Oral Answers to Questions

Julian Lewis Excerpts

Wednesday 18th March 2026 Commons Chamber

[Liz Kendall]

Not for the first time, my hon. Friend is spot on. I spoke to young people at Fullhurst school in my constituency and they had very different views about this proposal. We really want to hear directly from young people themselves—we have already had over 1,700 responses—but especially from children. We are partnering with UK Youth and Volunteering Matters to run a series of seven youth-led events across England, Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales. We will also pilot other potential interventions, including overnight curfews and daily screentime limits, working with children and parents to see what works in practice and its impact on family life.

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

I hope this is a helpful suggestion to the Secretary of State. There have been some objections to a social media ban for young people based on the fact that it would create a cliff edge, whereby they have no involvement with it and then total involvement with it. Does she agree with me that one way to minimise that danger is to encourage children to use the internet, which is not interactive, as that will gradually acclimatise them for the day when they are able to use interactive services more safely?

[Liz Kendall]

The right hon. Gentleman is always helpful—well, not always, but on this occasion he has been very helpful. The cliff-edge argument has been made to me personally by the NSPCC, the Molly Rose Foundation, the Internet Watch Foundation and others, and it is one that we should take seriously. I have spoken to schools in my constituency about how best to handle it if we were to go ahead with the ban. There is a really important point about young people’s education and awareness, because life is online now and we have to prepare children for the future. That is at the heart of the issues we are debating in the consultation.

Ministerial Salaries (Amendment) Bill

Julian Lewis Excerpts

2nd reading
Tuesday 17th March 2026 Commons Chamber

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

The freeze remains in place.

The 1975 Act sets cumulative limits on the salaries allocated to Secretaries of State, Ministers of State and Parliamentary Under-Secretaries. Within the overall limit of 83, the cumulative limits are 21 Secretary of State rank salaries; 50 Secretary of State and Minister of State rank salaries; and 83 Secretary of State, Minister of State and Parliamentary Under-Secretary rank salaries. The salary limits were set in 1975, which is over half a century ago. As a result of the demands of modern government, all Governments since 2010 have consistently featured larger ministerial teams than the existing Act’s provisions permit to be paid. Team numbers ranged from an average of 118 in the Cameron and May Governments to 123 in the Sunak Government. There are 122 personnel in the current Government.

That has led to an unsatisfactory position in which Governments of all parties have become dependent on Ministers being willing and able to work unpaid. To be fair, historically that has predominantly fallen on Ministers in the other place. I do not think that is right. Lords Ministers work incredibly hard, and they often manage some of the broadest and most demanding portfolios across Government. I am sure that the whole House can support the notion that Ministers should be paid for what they do. This is a Government of service. We have more state-educated Cabinet Ministers than ever before, and it is right for Ministers to be paid for the job they do, and to focus on that job rather than relying on external funding.

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

I am grateful to the Minister for his typical courtesy. I am sure that there will be wide agreement with his proposition that someone who is doing a ministerial job ought to be paid for it, and such jobs should not be reserved for the people who can afford not to be paid. However, on the principle that a bigger Government is not necessarily a better Government, can he guarantee that if there is an increase in the number of paid ministerial posts, there will not be a commensurate increase in the number of unpaid ministerial posts?

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

I have every sympathy with the right hon. Gentleman’s point, but the number 120 is not an objective for the Government to become bigger; it is the average size of the Governments we have had since 2010 in any event. We are not trying to expand the number of unpaid Ministers—far from it. We are trying to ensure that all Ministers in the Government are paid rather than expanding the number, which he quite rightly draws attention to.

To summarise, the Bill increases the cap on ministerial salaries from 109 to 120. All additional salaries will be allocated at either Secretary of State, Minister of State or Parliamentary Secretary rank, at the discretion of the Prime Minister. The salaries operate cumulatively, which means that salaries not allocated at a senior rank can be used to pay a Minister at a more junior rank within the limits. The Bill will therefore make provision for: one additional salary at Secretary of State rank, increasing the limit to 22; four additional salaries at either Secretary of State or Minister of State rank, increasing the overall limit from 50 to 54; and 11 additional salaries at either Secretary of State, Minister of State or Parliamentary Secretary rank, increasing the overall limit from 83 to 94.

