War in Ukraine

Julian Lewis Excerpts

Thursday 4th December 2025 Commons Chamber

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

One of the advantages of being called at a late stage of the debate is that I can put my hand on my heart and truthfully say that every single speech in this debate so far has been outstandingly good. I have agreed with virtually every word of every one of them, and looking at the calibre of the remaining people, including all three Front-Bench representatives, I have every confidence that the standard will be maintained till the end.

A former occupant of your chair, Madam Deputy Speaker, used to give courses in good public speaking technique. He always said, “If you wish your speech to have any useful impact after the event, it should not contain more than one, or at most two—and that is stretching it—key points.” So here is my one key point, which, I am delighted to say, has been touched on very effectively by the hon. Member for Llanelli (Dame Nia Griffith), among others: any settlement that does not have a military presence on the ground of unoccupied Ukraine from the country or countries offering a security guarantee will be a disaster. I ask the House to consider Europe at the end of the second world war, when the tripartite alliance had largely broken down, and Stalin was in occupation of eastern Europe and, of course, the eastern half of Germany, which his troops had conquered. The west was in occupation of the remainder of the European continent—literally, in the case of West Germany.

What would have happened—knowing what we know now about the nature of Soviet communism—if, instead of the victorious western allies maintaining a very large military presence in occupied western Germany, they had said, “Right, we’ll demilitarise this and clear out, but we’re going to give the West German politicians who follow a security guarantee that if any trouble happens, we will stand by them”? The only thing that stopped a conflict breaking out between the Soviet occupying forces and the western world was the fact that, right up against the dividing line between Soviet-dominated East Germany and the rest of Germany, there were western allied troops, and it would have been impossible for the Soviet forces to move against West Germany without immediately triggering a major military counter-action.

I have often said—and I make no apology for saying it again—that it is worth looking at the two halves of the 20th century. In the first half, we had two global conflicts—two world wars. In the second half, despite the intense ideological and military rivalry between the communist world and the democratic western world, we had no global conflicts—no third world war. I put that down to two factors. One was unprecedented: the nuclear balance of terror. But it was not enough to stop all forms of conflict, because it is possible for conventional conflicts to go ahead under the threshold of the nuclear balance without necessarily triggering Armageddon. That is why we have to have strong conventional deterrent forces, too.

So, what was the other factor preventing the cold war from becoming the third world war? It is quite clear that it was the most successful alliance in history: the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation. It grieves me to say that because of some of the occupants of high office in the capital of our ally the United States, the future of the NATO alliance—and therefore the future of world peace, frankly—is hanging by a thread.

It was the chief staff officer and representative on the war time chiefs of staff committee of Winston Churchill, General Sir Hastings Ismay, who became the first Secretary-General of NATO. He is credited with having made the rather pithy but nevertheless very accurate observation that the purpose of the alliance at the time it was founded was threefold: to keep the Americans in, to keep the Russians out, and to keep the Germans down. That third element fortunately became redundant as West Germany developed into a democracy—so quickly, in fact, that in May 1955, 10 years virtually to the day from the surrender on Lüneburg heath of the Nazis to General Montgomery, Germany itself was admitted to the NATO alliance.

I ask people to take another counterfactual look at history. If the Kaiser had known in 1914 that if he invaded neutral Belgium, he would immediately be at war with the United States of America, would he have done it? I think the answer is no. If Hitler had known in 1939 that if he invaded Poland, he would immediately be at war with the United States of America, would he have done it? I think the answer very probably is no to that as well. Therefore, the secret to keeping the peace in the world is to keep America engaged with the security of Europe.

America is going through a phase at the moment—which seems to hinge on a number of personalities who hold power in that great democracy, apparently with the approval of a majority of the electorate—in which its commitment to European and thus world security is in doubt. This is the chance for Europeans, whether inside the EU or, like us, outside it, to show that we can do our bit. We have to keep the show on the road until America once again stands up for the policy of the second half of the 20th century, which stopped the third world war, rather than it reverting to its policy of isolationism from the first half of the 20th century, and standing by, which caused two global conflicts that could have been prevented.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jim Shannon]

We all appreciate and understand that horror that children have had to endure.

