Julian Lewis MP: speeches

Speeches

• 2 Jun 2025 · Strategic Defence Review · Hansard source

  More

  It is tempting to remind the Secretary of State about the 4.5% to 5% of GDP that was spent on defence by Conservative Governments throughout the cold war years of the 1980s, but instead may I ask whether, like me, he would endorse what Admiral Lord West wrote in the national press last week, when he stated that the Chagos deal was a “disgraceful decision”, and that as a former chief of defence intelligence, he did not accept that the move is “absolutely vital for our defence and intelligence” as the Prime Minister claims? He is a former Labour security Minister and current House of Lords representative on the Intelligence and Security Committee, so he knows what he is talking about, doesn’t he?

• 22 May 2025 · Access to NHS Dentistry · Hansard source

  More

  Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for that no-pressure introduction. I congratulate the hon. Member for Great Grimsby and Cleethorpes (Melanie Onn) on her speech and I agree with every part of it. I was hoping to quote from individual cases raised by constituents and from the local Women’s Institute, but all that will have to go by the board. I have a wonderful briefing from the British Dental Association and, in the remaining two and a half minutes, I would like to make one pertinent observation, from which everything else flows. Dentistry is a highly skilled profession in which practitioners can charge colossal sums of money in private practice, which gives them a financial incentive to steer clear of working for the NHS. That is the root of the problem. On 13 March, I put a question to the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care about a point made by the Darzi report, last September, which says: “There are enough dentists in England, just not enough dentists willing to do enough NHS work, which impacts provision for the poorest in society.” I was pleasantly surprised when his reply was: “NHS dentistry is in a terrible state and, in fact, in many parts of the country it barely exists. There are lots of reasons for that, and it is a source of constant astonishment to me that the dentistry budget was underspent year after year despite that situation.” —[ Official Report , 13 March 2025; Vol. 763, c. 1298.] In reality, as the BDA points out, the reason why that budget is underspent is not because of the lack of demand, but because NHS practices cannot fill vacancies and are unable to meet contractual commitments. Therefore, those who do work with and for the NHS are having to deliver dental care at a loss. There is a fundamental requirement for a rewritten constitution and contract by which it becomes worthwhile for people to practice dentistry in the NHS, because otherwise we will see a two-tier society, in which only the rich can get the dental care that people so desperately need.

• 20 May 2025 · UK-EU Summit · Hansard source

  More

  If the Prime Minister is right that our food standards are already in alignment with those of the EU, why could we not have negotiated the deal on the basis of mutual recognition of those standards, as other countries have done, rather than open ourselves up to having to alter our standards in line with whatever the EU may decide to change in the future?

• 14 May 2025 · Ministerial Code: Compliance · Hansard source

  More

  The right hon. Lady is an attentive Leader of the House, and I hope the Government show the same degree of loyalty to her after a tough couple of weeks that she is showing to them. Although I do acknowledge that the Government make many statements to the House, all too often they make them to the media first, as you noted, Madam Deputy Speaker, in your announcement on Monday: “Mr Speaker does not understand why the Government persist in making announcements in this way, when the ministerial code is absolutely clear”. —[ Official Report , 12 May 2025; Vol. 767, c. 47.] Will the Leader of the House take back the message, even if she cannot confess it on the Floor of the House, that they are going too far and they need to stop?

• 14 May 2025 · Infected Blood Inquiry: Government Response · Hansard source

  More

  The Minister referred briefly to something called a duty of candour, which will try to avoid a repetition of what was described as a “defensive culture in the civil service”. Will he expand on that phenomenon? It is quite extraordinary, is it not, that when people in all innocence were infected with lethal diseases by the NHS, civil servants should have gathered round to deny them the help and compensation they needed? Surely some sort of sanction ought to be involved. Will anyone be held to account for this, because otherwise, it will happen again, won’t it?

