Julian Lewis MP: speeches

Speeches

• 26 Mar 2026 · Prison Officers: Mandatory Body Armour · Hansard source

  More

  On what the Minister said at the beginning, I would be the first to acknowledge that it may take time and be a gradual process before all prison officers are equipped with body armour in practice. What we are looking for from the Minister today is whether he accepts the principle that they should be—then we can work on the timescale and the practicalities.

• 26 Mar 2026 · Prison Officers: Mandatory Body Armour · Hansard source

  More

  That was not really what I asked the Minister. I was asking whether he accepts the principle that all prison officers are vulnerable to attack in any prison and that, in principle, they should be able to have appropriate body armour as standard?

• 26 Mar 2026 · Prison Officers: Mandatory Body Armour · Hansard source

  More

  Yes, indeed. No debate in this Chamber or the main Chamber would be worth while without a typically relevant contribution from the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon). The rise that I quoted earlier equated to 122 attacks on staff for every 1,000 inmates on the prison estate. Such a level of violence has inevitably brought into question the safety and adequacy of the current protective equipment available to prison officers at work. Only last year, three officers were viciously attacked in a particularly serious incident at HMP Frankland, the same prison where Claire was badly wounded. The full implications of this unacceptable deterioration have yet to be learned, though significant progress was made last September, when the Justice Secretary announced during a visit to Belmarsh prison that 10,000 more staff would be given stab-proof vests and 500 tasers would be supplied to trained personnel. Although those steps are welcome—they would have helped protect Claire in her prison—they go only part of the way. The extra 10,000 vests will provide a stab-proof garment for every prison guard working in high-security facilities, but even with body armour being made mandatory for prison officers working in close supervision and separation centres, too many at-risk staff remain without protection. Any prison officer working on any wing of any prison can be attacked. Therefore, any prison officer working on any wing of any prison deserves to be protected from violence while trying to do his or her job. Yes, progress has been made, but as long as any prison officers lack adequate protection and remain vulnerable to attack, there is still work to do. High levels of violence coupled with a lack of protective equipment will undoubtedly serve as a recruitment disincentive for potential prison officers. That must be remedied to ensure that our justice system continues to function and our society remains safe. Prison officers will always face challenges, often in trying circumstances. It is up to us to minimise the risk of attack, if we expect people to volunteer for such a vital, though difficult, career. It is also a matter of justice and fair play. We cannot expect to be protected by brave prison officers if they do not feel that appropriate safety measures are in place. If the principle of providing protective body armour to all prison officers is accepted, we must ensure the adequacy of the equipment itself. We must listen to and draw upon the experiences of those who have already been issued with protective equipment to make certain that it meets the highest safety standards. In 2024, more than half of police officers and staff in England and Wales said that their uniforms were “unfit for purpose”, restrictive and causing health problems, according to the first national police uniform and equipment survey ever undertaken. Furthermore, that survey revealed alarming health consequences, with 44% of men reporting muscular pain, which was often linked to body armour or heavy equipment, and women reporting that body armour failed adequately to accommodate female anatomy. Ultimately, 62% of male and 85% of female respondents reported at least one physical health condition as a result of equipment flaws. Lessons must be learned and procurement tailored accordingly, in both senses of the word. As well as its protective function, body armour must be light in weight, not impair mobility and remain comfortable if worn for lengthy periods. I understand that Claire Lewis has identified at least one designer and manufacturer of stab vests and other protective clothing that she believes to offer enhanced protection against blunt force, significantly reducing the risk of injuries from punches, kicks and strikes from improvised weapons. Clearly, market research and objective evaluation will need to be done. The argument is twofold: we should ensure that all prison officers have comparable protection from attack by prisoners, and the selection of protective equipment must be right rather than rushed. Not only is this morally sound, but it will save costly claims later on from individuals suffering health consequences from faulty equipment. I conclude with the following questions for the Minister, to whom I have given advance notice—I thank him for his accessibility in this matter. First, does he accept that, regardless of which prison wing an officer works on, he or she deserves protection from violence? Secondly, if that is agreed, will the Government seriously consider rolling out mandatory body armour to all prison officers in all prisons? Finally, may we have the Minister’s word, here and now, that any new body armour procured will be of the highest specification, to avoid causing physical problems for male and female officers further down the line?

