Oral Answers to Questions

Julian Lewis Excerpts

Monday 15th September 2025 Commons Chamber

[Shabana Mahmood]

The neighbourhood policing guarantee is absolutely critical to dealing with the issues that my hon. Friend raises and to raising confidence more generally. The guarantee will ensure that all areas, including her constituency, will have a named, dedicated officer, guaranteed patrols and reliable response times, and will give communities absolute clarity about local policing priorities.

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

How can persistent shoplifters be deterred if short sentences are abolished?

[Shabana Mahmood]

The right hon. Gentleman is asking me a question relating to my previous brief, but he will be pleased to know that I expect the new Justice Secretary and Lord Chancellor to set out proposals for dealing with prolific shoplifters in particular, based on some of the conversations and exchanges he and I have had. I know it is a big problem, but the Government will have a response to tackle the scourge of prolific shoplifting.

Omar al-Bayoumi: Arrest and Extradition

Julian Lewis Excerpts

Monday 8th September 2025 Commons Chamber

[Dan Jarvis]

I agree with the right hon. Gentleman that this is an important matter with wider ramifications. I will not commit to the formal review that he describes, but I commit to him, and to the House, that we will look carefully at the issues that have been raised and the points he makes, and I will endeavour to come back to him and others on this issue as soon as possible.

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

Does the Minister accept that ever since the Saudi nationality of the vast majority of the 9/11 hijackers became known, there has been deep suspicion about the role of the then Saudi Government in the atrocity that took place? To what extent do the Government believe that the nature and attitude of the Saudi Government have changed over the past 24 years?

[Dan Jarvis]

I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will understand that on this occasion, I want to look forward, rather than back. The United Kingdom Government hugely value the relationship that we have with Saudi Arabia, and I visited it relatively recently. It is an important regional partner, and we want to work as closely and constructively with it as we can.

Palestine Action: Proscription and Protests

Julian Lewis Excerpts

Monday 8th September 2025 Commons Chamber

[Dan Jarvis]

My hon. Friend raises some really important points. For clarity, it is an offence to display support for Palestine Action, but it is not an offence to criticise the Government’s decision to proscribe, so difficult judgments often have to be made by the police on the ground. Let me give her a categorical assurance that this Government will do nothing to get in the way of somebody’s absolute right to protest about a matter about which they are concerned. In many respects, it was incredibly heartening to see tens of thousands of people take to the streets to express their concern in an entirely peaceful and lawful way, and I hope that will long continue.

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

As I have indicated previously, I have my doubts about whether the terrorism label is most suited to a group that is certainly criminal, certainly violent, and arguably seditious, in its attacks on the assets of our military, but I have a positive suggestion to make. Will the Minister undertake fully to brief the Chairman and members of the Intelligence and Security Committee, which I used to chair but on which I now no longer serve? If they were able to see information that the Minister cannot share publicly and say to us that they were satisfied with the terrorism designation, I for one would find that reassuring.

[Dan Jarvis]

I am always very grateful to the right hon. Gentleman, who speaks with a real wisdom about these matters, and I can give him those assurances. We have been in contact with the Committee, which he used to chair; it consists of some incredibly experienced and wise parliamentarians, and we seek to take their counsel at every opportunity—so, yes, we have engaged with them and will continue to do so on this matter and others.

Borders and Asylum

Julian Lewis Excerpts

Monday 1st September 2025 Commons Chamber

[Yvette Cooper]

As my hon. Friend says, we made clear in our manifesto that we will end asylum hotel use. We need to put an end to asylum hotel use right across the country, and to do so in an orderly way. We also need to ensure that the rules are properly enforced and laws are properly respected. We will strengthen the law. That is why, for example, the Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill bans sex offenders from the asylum system and strengthens counter-terrorism powers to go after the criminal gangs. It is astonishing, frankly, that the Conservatives and Reform refuse to support it, when we need those laws in place as rapidly as possible. We will do so alongside ensuring that there are proper controlled and managed legal ways to support refugees, as our country has always done, because that is a proud part of our history.

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

Past waves of refugees who came to this country quite rightly had to identify themselves and come here legally. What percentage, does the Home Secretary think, of people who arrive illegally by small boats do so having torn up their identification documents, and should such people ever be granted asylum?

[Yvette Cooper]

The right hon. Member will know that there are different identity checks as part of the asylum system. Those are tested through the courts. One of the reasons asylum claims can be turned down is if there is a lack of credibility in the application. That can be a lack of credibility because of concerns about deliberately lost documents, for example, or not having proper identity information. It is important that we do that. It is why we are also increasing the digital ID and biometric checks as part of the ways to prevent illegal working, and linking that back to the biometric asylum system.

