Julian Lewis MP: speeches

Speeches

• 2 Jul 2026 · Historical Forced Adoption · Hansard source

  More

  The Prime Minister has done a good deed today, and he is deservedly getting the united response from the House that he requested. He mentioned the admirable idea of putting the documentation online; will there be a facility on the website for people to upload their own stories, if they wish to do so? One aspect that is being somewhat skirted around is why this happened in the first place. The answer appears to be that there was too much state respect for dogmatic and fundamentalist interpretations of religious doctrine. Can we look at our society today and say that there is not still, in some parts of that society, too much religious repression of women, and too much respect for cultural sensitivities, which are preventing us from tackling that?

• 2 Jul 2026 · Business of the House · Hansard source

  More

  May we have a statement from a Work and Pensions Minister on the lack of routes through which right hon. and hon. Members can contact the Department on behalf of constituents who, as in the case of one chronically ill lady whom I represent, have lost universal credit and wish to challenge that? She has been struggling for more than a year, whereas we have been struggling only for the last six months, to get an answer out of the Department. When the Leader of the House sends on that request, as he always assiduously does, may I include a summary sheet about this case for him to include with his letter to the Minister?

• 30 Jun 2026 · Defence Investment Plan · Hansard source

  More

  At last, we have agreement on a defence expenditure statistic. When the Secretary of State says that what the settlement means is that the proportion of GDP spent on defence by the end of this decade will now be higher than at any time in the past 30 years, he is quite right. The trouble is that if we go back 30 years to 1995, what we were spending then under the new accounting rules was 3% of GDP, and that was six years after the fall of the Berlin wall. Given that we are now in a more dangerous situation today than at any time since at least the height of the cold war in the 1980s, should we not be looking at the sort of percentages we spent then? Under the new accounting rules, that was between 4.1% and 5.5%. Haven’t we still got a long way to go?

• 30 Jun 2026 · National Maternity and Neonatal Investigation · Hansard source

  More

  Last Wednesday, and again today, the Secretary of State expressed his shock at the number of senior clinicians who refused to take part in the Nottingham review. May I repeat a suggestion that I made last Wednesday? Those clinicians should be named publicly. That is a step that he could take straight away. If a parliamentary question for written answer is tabled, asking him to name those clinicians, will he answer it? I cannot think of a better or more justifiable use of parliamentary privilege.

• 29 Jun 2026 · Cabinet Office · Hansard source

  More

  I am going to ask the rather obvious question. Given that the plan is to be put forward under the existing Prime Minister, does that mean that if the new Prime Minister wishes to change it, it will be changed, or will the commitment that is to be made to the forthcoming NATO Assembly have to stand as it is?

• 29 Jun 2026 · Cabinet Office · Hansard source

  More

  Bearing in mind an item that has appeared in the news reports today, does my hon. Friend agree that either the right hon. Gentleman or the hon. and gallant Gentleman to whom she has just referred would be a far more suitable future Secretary-General of NATO than the present Prime Minister, whose lack of proper funding of a defence policy—among other deficiencies—has led him to be looking for a new job?

• 29 Jun 2026 · Youth Hubs · Hansard source

  More

  With the impeccable timing of an Olympic medallist and world record beater, the inspirational Fatima Whitbread is in Parliament today in room U in Portcullis House till 4 pm, stressing the importance for people like herself brought up in the care system of wraparound local authority hubs working with and including the education, sport, police and charity sectors. Will a member of the ministerial team—preferably more than one—take the trouble to leave this Chamber when questions end and go over and talk to Fatima about her interesting and constructive ideas in this important field?

• 29 Jun 2026 · Prisoner Early Release · Hansard source

  More

  One reason that the present Prime Minister has lost the trust of the public is his refusal, time and again, to give straight answers to straight questions. My Front-Bench colleague, my hon. Friend the Member for Bexhill and Battle (Dr Mullan), asked a straight question: how many rapists and how many child abusers are scheduled for early release? Either the Minister is not answering because he does not know the answers, in which case he should tell us that, or he does know the answers but is refusing to give them. Which is it?

