants, who I will come to, who have given evidence on that and have said that process was followed. That leads neatly to my next point about the importance of ongoing scrutiny—the scrutiny that is being conducted by the Foreign Affairs Committee.

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

  More

  I remember the debate vividly. Members from both sides made the case. I said in my remarks that that was an example of the House at its best, because we came to a good decision to involve the ISC. I raise the issue again today because I was fascinated by what the Leader of the Opposition said. She characterised that Committee as a “never-never” Committee earlier today, as if it would never come to the answer. All of a sudden it seems that it is politically convenient for the Opposition to lose faith in the ISC, although they were advocating for it for so long. More action has been taken, and that is important. Vetting has been discussed extensively today. The process in place under the last Government and at the start of this Government has gone: it has already been changed by my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister. In future, all vetting will now be completed before appointments. That is absolutely the right change.

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

  More

  I appreciate my hon. Friend’s intervention. The Prime Minister was right and the House was right to accept the Humble Address, involve the Intelligence and Security Committee, and give the Foreign Affairs Committee all the scope it needs to ask questions of the key actors in the process. Just to remind the House, in the past few weeks and days we have heard evidence in public from Cat Little, Sir Olly Robbins, Morgan McSweeney and from the Prime Minister himself, repeatedly, from the Dispatch Box. The Prime Minister and the Government are not hiding; they are putting everything in the sunlight, as an hon. Member suggested earlier. This is a deeply serious issue for the House and for the country. I want again to associate myself with everyone who has spoken today about the pain that is continually being felt by the victims of Jeffrey Epstein every time this issue is raised. Our thoughts are with all of them. The Prime Minister has apologised unconditionally. He has acted and the Government have acted, and scrutiny from two Committees is still ongoing. The judgment before us is not whether scrutiny should happen—it most clearly and evidently is happening—but whether we should support a conveniently timed motion from the Leader of the Opposition to refer the issue to one more Committee. I am afraid I do not believe that that is the answer, and I would trust the judgment of this Prime Minister over that of the Leader of the Opposition every day of the week.

• 13 Apr 2026 · Middle East · Hansard source

  More

  Since we last met in this place, the President of the United States has had at least three positions on the strait of Hormuz: first, he said that opening it was not in his interest because the US did not need it and did not use it; secondly, he speculated that it might be a good idea to have tolls on ships passing through the strait in a joint venture with Iran; today, he is overseeing a blockade. I commend the Prime Minister for his consistent and calm leadership, which stands in such clear contrast with those incredibly erratic comments. Does he agree that this conflict will ultimately be concluded not by posts on social media, but by patient and persistent diplomacy?

• 26 Mar 2026 · Representation of the People Bill (Fifth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  The hon. Member is right to call us friends, but let us be honest: we are unusual people who were involved in politics at a young age. That perhaps reflects many of us on the Committee. I ask the hon. Member again to reflect on the example of a busy shift worker. Their door was knocked a few days before the election. They cannot get the ID. They were not aware. Does the hon. Member accept that he has not quite addressed that challenge?

• 26 Mar 2026 · Representation of the People Bill (Fifth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Let me indulge in an example. The hon. Gentleman is a persuasive man; he has knocked on a door in Hamble Valley on 2 May ahead of the local authority elections on 7 May, which he has talked about. At that point, the deadline for registering for the free ID has passed. The person who he has visited might have been busy—they might be in their early 20s working shifts—so they were not aware of the option to get free ID and that window has passed. In that circumstance, the bank card might be the only ID they have. If the hon. Gentleman does not allow that to be presented, they may not have the option to vote for his party’s candidate on 7 May. Does he accept that that is a problem?

• 24 Mar 2026 · Representation of the People Bill (Third sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I just want to clarify my understanding of the Green party’s policy position. I have been looking at the Sentencing Council guidelines, and typically a person convicted of racially or religiously aggravated assault serves two years in prison. Is it the Green party’s position that those people should be allowed to vote in a general election?