Venezuela: US Military

Julian Lewis Excerpts

Wednesday 3rd December 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mr Falconer]

On my hon. Friend’s last question, I understand that the Foreign Secretary has been in discussions with her US counterparts in recent days on these questions. He asks an important question about civil society. We strongly condemn the ongoing repression of civil society and members of the opposition in Venezuela. We continue to call for the unconditional release of those arbitrarily detained, including members of civil society and independent media, such as through the UK’s published statement to the UN Human Rights Council in its most recent session.

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

President Trump would no doubt argue that there is a parallel between this situation and George Bush senior’s invasion of Panama in late 1989, but does the Minister agree with me that it will be interesting to see, if something like this goes ahead, what sort of outcry there is from either Russia or China? If there is no sort of outcry, would that not suggest that there is some sort of understanding between these three major powers that they each leave each other to get on with, shall we say, unilateral actions within what they regard as their own spheres of influence?

[Mr Falconer]

The right hon. Gentleman is learned and offers the opportunity both to make historical comparisons and comment on the conduct of other powers. I will avoid the temptation on both. Clearly, the British position is that international law is vital. Counter-narcotics action is important and we support that.

Ukraine: Forcible Removal of Children

Julian Lewis Excerpts

Thursday 20th November 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mr Falconer]

It is non-negotiable. You cannot steal children in 2025 and think that is an acceptable way to conduct war. The relevant international legal provisions are absolutely clear, and I know that this whole House, and indeed the whole country, is genuinely outraged by what the Russians have done.

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

By putting forward proposals that could have been drafted by the killer in the Kremlin himself, it seems that President Trump has finally given up on the Nobel peace prize, and is content to settle for the Lenin peace prize instead. Do the Government share my concern at the remarks, admittedly aspirational, by the US ambassador to NATO about his long-term hope that Germany will take over America’s role at the heart of the alliance? Does that not betray the decades of peace after the second world war that NATO was created to preserve?

[Mr Falconer]

I am not familiar with the Lenin peace prize; I will google it afterwards. I have been clear on the position and the basis of negotiations. Clearly, it is for Ukraine as a sovereign nation to determine the position that it takes in negotiations. I saw reports of the discussion. I think it was, to be fair, about who should perform the role of SACEUR—the Supreme Allied Commander Europe—rather than the future division of responsibility between forces in NATO. NATO remains a vital component of European security and perhaps the most signal commitment to Europe and America’s shared defence and shared values. Long may it continue.

Gaza and Sudan

Julian Lewis Excerpts

Tuesday 18th November 2025 Commons Chamber

[Yvette Cooper]

I agree with my hon. Friend. It is deeply disturbing that despite the UK having raised the issue of sexual violence in war over very many decades, we have seen it increase in recent years. We want to strengthen the work being done internationally, both through the UN and more broadly, to tackle sexual violence in conflict. Most urgently, though, that means action to prevent this conflict, and calling for all parties to the war in Sudan to respect international law.

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

On Gaza, will the Government consider making representations to the Israelis about the fact that it does Israel’s reputation no good, and does not help the BBC World Service to report accurately, if external journalists are not allowed into the Gaza strip? Now that the fighting has diminished, the excuse for not allowing that access has disappeared.

Turning to the RSF, I note that the Foreign Secretary referred to Secretary Rubio’s comments about the need to end the supply of weapons and support to the RSF. Can she explain to the House who mainly is supplying those weapons and that support?

[Yvette Cooper]

On Gaza, I agree completely with the right hon. Member. Journalists must be allowed into Gaza; we need accurate reports. I am worried about the scale of devastation that we will then see, but it is essential that journalists are able to get in and verify that.

On the issue of the RSF, work done by the UN has identified a range of different routes and sources for arms. It is important that not only the Quad members, but other players, of whom the right hon. Member is probably aware, are held to account and involved in ensuring that arms do not get into Sudan.

Conflict in Sudan

Julian Lewis Excerpts

Wednesday 5th November 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mr Falconer]

I thank my hon. Friend for making that important point. It is one with which both I and the Foreign Secretary agree. As she said at the weekend, the world must do more.