• 25 Jun 2026 · Neuropsychiatric Conditions: PANS and PANDAS · Hansard source

  More

  At the risk of labouring the same single point I want to make again and again, there really does seem to be no downside to telling all GPs that if there is any question at all that a child might have PANS or PANDAS, the GP should prescribe them one of the basic antibiotics, because they could benefit from it tremendously, and there is no risk of harm.

• 25 Jun 2026 · Neuropsychiatric Conditions: PANS and PANDAS · Hansard source

  More

  The hon. Lady mentioned the all-important fact that early diagnosis, coupled with the prescribing of a quite common antibiotic —I believe amoxicillin is one of them—can make a crucial difference. In May last year, I asked in a written question whether the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care would take steps to facilitate the circulation of material to general practitioners, advising them on how to recognise PANS and PANDAS, and treat them with antibiotics and anti-inflammatory medications. The response that I got from the Minister for Care was that this is all a matter for the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence, which is an independent body. The Minister said that NICE has “no plans to issue guidance on paediatric acute-onset neuropsychiatric syndrome (PANS) and paediatric autoimmune neuropsychiatric disorder associated with streptococcus (PANDAS)”. He also said, “should the evidence base develop further, we would look to the NICE to update clinical policy.” It seems that the early use of antibiotics is not yet accepted by the medical establishment. Does the hon. Lady know whether there is hard evidence to show that the medical establishment needs to get its act together on the matter?

• 25 Jun 2026 · Neuropsychiatric Conditions: PANS and PANDAS · Hansard source

  More

  I detected that the Minister was moving towards her conclusion, so I thought I would intervene before she did. She has a fine record, before she became a Minister, of campaigning on mesh-damaged women. That was an occasion where something simple was done that led to very complicated problems. Here, we have a complicated condition, but it is thought that something simple could be done—namely, guidance should be given to all GPs that if this condition is even suspected, a simple course of antibiotics should be given. I have not yet heard anything in what she has said as to whether the research backs that up. If the research has not been done, will she undertake to make sure it gets done and that general practitioners are advised accordingly?

• 25 Jun 2026 · Neuropsychiatric Conditions: PANS and PANDAS · Hansard source

  More

  I am sorry if I did not express myself clearly enough. It is not so much a question of the non-recognition of PANS and PANDAS, but whether it has been recognised that early treatment with antibiotics can make all the difference.

• 24 Jun 2026 · Nottingham Maternity and Neonatal Services · Hansard source

  More

  When whistleblowers tried to alert society to what was happening, was any action taken against them, and if it was, does that indicate that there needs to be strengthened protection for whistleblowers? At the other end of the spectrum, are those clinicians who refused point blank to take part in the review process going to be named?

• 24 Jun 2026 · Media Green Paper · Hansard source

  More

  On a similar theme, undoubtedly near the top of the Secretary of State’s to-do list today is to answer written question No. 11584, which is due for answer tomorrow. The question is about the threat posed by the BBC World Service apparently discontinuing its longwave transmitters at Droitwich, Burghead and Westerglen. What we want to know is: how will closed societies like Russia be able to receive news information when they are subject to the suppression of all the internet-based routes?

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

  More

  Another spurious argument, which I am afraid we heard earlier in the debate, is that the legislation put our armed forces on the same level as terrorists. The truth is that everybody is on the same level before the law. In any case, the Northern Ireland (Sentences) Act 1998 sold the pass on that anyway, because under it nobody—even if they were convicted of first-degree murder, as the Americans might say—goes to jail for more than two years. That put everybody on the same level before the law, as any such legislation has to do.

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

  More

  One of the strong arguments put forward for the legislation is that it will help families to find out the truth of what happened to their loved ones, yet by repealing the Conservative legislation, it makes that less likely rather than more likely—because who is going to come forward and incriminate themselves by saying what happened to people who were unlawfully killed if they know that they will not then have immunity from prosecution?