• 6 May 2025 · Victory in Europe and Victory over Japan: 80th Anniversary · Hansard source

  More

  What an excellent speech to have the privilege of following. It is always so impressive when people do their duty right up to the very end, and so I ask the House to salute the passing of Normandy veteran Cecil Newton, who as recently as last year came back to Lepe beach in New Forest East and read out the names of more than a hundred of his comrades in the Royal Dragoon Guards who were killed in the D-day landings and beyond. He was one of 6,000 troops who landed on Gold beach, having departed from Lepe beach. He was in an amphibious Sherman tank that made it to shore—not all of them did—and he survived being wounded in combat too, passing at the great age of 101. We have heard from many speakers about the connections between their constituencies and the military history of the second world war. That was a theme on which I expatiated back in May 1997 in my very first speech in this House. I will repeat just one reference from that oration, about when I discovered a small plot of RAF graves in Fawley churchyard in my constituency. I could not help but be moved by the inscription on the headstone of a young airman, John Burrow, whose parents had written the following: “Into the mosaic of victory we lay this priceless piece—our son”. I thought that that was such a wonderful thing to do in the depths of their loss: to say, nevertheless, that this is what we are doing for the victory of our country over Nazi Germany. I salute them and their memory too. How does one do justice to the second world war in a few minutes? I will pick out one key factor without which everything else would have been different: the existence of the English channel. There can be no doubt that if we had been contiguous with the continent of Europe, we would have suffered the same fate as all our allies there. There is no way in which we could have resisted being overrun. When we think about how difficult it was to reinvade and retake the continent for democracy in 1944, even with Britain as the launch area for that invasion, we realise how virtually impossible it would have been without the United Kingdom remaining outside Nazi German control. We can also look at the areas covered by a simple listing of the campaign stars that were awarded: the Atlantic Star, the Africa Star, the Italy Star, the Burma Star, the Pacific Star, the France and Germany Star and, much belatedly, the Arctic Star for the brave men of the merchant navy and the Royal Navy, who risked everything to get supplies to Russia. Let us not forget one last thing. When the war ended, the country for which we went to war, Poland, remained under occupation by the Soviet Union, and it took another 44 years of determined deterrence, coupled with the nuclear balance of terror, to ensure the eventual emergence of democracy in that country too.

• 22 Apr 2025 · British Steel · Hansard source

  More

  On the day that Parliament was recalled, I gather that the workers themselves had to confront Chinese executives who were intent on coming on to the site. They believe that those executives intended to take unilateral action to shut down the blast furnace irrecoverably. Is that correct? What does that tell us about the motivation and behaviour of China when it gets its hands on our strategic industries?

• 22 Apr 2025 · Ukraine Update · Hansard source

  More

  Coupled with the decision of the leader of the free world to describe Ukraine as the aggressor in this war is the news today that America may be considering no longer supplying the Supreme Allied Commander Europe to NATO. Is the Defence Secretary looking forward as much as the rest of us are to hearing what President Trump has to say, if he comes to this Parliament in September, about how it is that the system that kept the peace in Europe for 50 years after the second world war is no longer applicable for the future?

• 22 Apr 2025 · Sentencing Guidelines (Pre-sentence Reports) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I do not think anyone is questioning the firm action the Lord Chancellor is taking. The point my hon. Friend the Member for North West Norfolk (James Wild) made is: why should it be necessary for her to take that action? Surely, if the Sentencing Council cannot see the distinction she makes between its proper role and Parliament’s proper role, it is not fit to do the job.

• 22 Apr 2025 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  Will the Minister take a special look at the problem of rogue builders who repeatedly target our constituents—often very vulnerable people? They take thousands from them and wreck their homes, yet the only redress is said to be trading standards. Surely that amounts to fraud and there ought to be a prosecution to follow.