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

May I repeat the question that I asked the Minister’s colleague last week: are there no other regional powers that could intervene physically to separate the warring parties? May I put it to the Minister that, while it is fortunate that we have been granted successive urgent questions on this subject in successive weeks—thanks to the right hon. Member for Oxford East (Anneliese Dodds), to the shadow Foreign Secretary and to Mr Speaker—it would be a recognition of the anxiety felt in all parts of the House if the Government made regular ministerial statements on it, rather than us having to rely on applications for urgent questions?

[Mr Falconer]

As I am sure the House knows, this ministerial team is very happy to return to the House regularly, and Mr Speaker provides us with plenty of opportunities to do so. I will take the right hon. Gentleman’s comments back to the responsible Minister. For reasons that I am sure he will understand, I will decline his invitation to comment on the regional balance of military forces.

Sudan: Protection of Civilians

Julian Lewis Excerpts

Thursday 30th October 2025 Commons Chamber

[Stephen Doughty]

My hon. Friend speaks powerfully on behalf of her constituents, and I know that she is not the only one; as I mentioned, my own constituents have great concern about family, friends and others in Sudan and have done so for a long time. It is absolutely right that she puts their concerns on the record. If I may, I will get back to her on consular access. There are obviously extremely challenging circumstances on the ground—even humanitarian organisations and the United Nations are unable to access the region—but I will get back to her on what steps we can take through our consular services.

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

Can the Minister explain to the House what is the attitude of other states in the region towards this conflict? Is there any prospect that they could unite and possibly make some form of physical intervention to separate the warring sides in Sudan?

[Stephen Doughty]

Obviously it is not for me to speak to the individual policies of countries in the region, but the right hon. Gentleman will know that, regrettably, to date it has not been possible to find a consensus in the United Nations Security Council on a way forward. We push for that and always attempt to do so in our engagement as the penholder—we will do so again today, particularly in the light of events—but ultimately it is the parties to the conflict that are responsible for what is happening. We are in direct contact and are urging restraint.

Oral Answers to Questions

Julian Lewis Excerpts

Tuesday 28th October 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mr Falconer]

My hon. Friend is an incredibly thoughtful, long-standing commentator on these issues. Both he and his family have made a great contribution to UK-Israeli relations. It was an act of great foolishness to prevent him from entering Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territories. We called on the Israeli Government at the time, as we did in previous such instances. We cannot prevent the Israeli Government from making decisions that are not in their interests, but that was clearly one of them.

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

The Government’s position seems to be that communist China can and does pose a wide range of serious threats to the United Kingdom but is not a threat itself. How can that possibly make sense?

[Yvette Cooper]

The right hon. Gentleman will have heard me set out very clearly the threats that China poses to our national security, including those of transnational repression, support for Russia and espionage. He will know that range of threats and that is why it is deeply frustrating that the prosecution has not taken place. He will also know that China is a trading partner and that we continue to have strong economic relations. It is possible for both those things to be true.

Diego Garcia Military Base and British Indian Ocean Territory Bill

Julian Lewis Excerpts

Committee of the whole House
Monday 20th October 2025 Commons Chamber

[Stephen Doughty]

rose—

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

rose—

[Graham Stuart]

I will give way to the Minister and then to my right hon. Friend.

--- Later in debate ---

[Graham Stuart]

I said I would give way to my right hon. Friend the Member for New Forest East (Sir Julian Lewis).

[Sir Julian Lewis]

My right hon. Friend is quite right. On the face of it, this does not make sense, unless we look at it in one particular way. If the Government have made a decision that they wish to have a strategic economic partnership with communist China, this makes sense, the closing of the case with the China spies makes sense, and the willingness for China to have the biggest embassy of any country in Europe makes sense. Even though the Government say that that is a quasi-judicial decision, it is interesting that for political reasons, they put it off till December. None of it makes sense, or all of it makes sense, as long as the National Security Adviser wants us to suck up to communist, totalitarian China.

[Graham Stuart]

My right hon. Friend makes a powerful point. That is at the heart of it. There are so many questions but one question is: why? Why would a deal like this be done by the Government? He puts forward a credible case as to why it might be.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Evans]

I would be interested to hear an answer to that, as we have tried several times to get the Government to quantify whether China is a threat, a friend, an ally or a foe.