The right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith) and I were among the first in the House to wear the Ukraine ribbon. I have worn it every day since then and I will wear it until the war is over—I may even wear it after the war is over, in solidarity with the Ukrainians. I will always plead their case in this House, as other hon. Members do, and no sanction from Putin will ever stop me from doing that.

The monitoring by the United Nation’s Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights reports that some 50,000 civilians have been killed or injured in Ukraine since February 2022, with thousands of verified civilian deaths. Many have also reported that the death toll could be significantly higher. I am prepared to be proved wrong, but due to the lack of reporting, I suspect that it probably is higher. Roughly 5 million to 6 million people are registered as refugees abroad, with a further 3.5 million internally displaced within Ukraine.

The human rights monitoring mission in Ukraine stated that since 24 February 2022 there have been hundreds of cases of conflict-related sexual violence. Girls from as young as eight to women as old as 80 have been violated by Russian monsters who think that they can do whatever they want. I want to see justice for those families. When the war ends, accountability for the actions of those who have murdered and killed across Ukraine has to be a part of the peace that comes. The Ukrainian ombudsman referred to 292 cases of sexual violence—how many have gone unrecorded?

I remember—we all do—the case of Bakhmut. Whenever the Russians retreated, left or were forced out, a mass grave was found of over 200 men, women and children who just happened to be Ukrainians. The Russians thought they could murder them. Accountability? I tell you what: I want to see accountability for that.

[Sir Julian Lewis]

Has the hon. Gentleman noticed that point 26 of the 28-point Witkoff plan is a general amnesty for everyone? That would mean that whoever committed the most atrocious war crimes would never be held accountable at all.

[Jim Shannon]

I did notice that. I want to be clear to the right hon. Gentleman and everyone in the House that we will never sign up to that. These people think they can get away with it. Of course, being a Christian, I know that they will suffer in the next world—it will be damnation for them—but I want to see them getting it in this world. They can get it in the next world as well.

Abuse has included torture, sexual torture, humiliation and sexual violence. Videos are going about where Russian soldiers have filmed themselves torturing—cutting off limbs and, in some cases, private parts of the anatomy —and then they have shown it around all their friends as if that is something to be proud of. Amnesty? I don’t think so. It is time to make them accountable for it all.

Churches across eastern Ukraine in Donetsk and Luhansk have been destroyed. Pastors of the Baptist church—I happen to be a member of a Baptist church—went missing in the early years of the war, and there has not been any account of where they are; they have disappeared. It is about accountability—what has happened to them? I suggest that the Russians have been involved in that as well. There is no accountability.

Members have referred to the nightly attacks on civilian targets—apartment blocks, civilians, children and women—not military targets. The hon. Member for Harwich and North Essex referred to that in his introduction and the thinking behind it. There has to be accountability for all the things that are happening. It is horrifying to think about the reality of the situation.

According to the Institute for Religious Freedom, by early 2023 at least 494 religious buildings had been destroyed, damaged or looted because of war; by late 2023, the total number of religious sites affected had grown to 630. There is a systematic campaign by Russian soldiers and by Putin himself to go against the evangelical and Ukrainian Orthodox churches right across Ukraine. The all-party parliamentary group for international freedom of religion or belief, which I chair, has undertaken incredible work on this matter so that all religions and communities can be represented. Damage has affected Orthodox churches, Protestant churches, prayer houses, Jehovah’s witness kingdom halls, Catholic churches, mosques, synagogues and others in a systematic campaign by Russia against religious churches and freedom of belief, which we all believe in. [Interruption.]

I apologise, Madam Deputy Speaker. I am conscious of the time, so I will conclude. I look towards the United States of America for greater intervention. President Trump has done great when it comes to Israel—nobody can deny that he was probably the motivator for that—but he does not seem to be doing the same thing with Russia; his bias is clear. After five hours of talks yesterday between Putin and Trump’s senior negotiator, we are still no further forward as there was no breakthrough on securing a peace deal. It is time for President Trump to join the EU, European countries and NATO to ensure that Putin is forced to the table of negotiation and the table of peace.

--- Later in debate ---

[Al Carns]

I was in Germany just last week, and when I left, I muttered, “Germany is back.” I think that representatives from Germany going to Belgium to help unlock a significant amount of resource for Ukraine can be nothing but a good thing.