Asylum Hotels: Migrant Criminal Activity

Julian Lewis Excerpts

Monday 21st July 2025 Commons Chamber

[Dame Diana Johnson]

I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend—she put that eloquently. Again, I expect that all Members of this House would want to do everything to protect the members of all communities in this country.

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

The Minister says that an asylum seeker convicted of an offence will not be granted asylum. Does she have some special method of sending them back to a country to which we cannot send anyone back if they have broken into our country illegally? Otherwise, what does her sanction amount to?

[Dame Diana Johnson]

To the right hon. Gentleman’s specific question, this is about not granting asylum to those who are convicted of a registered sexual offence, so it is not recognising that they have an asylum claim. That is the issue we are legislating for at the moment. The right hon. Gentleman and I understand that there are certain countries in the world to which it is difficult to return individuals—I fully appreciate that—but we are setting out in legislation a clear note that asylum will not be granted to those who are convicted of registered sexual offences.

Birmingham Pub Bombings

Julian Lewis Excerpts

Wednesday 9th July 2025 Commons Chamber

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

I am very glad that the Minister has concentrated on the truth and justice aspect of the legacy Act. Can he reassure the House that in their proposals to repeal the legacy Act, the Government are not going to lose the opportunity of having the trade-off, as it were, between immunity from prosecution and truth recovery, which was always the basis of the legacy Act?

[Dan Jarvis]

The right hon. Gentleman, who is a very experienced Member of this House, will know that I am standing next to the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, and I hope that he will understand that the work of the previous Government, while no doubt well-intentioned, did not provide a solution that had the support of political parties in Northern Ireland—nor did it have the support of veterans and those who suffered the impact of terrorism. I can give him an absolute assurance that the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, working with colleagues right across Government, will do everything possible to ensure that we put in place a solution and a settlement that is able to attract wider support.

[Sir Julian Lewis]

It is kind of the Minister to give way one more time. I urge Ministers not to be blinded by what political parties in Northern Ireland say, because the truth of the matter is that they have to take certain positions—usually ones that favour their side and disfavour the other side—and the prospect of getting all those parties to agree on something like this is minute. That is why the legacy Act cut through all that, in the same way that Nelson Mandela came up with a similar solution that worked in South Africa.

[Dan Jarvis]

I hope that the right hon. Gentleman would accept that none of the political parties in Northern Ireland were able to support the previous arrangements. I know that he understands the complexity of these matters, and I hope that he will see that this Government are acting in good faith and attempting to put in place an arrangement that can attract the widespread support that is required.

As I was saying, the option for families to refer their case to the commission is available now. I encourage any victim, survivor or family member affected by the troubles to give consideration to the commission in their search for answers.

A number of investigations have been conducted over the 50 years since the bombings, including West Midlands police investigations between 2012 and 2014 and between 2019 and 2023, as well as coronial inquests that concluded in 2019. As is the case with so many incidents that occurred during the troubles, the prospect of criminal justice outcomes is increasingly unlikely. The families of the bereaved in Birmingham, like so many others, completely understandably continue to seek the information and accountability that they deserve.

My right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham Hodge Hill and Solihull North raised the desire of the families for the role of the police and the criminal justice system to be investigated as part of any public inquiry. As Members will be aware, the Independent Office for Police Conduct is a respected and well-tested forum for such matters. As a Northern Ireland veteran myself, I know that the troubles were a devastating time for the whole nation—such that 25 years on from the passing of the Belfast/Good Friday agreement, the impact lives on.

Each tragedy has far-reaching and long-standing effects on victims, survivors and the communities around them. The work undertaken by all those who sought to end the troubles has helped prevent further such tragedies. It is important that we seek to remain united across the House in our condemnation of anyone who seeks to take us back to those times.

The pub bombings in Birmingham killed or injured innocent people who happened to be in a particular place when heinous acts were perpetrated. Today, and always, we mourn the dead and hold their loved ones in our thoughts. We think too of the survivors and all those who were affected.

I want to finish by thanking my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham Hodge Hill and Solihull North for securing the debate and all the right hon. and hon. Members who have contributed to it. Terrorist attacks have terrible and far-reaching consequences on individuals, communities and our society as a whole. We must stand united to combat terrorism, whether it is driven by political, religious or ideological causes. The Government and the people of this country are united in our condemnation of those who inflict violence on our streets.

