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.

Oral Answers to Questions

Julian Lewis Excerpts

Monday 30th June 2025 Commons Chamber

[Luke Pollard]

Counter-terrorism police are still investigating the incident at RAF Brize Norton, and it is right that we allow them the space to complete that investigation. The wider review looks at security at not just RAF Brize Norton, but all defence sites. We are looking with colleagues across Government at what investment is needed, and at how we can work with others to secure the safety of sites to ensure that the UK maintains operational security for all its assets.

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

Almost by definition, RAF sites have to have very long perimeter fences, so it is understandable that they could be overcome at one point or another. Why were they apparently not fitted with sensors, at least, so that any intrusion would have sounded the alarm?

[Luke Pollard]

I do not want to pre-empt the findings of all the reviews, but the right hon. Gentleman is right that our air bases tend to cover a large area. The perimeter fences we inherited on many of our air bases were not designed to keep everyone out with large things, but to be a perimeter defence. In the ongoing security work, we are looking at how technological solutions and changes in guarding might contribute to enhanced security, given the increased threat that we face.

Nuclear-certified Aircraft Procurement

Julian Lewis Excerpts

Wednesday 25th June 2025 Commons Chamber

[Maria Eagle]

Yes. I have been reminded of my promise to visit; that is on the list, and the visit will move closer to the top of the list after today. I agree with my hon. Friend. If we are to deter potential aggressors and adversaries, it is key that we implement the findings of the SDR and increase our capability, and that is what we are doing.

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

May I encourage the Government not to be at all bashful about the fact that the decision on whether one of these weapons will be used—heaven forbid—will be an American one? There is a long tradition of American nuclear weapons being based in NATO countries, not least the Cruise and Pershing missiles of the 1980s, which helped to end the cold war. Will the Minister confirm that not only does this fill a gap in our deterrence spectrum, but it reasserts the commitment of the United States to the defence of the other NATO countries?

[Maria Eagle]

The right hon. Gentleman is correct that the decision does all those things, and he has made a very good point.

War Memorials

Julian Lewis Excerpts

Tuesday 24th June 2025 Westminster Hall

[Shockat Adam (Leicester South) (Ind)]

It is a real pleasure to serve under your chairship for the first time, Mr Stuart. I thank the hon. Member for Cowdenbeath and Kirkcaldy (Melanie Ward) for securing the debate.

Like everybody else, I will speak about the importance of war memorials, not just as statues but as living symbols of remembrance that link our past to our present and help us shape the future that we want to build together in this country. Each war memorial—a cenotaph, a plaque or something practical such as a hospital wing or a bus shelter—is unique. These monuments build cohesion and serve as a method of remembrance for local communities. Sometimes the names etched on memorials are the only place where those individuals are remembered, so it is vital that we preserve them. Through them, we honour the sacrifices and courage and—a vital point in this divided and polarised world—our shared history.

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

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that something that makes the erection and maintenance of war memorials so much more poignant is that they are often paid for by the local communities themselves? They raise the money, and they continue to do so many years later. Only last weekend, I was at Marchwood village hall in my constituency, looking at a presentation about the war years with residents of that village in order to raise money to restore and refurbish their war memorial.

[Shockat Adam]

I agree: that local link with the community connects the past and the future.

As we remember, we must also reflect. It is painful to acknowledge that the stories that we tell through our war memorials have been incomplete for far too long. Animals that were sacrificed in the war efforts were rightly honoured with a national memorial in Hyde park in 2004, yet black and Asian soldiers who fought, bled and died for Britain have only recently begun to receive dedicated recognition. That is a shame that we as a nation must not shy away from.

More than 1.3 million soldiers from British India, including 400,000 Muslims and 100,000 Sikhs, served with dignity and honour in world war one. More than 53,000 lost their lives, and at least 2.5 million Muslim soldiers and labourers from across the globe supported the allied war effort. In fact, more than 9,000 soldiers from Palestine fought for Britain in world war two, and yet their stories remain largely erased from our national consciousness. As recently as 2021, a report from the Commonwealth War Graves Commission concluded that hundreds of thousands of predominantly black and Asian service personnel were not formally commemorated like their white comrades—a legacy underpinned by systemic racism at the time.

