Infected Blood Compensation Scheme

Julian Lewis Excerpts

Thursday 30th October 2025 Commons Chamber

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

The straight answer is yes. My hon. Friend is a powerful advocate for the victims in his constituency of Easington. Whether for hepatitis C victims or the other victims of this scandal, I want the consultation to be as accessible as possible, and I very much hope that he will encourage his constituents to respond to it.

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

The Minister is clearly totally committed to this subject, and I thank him for the way in which he reaches out to the MPs he knows have an interest in it. Will he join me in commending IBCA for the quality of its communications? Both the website and the MPs’ toolkit recently sent out could not be more free of jargon, which sets an excellent example.

Going back to the point raised by the chair of the APPG, the hon. Member for Eltham and Chislehurst (Clive Efford), as I understand it, if a compensation grant is made to the family of someone who has already died, those relatives will receive it tax-free, but if the grant is made to the individual shortly before their death, the very same family members might have to pay inheritance tax on it. That is clearly an anomaly, so will the Minister speak to the Treasury about it?

China Spying Case

Julian Lewis Excerpts

Tuesday 28th October 2025 Commons Chamber

[Alex Burghart (Brentwood and Ongar) (Con)]

I beg to move,

That this House calls on the Government to release the minutes of the meeting chaired by the National Security Adviser on 1 September 2025, at which the prosecution of the two alleged Chinese spies, since dropped by the Crown Prosecution Service, was discussed, including all actions arising from that meeting; and further calls on the Government to publish the minutes of all other meetings where the case was discussed, whether by officials or with Ministers, all relevant correspondence between the Crown Prosecution Service and the Government and between Departments, including correspondence between the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office, Cabinet Office, Attorney General’s Office, and the Treasury, and advice provided to the Prime Minister relating to the China spy case.

The purpose of this Opposition day debate and of our motion is very simple: transparency—that is all that we ask for. The basic facts are that two men were arrested on suspicion of having spied on hon. Members of this House for China, and the Director of Public Prosecutions has acknowledged that this appears to have been a “gross breach of trust” against hon. Members, yet the case against the two men collapsed because, in the words of the senior Treasury counsel, Tom Little KC, the case was “effectively unsustainable”; it was brought to “a crashing halt” because the Government’s own witness, the deputy National Security Adviser, refused to provide the fatal piece of evidence.

Mr Little had what he called a million-dollar question: was China an active threat to national security? The deputy National Security Adviser repeatedly refused to say yes. The Government effectively refused to say what was patently apparent to anyone remotely alive to the facts of the case. This House has every reason to be told why they refused, and why, for example, the Prime Minister did not intervene to prevent the case collapsing, when we know he was warned that it was unlikely to proceed. It is also reported that the Home Secretary tried to intervene.

We do not call for the publication of this material lightly. We know it is an extraordinary measure to call for the Government to publish documents relating to the formation of policy, but this is an extraordinary event. We have reached this point because the Government have been unable or unwilling to answer basic questions about what they knew when, and why they acted as they did. They have hidden behind civil servants and advisers, when it is Ministers who are supposed to make decisions, and in doing so, they have brought the actions and decisions of those advisers and officials into the spotlight in a way that is most irregular.

Just as worryingly, there has been a persistent inaccuracy and inconsistency in the Government’s statements, to the point where this House can no longer trust a word of theirs. There are a number of examples. First, on 13 October, the Security Minister denied in this House that the mega-mandarin meeting on 1 September, which is the subject of our motion, took place. Last week, the Solicitor General admitted that the meeting did take place. We now know that it was led by the National Security Adviser and attended by the Cabinet Secretary, the permanent under-secretary at the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office, senior representation from the Home Office and the Attorney General’s office, and the chief of MI5, but we still do not know what was said there, what was agreed or why the Government tried to deny its existence.

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

I was interested to see that the National Security Adviser was listed as being involved in that meeting. The National Security Adviser is a political appointee—he is a special adviser—and that is usually the reason why the deputy National Security Adviser is put forward to take all the flak. If the NSA himself is participating in policy meetings about this matter, why does he not come forward? Why is he sheltering behind a full-time official who is being hung out to dry?

