Russian Drones: Violation of Polish Airspace

Julian Lewis Excerpts

Wednesday 10th September 2025 Commons Chamber

[Al Carns]

That is a great question from the right hon. Member, who I know is a stalwart supporter of defence. As we move forward with the strategic defence review and defence industrial strategy, we must ensure that we revitalise our defence industry so that we produce that important mix of high-end systems—high-end air defence—and low-end systems that can be used in an economic mismatch between cheap and high-end systems. Getting that mix right is complicated, but in the defence industrial strategy and the SDR we are intent on ensuring that our British military is equipped with that high and low-end mix of fifth and sixth-generation and mass-produced hardware in due course.

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

I entirely agree with the Minister when he says that NATO is the most successful defensive alliance in history, but the reason for that is that, until recently, the commitment of the United States to NATO was never in question. It is in question now because of the nature of the incumbent of the White House. President Putin either has some sort of hold over Donald Trump, about which we do not know, or he successfully flatters him. When President Trump is in the country, can we point out to him in the strongest possible terms that this response by Russia a couple of weeks after rolling out the red carpet for the killer in the Kremlin shows nothing but disrespect to the White House and its occupant?

[Al Carns]

I thank the right hon. Member for his continued support for defence. The United States has been really clear that it would like European nations to spend more on defence. It obviously has a multitude of different threats that it has to deal with. When the US President comes to the UK—we are in the tent—we are going to sit down with him and discuss these issues in detail.

Diego Garcia Military Base and British Indian Ocean Territory Bill

Julian Lewis Excerpts

2nd reading
Tuesday 9th September 2025 Commons Chamber

[Tim Roca]

I thank the hon. Member for raising that important aspect. We should all be honest that, as was put powerfully by my hon. Friend the Member for Crawley (Peter Lamb), our country’s history with the Chagossians has been very poor—if we look at some of the diplomatic cables from the 1960s, we see that disgraceful language was used—but I was reassured by what Ministers said about the preamble of the treaty and some of the provisions put in place.

It is a matter of fact that the previous Government were in negotiations with Mauritius over this issue. That was the case, and there will have been motivations for their doing that. I am worried about how our other overseas territories are being dragged into this. A couple of months ago, I was in Gibraltar with colleagues who privately told me they were horrified that party politics were being played with their communities. I am glad to see that Gibraltar’s Chief Minister was clear on the record that there was “no possible read across” to Gibraltar, and the Governor of the Falklands said that the

“historical contexts…are very different.”

I am confident that we meet the three tests.

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

Will the hon. Member give way?

[Tim Roca]

No, I am afraid that I will not.

In closing, I believe that the three tests have been met: the treaty meets our national security requirements, it has the backing of our allies, and it comes at a reasonable cost. It would be very dangerous for us to dither or delay any longer in view of the potential threat to that base.

[Sir John Whittingdale (Maldon) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to take part in the debate. The Foreign Affairs Committee, on which I sit—I welcome two of my Labour colleagues from the Committee and my hon. Friend the Member for Chester South and Eddisbury (Aphra Brandreth) to the debate—has had the opportunity to question the Minister, the hon. Member for Cardiff South and Penarth (Stephen Doughty), although I was not entirely persuaded by some of his answers. That is not to say that the Intelligence and Security Committee, which has other powers, is not an appropriate body for looking at some aspects—indeed, the Defence Committee should also do so.

The one thing that I think everybody agrees on is the importance of Diego Garcia and the Chagos islands to the United Kingdom. My right hon. Friend the Member for South West Wiltshire (Dr Murrison) quoted Admiral Lord West, his former boss—he was, of course, a Minister in the last Labour Government and the security adviser to the Prime Minister—who said:

“It is no exaggeration to say that Diego Garcia—the largest of the Chagos Islands—hosts the most strategically important US air and logistics base in the Indian Ocean and is vital to the defence of the UK and our allies.”

I have no doubt that Labour Members share that sentiment, but perhaps not his later comment, which was:

“An agreement with Mauritius to surrender sovereignty over the Chagos Islands threatens to undermine core British security interests, and those of key allies, most notably the United States.”