• 1 Apr 2025 · Product Regulation and Metrology Bill [Lords] · Hansard source

  More

  The Secretary of State will be aware from the Second Reading debate in the Lords that a number of what I shall gently refer to as Eurosceptic peers have expressed concerns that the Bill is a form of dynamic alignment with the European Union, and that, far from taking back control over which standards are involved and which guidelines are necessary, we will be abdicating control in favour of whatever the European Union decides. Can he set our minds at rest over those concerns? I am sure he would not wish to be diverted along such a dead-end route.

• 13 Mar 2025 · Business of the House · Hansard source

  More

  As a believer in parliamentary democracy, I fully support the Government’s right not to exploit shale gas deposits in the UK on environmental grounds. However, may we have an urgent statement from the appropriate net zero Minister on the Government’s decision from next week to start filling in and putting permanently beyond use the two existing shale gas facilities in this country, rather than keeping them in reserve for an emergency should a future Government ever need to exploit them?

• 4 Mar 2025 · Iranian State Threats · Hansard source

  More

  Does the Minister agree that this is at least one area where our co-operation with the United States can continue on the basis of a common mutual interest, given President Trump’s extremely strong attitude to the abuses carried out by the Iranian regime? Is the Minister aware—I think he probably is—that during the previous Parliament the Intelligence and Security Committee completed the classified version of a major report on Iran and all its activities? Does he look forward, like me, to the redaction process being completed soon, so that we can all benefit from the findings of that report?

• 4 Feb 2025 · Warm Homes Plan · Hansard source

  More

  Will the Minister acknowledge the amazing contributions of groups such as New Forest Friends of the Earth, which this very morning have been lobbying their MPs in Parliament Square on warm homes initiatives? They will be coming to the Government with some possibly costly proposals, but I hope that the Government, despite the economic legacy that they allegedly inherited, will give them a sympathetic hearing.

• 28 Jan 2025 · Airport Expansion · Hansard source

  More

  I have been enjoying the Minister’s lively presentation, but then I do not live under a potential new flightpath. Are the Government consulting their Back Benchers about the possibility of aviation and airport expansion versus net zero? If so, will they be advising them to clean up what they have said on this subject on the internet before it is hoovered up by the Opposition in preparation for the next general election?

• 15 Jan 2025 · Women’s Changed State Pension Age: Compensation · Hansard source

  More

  At a rough count, there are in excess of 50 colleagues here from a range of parties. I hope every one of them pledges to join the all-party parliamentary group on state pension inequality for women, ably led by the hon. Member for Salford (Rebecca Long Bailey). This boils down to a question of credibility and respect. What credibility and respect can there be for ombudsmen’s reports if they are ignored? What credibility and respect can there be for Members of Parliament, ranging from the now Prime Minister to foot soldiers such as me, who parade with placards saying we will fight and campaign on behalf of the WASPI women, if we do not follow through on those commitments? I want to raise one particular point that bothers me, and then I will let others continue the debate. In trying to justify their policy of inaction, the Government seem to be oscillating between two positions: on the one hand, they keep suggesting that they simply cannot afford to give any compensation at all, but in the next breath they seem almost to be challenging the contents of the ombudsman’s report, relying on a dodgy poll that suggests that 90% of the affected women knew about the changes. Well, if the Government can rely on dodgy polls, so can I. I happen to be married to a WASPI woman, and on a dodgy poll of one I can tell the Government that she did not know and did not get a letter, and she has no particular motivation for claiming otherwise, given that it would not have affected her career choices. The Minister needs to be clear when he sums up: do the Government accept that there was maladministration, as the report sets out, or are they trying to deny that fact? In paragraph 20 of the report, the ombudsman says: “While it is unusual for organisations we investigate not to accept and act on our recommendations, we have no powers to compel them to comply. When an organisation does not comply with our recommendations, we can lay a report before Parliament so that Parliament can act to protect citizens’ rights.” That is what the ombudsman expects, and that is what the WASPI women have every right to expect too.