Who we remember and how we remember them matters, especially in these times of amplified fault lines. War memorials are not just stones and bronzes, but teaching tools. They are historical touchstones that allow young people to understand the past and the diverse sacrifices that were made in building this country and defending its freedoms. Excluding the contribution of black and Asian soldiers distorts our understanding of our shared history.

I am proud that in my city of Leicester, we now have a statue commemorating Sikh soldiers. It was unveiled in 2022, making it a long-overdue tribute to a community that made up more than 20% of the British Indian Army during world war one. I also welcome the plans to erect a national Muslim war memorial at the National Memorial Arboretum. That monument will finally give permanent recognition to the service and sacrifices of Muslim soldiers who fought for this country.

There is still much more to do. War memorials must do more than help us remember. They must tell the truth fully and fairly, and help us understand that British history was not built by one group alone but by people from every corner of the world. Memorials are and must always be more than stone and metal; they are symbols of our history and, when reflected accurately, our unity.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Minister for Defence Procurement and Industry (Maria Eagle)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stuart. It is quite clear from the debate today that many Members here, and probably many who have not made it to the debate, could speak at length about the memorials in their own constituencies. I congratulate and thank my hon. Friend for Cowdenbeath and Kirkcaldy (Melanie Ward) on securing the debate and highlighting the importance of war memorials in Britain, particularly in this armed forces week, when many of our minds turn to remembering the service of people in our armed forces. That includes, of course, remembering those who have sacrificed for our futures, their own.

The first duty of every Government is to protect its people, but it can only do so by asking men and women of our armed forces to do extraordinary things. They step forward, as is clear in today’s debate, from every corner of our United Kingdom—every hamlet, every village, every town, and every city, to serve with courage, commitment and resilience, separated from their loved ones and often in difficult and dangerous situations. It is no surprise, therefore, that communities left behind, and who have lost loved ones to conflicts that we have been involved in over the years, seek thereafter to commemorate and to do so in perpetuity to the extent that they can.

The story that my hon. Friend the Member for Cowdenbeath and Kirkcaldy told about her war memorial reaching its 100th anniversary today could be replicated around the country, but it is unique in that it has not only an art gallery and community space, but a library attached. It is clearly at the very heart of her community. It is therefore quite understandable that the events to commemorate the anniversary are so extensive and involve so many people—perhaps 8,000. I do not know if it is 8,000 people who have done a poppy each, or 4,000 who have done two each, but clearly quite a lot of people have knitted the poppies that will set a striking backdrop to the commemorations. Perhaps it is not surprising the extent to which her local community cares about that memorial, because of the way in which it came to be in the first place, arising at the end of the first world war, out of the grief of a rich member of society who lost his only son and therefore dedicated time and money thereafter to providing the memorial, the art galleries and, later on, the library.

It is unbelievable to me that memorials can be vandalised as my hon. Friend’s has been. I can only say that I am glad that the damage has been repaired. Although memorials are very rarely paid for by the Ministry of Defence or by the state, there is a scheme run by the Department for Culture, Media and Sport that provides for some contribution towards repairs if a memorial is vandalised, which would equate to the VAT. It would enable some contribution from Government, with all the proper forms being filled in. I think the deadline for this year is 30 June, so if that has not been applied for already, and it is helpful, then my hon. Friend needs to get her skates on and move fast.

It is quite clear across parties and from all Members who have spoken today the extent to which local Members of Parliament involve themselves in making sure that their memorials are known about and raised in the House. It is perhaps not surprising that there is amity across the Chamber. There has been no disagreement about how important these memorials are to local communities and the families of those commemorated upon them—not just the immediate family, but through generations. There is also educational value in making sure that the stories of those commemorated on them are told to subsequent generations. The example that my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow West (Patricia Ferguson) gave about a local school making sure that a lost memorial is remembered, even though it is 100 years since it was erected, is quite telling about the powerful nature of these stories, which are intergenerational and should go forward in time.