Amendment 7 tries to look at

“an analysis of the status of UK’s sovereignty over the British Indian Ocean Territory under international law;”.

From talking about this previously, we know that UNCLOS, which is often used as the example of why we have to secede the territory, cannot preside over sovereignty, as was said in 2015 when dealing with the marine protected area. We have also heard the Government stress the importance of the International Telecommunications Union, saying that the issue is to do with spectre and spies. However, we know that there is a carve-out, because we heard about that on Second Reading.

That leaves us with the International Court of Justice, which is often held up as the key point. On Second Reading, I was taken by the fact that it is alleged that we have an opt-out under the Commonwealth, so I went away to have a quick look. On the ICJ website, as hon. Members can see, the “Declarations recognising the jurisdiction of the Court as compulsory—United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland” were published on 22 February 2017. I quote:

“1. The Government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland accepts as compulsory ipso facto and without special convention, on condition of reciprocity, the jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice, ln conformity with paragraph 2 of Article 36 of the Statute of the Court, until such time as notice may be given to terminate the acceptance, over all disputes arising after 1 January 1987, with regard to situations or facts subsequent to the same date, other than:”—

these are critical points—

“(i) any dispute which the United Kingdom has agreed with the other Party or Parties thereto to settle by some other method of peaceful settlement; (ii) any dispute with the government of any other country which is or has been a Member of the Commonwealth;”.

That is there in black and white.

However, the Government have yet to mention that in any of debates or letters about their legal position. We need amendments 1 and 7 to be able to understand why the Government do not see that as a strong enough argument to hold up. This nonsense about whether or not there are negotiations is answered there too, because those declarations say:

“any method of peaceful settlement”.

Any good Government would try to resolve the dispute in a peaceful manner.

I am surprised at that from a Labour party whose Members pride themselves on being trade unionists, who make a living from negotiating and trying to come to a solution without the matter going to a court. That is exactly what they should be doing, but the Conservatives are being chastised for trying to have a conversation to resolve the situation. The fact was that we did not come up with a deal because the deal was not good enough.

The Labour Opposition moved into power and have now put forward this horrendous Bill that gives away power, but at what cost? They are not even going to try in court or use some of the simple arguments which I, as a doctor, have found after spending time researching. I am sure that in this great country we have many legal buffs that could put forward that argument, but if the government do not feel that it stands, they should come to this House and tell us why—put it in evidence, write it out and tell us all, and we will go quietly. However, we are not hearing or seeing that from this Government, which is why we need amendments 1 and 7.

Turning to amendments 3, 4 and 6, as has been rightly pointed out by my right hon. Friend the Member for Beverley and Holderness it is clear that the Bill gives carte blanche to this Government, or any other, to do whatever they want. We may as well not even bother having a debate about the Bill—it is not worth the paper it is written on—because the Henry VIII powers mean that Ministers can do what they will, when they will without coming to Parliament. At least these amendments try to ensure some accountability of the Executive to this House, because this House should be making these decisions, especially given their magnitude. We have heard from the Government that it is a priceless base and we have heard from the Conservative Benches about its geopolitical and security importance. Should the House not be making decisions about what that looks like?

New clause 1 talks about the payments. On Second Reading, I asked the Minister whether he could give me any example, from any part of the world, of when we have dealt with sovereignty using net present value. He said it was in the Green Book, but that is for domestic sites and used by the Treasury to look at civil development. I hope the Minister has gone away and done some research, because I think he will find that there is not a precedent, as net present value is not the correct measure and is open to political interference. For example, we use 3.5% and America uses 7%. We can fudge the numbers to fit the narrative that we would like to set.

There is one other problem. The explanatory notes stipulate only 30 years. Unless I have misquoted, this deal goes for 99 years, so what happens in the remaining 70 years? That is why new clause 1 would bring in a robust check to ensure that when the finances are paid out, we know exactly why we are paying, who we are paying and what we are paying for. Most importantly, we would know the mechanism of how the finances were calculated, because the Government still have not come to this place and set that out exactly.

