Julian Lewis MP: speeches

Speeches

• 2 Jul 2025 · Prevention and Suppression of Terrorism · Hansard source

  More

  I must say that I never thought the day would arise when I as a non-lawyer would be advising a Government of lawyers that they need to be sure of the legal basis for what they are doing. As I said in an intervention on this subject on 23 June, “it would do the country and the Government no favours if they were to lose in court a challenge to the process of proscription, because whereas the secret sabotage of planes would certainly have been an act of terrorism leading to proscription, the fact is that this was a performative act that these people announced they had done.” —[ Official Report , 23 June 2025; Vol. 769, c. 893.] My question for the Government is this: will they at least adopt a belt-and-braces policy when it comes to the prosecution of the people who did that terribly irresponsible and wrong-headed act of sabotaging those planes? Will they also prosecute them on the basis that they have done criminal damage, and have attacked the forces of the Crown and thereby done something that borders on sedition? Otherwise, by using the wrong aspects of the law to pursue people who did some very bad things indeed, I fear the Government will end up scoring an own goal, and these people will walk free with a court triumph under their belt. Although it is justified by the unacceptable behaviour of the perpetrators, I am not convinced that the policy that the Government have adopted will stand up in court, when there are plenty of other legal methods that could be used to deal with this form of extremism. It is extremism, but it does not, in my opinion, pass the threshold to be classified as terrorism, in the legal sense. If I had been able to accept the Minister’s offer to have a word with me on Privy Council terms before the debate—I thank him for that offer, and I am sorry that I was not able to take it up—he may have been able to tell me things about Palestine Action that would have convinced me that it crossed that threshold. However, if the Minister is not able to say those things in public—there may be very good reasons why he is not—then I suspect he will not be able to tell them to the courts, either. Nobody can accuse me of being soft on anti-militarist extremist groups, but I say to the Government, with the best will in the world, that they must adopt a legal belt-and-braces policy when it comes to prosecuting this group, and not rely on this proscription alone, because I fear that I see trouble ahead from m’learned friends.

• 2 Jul 2025 · Defence · Hansard source

  More

  Whenever my right hon. Friend and other members of the Conservative shadow defence team bring up the question of reopening this lawfare against our veterans, Government Ministers say, “We will be sure to give veterans maximum support.” To me, that implies not protecting them from the lawfare, but supporting them as they go through the process; but the process is the punishment. Everybody knows that people involved in fatal incidents would serve only a limited prison term if, heaven forbid, they were convicted, but the probability is that they will not be convicted; the punishment lies in what they have to go through before they are acquitted.

• 30 Jun 2025 · Deprivation of Citizenship Orders (Effect during Appeal) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I have some sympathy with my right hon. Friend’s argument, but surely the effect of this change will kick in only if, in the end, the Government’s appeal succeeds. Therefore, it will be the case that the court previously was wrong; otherwise, the Government’s appeal against its decision will not succeed.

• 23 Jun 2025 · UK Military Base Protection · Hansard source

  More

  I must say that I am very surprised that the Home Secretary chose to put out a written statement, rather than making an oral statement, when we could have put to her some of these points about what exactly qualifies a group to be proscribed as a terrorist organisation. I entirely agree with the sentiment in the House that Palestine Action sabotaged these planes, caused criminal damage and could be liable to a charge of criminal conspiracy, and that the people who did the damage should be pursued for remuneration to the point of bankruptcy. However, it would do the country and the Government no favours if they were to lose in court a challenge to the process of proscription, because whereas the secret sabotage of planes would certainly have been an act of terrorism leading to proscription, the fact is that this was a performative act that these people announced they had done. My advice to the Government is to make sure, when these people are prosecuted, that it is not solely on the grounds of committing terrorist acts, rather than committing treasonous acts of sabotage.

• 22 May 2025 · Diego Garcia Military Base · Hansard source

  More

  When a former Foreign Secretary asks a sitting Defence Secretary for a direct answer as to which court would be able to make a binding judgment against us on this matter, he is entitled to a direct answer, so will the Secretary of State now give that direct answer?

• 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.

