Afghan Relocations and Assistance Policy

Julian Lewis Excerpts

Thursday 5th June 2025 Commons Chamber

[Sir Iain Duncan Smith]

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

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

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

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

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

[Sir Iain Duncan Smith]

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

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

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

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

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Luke Pollard]

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

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

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

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

[Sir Julian Lewis]

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

[Luke Pollard]

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

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

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

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

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

Armed Forces Commissioner Bill

Julian Lewis Excerpts

Consideration of Lords amendments
Tuesday 3rd June 2025 Commons Chamber

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

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

[Luke Pollard]

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

Strategic Defence Review

Julian Lewis Excerpts

Monday 2nd June 2025 Commons Chamber

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

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

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

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

“absolutely vital for our defence and intelligence”

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

[John Healey]

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

UK Nuclear Deterrent

Julian Lewis Excerpts

Monday 2nd June 2025 Commons Chamber

[Luke Pollard]

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

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

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

[Luke Pollard]

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

Diego Garcia Military Base

Julian Lewis Excerpts

Thursday 22nd May 2025 Commons Chamber

[John Healey]

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

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

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

[John Healey]

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

Oral Answers to Questions

Julian Lewis Excerpts

Monday 19th May 2025 Commons Chamber

[Luke Pollard]

I absolutely agree. The UK is co-leading the drone capability coalition with Latvia, and we are improving and learning from the experiences of our friends in Ukraine. Drone technology in Ukraine iterates every two to three weeks, so it is absolutely vital not only that we create the environment for new investments in drone technology, but that the UK military looks at those lessons learned. I would expect a large part of the strategic defence review to be looking at the lessons that we can learn from Ukraine and applying them to our own military.

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

Unlike certain other institutions, NATO is an alliance of separate sovereign countries. I thank the Minister for his strong support of NATO, but does he agree that we should follow the example of the frontline NATO states like Estonia and Poland, which recognise that the difference between deterring a hostile Russia and actually having to fight a war is the difference between spending 4% or 5% of GDP on defence, as we did in the 1980s, and 40% or 50% if, God forbid, we ever have to engage in open hostilities?

[Luke Pollard]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for that question. This Government are delivering for defence with increased defence spending. By April 2027, we will be spending 2.5% of our GDP on defence, which includes an extra £5 billion for defence in this financial year; that will rise to 3% in the next Parliament, when economic conditions allow. What we spend that money on is just as important, and that is what the strategic defence review, when it is published, will set out.

UK Airstrike: Houthi Military Facility

Julian Lewis Excerpts

Wednesday 30th April 2025 Commons Chamber

[John Healey]

Quite right. My hon. Friend will be interested to hear about the work that I and the Chancellor have commissioned together on the barriers in the UK that are holding back private sources of investment in our defence and technology industries. An important part of the defence industrial strategy, which we will be able to publish before too long, will be about how we use the big commitment of this Government and this country to invest in defence and make our armed forces fit for the future, and how we can use that to leverage much more investment from private sector sources so that we can do more, more quickly.

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

It is unusual for a terrorist group engaged in a civil war to invite retaliation of this sort by attacking international shipping so comprehensively. Clearly, the Houthis are acting as an agent of Iran. Can the Secretary of State advise us what the Government know about the ability of Iran to keep fuelling the attacks in the Red sea? Now that the domestic ability to manufacture drones in Yemen has been degraded, how easy will it be for Iran to supply them directly to the Houthis?

[John Healey]

The short answer is that we must do what we can with allies to make it as hard as possible for Iran to maintain both its financial support to the Houthis and its logistical, munitions and military support and supplies. We are working on that with allies and, as I said to the House earlier, the straight military action that we were conducting last night is part of the solution for the long term. It is not the whole solution.

Ukraine Update

Julian Lewis Excerpts

Tuesday 22nd April 2025 Commons Chamber

[John Healey]

My hon. Friend speaks on this from a position of great experience and authority. He points to something that hits at the heart of the strategic defence review, which is close to being finalised. Hardwired into the terms of reference in July, when the Prime Minister commissioned the review, is the fact that we need to learn the lessons from Ukraine, not in order to fight in Ukraine, but in order to recognise that the nature of warfare is changing—the shadow Defence Secretary mentioned the importance of drones—which means that the combination of forces needs to be more integrated. They need to be driven much more by technology, and that will have implications not just for equipment, but for training. I know that my hon. Friend will look forward to the publication of the SDR and that he will be on the case, including for the Defence Committee, to ensure that it is fully implemented. I welcome his contribution to those debates.

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

Coupled with the decision of the leader of the free world to describe Ukraine as the aggressor in this war is the news today that America may be considering no longer supplying the Supreme Allied Commander Europe to NATO. Is the Defence Secretary looking forward as much as the rest of us are to hearing what President Trump has to say, if he comes to this Parliament in September, about how it is that the system that kept the peace in Europe for 50 years after the second world war is no longer applicable for the future?

[John Healey]

The right hon. Gentleman and I will both look forward to the President’s visit to this country when it is staged. I know that he is so experienced in this area, but I caution him against chasing these most recent comments, or regarding them as somehow profound. I would say that the US, led by President Trump—and this has been reinforced by Defence Secretary Hegseth—has rightly challenged Europe to step up on defence spending, on European security and on Ukraine.

[Sir Julian Lewis]

indicated assent.

[John Healey]

The right hon. Gentleman is nodding his head. But Europe and other nations stepping up does not mean that the US is stepping away. When our Prime Minister was in the White House with President Trump, they had—in public and on camera—a detailed discussion about NATO, in which President Trump reaffirmed his total commitment to article 5 of the NATO treaty.

Oral Answers to Questions

Julian Lewis Excerpts

Monday 24th March 2025 Commons Chamber

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

In this age, when the plot of “The Manchurian Candidate” appears more like a documentary on US politics than a work of fiction, have the Government received any indication that their efforts militarily to support Ukraine would be actively opposed or blocked by the Trump Administration?

[John Healey]

The Prime Minister has made it clear that, in the context of a negotiated peace, the security arrangements or guarantees in Ukraine will need US support. I have made the same point strongly in my discussions with Secretary Hegseth. As Defence Secretary, my job now is to put Ukraine in the strongest possible position by continuing levels of UK military aid, encouraging other nations to do more, and developing—alongside the French—plans for multinational support to maintain the long-term security of any peace in Ukraine.

Ukraine

Julian Lewis Excerpts

Thursday 13th February 2025 Commons Chamber

[Maria Eagle]

My hon. Friend is correct. We are doing that, but we must continue to step up our capacity to support Ukraine with weapons and the force that it needs to deter ongoing aggression, and to ensure that it is in the strongest possible position in any negotiations that it decides to enter.

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

Will the Government impress on President Trump at every possible opportunity that the reason why appeasement led to world war two was that it left a vacuum in Europe, whereas the reason why the occupation of eastern Europe at the end of that war did not lead to world war three was that the United States filled any possible vacuum and contained further aggression? If he is going for a settlement against the wishes of the Ukrainian people, the least he can do is guarantee directly the security of that part of Ukraine which remains unoccupied.