Many Members mentioned the increase in hybrid conflict. The conventional war that Russia is waging is the most barbaric that we have seen since, I would argue, world war one or world war two. Nevertheless, Europe and the west must accept that this attritional, force-on-force, game-of-chequers approach is accompanied by a sophisticated chess match, the consequences of which are as deadly. I believe that Russia is probing to find weaknesses in our security and critical national infrastructure. It is manoeuvring and flanking to change opinions, both on social media and in political parties, and is seeking to circumnavigate sanctions at every opportunity, and it is doing so with like-minded autocratic regimes. We must work doubly hard to identify, expose and deter those threats, and we should have the capability to defeat them, should they prevail.

I disagree with the comments of the hon. Member for Inverness, Skye and West Ross-shire (Mr MacDonald) about timidity and a lack of leadership. In the foreign policy space, the UK, in conjunction with our European allies, has helped the Americans come to a more workable solution, and the Ukrainians have been put right at the heart of that—and I think that the Prime Minister has demonstrated exceptional leadership in that. We are still seen to be leading this fight. I look to the Conservative Benches. Whether it be Storm Shadow or Challenger, collectively we have led on this, from a UK perspective. I do not think that we are lacking in any way.

[Sir Julian Lewis]

One way in which we could continue to lead would be by giving a very firm commitment that if the frontlines are indeed frozen, a coalition of the willing would have military assets on the ground, at the invitation of unoccupied Ukraine, so that there could be no question but that a future attack would trigger a response from that coalition. Otherwise, any security guarantee is not worth the paper on which it is printed.

1994 RAF Chinook Crash

Julian Lewis Excerpts

Wednesday 26th November 2025 Westminster Hall

[Alex Easton]

I totally agree with everything the hon. and learned Member says. The families deserve better; they deserve the truth, and we in Parliament deserve the opportunity to get them that truth.

Today, with the clear backing of tens of thousands of British citizens—as evidenced by the Change.org petition—I rise to demand a full public inquiry, because nothing less will provide justice for the dead or restore faith among the living. At the very least, any functioning democracy must be able to answer three basic questions in circumstances such as these: what happened; why did it happen; and what have we done—or what are we going to do—to ensure that it can never happen again? To put it in the terms set out by 24 of the 29 bereaved families, the bare minimum requirement is a fully independent, judge-led public inquiry with statutory powers to compel witnesses and to take evidence under oath; access to all relevant material, including currently sealed documentation; and clear, robust recommendations for systemic reform, so that nothing like this can ever happen again.

The integrity, clarity and reasonableness of what is being sought could not be more evident. This is not a radical demand; it is the basic standard of accountability that a mature democracy owes to its citizens and, above all, to those who lost their lives and the families. Having identified the gaps, as well as the remedy—a judge-led public inquiry—the question before us is whether we have the will to act. We are here not simply to catalogue injustice, but to confront and correct it. That is ultimately the purpose of this House: to ensure that when wrong has been done, justice is not just spoken of, but delivered.

Let me turn to the doubts and divisions that have marred this process. The record shows that from the very outset, the handling of this tragedy has in many ways been a second tragedy. It has been marked by profound and enduring concerns, including the initial findings of gross negligence against the pilots; the long and painful campaign by the pilots’ families—I pay tribute to them all—to overturn that verdict; serious concerns about the airworthiness and software of the Chinook fleet at the time; questions about pressures on crews, training, procedures and decision making; and deep unease, to put it mildly, about conflicts of evidence and missing, incomplete or constrained documentation.

Years later, the pilots were posthumously cleared of gross negligence. When I look at what evidence ever existed for such a grave accusation, I find it inexplicable that the original conclusion was reached. That should make every Member of this House stop and think. Let me be absolutely clear: if the state can wrongly pin gross negligence on two dead airmen—men who could not speak in their own defence—what confidence can we possibly have that the whole truth has been properly and fully explored?

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

I have a history with this story. Back in 1999, the late Lord Chalfont and I tried to draw attention to the fact that even at the time, the rules said that only if there was no doubt whatsoever should dead airmen be blamed for gross negligence. Since this case, under no circumstances are dead airmen blamed for gross negligence. That should be some comfort to the families, at least those of the airmen, because there have since been cases in which the Chief of the Air Staff has rightly ordered records to be changed retrospectively to clear airmen in other crashes who were unfairly blamed. That is a result of the furore about this terrible case—it is something for which the relatives of those who died can take credit. It will never happen again to any other airman who dies in the course of fulfilling his or her duty.