We do need to listen to the warning he gave.

[Sir Julian Lewis]

Admiral Lord West has been referred to twice so far in the debate. My right hon. Friend may be unaware that Admiral Lord West had a letter published in the national press on 28 May in which he talked about the

“disgraceful decision to hand over ownership of the Chagos archipelago”.

He added:

“I do not accept that the move is ‘absolutely vital for our defence and intelligence’, as the Prime Minister claims.”

I wonder what Government Back Benchers who have been slavishly reading their scripts make of that from someone of that calibre—a former director of Defence Intelligence.

[Sir John Whittingdale]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right—

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir John Whittingdale]

He is nodding. He gave me a very firm assurance that that was not the case. That is of some reassurance, but it does not go far enough. The fact that we are no longer able to carry out actions from our own base without then having to notify Mauritius, and presumably take note of any objection it has, represents a limitation that could well affect decisions as to where to deploy assets.

[Sir Julian Lewis]

rose—

[Sir John Whittingdale]

I shall give way to my right hon. Friend, who is an expert on these matters.

[Sir Julian Lewis]

If this means that we do not have to inform Mauritius in advance of a direct armed attack from the base, presumably it means that we have to inform it as soon as possible after such an attack. If such an attack were an overt attack, Mauritius would presumably know about it already because everyone would have seen it, so this rather suggests that we might have to inform it if there had been some sort of covert attack that other people had not seen and that it would otherwise not know about. Is that a satisfactory situation?

[Sir John Whittingdale]

My right hon. Friend makes a fair point. A requirement for us to tell the Mauritians what has been happening from the base is exactly what might influence decisions as to its use for operations of the kind he describes. The Minister gave evidence to the Committee on this point just a few days, I think, after the Americans had launched their attack on Iran, which did not involve Diego Garcia. That was something I raised with the Minister.

Oral Answers to Questions

Julian Lewis Excerpts

Monday 8th September 2025 Commons Chamber

[John Healey]

My hon. Friend is right. This is about not just how much the Government spend, but how well they spend. Mr Speaker, you will remember that under the previous Government, the Public Accounts Committee branded our defence procurement system as “broken”. We are reforming procurement, and that will be part of the statement this afternoon on the defence industrial strategy by my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth Sutton and Devonport (Luke Pollard). At the heart of this, we made a commitment to the British people at the last election that we would raise defence spending to 2.5% of GDP, and we are doing that three years early. This is a Government who are delivering for defence and for Britain.

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

The Defence Secretary says that the Chagos giveaway will amount to no more than 0.2% of our defence budget. Does that not suggest the cost of the Chagos giveaway will in fact come out of the defence budget?

[John Healey]

On the contrary, both the Foreign Secretary and I have been consistent that, taken across the range, the cost of the settlement with Mauritius for Diego Garcia is split between the Ministry of Defence and the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office. For defence, our commitment is less than 0.2% of the defence budget. That is a good investment for this country, and it gives us a sovereign right to operate that base with the Americans for the next 99 years.

Defence Industrial Strategy

Julian Lewis Excerpts

Monday 8th September 2025 Commons Chamber

[Luke Pollard]

Scotland has good representatives on this side of the House: representatives who value defence jobs in Scotland and the people who work in those jobs, and who see growth opportunities. I know that there are huge opportunities in Rosyth, in my hon. Friend’s constituency—not just the submarine recycling work and the build of the Type 31 frigates, but supply chain opportunities for other platforms. We will continue to invest in Scotland and I hope that, after the Scottish Parliament elections, we can find a new partnership between the Scottish Government, whoever may form that, and the UK Government, so that we have less politics and more focus on growth.

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

Now that the killer in the Kremlin has reinstated the serious prospect of all-out war on the continent of Europe, does the Minister accept that this places a premium on national autonomy in our procurement process? In future with procurement issues, will the Government make it clear to what extent we can proceed with acquiring the necessary munitions, irrespective of what is happening to the allies with whom we might normally co-operate?