Given that cumulative structure, if the Prime Minister of the day chose to allocate the salaries to the most senior Minister possible, that would result in one extra salary for a Secretary of State, three for Ministers of State and seven for Parliamentary Secretaries. The limits on the Lord Chancellor, Attorney General, Solicitor General, Advocate General for Scotland and Government Whips salaries will remain unchanged. The limits on the other office-holder salaries will also remain unchanged.

[Sir Julian Lewis]

I am sorry to come in again. One of the things that I have never quite understood, given that the workload is broadly the same, is why there is a differential in salary between the different levels of Minister—particularly in the Lords, where their jobs are effectively the same. Why are some Ministers of State or Under-Secretaries paid a different amount? After all, whatever our seniority, we are all paid exactly the same as Members of this House. Why would they not all be paid the same?

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

The right hon. Gentleman raises an interesting point. If we go back to the debates from 1975, we will see some of the reasons why that is the case. We have always differentiated not just in the ranks but in salaries. That is also how we have done it historically for Law Officers. It does not necessarily mean that there is a logic behind it, but it is the historical system we have inherited. The Bill is meant to correct just one of the anomalies. That is not to say that there are not others, as the right hon. Gentleman sets out.

The increase to 120 salaries reflects the average number of Ministers since 2010, as set out in clause 1. Set against the existing limit of 95 Ministers who can be Members of this place under the House of Commons Disqualification Act 1975, 25 salaries will effectively be reserved for Lords Ministers. As I indicated when responding to the former Deputy Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Hertsmere, the Bill does not increase the pay of individual Ministers—I take a different view from him on that. With the exception of Lords pay in 2019, the salaries of Ministers have not increased since 2008 and the Prime Minister maintained the salary freeze upon entering office. The Bill does not change that position.

Lord Mandelson: Response to Humble Address

Julian Lewis Excerpts

Monday 16th March 2026 Commons Chamber

[Darren Jones]

Where the Government have the ability to take action to ensure transparency and accountability on this matter, they are making sure that they do so. For organisations that are outside of Government, it is for those organisations to consider such requests.

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

It is not much good blaming the process when it is as plain as a pikestaff that the Government knew that Peter Mandelson’s appointment was, to put it mildly, extremely dodgy. If there were any conversations held, over the telephone or face to face, or any private emails sent from people’s personal email addresses, will they be made available to this House?

[Darren Jones]

The documents that fall within the scope of the Humble Address will be made available to the House in the way that I have set out.

Lord Mandelson: Response to Humble Address Motion

Julian Lewis Excerpts

Wednesday 11th March 2026 Commons Chamber

[Darren Jones]

My hon. Friend will know from the statements of the Prime Minister and the documents published today that he regrets having ever appointed Peter Mandelson as ambassador to the United States. In our country, we rightly respect the rules that are in place and that need to be observed, and there must be clear consequences for people who breach them. As I have said in earlier answers, even in our country, we have much further to go to tackle violence against women and girls and structural misogyny, and we should all have a shared ambition to tackle that as quickly as possible.

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

The Chief Secretary deserves our admiration for always being calm and courteous, even in the most trying circumstances, but he really must not take us for fools. Peter Mandelson had a reputation as one of the most slippery and sleazy characters in modern British politics. The Chief Secretary confirms that the Prime Minister was warned about what Mandelson had done in continuing a relationship with Epstein after he had been sent to jail for abusing a young girl. He is saying, “Well, the Prime Minister did not know the depth of this relationship.” Does he really expect us to believe that a shallow relationship with a convicted paedophile is okay?

Digital ID: Public Consultation

Julian Lewis Excerpts

Tuesday 10th March 2026 Commons Chamber

[Darren Jones]

My hon. Friend is exactly right. It is very difficult today to get information out of the public sector because it is often paper-based or on IT systems that we cannot access. With digital ID and the gov.uk app, citizens will have more control and more insight into how their data is being used and for what purposes in the future, which will mean they feel more in control of which data they are sharing with the public sector.