[Alex Easton]

The right hon. Member makes some very poignant points, and makes them well. I appreciate that they have been made.

I will tell you what I do have confidence in, Mr Dowd: I have confidence in the words of Niven Phoenix, a bereaved son who lost a heroic father. He said that if he were choosing the aircrew again, he would choose exactly the same ones. That is the measure of the men we are talking about. The clearing of the pilots did not close the book on the story; it reopened it, raising further fundamental questions. If not pilot error, then what? What combination of factors—technical, procedural and organisational—contributed to this disaster? Why were certain lines of inquiry seemingly resisted or, at best, left under-examined? Why were experts put under a direct order to cease their investigation? For many of the families, and for many observers, those questions remain profoundly unresolved.

Let me turn to why a judge-led inquiry is not only desirable but necessary. To the cynics who say, “This has been looked at before; it is time to move on,” let me be absolutely clear that that argument fails on three levels—moral, constitutional and practical. First, I will set out the moral case. There is a clear and unavoidable duty owed to the dead and to their families. The men and women on board ZD576 were in the service of their country; they were doing their duty, often in the most sensitive areas of national security. The very least they deserve in return is something fundamental: if they are killed in the line of duty, the state will move heaven and earth to discover how and why.

Instead, for 30 years, the families have had to fight again and again for answers that should have been offered willingly. They have had to endure conflicting official narratives, piecemeal disclosures and technical complexities sometimes being used as a shield and barrier against proper lay scrutiny, as well as long periods of silence, delay and dismissal. All this has unfolded while families have grown older waiting for justice, and some parents have died without ever seeing their child fully cleared, or having received a clear and honest account of what happened to them. We cannot change the past or undo this terrible crash, but we can decide how we face it; we can choose either candour or continued evasion. Make no mistake—that is the moral choice that Members of this House are making today.

Secondly, there is the constitutional case, which is a question of trust in the state itself. Our democracy fully functions only if our citizens can believe with confidence that when something goes terribly wrong, the state will not close ranks to protect itself. When tragedies such as this aircraft crash occur, in which decisions at the highest level may have played a part, the very minimum that the British public are entitled to expect is that evidence is not buried, mistakes are not quietly airbrushed away, and those in authority are not shielded simply because of their rank or department.

A full judge-led public inquiry with powers to compel witnesses and take evidence under oath is the gold standard in our constitutional toolkit for restoring truth and trust—for examining major disasters, exposing state failings in policing, health, security and transport, and confronting painful truths about institutional abuse and misconduct. If the deaths of 29 people, including senior security and intelligence figures, on a military aircraft in the service of their country do not meet the bar for such an inquiry, it is very hard to see what ever would. It would be a profound constitutional error for this House to imply that there are areas of state activity that can never be fully examined, regardless of how serious the consequences are. I do not believe that any Member of this House would be content with that.

Thirdly, let me turn to the practical realities. We insist on a judge-led inquiry with powers to compel witnesses and take evidence under oath because it is the only form of inquiry that has tools equal to the task. This House knows that only a full public inquiry can compel serving and former officials to give evidence; require the disclosure of all relevant material across departments and agencies; hear expert and technical testimony with the rigour needed to weigh competing interpretations; test accounts against each other in a structured and forensic way; and place everything within a publicly accessible framework in a clear, reasoned report. Let us be honest: without the power to compel, we rely on voluntary co-operation, which is by its nature selective. Without evidence given under oath, we cannot properly test credibility or consistency, and without judicial leadership, we cannot guarantee the independence, discipline and authority needed to command public confidence.

Let me tackle the objections to a public inquiry head on. Some people say, “This happened a long time ago.” Indeed, the crash was in 1994. Time has passed, but it has not healed; it has fomented doubt, leaving a growing sense of injustice. Memories may fade, but documentation does not. Technical records can be scrutinised. Policies, processes and decision making can be examined. Many witnesses are still alive and capable of giving evidence. The delays we have seen to date are not an excuse to fail to act now; they are, in truth, a reason to act.

