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?

• 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

  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.

• 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?

• 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?

• 10 Jun 2026 · Belfast: Violent Disorder · Hansard source

  More

  Does the Minister share my concern that, irrespective of the personal motivation of the perpetrator, the circumstances by which he came into this country send a signal to those ideological movements abroad that wish us harm that there is a very easy back door by which they can infiltrate this country? If an operation of that sort is mounted in the future, what sort of violent response will there be to a spectacular terrorist attack that could and should have been prevented by secure borders?

• 9 Jun 2026 · Middle East · Hansard source

  More

  Does the Foreign Secretary accept that repeatedly saying that a terrorist group must do something does not make it happen? When she says that Hezbollah “must end these dangerous attacks and disarm”, does she expect this to happen voluntarily, and if not, how does she expect it to be brought about?

• 8 Jun 2026 · Cuba: Humanitarian Situation · Hansard source

  More

  I entirely agree with the Minister when he says that the future of Cuba should be decided by the Cuban people. What assessment have the Government made of the likelihood of the Cuban Government ever allowing the Cuban people to take those decisions?

• 3 Jun 2026 · Lord Mandelson: Response to Humble Address · Hansard source

  More

  rose —

• 3 Jun 2026 · Lord Mandelson: Response to Humble Address · Hansard source

  More

  As the right hon. Gentleman is going to talk about process, I would be very grateful if he could clear up one matter. I have a high regard for the right hon. Gentleman’s integrity, and so I hope he will not dance around this subject, as has been done by others in the past. In the first tranche of documents there were a number of notes sent by private secretaries to the Prime Minister. If I were allowed to use a prop, I would open the documents to pages 3 and 8, where Members would see notes discussing the situation as regards how to appoint the ambassador, Peter Mandelson and so forth. Under those notes are big boxes headed “Prime Minister Comments”. The normal course of action when a Prime Minister receives a document of that sort is that he notes down his response to it. These boxes are totally blank. My simple question to the right hon. Gentleman is this: are they blank because the Prime Minister made no notes whatsoever or because any notes that the Prime Minister made have been redacted and removed? The Intelligence and Security Committee deals routinely with even more sensitive material, and every time there is a redaction in a publication, there are three asterisks to show that the redaction has taken place. Have there been redactions of the Prime Minister’s notes on these memorandums that were sent to him for decision?

• 3 Jun 2026 · Lord Mandelson: Response to Humble Address · Hansard source

  More

  I am grateful to the hon. Lady for giving way again. She could still develop her case if she talked about parliamentary Committees in general, but I chaired the ISC for four years, and, as I said in an earlier intervention, the ISC has been in existence since 1994. The ISC never leaks. If it did leak, the person who leaked anything would be criminally prosecuted. There is no question, if these vetting documents were shown to the ISC, of its having a chilling effect on anything, because the ISC is hermetically sealed. It does not leak about far more important things than the miserable private life of Peter Mandelson.

• 3 Jun 2026 · Lord Mandelson: Response to Humble Address · Hansard source

  More

  Surely that information would be precisely the kind that could be safely entrusted to the ISC, and it ought to have been entrusted with it.

• 3 Jun 2026 · Lord Mandelson: Response to Humble Address · Hansard source

  More

  rose —

• 3 Jun 2026 · Lord Mandelson: Response to Humble Address · Hansard source

  More

  I entirely agree with what the hon. Lady is saying. Does she agree with me about this? We have established clearly that those blank boxes, in which the Prime Minister could have made a comment when he was given the crucial information and the options leading up to the appointment of Mandelson, were intentionally blank. They are there precisely for the Prime Minister to record his response and, indeed, his decision. The fact that they were not redacted, but were genuinely blank, suggests to me—I cannot think of any other explanation—that the Prime Minister did not want to fill them in because he knew that there was something shameful about the appointment he was about to approve, and he did not want it on the record.

