Julian Lewis MP: speeches

Speeches

• 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?

• 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.

• 18 Mar 2026 · Points of Order · Hansard source

  More

  On a point of order, Mr Speaker. You have clearly explained that you are not responsible for the quality, or lack of it, in a Minister’s answers—or even a Prime Minister’s answers—but can you explain for the benefit of the House and the viewing public what Prime Minister’s questions is supposed to be about: namely, that the Opposition and other right hon. and hon. Members get to ask the Prime Minister a question about a subject of their choice, and that it is not an opportunity for him to then berate them for not asking a question about a completely different subject that he wishes had been asked?

• 9 Mar 2026 · Middle East: Defence · Hansard source

  More

  I am not particularly keen on the tone of these exchanges, so may I make a positive suggestion to the Secretary of State? We have heard that Ukraine has offered to assist the United States with its specialised version of anti-Iranian drone technology. These weapons for bringing down Iranian drones are much cheaper than the drones themselves, whereas the weapons that we and the Americans generally use are much more expensive. Given the difficult relationship between Zelensky and Trump, does the Secretary of State agree that there is a role here for Britain, with its high standing in Ukraine, to see if we can make a start by acquiring from Ukraine some of these weapons, which we can use in the defence of our own bases and which may then pave the way for a deal between Trump and Zelensky for the wider benefit of the whole theatre?

• 11 Feb 2026 · Hughes Report: Second Anniversary · Hansard source

  More

  I will try to add something new to the excellent start to the debate by both the previous speakers, who showed a great command of the overall situation, by quoting my constituent Emma, who got in touch with me yesterday after learning that the debate would take place. I will briefly summarise her concerns, which she set out in the following way: “In the main, the point is that so many have been injured, left on NHS waiting lists, paying for prescriptions and transport to and from appointments. Not being able to work—or restricted working hours. Limited access to PIP…Very little support for those who had mortgages due to the benefit system not supporting mortgage costs” and “loss of pension contributions, as none of us is getting any younger.” This lady is exceptionally strong. Despite the injuries she suffered personally, she has been a rock and a leader for other mesh-injured women in or near my constituency. I hold her in the highest esteem; in fact, I salute her courage. What she has to say is, in a sense, an argument that has already been won. The Cumberlege report won that argument, and the Hughes report wanted to recommend what should happen next. I am delighted to see Henrietta Hughes in the Gallery—and seemingly acknowledging that I am right about that difference between the two reports. Let me briefly quote from Henrietta Hughes’s admirably concise list of 10 recommendations. Recommendation 1 was: “The government has a responsibility to create an ex-gratia redress scheme providing financial and non-financial redress for those harmed by valproate and pelvic mesh. This scheme should be based on the principles of restorative practice and be co-designed with harmed patients.” Recommendation 3 was: “The government should create a two-stage financial redress scheme comprising an Interim Scheme and a Main Scheme.” Recommendation 4 was: “The Interim Scheme should award directly harmed patients a fixed sum by way of financial redress. These payments should start during 2025.” Recommendation 8 was: “Both the Interim Scheme and the Main Scheme should be administered by an independent body which commands the confidence of patients.” What is the point of an interim scheme? It is to recognise that there will be tremendous complexity in individual cases, but at least these mesh-injured ladies would get a minimum of help—I think £25,000 has been suggested—straightaway, while the more complex calculations can be done later. Yet despite that being the very point of an interim scheme—that we can do this quickly and work on the harder parts subsequently—we have seen no progress. What does that remind us of? It reminds me of the Post Office. It reminds me of the infected blood scandal. What do all those things have in common? A large number of people who have been injured in some way or another—either physically, or with their character or freedom damaged, often beyond repair—and who are owed very large sums of money by way of redress or compensation. We know what happens in the end: there is enough public protest to ensure that there is action. I hope that the level of public awareness is no less for this cause than it is for other, similar scandals because all the victims were women. That would be even more disgraceful than that this all happened in the first place.

• 3 Dec 2025 · Pension Schemes Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I applaud what the hon. Gentleman has said about the AEAT pensioners’ difficulties. It is quite shocking that, despite the fact that a previous Conservative pensions Minister, Paul Maynard, said that he would instruct his civil servants to work on a redress scheme, changes of Minister and Government have meant that the machine has carried on as before, even though a parliamentary Committee did an investigation, found in favour of the pensioners and said that they should get redress.