[Alex Burghart]

My right hon. Friend makes a very pertinent point and is personally very experienced in such things. It has been reported that the National Security Adviser chaired that meeting. That is to say that he was taking a very active role in what was going on. That is why it is incredibly important that the Government come clean with us about what happened in that meeting, who attended and what was decided there.

--- Later in debate ---

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

I will tell the hon. Gentleman exactly what would have made a massive difference: if we could have updated the Official Secrets Act far sooner than 2023. That would have made a material difference. This case was being prosecuted under a 1911 Act. The National Security Act was passed in 2023. If only the shadow Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster had been in the Cabinet Office to be close to what was going on; perhaps the legislation could have been changed at an earlier stage and we would not be in this position.

Let me be clear with the House: the allegations of political interference in this case are absolutely baseless. The CPS decision to discontinue the case was independent of Government. Indeed, the Opposition should ask what the Director of Public Prosecutions himself said about that; he reiterated it again yesterday when he gave evidence, sitting alongside Tom Little KC.

[Sir Julian Lewis]

Can the Minister explain to the House, once and for all, how it is possible for a Government to believe that China is responsible for posing a wide range of threats, but is not a threat itself? He would clear matters up, and allay suspicions that the Government are holding back for economic reasons, if he would simply say that China is a threat to our national security. Will he say that?

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

China poses a multiplicity of threats; it poses a threat in terms of espionage, in terms of cyber, and in terms of economic security. However, with the greatest respect to the right hon. Gentleman, the issue is whether it was considered a threat at the material time, and I cannot go back and change that.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Geoffrey Cox]

No, I will not—too short of time.

There was nothing to prevent that because it was a question of fact. The fact is that the Government were not prepared to change their approach. It is a perfectly legitimate point for the right hon. Member for Torfaen to say to me, “Back in 2021, the policy of the Government was not to describe China as an enemy,” but at that time, we had not had the spying, the intimidation, and the direct targeting of this institution and the democratic assembly of our people that we have now seen by 2025. Things have moved on, and it was incumbent upon the Government to reconsider their approach, which was that they would not describe a duck as a duck. The witness was prepared to say, “It has webbed feet, it swims, it quacks, it has a bill—but we are not prepared to call it a duck.”

Are you telling me, Madam Deputy Speaker, that the right hon. Gentleman can look this House in the eye and say that nobody raised this problem inside No. 10 and said, “We have a policy problem. It is a roadblock to this case. What are we going to do about it?”? Is he saying that that was never discussed with the National Security Adviser, that the DNSA never raised that with any relevant Minister? The Attorney General, when he met on 3 September, said, “Well, I couldn’t intervene on matters of sufficiency of evidence.” That is perfectly true; he cannot intervene, but he could challenge. He could say, “What do you need? Is there anything I can do by way of intercession with ministries to ensure that you get the evidence that you require?” But nothing was said. Nothing was said on 3 September because “nothing” was the policy of the Government. It was to wait while this case slid down the slope straight into the pan where no doubt many of the, not inaptly named, mandarins of Whitehall were perfectly content to see it slide.

There is extraordinary cheek in the right hon. Gentleman, who came to this House four or five years ago with his Humble Address when he asked for legal advice—advice on the most sensitive negotiating matters that this country was engaged in with the Berlaymont—to be disclosed for all to see, now saying that we should not see the truth of what in reality the Government were saying and doing at the time.

If it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, walks like a duck, it is almost certainly a duck, and when I apply it to what the right hon. Gentleman says, it is almost certainly a complete crock of old—

[Sir Julian Lewis]

Duck!

[Sir Geoffrey Cox]

Duck.

--- Later in debate ---

[Peter Swallow (Bracknell) (Lab)]

Respect for democracy is fundamental to our British values, and to who we are as a country, but the world is increasingly an unstable place, and we can no longer be complacent about the multiple threats that our democratic norms and values face. Threats are coming from China, as we see from this espionage case, but also from other malign states, such as Russia and Iran. It is the job of all of us in the House to stand up to those threats and work in the interests of national security.

When I held a roundtable with my local Hong Kong community earlier this year to discuss proposed changes to immigration, I was saddened, but unfortunately not surprised, to hear that many members of the community chose not to attend a meeting with their local MP because they were worried about the long arm of the Chinese state, and the repercussions of the Hong Kong national security law on them and their family. Transnational repression is being used by hostile states to directly prosecute those whom they see as their enemies overseas, but it also has a wider, chilling effect, leaving whole communities afraid to engage with their basic democratic rights.