[Luke Pollard]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his customarily thoughtful question. He will know of our intention to build six new munitions factories, including a new energetics factory, precisely because there is a shortage and there are concerns about supply and resilience. He will also know that we are seeking to onshore a number of capabilities. The defence industrial strategy deals with a number of those capabilities, especially around national security, which we want to see enhance our sovereign capability. I encourage him to read that part of the strategy shortly.

The Battle of Britain

Julian Lewis Excerpts

Tuesday 2nd September 2025 Westminster Hall

[Cameron Thomas]

The hon. Gentleman is an excellent ambassador for his constituency and its heritage. We absolutely should celebrate the achievement of those brave pilots and the nation that supported them. I have a question for the Minister on preparedness. If the Russian war in Ukraine breaks out into Europe within five years, will the RAF be so well equipped?

If we strip away some of the folklore that has been built on the battle of Britain, the fact is that a British victory was almost inevitable. Crucial to the outcome was the Chain Home radar and the Dowding system within which it operated, delivering early detection of Luftwaffe aircraft to Sir Hugh Dowding’s Fighter Command. Three factors ensured the resilience and continuing serviceability of the Dowding system: redundancy, misdirection and interconnectivity.

Thanks to that system, the Luftwaffe would routinely reach Britain with just enough fuel remaining for a few minutes’ flight time, only to be met every time by Fighter Command, which had seen them coming 100 miles from the coast: numbers, formations and direction. Furthermore, every Luftwaffe pilot or crew shot down over Britain became a casualty or a prisoner. Every RAF pilot downed simply knocked on the nearest front door and returned to circulation.

The picture from the Führer bunker in Berlin, now under a nondescript car park on which I have proudly scuffed my shoes, was hopeless. I have too often seen Hitler unduly recognised as a strong leader; he was anything but. He was superstitious, paranoid, vengeful and feared by his officers, who were afraid to report their losses upward. His war in Europe was ultimately doomed by his leadership and that of his cabinet, comprising obsequious pleasers and party loyalists. The Nazis could never have won on or over British soil. Churchill knew that, as would have any rational leader.

That inevitability of British victory takes nothing away from the exploits of our courageous aircrew, the genius of our codebreakers and the resilience of the British people. What was achieved was a heroic, decisive national victory of liberty over fascism, and it needs no exaggeration. Britain’s victory is best commemorated with due recognition of the contribution of over 500 foreign pilots under Sir Hugh Dowding’s Fighter Command. In fact, that evidences my assertion that Britain is at its best not standing alone but when it leads in Europe, and that Europe is strongest with Britain at its centre. I will shortly conclude.

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

Before he does, I mention that I am very grateful indeed to the hon. Gentleman for bringing this debate to the Chamber. It is well known that the only Victoria Cross to be awarded to a fighter pilot in world war two was awarded to James Brindley Nicolson for re-entering, on 16 August 1940, a burning plane to shoot down an enemy bomber near Southampton. What is not so well known was that one of the British casualties in the same action was the youngest pilot to die in the battle of Britain. His name was Martyn Aurel King. To mark the 85th anniversary of his heroic death in that action, two months short of his 19th birthday, a memorial service was held at Fawley church in New Forest East, where he lies buried with honour among several of his comrades.

[Cameron Thomas]

What a wonderful intervention. I am glad that the right hon. Gentleman made it. We must never take for granted the sacrifice that so many made so that we may today live in peace.

I would like to contextualise the battle of Britain alongside Britain’s near future. Today, in 2025, we understand with absolute certainty that the Geneva convention will not be adhered to by the Russian military, nor by its unbadged operators of the hybrid war that it has been conducting against our country for over a decade. I remind the House that Putin deployed a chemical weapon on the streets of Salisbury. We must not blind ourselves to the significant likelihood that this hybrid war will go kinetic within the coming decade. To our adversary, civil infrastructure will be viewed as a viable target.

In Ukraine, Russia has deliberately and consistently targeted energy infrastructure in a bid to break Ukrainian morale and undermine its ability to replenish its armaments. The Russians have failed to recognise a lesson learned by Hitler in 1940 that trying to bomb a population into submission only strengthens its resolve.