• 6 May 2025 · Counter Terrorism Policing: Arrests · Hansard source

  More

  In the fullness of time, it will undoubtedly be revealed what the targets of these terrorist plots were going to be. If it turns out that one of them was again the broadcaster Iran International, which had to relocate to Washington temporarily in 2023, will the Minister undertake to speak with his Foreign Office colleagues about the importance of impressing on the Trump Administration that these repressive regimes fear free broadcasting agencies, and that that is why the Trump Administration should not be closing down Radio Free Europe, Radio Liberty or indeed Voice of America itself?

• 24 Apr 2025 · Ukraine War: London Talks · Hansard source

  More

  If the Government could persuade the Nobel peace prize committee to give the award to Donald Trump on condition that he stops siding with the aggressor against the victim, does the Minister think that American policy might revert to one of NATO deterrence, which prevented world war three for half a century after the end of world war two?

• 23 Apr 2025 · Hair and Beauty Sector: Government Policy · Hansard source

  More

  I know it is not the main thrust of my hon. Friend’s argument, but does she share my concern at the detailed exposés at the end of March in the Evening Standard and The Sunday Times about the huge proliferation of barber shops, which could not possibly all be conducting legitimate trade? For example, the Evening Standard talked about 17 barbers in and around a two-mile stretch of Streatham High Road, and about 25 on a similarly sized section of Kingsland Road between Stoke Newington and Haggerston. That is clearly criminal activity on a major scale.

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

  More

  The right hon. Lady has just said something very important: namely, that she would normally expect a pre-sentence report to be given in all, or at least almost all, cases. I hope that is her position, because what seems unfair to me is that a pre-sentence report, which presumably enables people to present arguments in mitigation, should be available to some people who have been convicted of a crime but not to others. Surely it should be available either to everyone or to no one, because everyone’s individual circumstances deserve the same degree of consideration.

• 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.

• 2 Apr 2025 · Clonoe Inquest · Hansard source

  More

  May I remind the Secretary of State that, at a hearing in 2017, the Defence Committee took evidence from four distinguished professors of law, including Philippe Sands, with whose work he is no doubt very familiar, and they made it very clear to us that in principle there was nothing illegal about having a statute of limitation, provided that it was accompanied by a truth recovery process? That met the requirement of avoiding the otherwise illegal act of giving impunity for crimes committed. The Secretary of State says that there were technical problems with the previous legislation that rendered it in some respects illegal, but will he not accept that the persecution of elderly veterans—which cannot, in the end, lead to anyone spending more than two years in prison anyway, given the Northern Ireland (Sentences) Act 1998—will continue unless and until some form of legislation is put back in place to draw a line under prosecutions and to fulfil the other part of the requirement by a truth recovery process? Whatever he thinks about the specific legislation they are repealing, will he not accept the principle that that is the only way to protect people against this form of legalistic persecution?

• 27 Mar 2025 · Hughes Report: First Anniversary · Hansard source

  More

  That is exactly right. The problem is that people are going back for partial remediation time and time again, and it is not achieving the desired outcome. When we move on to the question of how someone can get financial redress other than by virtue of a Government scheme, we find that of the 1,252 legal cases initiated between 2014 and 2024, only 356 were settled in or out of court with damages, but 678 were concluded without any such damages being awarded. I understand that many of those rejected were rejected because they were out of time, which leads me back to a point that I highlighted during the previous debate we had on this, in December 2024, in which it was pointed out that the 10-year limit on initiating action arising out of medical devices needs to be extended because, in this particular case, the limit has often long passed before it can be established that the victim was damaged by mesh in the first place. I said we should remember that minimum figure of at least 10,000 mesh-damaged women and bear in mind that out of that pretty large figure—and the real figure is probably much larger still—only 1,200 legal actions were initiated. That is hardly surprising because of the extra burden placed on someone initiating a legal action. I would also like to look at the question of removal centres. There are nine of these specialist centres, and we have established that people who are justifiably extremely worried about going back to one of them that might be run by the very person who inserted the mesh, do have the option of visiting other centres. However, when it comes to waiting times there is a huge variation. The waiting time for Bristol, which has a particularly high reputation, is much longer than for some of the other centres. Finally, on the question of financial support, we know that the Government have had to take moves to deal with the question of personal independence payments. We hope that will not affect these victims adversely.

