Asked by: Julian Lewis (Conservative - New Forest East)
Question to the HM Treasury:
To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, with reference to the Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury's oral contribution of 1 July 2025, Official Report, column 137, for what reason her Department did not inform (a) Rt hon. and hon. Members and (b) those (i) contractors, (ii) freelance workers and (iii) small company directors who were (A) mis-sold disguised remuneration schemes and (B) subject to the Loan Charge of HMRC's Loan Charge settlement with multinational companies.
Answered by Dan Tomlinson - Exchequer Secretary (HM Treasury)
The Government commissioned an independent review of the Loan Charge to help bring the matter to a close for those affected whilst ensuring fairness for all taxpayers. The Government will respond by Autumn Budget 2025.
During Oral Questions on 1 July 2025, Greg Smith MP referred to comments made by an external stakeholder that were shared under the Freedom of Information Act 2000. HMRC Officials do not recognise the allegation that HMRC agreed deals with large employers allowing them to settle disguised remuneration liabilities for less than was legally due.
HMRC applies the law fairly and consistently in accordance with its published Litigation and Settlement Strategy (LSS). This ensures every taxpayer, no matter who they are, pays the tax due under the law. Central to the LSS is that HMRC will not settle a dispute by agreement for an amount which is less than it would reasonably expect to obtain from litigation.
HMRC’s Litigation and Settlement strategy can be found on gov.uk: www.gov.uk/government/publications/litigation-and-settlement-strategy-lss
Asked by: Julian Lewis (Conservative - New Forest East)
Question to the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government:
To ask the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government, if she will take steps with her international counterparts to include Commoners of the New Forest as a national minority according to the criteria for such a designation under the terms of the Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities laid down by the Council of Europe.
Answered by Alex Norris - Minister of State (Home Office)
The UK Government is committed to support minority communities and uphold our obligations under the Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities - to create a society in which all citizens feel acknowledged, safe and able to achieve their full potential. The flexibility provided in the Convention means that we can take a broad approach and consider the experience and specific needs of all minority communities in the UK, to ensure that they receive the support they require. As such, we have no plans for the New Forest Commoners to be formally recognised.
Asked by: Julian Lewis (Conservative - New Forest East)
Question to the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government:
To ask the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government, with reference to proposed local government reorganisation in Hampshire and the Isle of Wight, what protection will be given to the (a) culture and (b) interests of the New Forest Commoners when considering any proposal to subdivide the area currently administered by New Forest District Council by separating Totton and the Waterside from the perambulation of the Forest.
Answered by Jim McMahon
Local government reorganisation will lead to better outcomes for residents, save significant money which can be reinvested in public services, and improve accountability.
The government has been clear with councils on the importance of local engagement in developing their proposals for unitary government. This should include residents, community groups, public service providers, workforces and their representatives, Members of Parliament and businesses.
Boundary changes are possible, and as a starting point existing district areas should be considered the building blocks for proposals. Where there is a strong justification, including having regard to local identity, then more complex boundary changes will be considered.
Asked by: Julian Lewis (Conservative - New Forest East)
Question to the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government:
To ask the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government, what steps she plans to take to increase protection of town and parish council clerks against bullying by elected councillors.
Answered by Jim McMahon
In December the Government launched a consultation seeking views on proposed measures to strengthen the local government standards and conduct framework for local authorities in England. The response to the consultation will be issued in due course. After its release, we will continue to work actively with local government on developing the detailed policies for implementation.
We are committed to empowering local authorities of all types and tiers, including town and parish councils, to deal with member misconduct where it arises.
Asked by: Julian Lewis (Conservative - New Forest East)
Question to the Department for Work and Pensions:
To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, what estimate her Department has made of the number of women to have died since the publication of the Government’s Response to the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman’s Investigation into and Reports on the Women’s State Pension age on 17 December 2024; what plans she has for a compensation scheme for women adversely affected by the State Pension age changes; and whether she will make it her policy to enter into alternative dispute resolution.
Answered by Torsten Bell - Parliamentary Secretary (HM Treasury)
The decision not to set up a compensation scheme is now subject to live litigation and the High Court has granted permission for a full hearing.
Asked by: Julian Lewis (Conservative - New Forest East)
Question to the Ministry of Defence:
To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, what recent estimate his Department has made of the numbers of Afghan (a) interpreters and (b) other personnel, who assisted UK armed forces and remain at risk from the Taliban whilst stranded in (i) Afghanistan and (ii) neighbouring countries, following the closure of UK resettlement schemes; and what legal routes will continue to exist for such individuals to seek safety.
Answered by Luke Pollard - Minister of State (Ministry of Defence)
The Government does not hold an estimate of the total number of people who may have been eligible for ARAP but did not apply. ARAP is a well-known scheme amongst the Afghan communities and has seen over 190,000 applications since it was opened in April 2021. Our assessment that the majority of those likely to be found eligible had already applied has been deduced from the fact that over the past two years, 95% of applications to the ARAP scheme have been found ineligible. The period following the first 12 months after Operation PITTING in Aug 2021 saw ineligible decisions begin to significantly overtake eligible ones. This trend has continued consistently to July 2025, when the ARAP scheme was shut to new applications.