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

  More

  This debate has been characterised by so many powerful speeches that I think it would be invidious to pick out any of them. I congratulate everyone who has contributed, particularly the Government Back Benchers who have evidently come to the debate espousing the principle that the best defence is attack. Some of their speeches have been so combative that it is hard to believe that only recently they lost their Secretary of State for Defence, their Minister for the Armed Forces, and even their Prime Minister. If morale is indeed the measure of a successful fighting force, those Government Back Benchers are doing extremely well. By happy coincidence, I had a letter published in today's edition of The Times , which I had submitted before I knew that this debate was going to take place. I say that it is a happy coincidence because I know that you, Madam Deputy Speaker, are worried about the ticking clock, and one requirement for a letter to be published in that esteemed newspaper is for practically all the argument to be compressed into no more than 150 words. These are the slightly fewer than 150 words that I chose: “An erratic, isolationist White House, a ruthlessly imperialist Kremlin and a disturbing relationship between the two have put peace in Europe at greater risk than at any time since the height of the Cold War. The prime minister’s valedictory boast of securing ‘the biggest uplift in defence spending since the Cold War’ should therefore cut little ice. We are nowhere near investing even the 3 per cent of GDP—under current MoD calculation criteria—still being spent when the Conservatives were defeated in 1997, years after the fall of the Berlin Wall. Under Margaret Thatcher throughout the 1980s—again applying today’s criteria—defence received between 4.1 per cent and 5.5 per cent of GDP. This shows the scale of effort required once again to boost deterrence and prevent the appalling costs, in blood as well as in treasure, of full-scale war between Russia and the West.” That was the letter, and I will now briefly pick a couple of aspects of it on which to expand. The first is the use of the word “deterrence”. I am perturbed about the sense of inevitability that there is going to be a conflict with Russia, perhaps as soon as 2030. However, the question of whether or not there is such a conflict is not just down to Russia; it is also down to what we do—the preparations that we make, the investment that we think we can bear in the military in order to ensure that if Russia looks at the prospect of war with the NATO powers, it will see that the outcome is uncertain and the cost is likely to be unbearable. So we have to do our bit. The other aspect of that letter on which I would briefly like to comment is the opening point—the point about the isolationist White House. No one knows how far the isolationist virus that is embodied by President Donald J. Trump has spread throughout the rest of the American political system, but if when he is eventually replaced that virus reappears in his successor, the future for peace in Europe will indeed be imperilled, because the key achievement of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation was to ensure that any potential aggressor against any of the member countries would know that if they attacked, from day one they would be at war with the United States of America. What Donald Trump has done is cause that guarantee to be undermined. I do not know why he does it. I do not know what the nature is of what I described in that letter as his “disturbing relationship” with the killer in the Kremlin. All I know is that Europe will not be safe until again we can rely on the United States to guarantee our freedom. In the meanwhile, we must send a signal across the Atlantic, for our part, that we will do everything necessary to invest in our armed forces and to make the necessary preparations. If we do that, we will maximise the chance of restoring stability to the power balance between east and west, which saw us through the most deadly threats of the cold war—the times when it was thought that civilisation could perish—and we will get back to a situation in which people can then think about what it is nice to pay for in order to have a modern, civilised, compassionate society. Let me end with a famous quote from another Healey who was a Defence Secretary, Denis Healey. He said, memorably, that if we do not have adequate defence, we do not have all the aspects of a society that we wish to cherish; we do not have schools, we do not have hospitals, we do not have houses—what we have is “a heap of cinders”. So let us invest what we can while we can, let us get our priorities right, and let us restore the guarantee of the transatlantic relationship, which kept the peace and prevented a third world war.