Some people say, “There have already been investigations” —well, yes, of sorts. There have been fragmented processes, internal reviews and limited inquiries, but we have never had the single, judge-led public inquiry that the gravity of this tragedy demands. Those piecemeal processes cannot substitute for a full public reckoning. If previous procedures had been adequate, we would not be standing here now three decades on. The fact that this question remains unsettled is deeply telling in itself.

Some people say an inquiry will cost money—of course it will: truth, justice and confidence in democratic processes have a cost, but what is the cost of failing to act? It is the cost to the families in prolonged anguish and uncertainty. It is the reputational cost to the RAF and our democratic institutions, given the inadequacies of past investigations. It is the cost to the wider public’s confidence when it appears that some tragedies receive full scrutiny, while others are expected to be quietly managed and forgotten. When heroic lives have been lost in the service of the Crown, the cost of an inquiry is not a luxury or an optional extra; it is part of the debt we owe.

Some people say that an inquiry might endanger national security. We have heard that before in other contexts, yet time and again it has been shown to be possible to balance transparency with legitimate secrecy— inquiries can take sensitive evidence in closed session, for example. Highly classified material can be handled through carefully controlled procedures. Redactions can be made, subject to independent oversight. National security must never be used as a blanket to smother legitimate questions. The families are not seeking operational secrets; they are seeking an honest account of why their loved ones died and whether the actions or omissions of the state played a part. I contend that it is not only possible, but now entirely normal for a public inquiry to both protect the safety of our nation and respect the rights of citizens to the truth.

The issue is about far more than one crash, one aircraft and one dark day in 1994; it goes to the heart of how we treat those who serve, and how we respond when they are lost. Failure is not an option because if we continue to fail the families of those who died on Chinook ZD576, we send a chilling message to every current and future member of the armed forces and security services: “We value your service, but if the worst happens the truth about your death may not always be negotiable.” I do not believe that a single member of this House finds that acceptable, let alone tolerable. A proper judge-led public inquiry is not simply about revisiting the past; it is about learning lessons for the future. It is about airworthiness, risk and how we respond to concerns over equipment.

Behind each of the 29 lost lives was a unique and irreplaceable story: a pilot who trained for years and took deep pride in his aircraft and his crew; specialist officers who sacrificed family life and health to confront some of the most brutal terrorism western Europe has ever known, placing their own lives between the innocent and those who would harm them. Parents, wives, husbands and children have been left with an empty chair at the table, birthdays never celebrated, and milestones never reached. Children have grown up with treasured photographs and cherished memories instead of a living parent. Then there was a knock on the door, the formal words of condolence and the long, grinding aftermath of unanswered questions.

For so many of the families, the search for truth has required them to become unwilling experts in aviation, procedure and bureaucracy, simply so they could argue their case on something approaching equal terms. They have pored over reports, examined technical data and followed every thread of the investigation to date. They have written to Members of the House again and again in the hope that somewhere in authority there might be a listening ear with the courage to act.

We should hang our heads in shame that three decades on the families are still having to ask. Their position is not radical or unreasonable; it is, in fact, an appeal to simple integrity. They want a judge-led full public inquiry, with the power to compel witnesses—past and present—to attend, with the ability to take evidence under oath and with access to all the relevant documentation, to produce a public report that clearly sets out what is known, what is not known and what must change. That is not some dramatic departure from constitutional norms; it is entirely in line with the very best of our tradition of providing accountability when things go badly wrong.

We face a stark choice today. When the victims’ families knocked on our doors, did we listen politely and then quietly turn our backs or did we take their pain seriously? Did we recognise the limitations and shortcomings of the earlier processes? Did we accept that in a mature democracy the state must submit itself to the discipline of searching, independent scrutiny?

What is being sought is a fair route to the truth and to justice: an honest account of what happened and why. It should not be feared. Indeed, it should be embraced if we truly believe in the rule of law, accountability and the dignity of those who served and died. Today, we choose between courage and convenience. I urge Members to choose courage.

--- Later in debate ---

[Louise Sandher-Jones]

Yes, that is the information I have been given.

The Department has made a number of important changes to its air safety and incident review processes since 1994. As we heard from the right hon. Member for New Forest East (Sir Julian Lewis), the change to the board of inquiry process so that negligence is not attributed to dead airmen is a hugely important step, which resulted partly from the investigations of this incident.