• 3 Jun 2026 · Lord Mandelson: Response to Humble Address · Hansard source

  More

  I want to clear up the point about precedents. It may be that I am wrong about this, but I do not think there is any precedent for the House deciding that the Intelligence and Security Committee specifically should look at material that was to be redacted before it went to the public. The Intelligence and Security Committee, as the Minister well knows, was founded in 1994. Since that time, there has never been even one leak from the Committee. So there is no comparison between making things available to the Intelligence and Security Committee—the only parliamentary body entitled to see highly classified material, and one which never leaks—and to any other body. While he says, “This is all led by officials. It is okay for the officials to see it, but not to release it to anyone else,” the reason the ISC was chosen for the motion is that it is within the ring of secrecy, and that is unaffected by any precedents regarding bodies that do not have that special status.

• 1 Jun 2026 · Lord Mandelson Humble Address: Government Response · Hansard source

  More

  I think the country has a right to know how the Prime Minister reacted at the end of Mandelson’s vetting process. Have the Prime Minister’s comments on the outcome of the vetting been released, are they being withheld, or are we expected to believe that he made no comment about it at all?

• 19 May 2026 · Lord Mandelson: Government Response to Humble Address · Hansard source

  More

  In more than 30 years of its existence, the Intelligence and Security Committee has never once suffered from a leak. Therefore, anything that is disclosed to it, no matter how sensitive, is not going to be published. Therefore, the question of it undermining the security vetting process if such raw data were published does not arise, because the ISC is the one parliamentary body guaranteed to ensure that that does not happen. So can the Minister stop obfuscating on that aspect and can he confirm that, irrespective of the question of the raw data, what will definitely be made available to the ISC, if it has not been already, are the annotations and the documents that show how an initial failure to pass vetting for Lord Mandelson became a decision to approve him and state that he had been successful in getting through the process?

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

  More

  I thank the Minister for giving way. Would not “full due process” have required the vetting to be completed before announcing the appointment, as was advised by the then Cabinet Secretary and then ignored or overruled by the Prime Minister personally?

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

  More

  On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Out of 190 questions for written answer that I have put down in this Session, which is coming to its close, all but one have been answered. The exception is one that I mentioned on the Floor of the House yesterday during the statement by the Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister. He responded: “I always ensure that I honour parliamentary questions in a timely fashion.” —[ Official Report , 27 April 2026; Vol. 784, c. 598.] The last day for answering this question is today, and it so far has not been answered, so I wonder if I might give the Chief Secretary the opportunity to answer it now. It is this: “To ask the Prime Minister who first suggested to him that Peter Mandelson should be appointed as Ambassador to the United States.”

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

  More

  Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

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

  More

  rose —

• 27 Apr 2026 · Lord Mandelson Humble Address: Government Response Update · Hansard source

  More

  The Government are keen to emphasise their transparency in the course of dealing with the Humble Address requests and demands, so here is an opportunity to put that to the test. Last Tuesday, I put down a question for written answer by the Prime Minister: “To ask the Prime Minister who first suggested to him that Peter Mandelson should be appointed as Ambassador to the United States.” It was accepted and published as such by the Table Office. Subsequently, it has been transferred to the Cabinet Office, for which he has responsibility. It is due to be answered tomorrow. Will the Minister give the answer to that question tomorrow, on time and substantively?

• 21 Apr 2026 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  Does the Foreign Secretary accept that, as a matter of objective fact, this House was misled about the circumstances of Mandelson’s security vetting, even if that misleading was inadvertent?

• 20 Apr 2026 · Security Vetting · Hansard source

  More

  Who first suggested to the Prime Minister that Mandelson should be appointed as our ambassador to the United States, or was it just his own idea? Did it never cross his mind that Mandelson was at risk of failing the vetting process? Before sacking Oliver Robbins last week, did the Prime Minister ask him why he overruled the verdict of the security vetters, and if so, what was his explanation?