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

When asked by the hon. Member for Hazel Grove (Lisa Smart) whether he could guarantee that a digital identity requirement would never become mandatory, the Minister said he wholeheartedly agreed, but is it not the case that the original scheme that the Government were minded to put forward was mandatory, so how much faith can we put in that assurance?

[Darren Jones]

First, the Prime Minister’s announcement was that it should be mandatory for digital verification of ID. This scheme enables that, but there are other routes available to people if they wish to follow them. The other commitment I can give the right hon. Member is that I suspect it will be on the face of the Bill that we will bring to the House later this year.

Middle East

Julian Lewis Excerpts

Monday 2nd March 2026 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

We have to learn the lessons. Collapsing and failed states have historically proved to be worse, so we do have to be careful.

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

If a missile battery in Iran was continuing to target British bases, would an airstrike against it be offensive or defensive?

[The Prime Minister]

I think I have made clear the basis for the second decision: we have authorised the US to use our bases in order to take out the ability of Iran to make those strikes. That is legal because it is collective self-defence.

Lord Mandelson: Government Response to Humble Address

Julian Lewis Excerpts

Monday 23rd February 2026 Commons Chamber

[Darren Jones]

Documents that are published as part of the Humble Address will of course comply with the terms of the Humble Address. As I have said to hon. Members before, if there are particular suggestions or concerns about specific Palantir contracts, those representations—with our assistance, if helpful—should be made to the Departments concerned, but I have not seen any suggestion that there has been a breach of procurement rules in relation to the issues raised.

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

In response to an earlier question about the role of the Intelligence and Security Committee in relation to the Cabinet Office, the Minister rightly said that the ISC is concerned about its independence. As its former chairman, I can vouch for the fact that it was particularly concerned about the dominant role that the Cabinet Office had in its affairs. In his annual report covering 2023 to 2025, which was published on 15 December last year, my successor as chairman states:

“The Committee in the last Parliament became very seriously concerned that the vital scrutiny that the ISC provides was being undermined by continued interference by the Cabinet Office in the Committee’s Office… The root of the problem lies in the control exerted over the Committee’s staff and resourcing by the Cabinet Office.”

This is an opportunity to let the ISC have what it has asked for and wanted for years, which is independence from the Cabinet Office. Will the Minister please take that message back?

[Darren Jones]

I think the right hon. Member is referring to 2023, which is of course before this Government were in office. I confirm that we are in the middle of negotiations with the committee on a number of issues, partly in relation to its headcount. We have increased the budget available to the committee for staffing. We are considering the question of whether those staff should be independently employed separately from the Cabinet Office at the moment. It is not for me to speak on behalf of the committee, but I remind the House—and I am sure the right hon. Member would agree—that even though those staff are currently employed by the Cabinet Office, the work they do for the committee is exemplary, and the committee itself is strongly independent of Government.

Labour Together and APCO Worldwide: Cabinet Office Review

Julian Lewis Excerpts

Monday 23rd February 2026 Commons Chamber

[Darren Jones]

I thank my hon. Friend for his question. The independent adviser on ethics will be looking at the ministerial code and its application to the Parliamentary Secretary in relation to the statements that have been made and the facts that have been made available through the propriety and ethics team’s fact-finding process. My hon. Friend asks a wider question around the regulation of think-tanks, donations and so on, which I am sure will be debated as part of the forthcoming elections Bill. I agree that those things should, of course, be done in the proper and ethical way.

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

Is it not likely that, with the awards ceremony last night, the Government would have won the BAFTA for “One Scandal After Another” had they entered? The facts in this matter are not in dispute: the organisation Labour Together did not declare massive donations and was fined as a result; and in response, its head, now a Labour Minister, sought to gain dirt on the journalists who had truthfully reported the matter. Why does this need to be investigated? The facts are clear and the position is indefensible. I regard the three Ministers present as decent people and as gentlemen. Are they not sick of being put forward to defend the indefensible?