Chief among the changes is the establishment of the Military Aviation Authority, an independent and autonomous body that ensures that expert, no-blame investigations of safety-related incidents and near misses across all defence domains are independent, impartial and timely. As recommended by the board of inquiry report, accident data recorders and cockpit voice recorders are now installed across the vast majority of Ministry of Defence air fleets, and formalised instrument meteorological conditions climb procedures were introduced throughout the RAF to support aircrew to safely negotiate poor weather conditions. Today the RAF has a robust and effective safety management system, and a commitment to total safety is embedded in the culture of the organisation.

[Sir Julian Lewis]

I apologise for intervening after having stepped out for part of the debate—this may already have been covered. Has any consideration been given to possible embarrassment over the decision to put so many staff, in so many sensitive positions, into a single aircraft? Despite my past interest in this case, I am not sure that I have ever heard that rules have been changed so that so many precious resources are not put at risk all in one single vehicle.

[Louise Sandher-Jones]

It is a very interesting point. I understand the reference, and I would be interested to know about further standard operating procedures. I am sure that, as the right hon. Member will understand, it is quite a rare occurrence to have that many senior people on the same airframe in the course of business, but I cannot say right now that that is definitely the case, or what the bounds are in terms of ranks and so on. I am sure the right hon. Member will appreciate that.

Blood Transfusions during the Falklands War

Julian Lewis Excerpts

Tuesday 11th November 2025 Commons Chamber

[The Minister for Veterans and People (Louise Sandher-Jones)]

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool Walton (Dan Carden) for securing this important debate and for raising the case of his constituent. It is rather apt that we are holding this debate on Armistice Day and so soon after Remembrance Sunday, when people the length and breadth of the UK came together to commemorate the fallen. As a veteran myself, I would like to start my remarks by thanking my hon. Friend’s constituent for his years of service to our country, in particular his contribution to the Falklands war and to restoring sovereignty to the people of the Falklands, which came at a huge personal cost. His courage, and the courage and sacrifice demonstrated by all those who served in the Falklands war, shall never be forgotten.

I need to be clear at the outset that I am limited in the extent to which I can go into the particular case of my hon. Friend’s constituent. While the information I have can never undo the harms caused by infected blood, I hope it will provide some measure of reassurance to his constituent that there is a clear route to compensation for members of our armed forces who received infected blood. The infected blood inquiry’s report, which laid bare the details of the national infected blood scandal, explicitly set out that the infected blood compensation scheme includes provision for individuals who received infected blood during armed forces treatment overseas, which includes veterans of the Falklands war.

As I say, no amount of money can undo the damage caused to people’s lives. However, this Government are determined that the infected blood compensation scheme will be there to bring redress to those who have been impacted. It is important to note that the compensation scheme does not have hard cut-off dates for determining whether a person is eligible based on when their infection was acquired and that all evidence will be assessed independently, on the balance of probabilities. While the scheme does acknowledge that screening for hepatitis B was introduced in December 1972, before the start of the Falklands war, it does not preclude claims that demonstrate they fell outside of the screening programme.

In terms of process, the infected blood compensation scheme is delivered by the Infected Blood Compensation Authority, which is the body responsible for handling claims and making payments. The assessments that it makes are based on the scheme’s regulations, and it operates independently of the Ministry of Defence and other Government Departments. The authority began making payments to infected people in 2024. Last month, it launched its registration service for those who wish to make a claim. I encourage my hon. Friend’s constituent and any other Falklands veterans who believe they may have been infected through blood transfusion to register with this service.

It is important that I address the issue of veterans’ medical records and acknowledge that historical records from the early 1980s are not up to modern standards and are often incomplete. That should not discourage affected veterans from applying for the infected blood compensation scheme because, I repeat, the Infected Blood Compensation Authority will consider all available evidence.

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

As an officer of the all-party parliamentary group on haemophilia and contaminated blood, I would like to confirm, in support of what the Minister is saying and the advice she is giving, that the contact I have had with IBCA has been very positive. It seems to want to engage on a personal basis with people who have suffered in this way. The hon. Member for Liverpool Walton (Dan Carden) really should advise his constituent to take up this offer to engage with the authority; I think he will be pleasantly surprised at the positive response he will get.

[Louise Sandher-Jones]

I thank the right hon. Member for his intervention.

