Falkland Islands

Julian Lewis Excerpts

Tuesday 13th October 2026 Commons Chamber

[Uma Kumaran]

The House will understand that while legal proceedings are contemplated or under way, I will not provide a running commentary. The UK’s established position is that provisional measures ordered under the applicable international legal framework are binding on the parties, and that the UK complies with its international obligations. On the matters raised in relation to Chagos, the situation is in no way comparable.

[Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)]

May I strongly welcome all three Front-Bench statements on this vital matter? I would like to say, as someone who was politically active in 1982, that I well remember the failure of deterrence, which was partly fuelled by mass agitation for nuclear disarmament—an unrelated subject—at that time. Although the Minister says that there is no connection or parallel with the Chagos dispute, let me assure her that the signals that have been sent by the Government over Chagos are undermining of deterrence. Will she therefore make it crystal clear to Argentina now that any military action against the Falkland Islands will be met with an overwhelming military response?

[Uma Kumaran]

I will be very clear to the right hon. Gentleman that we will do everything and anything it takes to protect the Falkland Islands. We have strong support for the nuclear deterrent. On the issue of the Chagos islands, I remind Members across the House that these situations are in no way comparable and bringing domestic politics into these matters does not help us. We have a united approach on how we deal with matters of the Falkland Islands, and we should go forward in that spirit.

Iran: Threats to British Interests

Julian Lewis Excerpts

Tuesday 13th October 2026 Commons Chamber

[Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)]

Does the Minister agree with me that it sends a strange signal when people suspected of mounting a terrorist attack backed by Iran are let out on bail? Does he also share my concern at recent media reports of several—fortunately foiled—terrorist attacks that were being planned by people who came into this country illegally, on boats crossing the channel?

[Stephen Doughty]

As the right hon. Member will understand, I will not comment on the ongoing investigations into the events at RAF Fairford, or on police operational decisions, which are very much for them. However, on his broader point about threats and challenges, he will know that MI5 identified at least 15 credible Iranian-backed plots to kill or kidnap people in the UK in 2022 and 2023 alone. This is obviously activity over a sustained period of time. We have made it clear to the Iranian regime at the highest levels that this must end immediately.

Falkland Islands: Sovereignty

Julian Lewis Excerpts

Tuesday 8th September 2026 Commons Chamber

[Kirsty McNeill]

I can reassure my hon. Friend that work is ongoing across Government to ensure that everyone in the British overseas territories retains the full support of the UK Government. We are in regular dialogue with their representatives, and of course we continue to ensure that their rights to health and education and the other matters that he mentioned are uppermost in our minds at all times.

[Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)]

Do the Government accept that in order to deter any possibility of military action against the Falklands, it is important not to send the wrong signals? In 1982 there was the withdrawal of HMS Endurance specifically, but there were also huge anti-nuclear campaigns that sent the wrong message to aggressors around the world. Can the Government confirm that, this time, they will not send the wrong signals—over Diego Garcia, for example—or any suggestion that we do not have the naval and air assets to deter and, if necessary, to defend?

[Kirsty McNeill]

I am happy to confirm to the right hon. Gentleman that we are sending the most unequivocal message imaginable that the Falkland Islands are British for as long as they choose to be. It is also important to reassure the House that our forces in the south Atlantic are maintained at the appropriate level to ensure the defence of the Falkland Islands against any potential threat. The right hon. Member mentioned Diego Garcia, and I want to underscore for the House that that is a key strategic military asset for both the UK and the US. It has protected our shared security for nearly 60 years, and that is precisely why we did a deal to ensure that we could maintain the long-term operational control and security of Diego Garcia.

Israel and Palestine

Julian Lewis Excerpts

Tuesday 8th September 2026 Commons Chamber

[Ed Miliband]

My hon. Friend has played an incredibly important role in the advocacy on these issues, including through the International Development Committee, and I take all her points on board. One of the things that we will seek to do through events that will take place at the United Nations—not just the conference we are holding with Jordan, but other events that we will be announcing shortly—is precisely to try to get at these issues. The situation in Gaza is so urgent and so desperate that we must do everything we can to act.

[Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)]

Does the Foreign Secretary agree that this action is unlikely to affect the policy of the Netanyahu Government? As I hardly need to remind him, Israel is a parliamentary democracy. Has he reason to believe that this action might affect the policy of the Israeli Opposition, and did he have any contact with the Israeli Opposition parties before coming to that conclusion?

[Ed Miliband]

Absolutely; we talk with all partners in Israel. I do not want to in any sense interfere in that election. The election is for the Israeli people to make their own decisions about their future. I have set out the policy of the British Government, and I have made it clear that our quarrel is not with the Israeli people, but with the policies of the Netanyahu Government. I said something in my statement that I would just highlight to the right hon. Member, which is that we will assess the actions of any Israeli Government in the future whether on Gaza or the west bank.