[Sir Julian Lewis]

Does the Minister agree that there is a particular importance of memorials to people who have no known grave but the sea? I believe I am right in saying that the three great Royal Naval memorials at Chatham, Portsmouth and Plymouth commemorate more than 66,000 Royal Naval personnel who lost their lives in the two world wars. Of course, the one at Tower Hill commemorates about 36,000 merchant seamen and fishing fleet personnel who were similarly lost with no known grave.

[Maria Eagle]

The right hon. Gentleman makes an excellent point. For families left behind—increasingly as time passes, it seems to me—the lack of a grave or something to mark an individual’s sacrifice is felt more deeply. It is therefore extremely understandable that there have been memorials erected latterly. It is completely correct and, I think, one of the values of the National Memorial Arboretum. The right hon. Member for Rayleigh and Wickford (Mr Francois) referenced his visits there, and I am sure that other colleagues have attended various events there. It is important to have a place in the middle of the country, which is where the Arboretum is, that can be attended and where there are a number of memorials to make sure that there is somewhere for everyone who has lost someone to go and contemplate that loss.

The right hon. Member for Rayleigh and Wickford also referenced the work of the Commonwealth War Graves Commission, which is unsung but extremely valuable and very much appreciated. On the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Jen Craft), my understanding is that the Commonwealth War Graves Commission does include women. I am not saying that every war memorial around the country includes women—that clearly is not the case—but the Commonwealth War Graves Commission does, as I understand it. However, her point that there are many forgotten people who lost their lives and are not on the memorials is an important one.

I have some numbers on those who have been commemorated who were lost at sea—the merchant sailors as well as the naval personnel—but the right hon. Member for New Forest East (Sir Julian Lewis) has just mentioned them, so I will not repeat them. The general point is that, apart from the Commonwealth War Graves Commission, the funding of memorials has overwhelmingly come from public individuals and organisations. That is why they survive—they are part of our communities, they are loved by our communities and they are supported by our communities. That is an important part of their power—they are seen as something that is done by local people, for local people, to commemorate local people.

Once again, I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Cowdenbeath and Kirkcaldy. I wish her very well with the commemorations. It will be hard to read the names out, so I particularly wish her well with that. If there are 1,500 names on her memorial, she will not do all of them, but it will none the less be a powerful reading. Reading out each name individually will take a lot of time, and it is a powerful indication of quite how many people were lost. It will be one of the most powerful parts of the commemorations. She highlighted what will happen in her constituency and I congratulate her.

UK Military Base Protection

Julian Lewis Excerpts

Monday 23rd June 2025 Commons Chamber

[Luke Pollard]

I thank my hon. Friend for that question. I am afraid that a Government Minister’s usual line about proscription is that we do not comment on it except when, as today, I have been able to confirm that a group has been proscribed following the Home Secretary’s decision. I encourage my hon. Friend to have a conversation with the Security Minister, who is sitting next to me.

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

I must say that I am very surprised that the Home Secretary chose to put out a written statement, rather than making an oral statement, when we could have put to her some of these points about what exactly qualifies a group to be proscribed as a terrorist organisation.

I entirely agree with the sentiment in the House that Palestine Action sabotaged these planes, caused criminal damage and could be liable to a charge of criminal conspiracy, and that the people who did the damage should be pursued for remuneration to the point of bankruptcy. However, 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. My advice to the Government is to make sure, when these people are prosecuted, that it is not solely on the grounds of committing terrorist acts, rather than committing treasonous acts of sabotage.

[Luke Pollard]

I reassure the right hon. Gentleman that there will be a full debate in this House in the coming days as part of the proscription process, so in due course he and all Members will have an opportunity to debate in full the proscription decision the Home Secretary has taken. I can tell him that the decision to proscribe has not been made without considerable thought, or without reflecting on the information in the public domain and information that perhaps is not, and that it was underpinned by a very serious legal process. I would agree with his concern, but I seek to reassure him that those matters have been considered as part of the process.

Afghan Relocations and Assistance Policy

Julian Lewis Excerpts

Thursday 5th June 2025 Commons Chamber

[Sir Iain Duncan Smith]

Indeed. The hon. Lady is right in raising those points. The fact is that this scheme does not fit the requirement any longer, and I think it is, in many senses, quite brutal and inhumane.