• 18 Jun 2026 · Infected Blood Compensation Scheme · Hansard source

  More

  Like others before me, I pay tribute to the work of the hon. Member for Eltham and Chislehurst (Clive Efford). He is the driving force behind the all-party parliamentary group, which has done so much to highlight this terrible tragedy. I was struck by what my right hon. Friend the Member for East Hampshire (Damian Hinds) said about having been alerted to this as far back as 2010. In my case, it was not quite so far back; it was 2015, but that is still more than a decade ago. I spoke in this House about the case of my constituent Lesley, which illustrated how long it often took for victims of contaminated blood to discover that they indeed had been infected. I pointed out that in 1970, she and her future husband had been involved in a serious road traffic accident, and she had to receive no fewer than 44 pints of blood. For many years, she knew nothing about the fact that she had been infected, although over those years she had many visits to GPs and hospitals, with numerous symptoms of illness, and considerable pain and suffering. It was only in 2014 that she finally discovered that she had been infected with hepatitis C by NHS contaminated blood. Another example of a constituent who is in regular contact with me and my office is Stephen. He came to see me in August 2023. He was diagnosed as haemophiliac as an eight-year-old in the late 1960s. He thinks that he was infected with hepatitis C in 1974, which persisted for nearly 15 years before it eventually cleared from his system. He says that although it did not inhibit his professional life too badly, it had a deep impact on his personal life. He was married in 1986, and he was constantly having to have testing for fear every time that he had to have a transfusion that he might be being infected. He was told in quite firm terms not to have children, and he said that he was often too scared to have treatment. Once he had quite a bad leg injury, which led to complications, and his fear of treatment led to him being effectively disabled for a period of time. Stephen’s brother’s case was far worse, because he was one of about 400 chronic hepatitis C victims of this scandal. To this day, he can only effectively live on a day-to-day basis; he cannot plan because the complications of his infection mean that whether he will be able to do something will depend on how he is on the day in question. In Portcullis House on Tuesday, we benefited from briefings from a number of organisations that are concerned with this scandal. I will briefly touch on a couple. One was a campaign about a condition of which I was previously unaware, called thalassaemia. This rare blood disorder requires sufferers to have a transfusion every three to four weeks—a blood transfusion every month. These people are at a very high risk of having been infected, and many of them were. These regular blood transfusions deposit more iron into the major organs, which, coupled with the hepatitis C virus with which they had been infected, maximises the prospect of their developing cirrhosis and liver cancer. The drug interferon has been mentioned a couple of times already. I am old enough to remember when interferon was first regarded as a great breakthrough in the treatment of some cancers. Sadly, like so many medical interventions, it has side effects that can be harmful. Taken in combination with what these patients are also suffering from by way of infection and, in the case of thalassaemia sufferers, the build-up of iron, the interferon used in their cases also has complicating adverse effects. That was a point impressed on me at the briefing by the representative of the Terrence Higgins Trust, who pointed to the additional negative impact of treatment with interferon, which was for a significant time the only option available for HIV-positive patients. I am indebted to the Haemophilia Society for briefing material that I hope will simply add to the excellent statement and laying of the groundwork in the opening speech so ably delivered by the hon. Member for Eltham and Chislehurst. The Haemophilia Society draws attention to one or two specific points that I would like to put before the House. We all acknowledge that the infected blood community has fought valiantly for the truth for decades. We also accept that the Government are clearly committed to compensation following the inquiry. The debate now focuses on how to deliver that commitment and how to make sure that people are compensated without further delay and that the compensation is truly fair. In this connection, I would like to make reference to a detailed opportunity I had virtually to participate in exchanges with senior people—in fact, the most senior people—at the Infected Blood Compensation Authority back in June last year. Again, that was at the initiative of the chairman of the APPG, the hon. Member for Eltham and Chislehurst. My participation was online, but I was able, as was he, to discuss all these matters with the interim chairman at the time, Sir Robert Francis; the chief executive, David Foley; and other key officials. In particular, we were able to talk directly with members of IBCA’s cases team. I must say that I, for one, found them to be both compassionate and empathetic. I was very impressed with the calibre of people who are involved in this agency, and I am hopeful that if they are given the direction they need and the resources they require, they can succeed. I got the feeling that this is an organisation that really does want to help the people it has been set up to support, not an organisation that wants to be in any way obstructive. I hope everything can be done to encourage it. I know that it is operating in uncharted waters with a tragedy of this magnitude, but I hope it can succeed in overcoming the obstacles that have been causing the delays. More than two years have passed since the Government accepted the need for compensation, but the majority of eligible people are still waiting to begin their claims. That includes infected people not previously on a support scheme and affected people—namely, the partners and family members of those who are sadly no longer with us. We have heard concern from the community that progress has slowed while IBCA works out how to grapple with these categories of claims in a process that it calls test and learn. Every month of delay matters, because many infected and affected people are elderly or seriously ill. We would like to know from the Minister his latest assessment of the timescale by which IBCA will compensate each of the categories of claimant. IBCA’s latest figures show that just 30 affected people have been paid compensation so far. Over 14,000 affected people are waiting to start their claim. At what point does the Minister expect IBCA to truly start making a dent in those very large numbers? In particular, we would like to know what specific steps are being taken to accelerate compensation payments over the next 12 months. Finally, there is an issue to do with claims that relate to the estates of those who died before the scheme commenced. Those who survived until the scheme commencement are rightly entitled to financial loss compensation from the date of their infection right up to the national age of healthy life expectancy that they should have had. In contrast, those who died before the scheme started have their financial loss calculated only from the date of their infection until the date of their death, which may have been a lot earlier than the normal expectation of a term of life that would have been their lot had this catastrophe not befallen them. There can be no doubt that this creates a stark and unjust two-tier system. Those who died earlier will often have suffered the same or worse than those who died later, and the financial loss to their estate is clear, yet the Government’s position seems to be that those killed by their infections the soonest deserve less compensation and recognition than those who survived for longer. In many cases, this amounts to a very substantial reduction in compensation—potentially decades of lost earnings. Bereaved families should not receive lesser justice because their loved one died before the scheme was established. The result is that timing, not harm, is determining value, meaning that compensation depends on whether someone survived long enough to see the scheme introduced. As I said, this is about avoiding a two-tier compensation system. In conclusion, I would like the Minister to explain how it can be in accordance with natural justice for those who died earlier due to their infection to receive less compensation than those who died later from a similar infection. Will the Government commit to reviewing their position on estate claims, to ensure families are not disadvantaged because their relative died earlier?