Nevertheless, Britain must be ready to face such tactics in the near future. Just as redundancy ensured the resilience of the Dowding system, Britain can build redundancy into its energy infrastructure and industrial capacity by increasing our production of renewables and ramping up the installation of that technology to reduce reliance on the national grid. The introduction of peer-to-peer energy sharing within localities would be a game changer for UK energy resilience, public services and bill payers.

Once more, I thank you, Sir Desmond, and I look forward to welcoming the contributions of Members from across the House.

Ukraine

Julian Lewis Excerpts

Monday 1st September 2025 Commons Chamber

[John Healey]

I will indeed express that solidarity, and not just with those Ukrainian families and children; I also pay tribute to the people of Milton Keynes who have opened their homes to house the families of those Ukrainian children. It is often the children and the families who will feel the threat and the grief most fiercely, and the fact that they have expressed such strong solidarity with those British Council workers in the face of that attack is something that we all appreciate, and I would be grateful on behalf of the House if my hon. Friend passed that on.

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

I am sure that right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House share my disgust at the sight of the killer in the Kremlin having a red carpet rolled out for him that might as well have been stained with the blood of all those who have died in a conflict that is down entirely to him, and to him alone. However, when we talk about meaningful security guarantees, it is perhaps worth remembering that the only reason why, when Germany was divided at the end of the second world war, that was a stable division was that both sides knew that anyone crossing a line would be initiating an international conflict. Surely any security guarantee that does not automatically guarantee the involvement of other states in the defence of Ukraine will not be worth the paper on which it is written.

[John Healey]

The purpose of the “coalition of the willing” force that we are leading the work to plan for is about actively securing the Ukrainian skies, actively making the Ukrainian seas safe, and providing a presence that will help to reassure, as well as helping to build up the Ukrainians to deter and defend for themselves. It starts from the first premise that in the circumstances of a peace agreement, for the medium and the long term, the strongest defence and the strongest deterrence is the nature and strength of the Ukraine armed forces themselves. That is our purpose, and that would be part of our mission.

Victory over Japan: 80th Anniversary

Julian Lewis Excerpts

Monday 21st July 2025 Commons Chamber

[Saqib Bhatti (Meriden and Solihull East) (Con)]

I thank the Minister for her speech, and for all the events that she announced: we will, of course, support the Government’s agenda in celebrating VJ Day. It is a privilege to respond to the Minister on behalf of His Majesty’s loyal Opposition.

The 80th anniversary of the end of the second world war is undoubtedly a cause for huge celebration. In May, the whole nation came together to celebrate the end of the war in Europe on VE Day. It was a special day with celebrations across the country, including many in my constituency. When we watched the national celebrations on television as a family, my two young boys took a particular liking to the Red Arrows flying over Buckingham Palace. I hope that in time they will begin to understand properly why we celebrate that important day and what it means, for it symbolises the victory of good over evil after nearly six years of unimaginable suffering, when a whole nation—young and old, male and female, rich and poor—came together to fight Nazi Germany, defeat fascism and liberate Europe, 80 years ago.

As the nation, 80 years ago, danced into the night celebrating the end of fighting close to home, thousands of British and Commonwealth soldiers were locked in a struggle against imperial Japan. It took until 15 August, after the United States had dropped nuclear bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, for the fighting to end in the far east. The campaign that began in 1941, starting with a surprise Japanese attack on Pearl Harbour, was vast: fighting took place from Hawaii to the north-east borders of India, and from Papua New Guinea in the south to Manchuria in northern China on the border of the Soviet Union. By 1945, across Asia and the Pacific, 365,000 British and 1.5 million Commonwealth troops were deployed, including the largest volunteer army in history, the pre-partition Indian Army of 2.5 million soldiers.

Despite the scope of that campaign, those brave soldiers, who frequently fought in horrific conditions against a formidable enemy, are often known as the forgotten Army to acknowledge the lack of reporting of the campaign in the mainstream media at the time; yet stories of heroic actions remain. Just last night, as I discussed the campaign in the far east with my parents, my mum told me about one of her uncles who had been a prisoner of war in that conflict in the far east. Then there are my two Westminster staff members who told me proudly about their great-grandfather and their great-uncle, both of whom earned the Burma Star.