I will deal with a couple of the problems here, then I will deal with a personal case. First, the scheme is utterly slow and bureaucratic. I will say to the Minister from the start that this debate is not party political; it is very much about a scheme that we brought in and that the Government have inherited, and I hope that it can be changed.

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

In the spirit of that remark, I do not wish to ambush the Minister when he speaks with a quote from the Defence Secretary when he was the shadow Defence Secretary, so may I put it on the record now? After a major inquiry by The Independent, Lighthouse Reports and Sky News in November 2023, he was quoted as saying:

“It is extremely worrying to hear that Afghan special forces who were trained and funded by the UK are being denied relocation and left in danger. These reports act as a painful reminder that the government’s failures towards Afghans not only leave families in limbo in Pakistan hotels, but also put Afghan lives at serious threat from the Taliban. Britain’s moral duty to assist these Afghans is felt most fiercely by the UK forces they served alongside. There can be no more excuses.”

[Sir Iain Duncan Smith]

I agree with those words the Secretary of State for Defence said previously. I hope he was speaking to highlight problems with the Government, as those in opposition must do; I am afraid that my Government did not resolve that issue. At the end of my speech, as the Minister will know, I will pitch to him how things should be different.

The bureaucracy of the scheme is astonishing. Thousands of applications remain unresolved, some of which were submitted as far back as 2021. Many of these people have had to flee and hide with their families, because they risk death—I will come back to a particular case that highlights all that. The long lack of transparency and the long delays have left these individuals in personal and collective danger.

The scheme has narrow and inconsistent eligibility criteria. Individuals who have served alongside UK forces have been excluded due to narrow definitions and specific eligibility categories that rule them out. Others have been denied protection because they were employed by subcontractors rather than the Ministry of Defence, yet they carried out the same vital work and faced the same risks as others who were directly employed.

Then there are the broken promises. The UK Government assured those who served with the British forces that they would not be left behind, yet lives are still at risk. First-hand reports from Afghanistan show that former allies are now being targeted by the Taliban. I did not serve in Afghanistan—I did serve in the British military, a fact of which I was proud—but there are some in this Chamber today who did serve there and who know from first-hand experience what was going on.

Throughout all of this, as I lay out the individual case, there is a very simple theme: we must stand by those who stood by us, because if we do not, we are not worthy of being British or of the freedoms we uphold and fight for. Those who stood by us fought for those freedoms, too; they supported us in those fights, and we cannot abandon them, given the threats they now face. The fact that they are in hiding, fearful for their lives, is an absolute travesty, and the idea that we could have forgotten them should be a badge of shame for any British Government and for the British establishment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Luke Pollard]

First, I put on record that we have exceptional civil servants working in this area who take the decisions very seriously and make those decisions in full consciousness of their consequences. I am absolutely convinced that we have a good team working on this.

On the point the hon. Member raises, we are making decisions against the published criteria, and it is right to do so. We know that amendments to the published criteria change the eligibility in respect of past cases. We also know that at the moment we have the most generous Afghan resettlement scheme. We have resettled 34,000 eligible persons in the United Kingdom under ARAP and the associated Afghan resettlement schemes, which is more than many of our allies. It is right that we make those decisions against the published criteria, and that we look carefully at them. That is why I undertook to do so in this case, and I have done so.

There is a real challenge, and I entirely understand it. As someone who has advocated for Afghans in my own Plymouth constituency who fell outside the published criteria, which were set in place by the last Government and that we have followed, I have often argued that we should look again at this obligation. I am entirely aware that the majority of my efforts on this have centred on the Triples, who I will come on to, and whether those decisions were made correctly. I will give the House an update on that in a moment.

I want to make sure that decisions are correct according to the published criteria. Those criteria are frequently challenged in the courts, and we have to uphold them to make sure that every decision is valid. Every case is assessed on a case-by-case basis, based on the information provided following a request for the information held not just by the Ministry of Defence but by other Government Departments and partners across Government, in order to make sure that the decision taken is as appropriate as possible. Individuals who get a decision that is not in their favour also have the ability to provide additional evidence and to have that decision reviewed.