The Birmingham pub bombings were a brutal moment in the history of that great city and of our country—a day when 21 lives were cruelly snatched away and hundreds more changed forever. We understand that the devastation caused by those horrific attacks continues for people to this day and, more than 50 years later, the fact that their quest for answers and justice goes on must be unbelievably distressing. As I have said, we recognise the frustration that causes, yet these are decisions that need to be taken incredibly carefully. The Government will respond to the request for a public inquiry as soon as possible.

I have the utmost sympathy for the bereaved families and for the survivors. Their experience for over 50 years has been deeply painful, and I am sure that right hon. and hon. Members across the House continue to hold them in their thoughts and prayers.

Question put and agreed to.

Oral Answers to Questions

Julian Lewis Excerpts

Monday 7th July 2025 Commons Chamber

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

16. What steps her Department is taking to stop small boat crossings.

[The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Yvette Cooper)]

Small boat crossings undermine border security and put lives at risk. The criminal gangs have adapted their tactics to exploit French rules that prevent the authorities from intervening in French waters. The French Minister of the Interior and I agree that this needs to change. He has instigated a major maritime review to change tactics and operations, and we want to see these changes in place as soon as possible.

[Sir Julian Lewis]

I agree with the Home Secretary that that would be a major step forward. Does she agree with me that, on average, well over 1,000 people have been crossing the channel each week this year, and that there is no way any form of court procedures can keep pace with that? Does she therefore agree that nothing other than prevention, as she has described, interception or, as a last resort, detention and return can possibly be successful?

[Yvette Cooper]

I agree with the right hon. Member that we need stronger action to prevent the boat crossings in the first place, which is why we are working closely with France both on strengthening law enforcement, with a new law enforcement and investigations unit in Dunkirk, and on the issues of maritime tactics, because we need those interventions in French waters.

Prevention and Suppression of Terrorism

Julian Lewis Excerpts

Wednesday 2nd July 2025 Commons Chamber

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

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.

Deprivation of Citizenship Orders (Effect during Appeal) Bill

Julian Lewis Excerpts

2nd reading
Monday 30th June 2025 Commons Chamber

[Dan Jarvis]

Forgive me, but I do not think I said that; I think I said the opposite. I am very happy to discuss the matter further with my hon. Friend. I hope she understands, and I hope I have made it clear, that the Bill is incredibly narrow in its scope. It seeks to take us back to the legal position we were in a matter of months ago, prior to the judgment of the Supreme Court. It does not in any way undermine the right of appeal. If she has further concerns, I am very happy to speak to her, but I can give her an assurance. She is very welcome to look at the Bill. It will not take her very long to read it. It is two clauses, with a single substantive clause, specifically designed to take us back to the legal position we were in just a few months ago. I hope she will be reassured by that.

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

I have come to this debate without any prior knowledge of what is proposed, so I am making this point as a result of what I have heard so far. Am I right in thinking that what the Minister particularly has in mind is people with dual citizenship who might, for example, have gone abroad to fight for a terrorist organisation, such as ISIS. There would, in such a case, be nothing forbidding us from removing their British citizenship. If they came back, even if they could be convicted of anything at all, they would be imprisoned for only a relatively short time, if at all, and then the security services would probably have to spend many years monitoring them. Is that the sort of scenario the Minister has in mind?

--- Later in debate ---

[Kit Malthouse]

The Minister is quite right—not that I ever exercised those powers. But as I said, in my view the Supreme Court has corrected an anomaly that the previous Government took advantage of. Yes, absolutely, hands up, they did—I am not saying that is correct. He is proposing that in the face of a Supreme Court decision that he does not like, he will change the law to say that the court was in effect wrong and that the fundamental right on which the Supreme Court has decided—we should not forget that the courts basically decide our rights within the legal framework—is somehow not to be tolerated.

[Sir Julian Lewis]

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.

[Kit Malthouse]

My right hon. Friend is exactly right. However, it does mean that the state can render someone stateless by inaction, because it can take many years for cases to work their way through the courts. It is also, as I said, highly prejudicial, because it means that for the duration of the legal action that person will not be able to come to the UK and therefore will have to litigate from outside our borders.

[Sir Julian Lewis]

I grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way again. As I said in my first intervention, I am new to this whole debate, but I thought I heard from the Minister that the idea was for this measure to stand only until the Government appeal was resolved or the Government ran out of time to appeal. How long would that period be? I do not see how that would put things off for the inordinate amount of time that my right hon. Friend suggests.