Meanwhile, I grow increasingly concerned about the influence of foreign actors on misinformation and disinformation online. In recent months, I have seen how anonymous posting on local social media groups in my community can have a pervasive effect on community cohesion and our democracy. Social media companies need to step up and do more on that. I am not suggesting that every anonymous social media post is from a Russian bot, but we all know that Russia and other states are using social media against us.

There have been direct attacks on our democracy, too, such as those from these Chinese spies. Last month, Reform UK’s former leader in Wales, Nathan Gill, pled guilty to eight counts of bribery; he was bribed to make statements in favour of Russia while he was a Member of the European Parliament.

I turn to the China spy case. Part of the reason why the case did not proceed to trial and the two gentlemen could not be prosecuted was prevarication over reforming the Official Secrets Act. The Act was introduced in 1911 —it predates the first world war—and despite unanimous recognition for at least eight years that it was completely out of date and not fit for purpose, the previous Government failed to act to fix the holes in our national security laws and left our country ill defended.

[Sir Julian Lewis]

Of course, the previous Government did subsequently introduce new legislation. However, under the 1911 Act, if the Government had been prepared to state that China was a threat, the case could have gone forward and would likely have been won. The hon. Member cannot blame that Act.

[Peter Swallow]

The case collapsed because under that Act neither Government provided enough evidence. The witness statements issued by the previous Government are a matter of record, and they do not state anywhere unequivocally that China is a threat. In fact, multiple Opposition Members have said on multiple occasions that it would not be possible to describe China unilaterally as a threat. That is a matter of record.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Law (Dundee Central) (SNP)]

I listened carefully to the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central (Gareth Snell), and I think he hit the nail on the head. I have been thinking throughout the debate that this is not just about the failure of the prosecution, but about our approach to China—not just this year, last year or during this Government; this has gone on for years and years. The sanctions were imposed in March 2021, which is four and a half years ago. Interestingly, neither the Government of the day nor the official Opposition demanded sanctions; it was the Speakers of the House of Commons and the House of Lords who responded by banning the Chinese ambassador from entering. It has been reported that at the time, the Government attempted to overturn that decision. The key point, as the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central has said, is crystal clear: all of us need to work on our lines and we need cast-iron assurances that, no matter where we have been in the past, going forward we will be very clear about the real threat that China poses.

China’s history tells us that already: six decades of military occupation in Tibet; the mass detention, re-education and forced sterilisation of the Uyghur population; we have witnessed democracy come under attack in Hong Kong time and again; and there is the ever-present threat against Taiwan. China runs a global influence operation and it has been acknowledged in this House that the united front has penetrated every sector of the United Kingdom’s economy. We have been well warned.

As I said earlier, and as has been repeated many times, in 2023 the Intelligence and Security Committee said that China was a “threat”, an “acute threat” and a “grave threat”. In 2022, the head of MI5, Ken McCallum, said that the Chinese threat

“might feel abstract. But it’s real and it’s pressing. We need to talk about it. We need to act.”

That is what we have failed to do until now.

If one of the key hinderances to the prosecution appears to be the concern that the Government would not be able to convince the jury that China was an enemy, how would the Minister describe a state that conducts long-term, large-scale espionage operations, including recruiting those who work in Parliament, and that poses a serious national security threat on these islands? Why has it taken the failure of this case for the Government to definitively state that China is a threat? Why has this position come as a response to an embarrassing political crisis?

[Sir Julian Lewis]

The hon. Gentleman is making an excellent and unanswerable case, but the trouble is that even in the circumstances of this case, the Government have not said that China is a threat. They keep saying that it poses a range of serious threats, but they keep baulking at saying that it is a threat. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman has no hesitation in saying that China is a threat, and he should challenge the Government to do likewise.

[Chris Law]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his intervention. China is a real and serious threat. I say that not just as an individual who happens to chair the all-party parliamentary group on Tibet, who is anxious about being spied on too, but on behalf of my party and of colleagues across the House who feel the real and present threat not only to ourselves but to our constituents.