Gibraltar: UK-EU Treaty

Julian Lewis Excerpts

Thursday 16th July 2026 Commons Chamber

[Stephen Doughty]

I am glad to hear about my hon. Friend’s visit. Having visited Gibraltar a number of times myself, I know that it is a truly special place to visit. Having also been caught in long queues while crossing the former border, I know how delighted I will be not to face that in the future and to be able to enjoy the wider region in Spain as well. The impact is very positive. There will be no changes to our military capability or ability to operate; our autonomy and operational capability remain the same. I think this is a new era for co-operation between the UK and Spain as NATO allies and in many different areas, and this treaty sets a new spirit for that co-operation going forward.

[Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)]

May I warmly endorse what the Minister said about the Falkland Islands, and ask a question or two about security aspects? Given that both we and Spain are in NATO, the reassurances about the sovereignty of the base are welcome. Can the Minister confirm that on those occasions when military assets, including munitions, have to be moved into the area, the report that I have seen suggesting that everything about munitions has to be reported to the Spanish authorities does not mean that this cannot be done in secrecy when that is required? Finally, with regard to the border, is there any danger that, without the land border, people will be enabled to get on an aeroplane and come to the UK who might pose a security threat, and then we would be in difficulty sending them back? Hopefully none of those fears is warranted, but I would like to hear that from the Minister.

[Stephen Doughty]

As always, the right hon. Gentleman asks important questions. I can absolutely assure him that there is no change in the ability to operate in the way that we have done from Gibraltar in the past. Indeed, I welcome the new co-operation with our Spanish friends—our NATO allies. All the appropriate liaison will take place, but our ability to operate will not be affected in any way. That was an absolute red line for us.

The right hon. Gentleman can be absolutely assured that the wider security concerns were a key part of our discussions. They are important for Spain, they are important for us, they are important locally, and they are obviously important given air travel from Gibraltar. I will not go into the operational details in the House today, but he can be assured of that.

NATO Summit

Julian Lewis Excerpts

Thursday 9th July 2026 Commons Chamber

[Yvette Cooper]

I can tell the right hon. Gentleman that there were extensive discussions at the NATO summit about air defences for Ukraine and the potential to mobilise a wide range of different partners and allies from across the world who may have other capabilities which could provide immediate and short-term support. I know that the right hon. Gentleman is not disappointed to see me at the Dispatch Box. I saw the Prime Minister at the NATO summit in a series of meetings, bilaterals and in the main NATO council, too. He was continually raising the importance of our 100% solidarity with Ukraine, our support for NATO and our commitment to these long-term defence partnerships for the future. He was also seeking to raise at the highest of levels the issues around Sudan, which are about our values and our interests. I pay tribute to everything that the Prime Minister has done over the past two years to put the UK back on the world stage.

[Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)]

Having criticised successive coalition, Conservative and Labour Governments for inadequate defence spending, may I yet again remind the Foreign Secretary that during the 1980s we successfully came through the height of the cold war by spending between 4% and 5% of GDP on defence, and that was without creative accounting? On a more positive note, did she detect the seeming shift in the attitude of the American President towards the Ukraine conflict? Is that because he just wants, as always, to be on what he perceives to be the winning side, or is it a sign that the depredations of the killer in the Kremlin are finally getting through to the occupant of the White House?

[Yvette Cooper]

I pay tribute to the right hon. Member for being liberal in his criticism of all Governments—I accept that point. The US assessment of what is happening recognises Ukraine’s strength and resilience and the fact that, despite all the initial expectations that Putin would win the war easily, the opposite has been the case. It is also recognition of some of the links between Russia and Iran and their shared technologies and support, and how those relate to the security threats we face. It recognises the breadth of the Russian threats to NATO allies, but in particular Russia’s failings in Ukraine and the strength of Ukraine’s response and the willingness to support Ukraine in that.

Middle East

Julian Lewis Excerpts

Tuesday 9th June 2026 Commons Chamber

[Yvette Cooper]

I do agree with my hon. Friend. What is going on is being talked about as, in effect, annexation of parts of the west bank. It is not simply about a small rogue group going against the intentions of the Israeli Government. The E1 settlement has been authorised and promoted by the Israeli Government, yet it is illegal. It goes against any prospects for peace and security in the region. Frankly, it is ultimately damaging for the security of Israel as well as for peace, security and justice for the people of Palestine. That is why we will continue to pursue this issue.

However, I think we have to combine two things: what we can do with our own sanctions regime, working with our closest allies on such measures and on applying pressure; and promoting the wider international consensus and energy that we briefly had in the autumn—it had built up over many months—and that we must rebuild now.

[Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)]

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?

[Yvette Cooper]

Hezbollah is a dangerous terrorist organisation. It is undermining the security of the people of Lebanon. We support the Lebanese Government and the Lebanese armed forces in taking action against Hezbollah. We are providing them with direct support, including funding and capabilities support, because we believe it is hugely important that they should be able to do this with international support. We also think, frankly, that Iran should be putting pressure on its proxies, rather than using proxies to escalate tensions and to escalate activity, so we are putting pressure on Iran to put pressure on Hezbollah.