• 26 Mar 2026 · Prison Officers: Mandatory Body Armour · Hansard source

  More

  When I realised that this debate was going to be held on the last day before the Easter recess, I was rather perturbed and thought that perhaps not very many people would turn up. I could not have been more wrong, both in terms of quantity and quality. The six contributions from Back Benchers taught me a great deal more about this issue than I ever dreamt I would absorb in a single afternoon. They included contributions from the Chair of the Justice Committee, the hon. Member for Hammersmith and Chiswick (Andy Slaughter), as well as the leader of Plaid Cymru in the House of Commons, the right hon. Member for Dwyfor Meirionnydd (Liz Saville Roberts), and other senior Members old and new. Every one of them made a very worthwhile contribution. My hope was that we were going to roll it all the way through to the end with absolute agreement on the single issue of the body armour, even though some of the very knowledgeable contributions we heard from the Floor understandably went into wider issues that are also of concern to the Prison Officers Association, who were in touch with me before the debate as well. Sadly, the Minister has made indications in the right direction but has not been willing to give the complete commitment that we want, which is that, in principle, given that this is what the staff members themselves desire, they should be able to have stab-proof vests in whichever prison they work. It would be good if we could get that nailed down. I fully understand the Minister’s point that it cannot all happen within 24 hours of making the decision, but the process cannot begin until the principle is acknowledged. I fear, from his point of view at any rate, that he will not have heard the last of this issue, even though the Government have made some substantial steps in the right direction, as I acknowledged in my opening remarks. I conclude by referring back to where it all began, which was the brave campaign by Claire Lewis, who turned her own dreadful experience into a force for good so that others will be better protected in the future. I did not know very much about this issue until it was brought to me by people who are more acquainted with it than I was. I acknowledge the help I have received—on background information, information about the issue and in drafting my opening remarks. With that, I conclude by wishing everybody a very happy Easter break. Question put and agreed to. Resolved, That this House has considered the potential merits of mandatory body armour for prison officers.

• 26 Mar 2026 · Resident Doctors: Industrial Action · Hansard source

  More

  One thing we have not yet heard is the Secretary of State’s assessment of the motivation of the BMA committee members who are so militantly rejecting a deal that he evidently regards as generous. As he says, they are refusing even to sit down and talk with him. What is behind that? Why are they behaving in what appears to be an unreasonable and extreme way? To what extent does he think they represent resident doctors?

• 26 Mar 2026 · Transport Accessibility for Disabled People · Hansard source

  More

  I apologise for not being able to contribute substantively to this debate, owing to a commitment to lead another debate in Westminster Hall shortly. Bus passes are hugely valued by the disabled community, but there is a frustration along the lines that the hon. Lady has hinted at, which is that some people cannot make use of their bus passes without a companion, yet the inclusion of a companion bus pass in the entitlement to have a bus pass is discretionary, not mandatory. Would she agree with me that it is not much good giving a bus pass to a disabled person if that does not cover the companion they need with them to make use of it?

• 26 Mar 2026 · Business of the House · Hansard source

  More

  Mr Speaker, may I endorse your tribute to the late David Winnick? I had occasion to observe him in action in this House for the first 20 years of my time here, and I can certainly confirm that he was a strong character with an independent mind. That is the best tribute one can make to a resolute Back Bencher. May I appeal for a debate in Government time on the importance of the credibility of consultation processes, bearing in mind that we have been through one for local government reform and our contributions seem to have been overwhelmingly ignored? It would be a shame if people felt that there was no point in participating in a consultation process because the outcome had been predetermined on party political grounds.

• 26 Mar 2026 · Palliative Care · Hansard source

  More

  May I congratulate the hon. Lady on an excellent statement about what sounds to be a fascinating and detailed report? I was particularly impressed with the amount of time she dedicated to considering children’s palliative care. She may recall the debate in Westminster Hall earlier this month, when I mentioned that the charity Together for Short Lives had a particular idea about how to combat what she rightly emphasised—namely, the wide variation from place to place in the availability of palliative care services, particularly specialised ones for children. Did her investigation consider the recommendation that the NHS ought to organise the existing children’s palliative care services into palliative care operational delivery networks, similar to those used in neonatal care service provision?

• 25 Mar 2026 · Foreign Financial Influence and Interference: UK Politics · Hansard source

  More

  I think the Government are very wise to try to close the potential loophole that somebody might make a giant donation between today and the conclusion of the legislative process, but I can think of at least one other rather glaring loophole, which hopefully the Secretary of State has also considered. If somebody is an elector living abroad, he will be limited to £100,000 per donation, but what about other members of his close family to whom he could channel indefinite numbers of packages of £100,000 apiece? What is to stop them from making similar donations? Has the Secretary of State considered how the limit will work in practice?