Why has this position come as a response to an embarrassing political crisis, rather than as the principled position and proactive strategy for which so many of us have been calling for so many years? Why is it, as Luke de Pulford, executive director of the Inter-Parliamentary Alliance on China, put it that

“the Chinese Communist Party’s progress towards the ‘Great Rejuvenation of the Chinese Nation’…has met formidable resistance, not from governments, but little ole’ constituency MPs.”?

That is a really good question to consider.

The Government and the Opposition will squabble over who met with whom when, about who said what when, and about who they can blame to squeeze as much political one-upmanship from this case as possible, but the Chinese Communist party must be laughing at this House right now, as we ping-pong when it is clear that we need national security to be taken very seriously and we need to see China placed on the foreign influence registration scheme.

Public trust and the confidence of international allies are wavering, and the ongoing threat to our national security, democratic institutions and economic infrastructure remains. To conclude, it is time to end the inertia, caution and self-censorship from Whitehall and from Government when it comes to China, and to acknowledge, address and act on the threat that we continuously face.

Alleged Spying Case: Home Office Involvement

Julian Lewis Excerpts

Monday 20th October 2025 Commons Chamber

[Dan Jarvis]

I am grateful to the hon. Member because she asks an entirely reasonable and constructive question. She acknowledges, I am sure, that the previous Foreign Secretary made a statement to the House about the China audit, and I hope she will acknowledge that the nature of the relationship is complex. I am not aware that anyone in this place thinks that we should not have some form of economic co-operation with China. It is in our country’s national interest to be clear-eyed about the nature of the relationship. Where we are able to co-operate economically where it is in our national interest to do so, we should proceed, but we should proceed, as I say, with a clear set of principles that underpin that. Fundamentally, our national security comes first. This Government will of course look for opportunities to co-operate economically with China, but fundamentally, we will always do what we can to keep our country safe.

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

I am sorry that the Minister finds himself in a position which was not of his own making. I am also sorry that only four members of his parliamentary party out of over 400 are standing up to contribute to the debate. Does he accept that one reason for the cloud of suspicion of political interference around this matter is the decision to appoint a highly political special adviser as National Security Adviser for the first time? That has put the deputy National Security Adviser in the firing line. Can the Minister at least confirm that if and when, as I am sure it will, the Intelligence and Security Committee asks the National Security Adviser to come and give evidence in its inquiry that he will do so?

[Dan Jarvis]

The right hon. Gentleman refers to what he described as a “highly political” appointment. With great respect to him, and he knows that I hold him in the highest regard, I disagree with his characterisation of that appointment. The National Security Adviser is someone who has huge experience of government, is extremely well connected—[Interruption.] Hon. Members may think it is not a good thing that we have somebody occupying a very important role in government who is known around the world; the Government contend that it is a good thing. We only need to look at the comments made by President Trump’s foreign affairs adviser just the other day, commending the important work that the National Security Adviser has done. He works incredibly hard to secure the security of our nation. Rather than talking him down, we should get behind him and ensure that he is supported to do the important job that he has been given.

Middle East

Julian Lewis Excerpts

Tuesday 14th October 2025 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

I thank my hon. Friend for raising that point. Children in Gaza have not been to school for the best part of two years—that has had a huge impact. We are already working at pace with others to see how quickly that could be one of the first issues addressed in the rebuilding process, because it is so essential for those children to ensure that they have a better future.

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

The Prime Minister has said again today that there can be no place for Hamas in governing the Gaza strip, but who can physically prevent Hamas from retaining their weapons and regaining control, as they did in 2006? When he talks about antisemitism in Britain, is there any other interpretation of the demand to internationalise the intifada than as a call to attack Jewish communities around the world?

[The Prime Minister]

There is no other interpretation. I am pleased that the right hon. Member raises, and gives me the opportunity to agree with him on, that important point. On his first point about decommissioning, of course that will be difficult, but it is vital. It was difficult in Northern Ireland in relation to the IRA, but it was vital. It is why we have said that we stand ready, based on our experience in Northern Ireland, to help with the decommissioning process. I will not pretend that it is easy, but it is extremely important.

Speaker’s Statement

Julian Lewis Excerpts

Tuesday 14th October 2025 Commons Chamber

[Tim Farron (Westmorland and Lonsdale) (LD)]

Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. I wish to add my words of tribute to my friend, Ming Campbell. He had an impact on me long before I met him. The first general election I was active in was 1987. No offence to any other Liberal MP at the time—none of them are present here—but I was very impressed with Ming Campbell. He struck me as not being like other Liberal MPs: he looked like he could actually run the country. [Laughter.] He had gravitas. I am pretty sure that is what I said to my mother in the early hours of, I think, 12 June 1987, when he gained North East Fife from the Conservatives: “You look the real deal. You look incredibly competent.” And of course, in the years that followed, he demonstrated that.