• 7 Jan 2025 · Pro-democracy Campaigners: Arrests · Hansard source

  More

  No one should be surprised, as I have said before, when a communist totalitarian state behaves like a communist totalitarian state. Does the Minister agree that there is a little pattern emerging here? Every time a senior British politician—be it the Prime Minister or the Chancellor—is going on a visit to the Chinese, something particularly egregious is done. That suggests to me that they are trying to rub our noses in it, and that they are not interested or concerned about anything we say on human rights abuses.

• 18 Dec 2024 · Commonwealth Parliamentary Association and International Committee of the Red Cross (Status) Bill [Lords] · Hansard source

  More

  What a pleasure it is to follow so many positive speeches on such a unifying issue. I cannot help but observe that it is singularly appropriate that the amiable Minister should be making his last contributions before Christmas on this issue rather than the more fractious one earlier of the future of the Chagos islands. Right hon. and hon. Members may recall that I spoke on Second Reading in support of the very sensible changes that the Bill will make to the status of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association and the International Committee of the Red Cross. By giving each organisation the status of a body corporate, the Bill ensures that the independence of their staff is sufficiently protected, and that the staff are able to continue with their work unhindered. The Bill gives a clear and welcome signal that the UK is committed to supporting democratic institutions in carrying out their important and independent work. I have been encouraged by the Minister’s positive comments throughout the parliamentary debate regarding the importance of safeguarding the institutional independence of such organisations, and the same is true, indeed essential, for the office of the Intelligence and Security Committee of Parliament. I had hoped, as I said on Second Reading, that the Bill would be expanded to include the ISC, given the very clear read-across. Unfortunately, it has not proved possible to extend the scope of the Bill to cover the ISC within the available timeframe, so I will not repeat my earlier comments. However, I hope that the Government have heard the strength of feeling on this issue, which is about upholding the commitments given to Parliament. It is about ensuring that this House is able to hold secret organisations to account, without the independent staff who do that work being subjected to undue pressure, inappropriate influence or improper interference. Following the recent appointment of the new Committee under its highly experienced Chairman, elected today by the other Committee members, Lord Beamish, formerly Kevan Jones MP, with whom I served on the Committee for four years, I trust that the Government will find another suitable legislative vehicle to allow the important changes that we are making to the CPA and the ICRC to be applied to the ISC as well. Given the very clear similarities between the two democratic institutions covered by the Bill and the office of the ISC and its secretariat, I am confident that that measure would receive the same level of strong cross-party support that has rightly been achieved for this important Bill.

• 12 Dec 2024 · Disability History Month · Hansard source

  More

  Sorry. I remember once, before I knew it would come right—as it finally did—walking past the Palace of Westminster and thinking ruefully, “To think I thought I would ever get to be a Member of Parliament!” I got over that problem, and I did get to be a Member of Parliament. I take off my hat to those MPs with far worse disabilities—permanent disabilities—who nevertheless have joined this place and contribute so much to its proceedings.

• 11 Dec 2024 · Intelligence and Security Committee of Parliament · Hansard source

  More

  I am flattered and extremely grateful. Coming from someone of the calibre of my right hon. and learned Friend, that means a great deal to me. It reminds me of one last point that I perhaps would have overlooked: one can achieve an awful lot with these secret organisations. I remember going with the excellent director of the ISC to meet a senior figure, shall we say, in the secret world, and we were discussing some of the reports we were going to produce. One of them was, as I mentioned in my list earlier, a report on the international partnerships that our intelligence agencies have. The senior figure was saying, “Well, it’s going to be very difficult. You’re not going to be able to publish just about anything. Are you sure you really want to do this examination?” To which the obvious answer was, “Well, we will certainly be able to produce a very interesting report, even if it is classified in its entirety and published only as a single sheet with the title page on it.” I know I am not allowed to produce props, Madam Deputy Speaker, but I just happen to have with me a copy of that report, which it proved possible to publish in the end. It was not a single page; it was about 100 pages. That is what a clever, dedicated staff can manage to produce, irrespective of the fact that it rightly has to exclude anything that might harm the interests of the nation. It is possible both for the secret agencies to do their work and for the scrutineers of the secret agencies to do their work, provided that the independence of the people who do all the heavy lifting, namely the director and the secretariat, are not compromised.