• 17 Jun 2026 · Steel Tariffs · Hansard source

  More

  The Minister says that the concerns about fabricated steel are being taken into account. Can he be a bit more specific about why other countries have protections for fabricated steel in their economies, but we do not yet have any in ours?

• 16 Jun 2026 · Thames Water · Hansard source

  More

  It is tempting to say that there is a particularly bad smell about this company, but that would be a statement of the obvious. Although I am not normally a friend of nationalisation, I have a feeling that this company is on a one-way journey to bankruptcy. Am I right in presuming that if that point ever arose, there would be no question of compensating shareholders for a bankrupt company that eventually had to be taken over by the state?

• 15 Jun 2026 · Social Media Ban for Under-16s · Hansard source

  More

  This has definitely been the Secretary of State’s finest hour. I am only slightly disappointed that, for reasons of his own, the Prime Minister chose to upstage it in Downing Street. Can she tell the House what the main reasons are in Australia for reports—admittedly according to AI—that as many as 61% of young people are getting around the restrictions? Will she be working jointly with the Australians to try to get that down to a more acceptable level?

• 15 Jun 2026 · Russian Shadow Fleet · Hansard source

  More

  May I wish the new Secretary of State the best of luck in his new post and express the hope that the appearance of the Chancellor of the Exchequer alongside him on his first outing is not too symbolic of what has perhaps been going on in backrooms behind the Treasury? On the question of the seizure of the ships, does the Secretary of State agree that there is a possibility that Russia may in response start to think about escorting such ships by means of warships? This would, of course, expose Russia’s hand very much more clearly, but it does bring a whole element of possible escalation into play, including the possibility of Ukrainian strikes against those ships. We all know how successful Ukraine has been in the Black sea, and it might end up doing something similar in the Baltic sea and beyond.

• 15 Jun 2026 · Defence Investment Plan · Hansard source

  More

  I know the Minister accepts that I have criticised successive Governments for not spending anything like the 4.5% that Margaret Thatcher used to spend on defence at the height of the cold war throughout the 1980s, but does he accept that the service chiefs have made an objective assessment of the Government’s own strategic defence review, and have arrived at the conclusion that the sum of £28 billion is necessary to implement it over, I believe, a four-year period? If he accepts that, how can he possibly go along with an offer from the Treasury of less than half the total needed?

• 15 Jun 2026 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  How can it be justified for a unitary authority to be formed that rips the waterside away from the New Forest, and places it under the control of Labour-dominated Southampton, when the building blocks of the new unitary authorities were stated by the Government to be the existing areas covered by district and borough councils?

• 15 Jun 2026 · NHS Dentistry · Hansard source

  More

  Does the Minister accept that there is a high degree of unanimity in all parts of the House about this terrible situation? Does he also accept that the British Dental Association traces this back to the 2006 contract? What it wants to know is: when are the formal negotiations on a new contract going to begin, and what is the date of the Minister’s deadline to introduce the new system in the lifetime of this Parliament, as promised in his general election manifesto?