• 24 Mar 2026 · Defence · Hansard source

  More

  It is very kind of my hon. Friend to give way on the point of making his peroration. He mentioned the tension between the MOD and its Ministers, and the Treasury. We could sympathise with the MOD Ministers if they did not keep adopting a line that is self-defeating. They keep coming out with this propaganda line that they have increased defence spending by a greater amount than at any time since the end of the cold war, and each time, I boringly point out to them—and I am going to do it again today—that they should not be comparing what we are spending now, in a much deteriorated situation, with the peace dividend years that followed the cold war; they should compare it with what we used to spend on defence during the cold war, which was regularly between 4.5% and 5%. If that seems a lot, just remember that when a country is involved in a full-scale war, we are talking not about 4% but about 40%.

• 24 Mar 2026 · Defence · Hansard source

  More

  I am concerned about one problem that may arise. We have now got to a stage where the Government have given permission for the Americans to strike back against, for example, missile batteries launching at targets that might include our own bases. I am not clear what would happen—and I hope it never has to come to this—if our bases were successfully attacked and damaged. Are the Government still saying that only the Americans should retaliate against those batteries, or should the RAF have a role as well? I am not anxious to escalate, but I do not see where the logic lies in America being able to retaliate, when our own armed forces cannot, following an attack that has successfully damaged one of our own bases.

• 24 Mar 2026 · Defence · Hansard source

  More

  rose—

• 24 Mar 2026 · Defence · Hansard source

  More

  Will the Minister give way?

• 24 Mar 2026 · Defence · Hansard source

  More

  Can I share a little secret with the House? For slightly longer than the duration of the second world war, I was a shadow Defence Minister, but in 2010, I found myself back on the Back Benches because the Liberal Defence spokesman was appointed Minister for the Armed Forces. I was told that the reason for this was that the powers that be knew that I would never have gone along with the cuts that were made in October 2010 by the Conservative-Liberal Democrat coalition. I think the hon. Gentlemen’s amnesia is therefore somewhat selective.

• 23 Mar 2026 · Puberty Blockers Clinical Trial · Hansard source

  More

  I believe many children were treated with puberty blockers, among other drugs, before the Gender Identity Development Service programme was closed down. Does the hon. Member know what has happened to all the data from those children who were previously treated, or why it should be necessary to treat any more children with these drugs until enough time has elapsed to enable that data, and the treatment’s consequences, to be verified?

• 23 Mar 2026 · Middle East · Hansard source

  More

  May I remind Defence Ministers yet again that they should be comparing increases in defence expenditure not with the post-cold war years, but with what we used to spend on defence during the cold war years, which was between 4.5% and 5% of GDP? Can the Secretary of State look the House straight in the eye, as it were, and say that, given the very close relationship between China and the Mauritians, which includes a 25-year treaty of co-operation, it would be a sounder situation if Mauritius had sovereignty over Diego Garcia and we were only lessees to them?

• 23 Mar 2026 · Hatzola Ambulance Attack · Hansard source

  More

  The people who carry out such attacks are mainly seeking to terrorise the target community, but the people who plan such attacks often have another end in mind, which is to set two communities at each other’s throats. Without revealing anything that one should not about the techniques of the Security Service, can we spare a moment to pay tribute to those members of the Muslim community who bravely go undercover to infiltrate plots of this sort, who are briefly seen in court, often under an assumed name, when convictions are assured, and without whose work many more such plots would succeed than is the case?

• 19 Mar 2026 · Pre-1997 Pensions: Discretionary Increases · Hansard source

  More

  If the Minister would follow the recommendation of at least giving the trustees the full power to make the decision over discretionary awards and taking it away from the company, one could be pretty sure that if the scheme went into deficit, the trustees would act accordingly.

• 19 Mar 2026 · Pre-1997 Pensions: Discretionary Increases · Hansard source

  More

  The hon. Gentleman is making an excellent presentation. Rather curiously, up until 2023, ExxonMobil pensioners got automatically indexed uplifts to their pensions, but for some reason from that date onwards, the company changed its policy and now they are not getting the discretionary uplift. The trustees there say that they have no power and that it is up to the company to decide whether this discretionary uplift occurs. Is one way forward perhaps to ask the Minister to give an undertaking that the trustees should have the power to award such discretionary uplifts linked to indexation?