Cuba: Humanitarian Situation

Julian Lewis Excerpts

Monday 8th June 2026 Commons Chamber

[Chris Elmore]

We continue to have the dialogue I have mentioned in previous answers, and we continue to be of the very strong view that diplomatic courses of action are the best way forward. We also continue to respect the UN charter and the wider multilateral system, including the international rule of law. We would expect, as a member of the UN Security Council and the General Assembly, all countries to follow that position.

[Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)]

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?

[Chris Elmore]

The right hon. Gentleman makes a fair point. Work goes on constantly to try to work through how there can be a move towards the decisions of Cuba being for the Cuban people. I would point out that our bilateral relationship has been in existence for more than 100 years. I say that not just for the sake of it; we have been able to have those frank and difficult conversations because we have kept the relationship open. We will continue to have those difficult conversations, whether with the ambassador or with Ministers in the Cuban system, because we want to do the very best we can for the Cuban people.

Referral of Prime Minister to Committee of Privileges

Julian Lewis Excerpts

Tuesday 28th April 2026 Commons Chamber

[Sam Rushworth]

I simply disagree. Pressure to get things done is part and parcel of what we do in government all the time. I am always under pressure and under deadlines. On the central allegation that the Prime Minister somehow pressured them with regard to the decision, I am sorry but the evidence has not pointed to that in any shape or form.

[Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)]

rose—

[Dr Chowns]

rose—

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Julian Lewis]

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

[Darren Jones]

I will not—[Interruption.] I will happily give way in due course, but I want to turn to the substance of the motion first.

In recent weeks, some have accused the Prime Minister of dishonesty, saying that there was no way that Foreign Office officials would have given Peter Mandelson clearance against the vetting agency’s recommendation, let alone without checking with the Prime Minister himself. The Leader of the Opposition herself on BBC Radio 4 said, “He knew”, and that

“I know he is lying”.

However, the testimony provided by Sir Olly Robbins has disproved those accusations without further question. So rather than focus on the issues affecting our constituents and the country most, what do Opposition Members do? They try to shift the goalposts, and they have tried again and again to make their arguments fit.

Today alone, we have heard Opposition Members bounce from one accusation to another in a desperate search for something that will stick. We have been subjected to the ranting incoherence of the Leader of the Opposition while she was in search of something that she could use to justify today’s politically motivated spectacle—[Interruption.]

[Darren Jones]

I think we have heard enough of the ranting incoherence of the Leader of the Opposition.

Let us take the specific allegations in turn. First, as to whether the Prime Minister was correct when he said “full due process” was followed, yesterday the Government deposited a letter from the then Cabinet Secretary, Sir Chris Wormald, in the Library of the House. In that letter, it is clear that he was specifically asked by the Prime Minister to review whether due process was followed in the appointment, and he confirmed that it was.

Last week, the former permanent under-secretary at the Foreign Office, Sir Olly Robbins, stated to the Foreign Affairs Committee that his Department followed that process. We have also heard the Cabinet Office permanent secretary’s evidence, which covered this issue in great detail. Catherine Little stated unequivocally that “due process was followed” in relation to Peter Mandelson’s vetting.

[Sir Julian Lewis]

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?

[Darren Jones]

The right hon. Gentleman should listen to my speech. I have just said that Catherine Little, Sir Chris Wormald and Sir Olly Robbins all agree on the point that due process was followed. When the Prime Minister received new information about the UKSV process this month, he immediately asked for the full facts to be established and he then come to this House on 20 April.

On the statement that Peter Mandelson’s appointment was “subject to developed vetting”, the Prime Minister has always been clear that this appointment was in line with the processes at the time. I understand that there have been some questions about this process, but to be clear, as Sir Olly Robbins told the Foreign Affairs Committee in November:

“As is normally the case with external appointments to my Department…the appointment was made subject to obtaining security clearance.”

As Sir Chris Wormald told the same Committee:

“The normal thing is for the security clearance to happen after appointment but before the person signs a contract and takes up post.”

And as the former Cabinet Secretary said in his letter to the Prime Minister, having conducted a review into the process,

“the vetting process was complete before the previous HMA Washington took up post on 10 February 2025, and it is more usual for security vetting to happen after appointment.”

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Speaker]

A Member of Parliament has complained to me, as has another Member. When Members are shouting “shame” at others who are voting, it is not acceptable and will not be tolerated. I hope that the people concerned will apologise to those Members they shouted at.

[Sir Julian Lewis]

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.”

[Darren Jones]

rose—

Oral Answers to Questions

Julian Lewis Excerpts

Tuesday 21st April 2026 Commons Chamber

[Stephen Doughty]

The Minister for the Cabinet Office has set out answers to those questions.

[Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)]

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?

[Yvette Cooper]

The House was not given the full information. It is important that it should be given the full information, and I have undertaken to write to the Select Committee ensuring that full, as well as accurate, information is provided.