Field Marshal Slim’s 14th Army was thought to be the most diverse in the world. More than 40 languages were spoken by troops, who were united in one ambition—to stand up and defend civilisation from barbarism and tyranny. Many people associate the fall of France in 1940 as Britain’s low point in the war, but the crushing surrender of Malaya and Singapore were at least as devastating: 9,000 British, pre-partition Indian and Commonwealth troops were lost, and about 130,000 were taken as prisoners of war. The famous films “The Bridge on the River Kwai” and the more recent “The Railway Man” show the brutal conditions faced by those taken prisoner, and serve as a stark reminder of the reason we had to stand up and defeat imperial Japan.

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

May I say how important it is that both Front Benchers have emphasised the atrocities that were committed against prisoners of war? Just as we remember the Nuremberg trials, we remember the Tokyo trials, at which many war criminals were convicted and subsequently executed. Is it not a measure of the importance of unconditional surrender that that at least removed the aura of divinity from the Emperor so that the fanaticism of religion was excised from Japanese society?

[Saqib Bhatti]

My right hon. Friend said that so eloquently, and he is clearly a very learned individual. I could not agree with him more.

Although we are all regularly reminded of the heroic invasion of Normandy, a 2013 poll of the British public by the National Army Museum in Chelsea ranks the battles of Kohima and Imphal as Britain’s greatest ever battles. As we commemorate the 80th anniversary of VJ Day, I hope we will reflect on some of the lessons of the second world war. I am proud to remind the House that soldiers from all over the Commonwealth—from Australia, New Zealand, Canada, India, South Africa and many other countries—fought alongside British troops.

Afghanistan

Julian Lewis Excerpts

Tuesday 15th July 2025 Commons Chamber

[John Healey]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right in the criticism she levels. I would just say, however, that I do not think any Minister could stand here and guarantee that there will never be another data breach, data loss or data error in that way, in the same way that no chief executive of any organisation could say so. I can say that we have taken steps to reduce the risk of that happening and that we no longer do any casework on spreadsheets, which was the technology that was available in the early days of this scheme. That was part of the problem, I think, in the inadvertent mistake made by the Defence official.

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

What worries me more than the lifting of this super-injunction is the fact that we have closed down all the Afghan schemes at the very time that undocumented Afghans who felt it necessary to flee to Iran and Pakistan are being rounded up for forcible repatriation to an Afghanistan led by the Taliban. I understand that the investigation into our obligation to the Triples—the special forces that our forces trained—will continue, and I welcome that. Will the Secretary of State confirm that despite the closure of the schemes, anybody who is found to have worked closely with our armed forces and is in imminent danger can still be rescued and admitted to this country?

[John Healey]

It is more than four years since the previous Defence Secretary, Ben Wallace, launched on behalf of this country the Afghan relocations and assistance policy with the full support of this House. There has been ample time for anyone who could conceivably believe they might qualify to make their application. None of those schemes, including ARAP, was ever conceived or designed to last in perpetuity, which is why we closed them at the beginning of this month to any new applicants, and why I have taken the decision, based on Rimmer and the other factors I have identified, to end the ARR scheme today. On the ARAP applicants—the sort of Afghans whom the right hon. Gentleman is concerned about—we will complete any remaining applications that are in our system waiting to be processed. On the Triples, we will complete the second phase of the review that we have given a commitment to them and to this House to undertake.

LGBT Financial Recognition Scheme

Julian Lewis Excerpts

Wednesday 9th July 2025 Westminster Hall

[Jess Brown-Fuller]

The hon. Lady is absolutely right. It is impossible to measure the scale of the impact on all those veterans, be it emotional, financial or in terms of the homes they ended up buying or places they ended up living. It is impossible to measure the effect exactly, but it was profound.

Countless veterans were left with enduring feelings of shame and low self-esteem, as the Etherton report noted. These individuals had dedicated their lives to serving their country, only to realise, in the cruellest of ways, that the state had turned its back on them.

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

I congratulate the hon. Lady on bringing this subject to the Chamber. Is she as mystified as I am by the fact that, when serving in the armed forces was at its most dangerous and there was conscription—namely during the second world war—people were only too happy for warriors of any sexuality to participate, and that many people of non-heterosexual orientation won gallantry medals, with no questions asked and full admiration rightly expressed?

[Jess Brown-Fuller]

The right hon. Gentleman raises an important point. Those LGBT veterans were welcome to fight for their country when they were needed, but this nonsensical policy was introduced only in the ’60s.

For too many, the weight of the betrayal that they felt proved too heavy to bear. Tragically, some veterans committed suicide following their dismissal.

Defence

Julian Lewis Excerpts

Wednesday 2nd July 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mr Francois]

No.

Armed Forces Day is too important for this sort of silly nonsense, which embarrasses Basildon council in the eyes of the public and, indeed, its local MPs. In all seriousness, perhaps the Minister could have a word with his colleagues on the council and make sure that this unfortunate oversight does not happen again.

Defence is traditionally a bipartisan issue. We all believe in the defence of the realm, and I have always believed that it is the first duty of Government. However, I say to the Minister, on the Floor of the House, that he cannot have it both ways. He cannot on the one hand plead for unity between the Government and the Opposition and then, when it suits, imply that Opposition spokesmen are Russian, Chinese or Iranian fellow travellers just because they had the temerity not to agree with the Government on their bonkers Chagos deal. My honest advice to the Minister is to make up his mind and be consistent; he will then receive the respect that he asks for.

I turn to the order. Armed Forces Acts are normally subject to quinquennial review. We had Armed Forces Acts in 2011, 2016 and 2021, and we can expect a further Act before the instrument expires in December 2026. Given the vagaries of parliamentary life, few things are certain, but assuming for a moment that it will be the Armed Forces Minister and I who will take this legislation through on behalf of our respective parties, this seems a good opportunity to ask the Minister two questions. First, what are the latest timings for that legislation, and when can we expect to see a Bill? Secondly, could he give the House some idea of the likely key themes of that Bill, and the areas, if any, in which the legislation is likely to differ materially from the Armed Forces Act 2021? In fairness, he dropped a hint a few moments ago that there will be service justice provisions; perhaps he could expand on that slightly, if he has the opportunity. I ask because there will be a large number of interested parties, including the armed forces themselves, obviously, the armed forces families federations, military charities and others. From previous experience, I can say that they will take a close and important interest in the Bill. Giving them as good a heads-up as possible is clearly desirable. Perhaps the Minister could assist the House with that.

As the explanatory notes that the Minister referred to point out, were this order not to be passed,

“The key effect…would be to end the provisions which are necessary to maintain the armed forces as disciplined bodies. Crucially, the 2006 Act confers powers and sets out procedures to enforce the duty of members of the armed forces to obey lawful commands. Without the 2006 Act, those powers and procedures would no longer have effect; Commanding Officers and the Court Martial would have no powers of punishment in respect of a failure to obey a lawful command or any other form of disciplinary or criminal misconduct. Members of the armed forces would still owe allegiance to His Majesty, but the power of enforcement would be removed.”

Clearly, that would be very undesirable, and for the avoidance of doubt, we will most certainly not vote against this order in a few minutes’ time, but there is an important point here about members of the armed forces being required to obey lawful commands. That brings me on to my third question for the Minister.

As recently as Defence questions on Monday, we debated in the Chamber the fate of the 300,000 or so British Army veterans who served in Northern Ireland on Operation Banner. They were lawfully commanded to help uphold the rule of law in support of the Royal Ulster Constabulary GC, now the Police Service of Northern Ireland, and to protect all people in Northern Ireland, of whatever tradition, from heinous acts of terrorism, whether by bomb or by bullet. As the Minister will be well aware, the Government have tabled a so-called remedial order that would cut out elements of the Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Act 2023, thus potentially opening up some of those veterans to an endless cycle of investigation and reinvestigation. The order also makes it easier for the likes of Gerry Adams and his compadres to sue the British taxpayer for hundreds of millions of pounds.