Let me turn to new clause 2. What happens at the end? I raised that as my final point when I spoke on Second Reading. We have heard about long-term security, but in this place we think only on a five-year cycle; this is a 99-year cycle. My biggest fear is that my children’s children’s children, if they are ever elected to this Parliament, will be having a debate in 99 years with the same issues about what happens. It is a dereliction of duty on our behalf in this House not to think things through.

[Sir Julian Lewis]

My hon. Friend is making an excellent speech. I am surprised that nobody has referred to Hong Kong. When the decision was taken and the agreement was reached in 1984 for the handover in 1997, China agreed that it would be “one country, two systems” for at least 50 years. Within less than half that time, Britain came to the conclusion that all those safeguards were being deliberately violated.

Ukraine

Julian Lewis Excerpts

Wednesday 15th October 2025 Commons Chamber

[Yvette Cooper]

We must maintain the strongest of resolves in supporting Ukraine. I have spoken to families and children who will have to sleep in corridors or underground car parks tonight to avoid drone attacks, but will still get up for school and carry on with their lives each day. The Ukrainian people are showing resilience, and we will continue to support them.

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

The only thing wrong with the Foreign Secretary’s admirable statement is the fact that it was made by a British Foreign Secretary rather than by the President of the United States, given that, only a few months ago, President Trump said that President Zelensky had few, if any, cards to play. The Foreign Secretary takes a much more optimistic view of the geopolitical situation as regards the invasion of Ukraine. Has she identified any signs that the leader of the free world is coming to a more realistic view of the nature of the killer in the Kremlin?

[Yvette Cooper]

We have discussed this issue considerably with the US. I welcome President Trump’s decision to allow NATO allies to purchase vital US military equipment for Ukraine’s defence, including Patriot missiles. President Trump called for a peace process, and President Zelensky was ready to have those peace discussions, but President Putin has done the opposite. There is a growing sense of frustration, which everybody can see, about the fact that President Putin has just ignored the requests for peace discussions and is instead seeking to do the opposite—not just in Ukraine but in attempts to destabilise NATO airspace.

Ambassador to the United States

Julian Lewis Excerpts

Tuesday 16th September 2025 Commons Chamber

[David Davis]

My right hon. Friend is exactly right, and the Senators to whom these documents were sent are very responsible ones. They would not frivolously pass on such documents to the FBI, and the FBI would not frivolously accept them and investigate.

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

Does my right hon. Friend recall that on 21 November last, the Prime Minister was challenged to rule out appointing Lord Mandelson as ambassador to the United States on the grounds that he had said Ukraine would have to give up all the land Russia had occupied and that it must give up any hope of ever joining NATO in return for some unspecified security guarantees? The Prime Minister said he would not be tempted to comment on the possibility of his being appointed ambassador, and as he said it he had a very noticeable little smirk on his face. Does my right hon. Friend agree that the Prime Minister is not smirking about this matter any more?

[David Davis]

I say to my right hon. Friend that the Prime Minister gave what was clearly—what can I say?—a lawyer’s answer to that question, which as we all know is not a proper answer at all.

No. 10 was well aware that Mandelson had continued his relationship with Epstein after he was convicted as a paedophile. How the Prime Minister could possibly have thought it was wise to appoint a man who was on record consorting with alleged murderers and convicted paedophiles to a position of privilege and power is, to me, utterly unfathomable.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Julian Lewis]

Does my right hon. Friend agree that we have seen a rapid transformation from the Prince of Darkness into a grovelling Lord Yum Yum? One has to ask, why was the British Prime Minister surprised? Had he never heard the tale of the turtle and the scorpion that meet at the side of the river? Should the Prime Minister not have realised that the poor old scorpion simply cannot help what is in its nature?

[Mrs Badenoch]

I completely agree with my right hon. Friend. The story is that of the frog and the scorpion, and it is one of my favourite childhood stories. Everyone knew what Lord Mandelson had been up to. It is simply not tenable for any Member on the Government Benches to hold the line on this one, burying their heads in the sand and hoping that it goes away, least of all the Prime Minister.