In relation specifically to blood transfusions aboard SS Uganda during the Falklands war, the MOD has made extensive inquiries and concluded that it does not hold information in relation to these. I reiterate that I am speaking about MOD files rather than other forms of evidence that exist, as my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool Walton said. It has also concluded that any detailed information on the source of blood used is unlikely to have been recorded in medical records during this period.

Remembrance Day: Armed Forces

Julian Lewis Excerpts

Tuesday 11th November 2025 Commons Chamber

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

I congratulate everyone who has contributed to the debate so far. Of all the fine contributions, I want to start where the hon. Member for Stirling and Strathallan (Chris Kane) left off. He spoke about the mother attending the memorial where her husband and two sons’ names were all inscribed. On Saturday I had the privilege of attending the War Widows’ special ceremony of remembrance at the Cenotaph. If one looks at the website of the War Widows Association, one sees this interesting piece of historical context. It says:

“Originally, when the association was formed”—

in 1971—

“the widows were not allowed to take part in the annual November Sunday service and march past at the Cenotaph. As they wanted to show their respect to their husbands they began to hold a very short service on the Saturday at the Cenotaph in London. They dashed between the cars and laid their cross, said a prayer and dashed back to the pavement.”

Well, how things have changed. Not only do war widows now participate on Remembrance Sunday, but Whitehall is closed specially in their honour on the preceding Saturday. Led by fine military musicians, they march in tribute to those whom they have lost in the service of our country. It was, as I said, a privilege to be invited to attend, and a pleasure to see our hon. and gallant Minister for Veterans and People present in solidarity.

That same evening, the BBC broadcast two hours of the finest television imaginable. The festival of remembrance perfectly combined music, pageantry, belated recognition of those who unjustly lost their service careers because of their sexuality, and unforgettable tributes to the fallen. I for one will never forget the testimony of the children of Corporal Mark Palin, who was killed in Afghanistan in 2011, and their bearing as they carried the book of remembrance to the centre of the Royal Albert Hall.

Strangely, one ward in my constituency by tradition holds its ceremony in the afternoon, so I was able to attend two local ceremonies: that at St Michael and All Angels church in Lyndhurst in the heart of the New Forest, and that at All Saints’ church on the waterside, close to where the Solent meets Southampton water, north of the Isle of Wight. Both events and the attendant parades were admirably organised, with Royal British Legion veterans at one end of the age range and uniformed young people at the other bringing style and panache to the occasions. The high levels of attendance testify to the importance to our communities of such solemn and sacred occasions.

In the few seconds remaining, I draw attention to the Airborne war cemetery, which lies about 7 km west of Arnhem, near the village of Oosterbeek. One of the last bastions held in the dreadful battle of Arnhem was the Roman Catholic church of St Bernulphus in Oosterbeek. It was left in ruins but beautifully rebuilt soon after the war. The rebuilt church remains a focal point for Arnhem commemorations, yet it is now under serious threat of sale and disposal. It is profoundly to be hoped that organisations such as Support our Paras and Government Ministers will make representations to the Dutch authorities about preserving that historic building.

Oral Answers to Questions

Julian Lewis Excerpts

Monday 3rd November 2025 Commons Chamber

[John Healey]

My hon. Friend is right; Putin’s aerial bombardment of Ukraine is cynical, illegal and targeted at civilians. That is why we have stepped up our efforts to reinforce Ukraine’s air defences. This autumn we have delivered more than 200,000 rounds of anti-aircraft ammunition and hundreds of air-to-air missiles. In September we announced a first-of-its-kind joint programme for the new interceptor drone, the Octopus, which will be produced in the UK and manufactured at scale. We aim to deliver thousands a month back into Ukraine to help defend its skies, defend its cities, and defend its energy infrastructure.

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

As we build up towards Remembrance Sunday, does the Secretary of State agree that it is appropriate for us to remember the circumstances in which two world wars began, when democracies were relatively weak in the face of armed autocracies? Therefore, does he agree that the help we give to Ukraine is the best possible guarantee that aggressors will not be emboldened to attack other countries as well?

[John Healey]

I do indeed. If big countries believe that they can redraw international boundaries by force and get away with it, then no democracy and no state is safe. I agree with the right hon. Gentleman that a secure, sovereign Ukraine is central to Europe’s security in future.

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.

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.

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.

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.