• 11 Dec 2024 · Intelligence and Security Committee of Parliament · Hansard source

  More

  I was just about to finish, but of course I will.

• 11 Dec 2024 · Intelligence and Security Committee of Parliament · Hansard source

  More

  I promise that I will not unduly detain the House. As the retiring Chairman of the Intelligence and Security Committee of Parliament, I wish to put on record that it has been an interesting tenure. It got off to a somewhat controversial start when the then Prime Minister delayed its reconstitution by seven months, and then proceeded to try to impose a Chairman on the Committee in defiance of the provisions of the Justice and Security Act 2013 that the Committee should henceforth choose its own Chairman from among its members. I am delighted to see that the present Government do not appear to be trying to do either of those two things. I am also encouraged by the fact that there appears to be a better balance between the Members of this House and the number of Members from the other place, which reflects more appropriately the joint nature of the Committee. During my four years in post, the Committee produced several substantial reports—not just the famous Russia report, which was the work of the previous Committee and which we resolved to publish on our first day of reconstitution in July 2020. We produced major reports under our own steam, including one on extreme right-wing terrorism; a particularly well-received report on China; a substantial report on international partnerships; and, although it has not yet been published, a very interesting and comprehensive report on Iran. That report is in its final form and is just awaiting completion of the agreed redactions that have to be worked out between the agencies concerned and the Committee. I hope that that report will appear soon. The Committee also produced no fewer than four of its annual reports, which surveyed the general landscape of the seven intelligence agencies and other security organisations that it supervises. There have been only two clouds on the horizon. One was the persistent refusal of the previous Government —no doubt on advice from officials in, I suspect, the Cabinet Office—to allow the Committee to adapt its memorandum of understanding with 10 Downing Street, which was specifically designed for flexibility when security sensitive activities were undertaken by different Departments. That element of the work of those different Departments should be scrutinised by the ISC, and appropriate adaptations should be made to the terms of the memorandum of understanding. Instead, it was unrealistically suggested that the general Select Committee for the Department concerned could do that sensitive work. It could not; it should not—this should be down to the ISC. The second point is something I have alluded to repeatedly in speeches in this Parliament, which is that the independence of the secretariat of the ISC has been compromised by a so-called temporary arrangement, which was entered into with the Cabinet Office no less than 10 years ago. It means that if the ISC is deemed to be unhelpful to the Government or the establishment, or the two organisations out of the seven that it scrutinises which happen to be located in the Cabinet Office, the careers of the staff of the ISC will not prosper. I want to put it on record that the director and the staff of the ISC—this is a common view among all parts of the Committee throughout my tenure as Chairman—are absolutely outstanding. I was particularly incensed when on two occasions, my recommendation as Chairman for an outstanding grading for the ISC’s professional director was overruled by officials in the Cabinet Office and downgraded. It was as a result of that sort of unacceptable behaviour and intrusion on the independence of the ISC that the Committee earlier this year voted unanimously—I stress, unanimously—that the secretariat of the ISC should be removed from the oversight or control of the Cabinet Office and should become an independent body or a body corporate, as exists in certain other organisations. I really do commend that to the Leader of the House. We do not want to see a persistence of this conflict of interest, where the Cabinet Office is able to put a blight on the careers of the loyal, talented and dedicated members of staff who have served the ISC so well. With that, Madam Deputy Speaker—

• 5 Dec 2024 · Detained British Nationals Abroad · Hansard source

  More

  On that point, it is worth mentioning that Dr Ibadoghlu’s son visited Parliament a few weeks ago, when we had an opportunity to discuss his case. He has a close association with part of the University of London, and he was given assurances that it would be safe for him to return to visit his ailing mother. Subsequent to his arrest, a PhD student, whose name is Fazil Gasimov, was extradited from Turkey and tortured into giving evidence against Dr Ibadoghlu, and he has felt it necessary to go on hunger strike. There seems to be a huge effort by the Azeri Government to persecute people, even at the same time as a COP meeting was scheduled to take place in their capital.