• 19 Mar 2026 · Northern Ireland: Legacy of the Past · Hansard source

  More

  I would like to make a little progress first, then I certainly will. I chaired the Defence Committee when we produced a report that recommended the combination of a statute of limitation with a truth recovery process as the best way to proceed. That report took evidence, as I have mentioned many times, from four eminent professors of law. They pointed out that that recommendation was a perfectly legal way to proceed, provided that, if immunities were introduced, they would be brought in for everybody, and provided that the matters concerned would be properly investigated. That investigation could consist of a truth recovery process; it did not have to involve prosecuting people after the investigations had taken place. Some of us have been very concerned about the malicious and vexatious prosecution of service personnel. If the idea is, on the one hand, to rule out the vexatious pursuit of service personnel and, on the other hand, to heal society by allowing people who suffered in the troubles to find out the truth, then the package of a statute of limitation coupled with a truth recovery process seemed ideal. I cannot quite understand why the Government, and those who support their approach of reopening all those investigations, seem to think that their approach will lead to effective truth recovery. How much more likely is it that people will come forward and tell the truth when they know that they could be incriminating themselves because the Government have reopened that lethal can of worms? That compares with a situation inherent in the original package: by giving everybody immunity, people could then come forward and tell the truth without any fear of adverse consequences to themselves. The other objection that is made, which I see spelled out explicitly in the Government’s response to the report, is that it is insulting to put everybody on the same level—that it is putting terrorists, service personnel and security forces on the same level. I have pointed out on countless occasions—and never heard a convincing refutation of this—that that ship has already sailed. The Northern Ireland (Sentences) Act 1998 laid down that if anyone is convicted, even of the most appalling atrocities—murders, tortures, rape, you name it—in relation to the troubles, they will not actually serve more than two years in jail. Why does it say that for everyone? Because the law has to be impartial. Just because the law applies impartially to service personnel and terrorists alike does not mean that it draws a moral equivalence between them, and neither did the package here. Its purpose was to give immunity to stop vexatious prosecutions and to enable the truth recovery process to allow the victims to find out what had happened. A third point that has been put forward is: “Well, they want justice.” But in order to get justice, there has to be a realistic prospect of securing convictions. Even in the case of Bloody Sunday, where we would have thought there was the maximum chance of securing convictions, no conviction was secured. So why do people want to reopen all the prosecutions of service personnel? The answer is that it is not because they expect to get convictions, but because they want to rewrite history and put service personnel through the trauma of being tried, investigated and pursued, even though it is overwhelmingly unlikely that they will be convicted of anything. As has been said before, and deserves to be said again, the punishment is the process, not the actual conviction at the end of that process, which would not be obtained. I appreciate that the Government have a mandate to try this approach, and I have to respect that. I hope that they will be proven right, and that we on the Opposition Benches will be proven wrong, but somehow I do not think so. It does not help for the Government to insult those of us who tried genuinely to put forward a combination of measures that we were told was legal by four professors of law—a package with immunity for everyone on the one hand, and a truth recovery process to fulfil the obligation to investigate on the other. That package would have been far more likely to lead to reconciliation and the recovery of truth, and to avoid the vexatious pursuit of brave service and security personnel. The Government cannot say that they have not been warned.

• 19 Mar 2026 · Northern Ireland: Legacy of the Past · Hansard source

  More

  I would like to start by referring to the intervention of the hon. Member for Belfast South and Mid Down (Claire Hanna), who is sadly no longer in her place. She talked about people stepping forward and speaking the truth. I believe that the Government’s new approach makes that less, rather than more, likely to happen. In their response to the Select Committee report, the Government speak in disparaging terms about the immunity provisions that the previous Conservative Government laid down; those immunity provisions are described as an affront to democracy. I do not believe that is true at all. It is not true any more than claiming that what happened in South Africa, when Nelson Mandela sought to heal that society, was an affront to their new democracy.

• 19 Mar 2026 · Northern Ireland: Legacy of the Past · Hansard source

  More

  I am not an expert on the more recent developments, but I think I remember correctly that the previous Government were appealing that particular court decision, and this Government took a deliberate decision to discontinue the appeal.

• 18 Mar 2026 · Points of Order · Hansard source

  More

  On a point of order, Mr Speaker. You have clearly explained that you are not responsible for the quality, or lack of it, in a Minister’s answers—or even a Prime Minister’s answers—but can you explain for the benefit of the House and the viewing public what Prime Minister’s questions is supposed to be about: namely, that the Opposition and other right hon. and hon. Members get to ask the Prime Minister a question about a subject of their choice, and that it is not an opportunity for him to then berate them for not asking a question about a completely different subject that he wishes had been asked?

• 18 Mar 2026 · Social Media: Children and Young People · Hansard source

  More

  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?

• 18 Mar 2026 · Fuel Duty · Hansard source

  More

  I like the Minister very much, not least because he represents the Welsh seat of my birth and upbringing, and because I have such respect for him, I am going to try to make the point to him that I have so far made with zero success to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, among others. It is all well and good to talk about the greatest increase in spending on defence since the end of the cold war if we are comparing the post cold war period with what is—shall we say?—a quiet defence period, but we are not. What we need to spend now is not to be compared with what it was like after the end of the cold war, but what it was like during the cold war, and during the cold war we regularly spent between 4.5% and 5% of GDP on defence. If he recognises that there is some merit in that argument, could he try to persuade his colleagues to stop making that false comparison?