We have talked about the Iraq war. What Ming Campbell did—yes, applying his legal expertise and insight into international law as well as the law of this land—was to make the connection, in what is often thought of as the esoteric business of human rights, that human rights are about human duties. They are about making sure that nobody is above the law—no Prime Minister and no President. He made that clear and made it crossover into public consciousness in a way that was really very remarkable.

I then realised I had a connection with Ming. When I met my wife, Rosie, in the ’90s, it turned out that her now, sadly, late father, Mark Cantley, opened the bowling with Ming at Glasgow Hillhead. They had not spoken to each other for 30-odd years until Ming came to do a talk at the university at Ambleside shortly after I had been selected, and the two of them continued a friendship until Mark’s passing just two years ago.

In 2005, the year I was elected, the late, great Charles Kennedy was meant to be doing the constituency visit to Westmorland, but his son was born the night before. Ming got drafted in at the last minute and did two visits for me—when you win by 267 votes, every single thing counts, so I have him to thank for that.

When Ming became leader in 2006, I had the honour of serving as his Parliamentary Private Secretary. What insight did I get during that time? He was obsessed with sport and running, and, despite the fact that this was a man who could run 100 metres in 10 seconds, he was incredibly generous in hearing the stories of somebody who was a 10th-rate fell runner.

In my time as leader, Ming was a great source of advice and wisdom. After that time, he and his wife, Elspeth, who we have mentioned, would regularly go on holiday in Ullswater, and they would always make a point of doing a visit in Westmorland—whether we asked them or not. [Laughter.] My recollection is of Ming talking to the local newspaper or TV station and Elspeth with not simply a fag but a pink cigarette holder, looking every bit a real-life Lady Penelope from the “Thunderbirds”.

One of our predecessors, the late, great Jo Grimond, once said that the best Liberal candidate should dress to the right and talk to the left. Ming Campbell bore all the airs of an establishment figure and was a radical to his dying breath. He was kind, wise, decent, talented and loyal. He was my friend, and I miss him.

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

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.

[Christine Jardine (Edinburgh West) (LD)]

Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. I would also like to pay tribute to Ming Campbell, whom I met personally in later years, but whose political influence has hung over my entire adult life.

As an 18-year-old student at the University of Glasgow, I heard about these three great figures of British politics who had studied together and been great friends: Donald Dewar, who became the first First Minister of Scotland; John Smith, whose legacy as leader of the Labour party is well respected; and, of course, Ming Campbell. I found that his persona, his influence, his attitude to politics and his integrity influenced me. It was one of the things that pulled me towards the Liberal party, as it then was.

The first time I came across Ming personally was years later, about a year after he had stepped down as leader. When I made my maiden speech to the Scottish conference, I discovered that I was speaking on a motion proposed by Ming Campbell, which was, of course—this will come as no surprise to many—about RAF Leuchars, its future and what we needed to do to defend it. That was a thread that ran through.

In 2017, when I was standing in Edinburgh West, Ming came to launch my campaign—in fact, he helped me up on to a chair so that everybody could see me. He was there to be supportive. I learned a lot about his kindness and thoughtfulness a few weeks later, when my husband died and Ming took the time to take me aside and make sure I was okay and that I had the support I needed to get through the campaign.

Most of all, though, I enjoyed my chats with Ming on a Monday in the departure lounge at Edinburgh airport. He always had a tale to tell, and he always had a kind word about my column in The Scotsman. My team in the office were endlessly amused by how pleased I was that Ming Campbell had even read my column, never mind agreed with it.

Ming was, in many ways, with the integrity, kindness and thoughtfulness that everyone has spoken about, an example that we should all aspire to and try to live up to. There is a certain restaurant in Pimlico, which I am sure my colleagues are aware of, that many of us were introduced to by Ming Campbell. I am sure we think of him every time we go there, as I think we will the next time we go. We may make a point of going there and raising a glass to someone who was an example not just of what we should be, but perhaps of what the world needs now more than ever among its politicians.