[Sir Julian Lewis]

I know that the Minister sincerely cares about all of this, and I am sure that he really wants to do his best, however the key point being made by my hon. and right hon. and gallant Friends is that, if the criteria do not cater for a situation in which senior British military personnel give first-person testimony that somebody saved British lives by taking exceptionally courageous steps in our support, the criteria need to be adjusted. That is what should be done, as I hope he is going tell us that it may have been adjusted for the Triples.

[Luke Pollard]

I entirely understand where the right hon. Gentleman is going with that argument. Under the criteria in the scheme we inherited from the previous Government, which we have continued, we have made the decision, with the exception of the Triples, to keep the eligibility decisions the same.

Let me turn to the Triples, which the right hon. Gentleman raised. I believe that the quote of the Secretary of State when in opposition was in relation to the very concerning situation—I believe it was a concern to him and to me when in opposition—that decisions were made in respect of the Afghan special forces, the Triples, that were inconsistent with the evidence that was being provided. We backed and called for the Triples review, which was initiated by my predecessor in the previous Government. Phase 1 of that review has now completed and we have achieved an overturn rate of around 30%. A written ministerial statement on that was published— I think last month—should the right hon. Gentleman want to refer to the full details.

In that work, we interrogated the data that was available. The record-keeping of that period was not good enough, as I have said from the Dispatch Box a number of times since taking office. As part of that trawl, we discovered information in relation to top-up payments, which previously had been excluded from the criteria because they did not constitute the relationship with the UK Government that would have created eligibility. Our belief is that the way those top-up payments were applied may now constitute a relationship that needs to be re-examined, so phase 2 of the Triples review, which will be the final phase of the review, is looking at top-up payments. It was right to do that, because there was a clear point.

In the case raised by the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green, I am very happy to try to see what is available to support it. I feel very deeply that we need to honour our obligations to those people who served alongside our forces, from the Afghan translators and interpreters who live in the constituency I represent, to the people who fought, and in some cases died, alongside our forces. The ARAP scheme is a generous scheme, but it was not intended, at its point of initiation or now, to cover all Afghans who fought in that conflict over 20 years. It was designed to support those who we can evidence had a close connection to UK forces, often defined by a contractual or payment relationship—in blunt plain-English terms—where a sizeable commitment has been made. That draws a line for some individuals who were employed by the Afghan national army, the Afghan Government and elements of the security structures that the Afghan Government had at that time, for which eligibility is not created despite their role. The Taliban regime has created chaos, instability and terror through many communities in Afghanistan since our departure. That is why, as a Government, we are trying to accelerate and deliver the Afghan scheme.

The hon. Member for North East Fife mentioned communications. That is entirely right. It is something I have been raising since becoming a Minister. We will introduce, from the autumn, a new series of communications designed to help people understand where their application is in the process. The new performance indicators will kick in from September time—roughly in the autumn—and that will seek to help people to understand where they are in the process. There is concern around understanding for how long a case will be dealt with. I also hope the performance indicators will have time-bound targets to help people be able to rate the performance of the Ministry of Defence. Certainly, when the Defence Secretary published his statement on the Afghan resettlement scheme at the end of last year, he made the case that we need to complete our obligation and bring the schemes to a close, and it is our objective to do so.

Armed Forces Commissioner Bill

Julian Lewis Excerpts

Consideration of Lords amendments
Tuesday 3rd June 2025 Commons Chamber

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

It has often been said that the courts rejected the legacy Act, at least in part. I am not aware of which part specifically they rejected, but I would like to remind the ministerial team that in 2017 the then Defence Committee examined in great detail whether it would be legal to have a statute of limitation that would put an end to these prosecutions. Four professors of law, including Philippe Sands, agreed that it would be, as long as there was an investigative process, possibly embodied in a truth recovery process. When the Government bring forward whatever alternative legislation to the legacy Act they propose, will they make sure that a statute of limitation is part of it?

[Luke Pollard]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman. He and I have had many long discussions about issues that the Committee discussed when he chaired it, and I am aware that my hon. Friend the Member for Slough (Mr Dhesi) may have interest in this as Chair of the Committee today. I will ensure that my colleagues in the Northern Ireland Office who are leading on that work have heard those remarks.