According to a press report in The Daily Telegraph yesterday and an associated answer by the Northern Ireland Secretary to a parliamentary question, the Government have decided to drop the part of the remedial order that would assist Mr Adams and his associates in suing the British taxpayer. If that report is true, we Conservative Members would warmly welcome it. However, it does not solve the problem of our brave veterans who served in Northern Ireland often being persecuted at the behest of Sinn Féin.

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

Whenever my right hon. Friend and other members of the Conservative shadow defence team bring up the question of reopening this lawfare against our veterans, Government Ministers say, “We will be sure to give veterans maximum support.” To me, that implies not protecting them from the lawfare, but supporting them as they go through the process; but the process is the punishment. Everybody knows that people involved in fatal accidents would serve only a limited prison term if, heaven forbid, they were convicted, but the probability is that they will not be convicted; the punishment lies in what they have to go through before they are acquitted.

[Mr Francois]

My right hon. Friend chaired the Select Committee on which I served some years ago, when it produced a very good report on this issue, so he is an expert on this. All I will say is that when it comes to legacy issues, Labour often provides legal support, but not necessarily always to veterans.

If the Minister wishes to maintain morale in the armed forces past and present—this order is clearly necessary for doing that—perhaps he will take this opportunity to clarify the Government’s position. Do they still intend to table a remedial order, or to move straight to what the Labour manifesto describes as new legislation in the field of legacy matters? Which is it?

--- Later in debate ---

[Luke Pollard]

The right hon. Gentleman will know, because I have had a similar conversation in a variety of different formats over recent weeks, that the policy intention of the Northern Ireland Office is to repeal and, importantly, replace the unlawful Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Act 2023. It has been found to be unlawful, it does not enjoy community support and it needs to be repealed and replaced. Any Government who were elected last July would have had to do that.

[Sir Julian Lewis]

On the point about not enjoying community support, when we were having these debates in great detail, the highly divided communities would always stand up and say how this was unacceptable and that was unacceptable, and then their representatives would quietly come up to us and say, “For goodness’ sake, go on doing what you are doing.” The Minister may have some legal problems to overcome, but let him not be fooled by what is said in public about what really needs to be done.

[Luke Pollard]

I thank the right hon. Member for his contribution. Indeed, it is a matter that my colleagues in the Northern Ireland Office follow closely as that is the lead Department with responsibility for the repealing and replacing of the legacy Act. I am certain that he will continue making suggestions in that way. It is not for me to make announcements on the Northern Ireland Office’s behalf, but I am certain that it will have listened to what he had to say.

I am grateful for the remarks from the hon. Member for Huntingdon (Ben Obese-Jecty). I told him just before this that I look forward to seeing him on the Front Bench in a shadow Defence role very soon. As he knows, I am a big fan of what he has to say, and I like the way he brings his military expertise and a certain defence nerdery, which, as a defence nerd on the Labour side, I very much appreciate.

I politely say to the hon. Member that my experience from engaging with our allies on NATO’s eastern flank—from Finland and the Baltic states all the way down, passing Belarus and others, is that the nations there value the relationship with the United Kingdom even more so over the past year. We have strong relations with the Joint Expeditionary Force nations of northern Europe, and we continue to deepen relations with our Baltic friends, including enhancing our forward land force in Estonia, and our co-operation and support for Latvia and Lithuania. I do not recognise that concern, but he is right to raise it, if only to allow me to put on the record that we have strong support from those nations and, indeed, we strongly support them in wanting to be sovereign and free, including from Russian aggression.

I also politely say to the hon. Member that RRS Sir David Attenborough provides an important presence in the Antarctic region. If he has not yet discovered polar region nerdery, can I recommend that to him? Not only do HMS Protector—our ice ship—and RRS Sir David Attenborough provide an important presence for our Arctic and Antarctic missions; they also help us honour our obligations under the Antarctic treaty, which is an important part of the rules-based framework for the protection of the Antarctic.