[Kit Malthouse]

As I am sure my right hon. Friend knows, there are various layers of appeal that can be taken, right up to the Supreme Court. The Bill says that, throughout that period, as long as the Government continue to pursue appeals, the person remains deprived of their citizenship, rather than what the Supreme Court is saying, which is that if the person wins any one of those appeals, they immediately become in effect innocent, and their citizenship is restored as if it was never removed in the first place. That is in the same way as if, were I accused of a crime and found innocent and the prosecutor decided to appeal my conviction, I would remain innocent until that appeal was heard and decided against me. If it were appealed beyond that, I would remain innocent then still.

The Government are attempting to revert to the erroneous situation as determined by the Supreme Court. In my view, they are moving the goalposts on an individual who frankly seems to have won a case fair and square in our highest court in the land.

Finally, I want to raise a more fundamental issue about this entire process. Call me an old romantic, but my view is that once you are a citizen, you are a citizen. Once you are in, you are in. Unfortunately, the development of this power over the last however many years since the 1981 Act, which brought it in, has created two classes of citizens in this country.

My hon. Friend the Member for Gordon and Buchan (Harriet Cross), who spoke for the Opposition—she is no longer in her place—said, “citizenship is a privilege, not an unconditional right.” That is not true. It is an unconditional right for me as a freeborn Englishman of two English parents going back I do not know how many years. I have no claim on citizenship anywhere else. It is my absolute, undeniable, unequivocal right to have citizenship in this country, and it cannot be removed from me by any means whatsoever. That is not true of my children. I am married to a Canadian citizen, so they have a claim on Canadian citizenship. If the Home Secretary so decides, they could have their citizenship removed. That is also true of every Jewish citizen of the United Kingdom, who has a right to citizenship in Israel. There will be millions of British people of south Asian origin who feel that they have a second-class citizenship.

This law applies only to certain of our citizens. It does not apply to me. I do not know whether it applies to you, Madam Deputy Speaker. Perhaps it is making other hon. Members think about whether it applies to them.

While the Minister has been clear that we should trust him and has given us lots of undertakings, we do not make the law on the basis of a Minister we like, trust and respect; we make it on the basis that the law might fall into the hands of somebody we are not that keen on and who may be more cavalier with the powers bestowed upon them. As the hon. Member for Hazel Grove (Lisa Smart), who spoke for the Liberal Democrats, said, we are a country that uses this power disproportionately more than any other western country. We have been free in our use of it, despite the fact that Minister after Minister has stood in the House and said, “We use it sparingly.” We do not. Dozens and dozens of people have been excluded, and we have to be honest about why. Sometimes it has been for safety, but sometimes, on balance, it has been to please the papers—because it looks good and plays well. We never ask ourselves about the cost of that to our sense of cohesion.

The hon. Member for Makerfield gave a lyrical and poetic view of citizenship, but if a large proportion of our fellow citizens believe that they have a second class of that citizenship—if some can say, “I am undeniably and unchallengeably a citizen, but you are not, so watch yourself”—what does that do to society?

Child Sexual Exploitation: Casey Report

Julian Lewis Excerpts

Monday 16th June 2025 Commons Chamber

[Yvette Cooper]

I thank my hon. Friend for speaking out about his experiences. To speak out as a victim of child abuse in that way is immensely difficult, and I think everyone should listen to what victims and survivors have to say. I thank him for speaking out, because by doing so he provides strength and inspiration to other victims and survivors across the country, and I pay tribute to him for doing so. He is right that this should be something that everyone can agree on, because it is about the protection of children and the tackling of serious crime. I hope all of us can do that with respect and together.

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

I hope something else we can all agree on is our admiration for the former Labour MP Ann Cryer, who exposed what was going on back in 2003, which was only five years into a 13-year-long Labour Government, and was disgracefully smeared as a racist for doing so. Let us belatedly make an apology to her and thank her for her courage.

[Yvette Cooper]

I do thank my former honourable Friend Ann Cryer, because she did speak out and stand up for children who were being abused. It is because of that that I recognise, as part of the response I made to the 2022 child abuse inquiry and again today, that this has been a historic failure over very many decades. Just as I recognise that historic failure, which everyone should recognise, I hope the right hon. Gentleman will persuade those on his Front Bench also to recognise the historic failure and to take some responsibility. It is really sad that the Leader of the Opposition did not choose to respond to, or join in, the historic apology in 2022, which was a cross-party apology involving the former Home Secretary. I am really sorry that she chose not to do so today.