Security Update: Official Secrets Act Case

Julian Lewis Excerpts

Monday 13th October 2025 Commons Chamber

[Dan Jarvis]

The proposals contained in the elections Bill will hopefully go a long way towards providing that kind of reassurance, but again, I reference the importance of the work being done by the defending democracy taskforce. It is a mechanism that we inherited from the previous Government, which brings together Ministers, law enforcement and senior officials to look very carefully at these issues and make sure that we have the right resources in the right places. I hope very much that this will be a shared endeavour across this House, to ensure that wherever there are attempts to interfere with our democracy and harass or intimidate elected representatives, we can stand together as a House against those threats.

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

The Minister says that it is for another Department to decide whether the Chinese Government should have a new embassy. That is certainly true, but the proposed new embassy is so large that it would be the biggest embassy in any country anywhere in Europe. That has national security implications, and if the Minister wants to encourage people to believe that the Government are not cosying up to communist China, he should make recommendations accordingly.

May I just ask the Minister about the extract he read from the 1911 Act? I will read a slightly fuller one, though still one with ellipses:

“If any person for any purpose prejudicial to the safety or interests of the State…obtains or communicates to any other person any…document or information which…might be…directly or indirectly useful to an enemy; he shall be guilty of felony”.

My reading of that extract from the Act is that the felony lies in the disclosure to anyone at all—it does not have to be directly to an enemy. Whether or not China was regarded as an enemy at the time, the nature of the sensitive material disclosed meant it was a felony, even if it was disclosed to a China that was not regarded as an enemy. Surely the trial should have gone ahead.

[Dan Jarvis]

The right hon. Gentleman knows that I always value his sage advice and listen carefully to what he has to say. [Interruption.] It is true. He asked about the embassy. So that we can dispel some of the nonsense that has been spouted about the embassy, we need to provide a Privy Council briefing for him and for other Privy Counsellors, and I am happy to take that away. On his second point, he knows that these are points of law and matters for the CPS and the DPP; they are not matters for Ministers.

Official Secrets Act

Julian Lewis Excerpts

Monday 15th September 2025 Commons Chamber

[Dan Jarvis]

I recognise that the right hon. Gentleman has, for entirely understandable reasons, a very long-standing interest in these matters, but I am afraid I do not agree with the assessment he has just offered. This Government take the threats that we face, regardless of where they come from, incredibly seriously. We will do everything that we need to do to safeguard our Parliament and our parliamentarians and to ensure that our democracy is not undermined or infiltrated by malign forces, wherever they might come from. I give the right hon. Gentleman and the House a categorical assurance that we understand that national security is the first duty of Government, and nothing—nothing—will get in the way of that.

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

As someone who chaired the Intelligence and Security Committee throughout its China inquiry and who criticised the previous Government’s position on China, I am sad to see that this Government do not seem to understand the importance of signals. It sends a signal to describe “Chinese challenges” but not “Chinese communist threats”. It sends a signal to allow China to build a super-embassy against the advice of the security services. It sends a signal not to put China in the top tier of the foreign influence registration scheme, and it sends a signal above all to allow it to buy up increasingly important parts of our economy and national infrastructure. Can we stop sending the wrong signals?

[Dan Jarvis]

The only signal that this Government will send is that threats to our country, wherever they come from, will not be tolerated.

House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill

Julian Lewis Excerpts

Consideration of Lords amendments
Thursday 4th September 2025 Commons Chamber

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

The word “confused” sums up the Opposition, whether on this Bill or any other.

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

I do not purport to speak on behalf of my party, but rather as an individual who has long had an interest in the positive role that the Lords play in revising legislation, which any elected and strongly whipped House would not be able to do. The Minister partly anticipated the point I want to make, when he mentioned the ability to appoint some of what would otherwise be outgoing hereditary peers to life peerages. That may be a way forward for people of good will to pursue, but given the quite high number of people who find themselves in quite responsible positions in the Lords, what sort of numbers does he have in mind to allow the parties that will lose a large number of hereditary peers to appoint as life peers?

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

The right hon. Gentleman always makes an individual contribution, to his great credit, not only in this debate but in others. I will not be drawn on numbers, which are always a matter for the Prime Minister and the usual channels. As in every Parliament, the Leader of the Opposition of whatever party will have the opportunity to nominate. I am sure the right hon. Gentleman will make a persuasive case to her about some Members of the upper House.