• 21 Nov 2024 · Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation · Hansard source

  More

  In an ideal world, there would be a limitless supply of lawyers who would provide their services to victims and defendants alike, free of charge. Then, the issue of SLAPPs could never arise. We are not talking here about trying to restrict the right of individuals to seek the protection of a court and clear their name of defamatory claims about them. If that was what we were seeking, I would be something of a hypocrite, because 30 years ago, I had to pursue such a libel action against an impecunious magazine that thought it could get away with saying anything about public figures, no matter how baseless, because it had no assets, so if someone pursued a libel action against it and won, they could never recover the tens of thousands of pounds in costs. That is when the boot is on the other foot: a person who has no assets therefore uses the costs of lawyers against the person they wish to defame. However, what has happened in more recent times, particularly since the demise of that magazine, because there were other ways of dealing with it, is precisely what the hon. Member for South Dorset (Lloyd Hatton) said in his excellent introduction was an abuse of the legal process—and in particular of the huge costs that apply to hiring lawyers to defend oneself—by what I believe he described as a very small number of very rich people. The solution to this type of problem is therefore for the courts to be able to deal with it at such an early stage that, even though some costs will be unavoidable, the huge threat of unbearable costs will be removed, because a worthless libel claim against an investigative reporter whose story is well founded will be thrown out beforethe vast bulk of the expense can be incurred. Some hon. Members who were here in the previous Parliament may remember that we had a brief debate on 20 January 2022 dealing with the question of lawfare. I made a couple of interventions on behalf of a former Member of the House, Charlotte Leslie, who faced what was certainly a SLAPP as a result of her not even having published anything, but having privately contacted a number of people, including me, given my then position as the Chair of a Committee that she regarded as relevant to her concerns. She wrote to us to try to do due diligence on an individual who proposed getting involved and investing money in an organisation by which she was employed. Fortunately, in the end, the case failed utterly in court, but only after she had been put through a nightmarish ordeal. I pay tribute to her resilience in coming through that ordeal. We are of course particularly concerned about vulnerable individuals, but sometimes even large organisations can be subject to the SLAPP technique. If hon. Members look on the internet, they will see that on 12 January this year—on the BBC website, no less—a story headed, “Post Office lied and threatened BBC over Horizon whistleblower” begins: “The BBC can reveal that in the period leading up to the broadcast of Trouble at the Post Office, the 2015 Panorama programme featuring the whistleblower testimony: Experts interviewed by the BBC were sent intimidating letters by Post Office lawyers about their participation in the programme Senior Post Office managers briefed the BBC that neither their staff nor Fujitsu—the company which built and maintained the Horizon system—could remotely access sub-postmasters’ accounts, even though Post Office directors had been warned four years earlier that such remote access was possible Lawyers for the Post Office sent letters threatening to sue Panorama and the company's public relations boss Mark Davies escalated complaints to ever more senior BBC managers”. The article also states: “The Post Office’s false claims did not stop the programme, but they did cause the BBC to delay the broadcast by several weeks.” As we all know, the BBC had the resources to resist a major legal action had one ensued. Only three days earlier than that article on the scandal, there was an article on 9 January 2024 on the website of the Press Gazette , which is the industry-representative body. It commented on the way in which the ITV drama about the Post Office scandal had brought to a wider audience the shocking story of the hundreds of postmasters who were wrongly prosecuted and, indeed, the four who committed suicide as a result. The article is headed, “Attention to Post Office Horizon IT scandal follows 14 years of dogged journalism”. It rightly pays tribute to the freelance reporter Nick Wallis, who wrote the famous book “The Great Post Office Scandal”, and to two other reporters, Rebecca Thomson and Karl Flinders, who both wrote numerous