We now know that the Prime Minister was aware of the compromising emails last Wednesday at Prime Minister’s questions, yet he came to the House and said that he had confidence in his ambassador. Many on the Labour Benches cheered, but now they are all looking at their phones, and most of them do not have the courage to look me in the eye. They were cheering last week, and now they are full of shame. [Interruption.] Sorry, are they proud? No, they are not. I will continue.

Why on earth did the Prime Minister do that? At any point did he ask his staff what more information might surface? That morning Lord Mandelson was saying that more information would surface. Did the Prime Minister receive a briefing about that ahead of Prime Minister’s questions? It is inconceivable that he did not. Ministers are now claiming that new information subsequently came to light—new information that they did not have. The story is all mixed and messed up, and they know it. What information appeared that was not in the original vetting? We would like to hear that when the Minister responds.

There are still more questions to answer. When did the Prime Minister’s chief of staff speak with Peter Mandelson last week, and what did they discuss? Do the Government have the courage to tell us that? We are told that Morgan McSweeney spent hours on the phone to the ambassador at the same time that Lord Mandelson was dodging calls from the Foreign Office. What were they talking about?

Those are questions about what happened just last week, but how did all this come to happen last year? The Chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee has asked some excellent questions. But I ask the Minister this: what led to Lord Mandelson’s appointment in the first place? How was it that a man with known links to a child sex offender came to be appointed?

--- Later in debate ---

[Stephen Doughty]

I am in the Chamber responding for the Government as the Minister for North America. The hon. Gentleman will understand that there are very important matters taking place today that the Prime Minister and Foreign Secretary are involved with. We have also seen the new Hillsborough law launched today, which has been referenced during the debate.

[Sir Julian Lewis]

Will the Minister give way?

[Stephen Doughty]

I will give way to the right hon. Gentleman in short order, but first I want to say something about our excellent diplomats and officials across the world.

We have an excellent team at the British embassy in Washington—indeed, we have had many excellent ambassadors, and we have a wide network across the United States, not just in Washington—and in King Charles Street. I pay tribute to them and all the work they are doing, particularly in supporting the outcomes of this week’s important and historic state visit. I associate myself totally with the remarks made by my hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall and Camberwell Green (Florence Eshalomi) about their professionalism, which I know has been experienced by many Members across the House. It is important that we put that on the record. This is a crucial moment for UK-US relations; together, we are focused on delivering on jobs, growth and security for people on both sides of the Atlantic.

I said that I would give way to the right hon. Member for New Forest East (Sir Julian Lewis), so I will.

[Sir Julian Lewis]

Given that the Minister is such a decent Minister, who enjoys respect on both sides of the House, I am tempted to repeat the advice that Lloyd George gave to Churchill during the Norway debate of 1940, which is not to make himself an air raid shelter to protect his colleagues—in this case, the Prime Minister—from the splinters. If the Prime Minister’s case is as strong as the Minister makes out, can he explain why, if I remember correctly, only a single Labour Back Bencher has made a speech in the Prime Minister’s favour?

Qatar: Israeli Strike

Julian Lewis Excerpts

Wednesday 10th September 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mr Falconer]

I set out the position in relation to President Herzog’s visit just a minute ago. I am not familiar with the Israeli politician in question, but I can say that the UK considers international law to be binding on all states.

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

Despite the atrocious terrorist attack in Jerusalem, I have to agree with the hon. Member for Walthamstow (Ms Creasy) when she says that blowing up the enemy’s negotiators does not exactly suggest an interest in a negotiated solution. However, I would like clarification on the Government’s position on recognition of a Palestinian state. On 1 September, the then Foreign Secretary said that he proposed to recognise a Palestinian state, but that Hamas would not benefit from it, because they would have to be disarmed. Does that mean that Hamas must be disarmed before recognition, or will recognition go ahead, as seems to be the case, whether Hamas are disarmed or not?

[Mr Falconer]

The Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary then and now have been clear that the Prime Minister will make a determination in advance of the UN General Assembly high-level week, in accordance with the language set out in the statement of July. The right hon. Member makes important points about what the previous Foreign Secretary said about Hamas. We must remember that Hamas are not in favour of two states; they are in favour of one state from the river to the sea, and that is not the position of the British Government, and nor is it should we take the decisions outlined in July.