Individuals wishing to relocate to the UK can find further information online.
Asked by: Julian Lewis (Conservative - New Forest East)
Question to the Home Office:
To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, with reference to representations made by the (a) Amess family, and (b) Father of the House and Rt Hon Member for Rayleigh and Wickford in their contributions to the Sir David Amess Summer Adjournment Debate in the House on 22 July 2025, if she will (i) establish a Public Inquiry into the failure of the Prevent programme in its dealings with the future killer or (ii) extend the terms of reference of the inquiry into the Southport killings, which she announced on 7 April 2025, to cover in addition the (A) murder of Sir David Amess and (B) similarities in the failures adequately to deal with either of the future killers.
Answered by Dan Jarvis - Minister of State (Cabinet Office)
Government published the report 'Lessons for Prevent' from the Interim Independent Prevent Commissioner on 16 July, in which Lord Anderson set out his view that the perpetrator's engagement with Prevent prior to the attack on Sir David Amess has been fully explored. The Government will act immediately on Lord Anderson's findings, building on the work that has already been completed following the Home Secretary's statement on Prevent reform in December 2024.
Currently, there is no evidence of the perpetrator having any contact with the state in a way that would have alerted authorities to his radicalisation or intent in the intervening years between his time on Prevent and his attack on Sir David. However, this intervening period does merit further exploration, so the Home Secretary has confirmed we will appoint a senior figure to scrutinise all the previous reviews that have taken place. We will act as necessary if any gaps are identified as a result of that process.
Asked by: Julian Lewis (Conservative - New Forest East)
Question to the Ministry of Defence:
To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, if he will hold discussions with the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care on the relocation of Armed Forces personnel causing families to lose their place in the waiting list for NHS dental provision in their new location; and what requirements the Armed Forces Covenant makes on this matter.
Answered by Al Carns - Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Ministry of Defence) (Minister for Veterans)
The Armed Forces Covenant requires organisations to give due regard to the principle that Service personnel and their families should face no disadvantage when developing, delivering, and reviewing policies and decisions that may impact the Armed Forces community. The Ministry of Defence (MOD) remains committed to supporting the Armed Forces community under the Armed Forces Covenant and as announced by the Prime Minister in June, work is currently underway to put the Covenant fully into law. This means that the Legal Duty will apply across 14 broad policy areas, increasing from three, applying also to Central Government, Devolved Governments and at a local level.
The MOD recognises that, while there are challenges in accessing NHS dental care nationally, these difficulties are often exacerbated by the mobile nature of Service life. Defence actively works in close partnership with the NHS and other government departments to address these issues and explore solutions to improve access to essential services for Service families. Families of Service personnel who are currently receiving dental treatment in the UK and are about to be mobilised, or are returning from overseas can contact NHS England at england.armedforceshealth@nhs.net for advice on continuity of care.
Asked by: Julian Lewis (Conservative - New Forest East)
Question to the Ministry of Defence:
To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, for what reason records of Service personnel previously dismissed from the Armed Forces for reasons of sexual orientation were ordered to be destroyed in 2010; how fully that policy of destruction was implemented; and whether such reasons for dismissal would routinely be included in the Record of Service which each veteran would normally have received on leaving the Armed Forces.
Answered by Al Carns - Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Ministry of Defence) (Minister for Veterans)
In 2010 and 2011, most remaining investigative records concerning decriminalised sexual offences were destroyed in line with Ministry of Defence policy and data protection legislation. These records were deemed to have no further investigative value, and there was therefore no basis for further retaining them, particularly where records contain sensitive personal information.
The destruction was implemented as a general policy. It is not possible to establish an accurate statistic on the completeness of implementation. However, is it recognised that some relevant records were not destroyed.
Personnel Service records were not affected by the destruction of investigative records and remain intact. Whether reasons for dismissal were routinely included in the Record of Service provided to Veterans would depend on the specific practices at the time and may require further investigation.
Asked by: Julian Lewis (Conservative - New Forest East)
Question to the Ministry of Defence:
To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, how many veterans previously dismissed from the Armed Forces for reasons relating to their sexuality have applied to the LGBT Financial Recognition Scheme since December 2024; whether the allocated funds will be adequate to deal with the numbers anticipated; how many of the applicants have already received awards; and what priority is given to applicants on grounds of (a) advanced age and (b) serious infirmity.
Answered by Al Carns - Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Ministry of Defence) (Minister for Veterans)
As of 7 July 2025, 856 Veterans had applied for the LGBT Financial Recognition Scheme (FRS) Dismissed or Discharged Payment, and 84 payments had been made.
The FRS rules specify that priority is given to applicants who are over 80 years of age, have a terminal illness, or are experiencing severe financial hardship. This is to ensure these prioritised groups receive support as quickly as possible, with the first payments issued as planned within 15 weeks of the scheme going live. Some cases are more complex and require additional time due to the unique and individual circumstances involved. All other applications are processed in the order in which they are received.