[Sir Julian Lewis]

I do not expect the Minister to be specific about numbers, but can he at least tell the House whether he accepts the principle that a considerably larger one-off tranche would be needed to cater for this unique situation?

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

There will be the usual periods in this Parliament when there will be an opportunity, and I repeat that there is no barrier to someone who serves as a hereditary peer being appointed as a life peer.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mark Sewards]

The principle I am talking about applies specifically to the two Chambers that make and scrutinise our laws, submit amendments and so on. The idea that some people should be allowed a say in that process because of the family they were born into is alien to me. The House of Lords should have been abolished years ago. I am glad that the Government are finally taking the steps to remove that principle.

I am certain that decent arguments can be made for the contributions of hereditary peers being good ones, often with the nuance and expertise that comes with dedicated service in the other place. I have no doubt that we will hear such arguments today, but the same is true of those who are appointed as life peers—at least when political parties fulfil their responsibilities and choose appropriate people for the roles. Life peers, too, will go on to make excellent contributions and scrutinise our laws carefully using their relevant expertise and knowledge—given that they are often selected because of their expertise and knowledge, and not in the cynical way that the shadow Front Bench and others were suggesting earlier. Even if they do not, it is a life appointment, not one based on blood that they can pass down to the next generation, so I think that the system of life peerages is the better way to go. If Opposition Members genuinely believe that the hereditary peers who will lose their places because of this legislation should still be in the other place, they can ensure that the Leader of the Opposition, whoever that is, submits their names to make them a life peer.

[Sir Julian Lewis]

The hon. Gentleman makes the point extremely well, and I think that people with a mind to compromise would like to go down that road, but does he recognise that the usual handful of allocations will not be enough on this one-off occasion to meet the requirement that he has so ably outlined?

[Mark Sewards]

More than 20 positions are available already and, as time goes on, more will become available. It will be up to the Leader of the Opposition to make that decision.

Oral Answers to Questions

Julian Lewis Excerpts

Wednesday 3rd September 2025 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

We do stand at an important moment: we can have the politics of renewal under this Government, or the politics of grievance under Reform. Reform does not want to fix the problems; it wants the grievance to continue. The last thing it wants is improvement in the lives of working people in this country, because it feeds off the problems and grievances being there. That is the difference.

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

Q8. Admiral Lord West was head of the Royal Navy, Chief of Defence Intelligence and a Labour Security Minister, and he sits on the Intelligence and Security Committee. When he writes in the national press denouncing what he calls the“disgraceful decision to hand over ownership of the Chagos archipelago”,adding that he does “not accept that the move is ‘absolutely vital for our defence and intelligence’, as the Prime Minister claims”,should we rely on his professional judgment or not?

[The Prime Minister]

I have the misfortune to disagree with him.

Infected Blood Inquiry: Additional Report

Julian Lewis Excerpts

Monday 21st July 2025 Commons Chamber

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

The answer is yes, absolutely. I would not have made such a substantial number of changes without assurance that it would not delay the ongoing payments. IBCA has said that there will be offers to all the living registered infected by the end of the year. That is unchanged by the changes I have made to the scheme today. The promise that we made to start the affected by the end of the year also stands. As I said a moment ago, IBCA has accepted the recommendation about registration. It has also accepted Sir Brian Langstaff’s recommendation about cohort prioritisation and is looking at that. I hope that my hon. Friend, who is a powerful advocate on these matters, will see that having said at the inquiry that I would look constructively at these issues, that is precisely what I have done. On the recommendations where we are consulting, that is precisely because I want the voice of the community to be heard.

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

It was in 2015 that I first raised the case of my constituent, Lesley Hughes, who was infected with contaminated blood in 1970 and discovered the reason for four decades of ill health in only about 2010, so it is great that this progress has been made. Very large sums of money will be paid in compensation, so can the Minister outline what provision there will be for the recipients to receive financial advice to make sure that they are not taken advantage of by unscrupulous people—for example, people trying to tell them how to make a claim that they can make directly?

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

I agree entirely with the right hon. Gentleman about that risk. I have been very conscious of that, which is why the Government have signed off financial support for both legal advice and financial advice. For the reason that he said, that is crucial.