[Darren Jones]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his concern for our wellbeing. As I have said, the independent ethics adviser will conduct his investigation and report to the Prime Minister in the normal way, at which point the Prime Minister will make a decision. It is not for me at the Dispatch Box to make the case one way or the other for the parties involved. However, I can inform the right hon. Gentleman that the allegations he has alluded to are disputed, which is why it is important that the independent adviser is given the opportunity to undertake that process and advise the Prime Minister in the proper way.

Standards in Public Life

Julian Lewis Excerpts

Monday 9th February 2026 Commons Chamber

[Darren Jones]

My hon. Friend will know that it was a clear manifesto commitment of our party to ban second jobs for Members of Parliament, except in limited circumstances such as those involving the maintenance of professional qualifications for doctors and lawyers. The Committee is considering those issues, on which it has been working in detail. The Government are working with the Committee to move those proposals forward as quickly as possible. I know that the Committee wishes to do the same.

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

It is notable that despite the Government’s huge majority, they have run out of people to stand up and defend their position. The Minister is—I am not being patronising—a very intelligent man. I therefore ask that he does not insult the intelligence of the rest of us by talking about the Prime Minister having believed Mandelson’s lies after he asked him questions. We now know from the forensic questioning by the Leader of the Opposition that the Prime Minister knew that the relationship between Mandelson and Epstein carried on—“ongoing” was the word—after Epstein was jailed for offences related to paedophilia and prostitution. The Prime Minister apparently chose to ask more questions after that, and was lied to. What more did he need to know to realise that that man should never have been allowed within a mile of the post of ambassador to America?

[Darren Jones]

The right hon. Gentleman will, in due course, see papers disclosed, in compliance with the Humble Address, that will be very clear in showing the questions that the Prime Minister asked of Peter Mandelson, and the lies that Peter Mandelson responded with.

Lord Mandelson

Julian Lewis Excerpts

Wednesday 4th February 2026 Commons Chamber

[Alex Burghart]

I will give way in a moment; I would like to make a little progress.

It was reported this morning in the press that in September, following Peter Mandelson’s sacking, there was a Cabinet Office investigation into any further wrongdoing. Will the Paymaster General confirm whether he is aware of such a report and at least assure the House that, if such a report comes to light during his investigations, that will be published in response to this Humble Address?

The Conservatives fully understand that the Government have a duty to protect national security and our international relationships—of course they do. They must also understand, however, that security and our international affairs are completely entwined with this issue. The Paymaster General will have seen this morning that the Prime Minister of Poland, Donald Tusk, has announced that Poland, one of our strongest allies in Europe, will examine the paedophile’s links with the Russian intelligence services. As he said,

“More and more leads, more and more information, and more and more commentary…all relate to the suspicion that this unprecedented paedophilia scandal was co-organised by Russian intelligence services.”

Thousands of the documents released over the weekend refer to Putin and thousands more to Moscow. We know that Epstein recruited young Russian women and we know that he held parties in Russia. In some emails, I understand, Epstein said he could offer “insight” on Donald Trump to Sergey Lavrov, the Russian Foreign Minister. Those are all the ingredients of classic kompromat and this House cannot be deprived of consideration of such issues in the case of the Mandelson papers.

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

It has been for years a matter of mystery and speculation where Epstein acquired his vast wealth. Does my hon. Friend think that the Russian connection may provide the definitive answer to that mystery?

[Alex Burghart]

My right hon. Friend is quite right that this is exactly one of the issues that must now be investigated and done so very seriously, not just by this Government but by our allies in other jurisdictions. Though we do not yet know for certain how the money came to Epstein, we do now know where some of it went. Understanding its ultimate source will help us construct a picture of this very complex and devious web.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Christopher Chope]

I was going to conclude by saying that I go along with those people who have called for a public inquiry, because it would be able to require the production of the documents. We know from the experience of Sir Anthony Hammond that a non-judicially led public inquiry cannot necessarily get access to all the documents needed. We do not want some whitewash inquiry by the Cabinet Office, and then to find out a couple of years later that it did not have all the documents in front of it. That is the argument in favour of having a public inquiry.