• 11 Mar 2025 · European Remembrance Day for Victims of Terrorism · Hansard source

  More

  I am very grateful to the right hon. Gentleman. He talks of truth and justice. He will be aware that the Northern Ireland (Sentences) Act 1998 means that if prosecutions carry on, no one will serve more than two years in jail. If prosecutions carry on, people will do everything they can to cover up the truth in defending themselves. When people criticise the legacy Act, which did propose a truth and reconciliation commission, are they not really criticising a measure that would have given them a much better opportunity for the truth to come out, once the threat of prosecutions was removed, given that the punishment would not fit the crime even if someone was found guilty?

• 10 Mar 2025 · Crime and Policing Bill · Hansard source

  More

  It would also help if it were made mandatory for all cyclists to have a bell, so that they could at least warn pedestrians of their approach.

• 10 Mar 2025 · Crime and Policing Bill · Hansard source

  More

  It seems to me that the Government’s good work in this Bill in criminalising the possession of knives with intent will be undermined if the police have to wait for someone to take out the knife and commit an attack before they can discover whether they have a knife. Surely, if there is a separate offence arising from mere possession, as my right hon. Friend says, it is particularly important to enable the police to discover that someone possesses that knife before they have had a chance to do harm with it.

• 5 Mar 2025 · Courts and Tribunals: Sitting Days · Hansard source

  More

  Does the Lord Chancellor accept that part of the reason for the loss of public confidence lies with the sort of cases that are clogging up tribunal and court time? As explained by Jawad Iqbal in his column in The Times today, these involve dubious decisions about not being able to deport convicted criminals, such as an Iraqi cocaine dealer who cannot be sent back to his homeland because he is considered to be “too westernised”. Quite apart from the perversity of the result, is it not an insult to the genuine victims of crimes who are held up in getting the judgments that they deserve?

• 26 Feb 2025 · British Indian Ocean Territory · Hansard source

  More

  I have a lot of respect for the hon. Lady, and that is why I will have one more go at this: is there any court, other than the ICJ, that could come to a judgment against Britain over the sovereignty of the islands?

• 26 Feb 2025 · British Indian Ocean Territory · Hansard source

  More

  The Minister is putting up a gallant fight in a very difficult situation. For the avoidance of doubt, is she saying that there is another court—other than the ICJ—that could compel this country to give up the Chagos islands? If so, will she identify that court?

• 10 Feb 2025 · Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I know that the Home Secretary is doing her best to cover the waterfront—almost literally—but is not part of the problem that so many of the criminal gang organisers are outside our jurisdiction? How will these new laws apply to people we cannot reach?

• 10 Feb 2025 · Rosebank and Jackdaw Oilfields · Hansard source

  More

  Am I right in thinking that if the Government take the factors around emissions into account in a future application, it will not be for the court to then say that having taken them into account, the Government have arrived at the wrong decision in wanting to proceed? Surely, it is for the Government to decide whether to proceed, not the courts?

• 13 Jan 2025 · Tackling Crime: Newcastle-under-Lyme · Hansard source

  More

  Thank you, Mr Speaker. Does the Minister accept that it would greatly assist the police to investigate crime in Newcastle-under-Lyme, and indeed elsewhere, if they were not spending an estimated 60,000 hours investigating and recording so-called non-crime hate incidents?

• 18 Dec 2024 · Post Office Redress and Funding · Hansard source

  More

  I am glad that the Minister chose to reference the excellent work done on behalf of the postmasters by Lord Beamish, who is better known to many of us as our former colleague Kevan Jones. I hope that the whole House will join me in congratulating him on his appointment today as the new Chairman of the Intelligence and Security Committee—an appointment, by the way, by his fellow Committee members, which is exactly as it should be done. May I gently ask the Minister—this may go slightly outwith his Department’s responsibilities—whether there is any news or progress about the question of prosecutions for criminal conspiracy? That is something I have raised before. That is one thing that might act as a deterrent to this sort of terrible behaviour by a gilded, self-selecting class of people who think that their institutional importance is greater than truth or justice.

• 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—