articles for a much smaller enterprise, a journal called Computer Weekly . In fact, it can be said that the first investigation into Horizon, which was published in 2009, was carried out by Computer Weekly after a year-long investigation by Rebecca Thomson. The investigations editor of Computer Weekly , Bill Goodwin, is quoted as saying that the magazine persisted despite “bullying letters” from the Post Office demanding to know its sources. He said: “We ignored them. Reaction was muted when the story first appeared but it initiated a slow-burn chain of events that lead to the uncovering of a scandal of enormous proportions.” I am very grateful to the Bureau of Investigative Journalism, which has already been mentioned in this debate, for providing a little more detail on what Computer Weekly faced. It has supplied me with some further embellishment, as it were, of what I have already recounted. It tells me that the general counsel for the Post Office sent threatening legal letters to Computer Weekly and that the trade magazine’s brave campaign, which continued regardless of the threats, often left it as a lone voice, with other outlets seemingly very reluctant to pick up on the important reporting with which it persisted. One legal letter from 2015 shared with the Bureau of Investigative Journalism threatened Computer Weekly over an article that said the Post Office closed a working group responsible for looking into claims against the Horizon software. The general counsel claimed that the article included a “significant number of inaccuracies” and “damaging errors” and argued that the reporters had acted improperly, stating: “We are most concerned that Computer Weekly chose to publish this highly damaging article without taking the proper steps to verify the information.” The letter acknowledged that Computer Weekly had amended its article to include Post Office comments, yet it persisted with the threats: “You should not underestimate the seriousness with which the Post Office views the publication of such damaging and inaccurate allegations. The steps taken by you in response to this letter may well influence Post Office’s decision as to any further steps it may take to protect its reputation.” It has now emerged that the Post Office took multiple aggressive actions to shut down the story about its failures over prosecutions that were sparked by the faulty Horizon software. The scandal only really spread into the mainstream press after the breakthrough moment in 2019 when Alan Bates and 554 litigants took a civil case against the Post Office to the High Court, which they won a couple of years later. Even then, as was said earlier, the full story was not widely known until the 2024 ITV drama was broadcast. In response to what the Bureau of Investigative Journalism stated, the Post Office now sings a welcome different tune. It says that the organisation is committed to supporting the ongoing public inquiry and that it is fair and right for the Post Office to be held to account by journalists. It says: “The approach of the Post Office today regarding communications is based on the knowledge that we must apologise sincerely, learn from the past, be transparent with stakeholders, and support justice and redress for those who have been impacted.” It also says that it is actively exploring additional ways to strengthen transparency. That is all well and good, after the Post Office fought so hard to cover up what had happened and close down the story of the scandal, but I will close as I began by saying that any SLAPP legislation is not meant to give anybody carte blanche to say anything they like on the basis of no evidence—to smear, belittle or denigrate people simply because they wish to target them for whatever reason. The purpose of such legislation is to stop people who know perfectly well that the accusations against them are well founded, as the Post Office knew, but who nevertheless persist in abusing the legal system because of the horrendous threat of costs that will drive people to bankruptcy or to surrendering in the face of possible bankruptcy before the issue ever gets resolved in court. Central to any SLAPP legislation must be a simplification process that ensures that a worthless case—a case with no evidence; a case that is truly a SLAPP—is thrown out at the earliest possible opportunity before unbearable costs are incurred.

• 12 Nov 2024 · House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  That sounds reasonable, except for the fact that, unless there were a phasing of the process, it would not be possible within the numbers available to the Leader of the Opposition to nominate more than a small fraction. Can the Minister offer any more flexibility on that?