How is it that this Teflon-coated Mandelson has been able to hold high office in the Labour party for all these years? One of the most important speeches today was given by the hon. Member for Leeds East (Richard Burgon). He and the right hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn) know what it is like to be on the receiving end of the Stasi—in this case, the New Labour Stasi. The only explanation for Mandelson continuing to be reinstated after all this bad behaviour is that he was seen as a key party member, and an enforcer of the New Labour Stasi. He was plausible and well connected, and knew how to ingratiate himself with the rich and powerful.

[Sir Julian Lewis]

Mandelson was not just a key member of New Labour; he was its inventor. He was the man who replaced the Labour flag’s implements of horny-handed toil with the red rose—the brander par excellence. I think people were also afraid of him; I am not the first person to describe this as the “Scandalson” story, and I am sure I will not be the last.

[Sir Christopher Chope]

I am sorry; I understated the proposition, and my right hon. Friend is quite right to correct me. If we had a public inquiry, we could extend its terms of references to Mandelson’s influence on the internal politics of the Labour party over the last 30 years. Would that not be interesting?

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Christopher Chope]

My hon. Friend makes his point in his own way. I just draw attention to the fact that “Freedom 250” is how the United States is describing the celebrations for the 250th anniversary of independence. The point he makes about freedom resonates well on both sides of the Atlantic, and we must never forget that. Our representative in the United States during that historic year could have been none other than Mandelson. We must thank everybody who has been involved in trying to bring to light these revelations, which have shamed the Prime Minister. In the end, I think the Prime Minister was shamed into sacking Mandelson, rather than exercising his own judgment.

[Sir Julian Lewis]

Does my hon. Friend, who is very experienced, believe that one of the lessons of inherent necessity for political survival is the ability to learn from mistakes? Therefore, given that a new ambassador will take Mandelson’s place—I do not think a permanent appointment has yet been made—does he think the Prime Minister will have enough good sense and wit to appoint a diplomatic professional to the role, or will it be another ill-starred flunky whom he favours for political and personal reasons?

[Sir Christopher Chope]

Actually, I think the appointment has been made. I have met the gentleman concerned, who is an esteemed member of the diplomatic corps. He was present at Mr Speaker’s dinner in honour of the Speaker of the House of Representatives two or three weeks ago. We are in safer, more secure hands.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Ward]

As the Prime Minister has said many times, if he had known what he knows now, he would not have had Mandelson within a million miles of Government, and that is absolutely right.

[Sir Julian Lewis]

I will try to make the same point as my hon. Friend the Member for Bexhill and Battle (Dr Mullan), but in a less emotional way. Today, the Prime Minister was asked directly,

“did the official security vetting that he received mention Mandelson’s ongoing relationship with the paedophile Jeffrey Epstein?”

He replied, “Yes, it did.” The Minister says that Mandelson lied to the Prime Minister, but the point is that the Prime Minister knew that the relationship was ongoing. Even if Mandelson lied about some other aspects of the relationship, can the Minister not see that the fact that there was any ongoing relationship at all with a man who had been imprisoned for paedophilia and prostitution was an impossible position to defend? No subsequent lies or revelations alter the fact that the Prime Minister appointed Mandelson when he knew that he had been in that ongoing relationship.

[Chris Ward]

As the Prime Minister has said, he was lied to repeatedly by Mandelson. I will come to the vetting process in a minute, but the due diligence is within scope of this Humble Address. It will be released. The House will be able to see the process for itself.

Alongside further steps that the Prime Minister has taken in the past week, he has recommended to the King that Mandelson be removed from the Privy Council. He has instructed that legislation be drawn up—this was a point that the hon. Member for North Dorset raised—to strip Mandelson of his title and to make wider reform of the House of Lords process. In answer to the question raised earlier, that legislation is imminent and it will be given Government time. It will be brought to this House as soon as possible. Frankly, I wish it was already here now, but it will come very soon.