• 3 Dec 2025 · Pension Schemes Bill · Hansard source

  More

  The problem, as the Minister knows from our meeting, is that the trustees are rather hemmed in by not having the leverage or the freedom to act if the company itself—particularly if it is headquartered abroad—is disinclined to pass on any surpluses that it might have available.

• 3 Dec 2025 · Pension Schemes Bill · Hansard source

  More

  The Minister has indeed been most accessible, and I am extremely grateful to him for the meeting he held with members of the ExxonMobil pensioners group. I am still being lobbied very hard by ExxonMobil pensioners who are concerned that whereas changes introduced in the Budget will benefit members of the FAS and PPF schemes, private defined-benefit scheme members will not benefit. He knows far more about the subject than I do, but can he not see that there is a feeling that they are being discriminated against? Is there nothing he can offer to make them feel somewhat more included in the beneficial steps being taken for members of other schemes?

• 3 Dec 2025 · Pension Schemes Bill · Hansard source

  More

  May I applaud the hon. Lady’s speech? That is exactly what has happened to so many ExxonMobil pensioners in my constituency and beyond.

• 14 Oct 2025 · Speaker’s Statement · Hansard source

  More

  Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. I would like to state that Sir Ming Campbell, as he then was, was the perfect example of how it is possible to disagree with another parliamentarian on a key issue and yet work side by side on other issues without any rancour or reservation. My dealings with Ming did not get off to the best start, as we were generally on opposite sides of a debate about the replacement of Trident submarines and the replacement of continuous at-sea deterrence by part-time patrols. Nevertheless, once we got to know each other better on the Intelligence and Security Committee, we found ourselves making common cause on such issues as the safeguarding of the vital BBC Monitoring service for the future, the need to enhance spending on defence with an improved defence budgeting priority and, above all, the folly that could have happened of Britain intervening militarily in the Syrian civil war. In short, Ming brought courtesy, style, courage and grace to public life to the benefit of society as a whole.

• 10 Sept 2025 · Qatar: Israeli Strike · Hansard source

  More

  Despite the atrocious terrorist attack in Jerusalem, I have to agree with the hon. Member for Walthamstow (Ms Creasy) when she says that blowing up the enemy’s negotiators does not exactly suggest an interest in a negotiated solution. However, I would like clarification on the Government’s position on recognition of a Palestinian state. On 1 September, the then Foreign Secretary said that he proposed to recognise a Palestinian state, but that Hamas would not benefit from it, because they would have to be disarmed. Does that mean that Hamas must be disarmed before recognition, or will recognition go ahead, as seems to be the case, whether Hamas are disarmed or not?

• 4 Sept 2025 · BBC Monitoring Service · Hansard source

  More

  I could not agree more. May I take the opportunity to thank the hon. Gentleman again for the excellent debate on the BBC World Service, which he led on 26 June, if I remember correctly, and which gave me the idea to bring forward the subject of BBC Monitoring separately? Over very many years, BBC Monitoring had built up the closest conceivable relationship with its United States counterpart, known as Open Source Enterprise, or OSE. Indeed, the two organisations were based on alternate floors of the Caversham Park headquarters, dividing between them the coverage of global broadcasting to the enormous benefit of both countries in the transatlantic alliance. This was the nerve centre of world-beating open source intelligence, yet the BBC decided to evict OSE and sell the Caversham estate.

• 7 Jul 2025 · Pension Schemes Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I am extremely grateful to the Minister for taking my intervention and for the very helpful letter he sent me on 30 June about schemes of this sort, and in particular the ExxonMobil pension scheme. His letter encouragingly states: “Following our reforms, trustees will continue to consider the correct balance of interest between members and the sponsoring employer when making decisions about the release of surplus funds. Trustees will be responsible for determining how members may benefit from any release of surplus…and have a suite of options to choose from—for example, through discretionary benefit increases.” The trouble is that these pensioners have received a letter from the trustees of the ExxonMobil pension fund stating: “The power to award discretionary increases is held by Esso Petroleum Company Limited (the “Company”). Whether or not any discretionary increase is provided is for the Company to determine: the Trustee has no power to award discretionary increases itself.” This may be a loophole that the Minister needs to address. If the trustees cannot award the surplus as benefits and the company says no, that is not going to benefit my constituents.

• 7 Jul 2025 · Pension Schemes Bill · Hansard source

  More

  What if it is the other way round?