UK Nuclear Deterrent

Julian Lewis Excerpts

Monday 2nd June 2025 Commons Chamber

[Luke Pollard]

A fundamental part of the conversations about the strategic defence review that Lord Robertson and the review team have been having since the Labour Government came to power is how we reinforce the concept of deterrence, and why the concept of deterrence is so important to our security. Our armed forces—some of the best in the world—have capabilities that should deter any aggression, and we will be further enhancing that through the measures set out in the strategic defence review, as the Defence Secretary will announce shortly. We want to deter aggression but, if necessary, we need to have the capabilities to defeat it, and that is what the strategic defence review, which will be announced shortly, will detail to the House.

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

As it was this issue that brought me into politics many decades ago, it is an absolute pleasure to hear the full-throated commitment of both the Government and the Liberal Democrats to the strategic nuclear deterrent. If the future of the American commitment to NATO were not in doubt, we would not need to think about tactical nuclear weapons ourselves, because that role has always been fulfilled by US tactical nuclear weapons allocated to the defence of NATO. Will the Minister assure the House that we have sufficient confidence in the willingness of the United States, despite the present Administration’s attitude to NATO, that the co-operation that we need for the future of our strategic nuclear deterrent is not in doubt?

[Luke Pollard]

I can indeed. The defence partnership we have with the United States, particularly on nuclear deterrence, is a strong one. We know that President Trump and the US Defence Secretary, Pete Hegseth, have reaffirmed their support for article 5 of the NATO treaty. As we build towards the NATO summit in The Hague, the UK will set out not only how we plan further to enhance our deterrence, but how we plan to ensure that collectively, across the NATO alliance, we are more lethal and more able to deter. The reason why that additional deterrence is necessary is the increased threats that we face as a nation, both conventional and cyber-threats, and increased nuclear threats.

Strategic Defence Review

Julian Lewis Excerpts

Monday 2nd June 2025 Commons Chamber

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

Order. Questions are very long, and the answers are getting longer as well. We need to get many colleagues in, so can we please keep it short?

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

It is tempting to remind the Secretary of State about the 4.5% to 5% of GDP that was spent on defence by Conservative Governments throughout the cold war years of the 1980s, but instead may I ask whether, like me, he would endorse what Admiral Lord West wrote in the national press last week, when he stated that the Chagos deal was a “disgraceful decision”, and that as a former chief of defence intelligence, he did not accept that the move is

“absolutely vital for our defence and intelligence”

as the Prime Minister claims? He is a former Labour security Minister and current House of Lords representative on the Intelligence and Security Committee, so he knows what he is talking about, doesn’t he?

[John Healey]

On the contrary, Madam Deputy Speaker, this deal is essential to safeguard operational sovereignty for the UK of the base on Diego Garcia, to allow us to protect within the 20 nautical-mile radius of that base, and the ability to safeguard that for the future. It is essential to our and American intelligence and defence operations, and it is a linchpin of the special relationship that we have between the US and UK on intelligence and defence matters, of which the right hon. Gentleman is always such a strong champion.

Diego Garcia Military Base

Julian Lewis Excerpts

Thursday 22nd May 2025 Commons Chamber

[John Healey]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Our close allies take a close interest, and they can see that this treaty is the best way of securing—for the UK, for the US and for themselves—a vital base on which we can help both to project military power and to reinforce regional security. My hon. Friend will see the 24 nautical mile buffer zone—an exclusion zone, if you like—that allows us to control the seas and the air. We would not be able to do that, increasingly, without the deal. She will see that sweep and an effective veto on any developments across the archipelago to ranges of at least 100 nautical miles. She will also see the value of a deal that guarantees our full operational sovereignty and therefore prevents any undermining of our ability to use the electromagnetic spectrum. As I said in my statement, that is so crucial to the unique capabilities that this base and its operations offer to this country and to the United States.

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

When a former Foreign Secretary asks a sitting Defence Secretary for a direct answer as to which court would be able to make a binding judgment against us on this matter, he is entitled to a direct answer, so will the Secretary of State now give that direct answer?

[John Healey]

There are a range of international legal challenges and rulings against us. The most proximate, and the most potentially serious, is the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea.