Julian Lewis MP: speeches

Speeches

• 23 Jun 2026 · Defence Spending and Readiness · Hansard source

  More

  One of the strong arguments put forward for the legislation is that it will help families to find out the truth of what happened to their loved ones, yet by repealing the Conservative legislation, it makes that less likely rather than more likely—because who is going to come forward and incriminate themselves by saying what happened to people who were unlawfully killed if they know that they will not then have immunity from prosecution?

• 3 Jun 2026 · Lord Mandelson: Response to Humble Address · Hansard source

  More

  For the sake of completeness, will my right hon. and learned Friend explain whether the Committee saw the third category of documents—those redacted or withheld because of the police inquiry—or whether the Committee labours under the same degree of ignorance as the rest of us?

• 3 Jun 2026 · Lord Mandelson: Response to Humble Address · Hansard source

  More

  I disagree with the right hon. Lady’s analysis because the whole point of what we have been saying from the Opposition Benches is that the Prime Minister himself knew about these points: he knew what Mandelson had done in relation to Epstein; he knew what he had said in relation to justice in Hong Kong; and he knew what Mandelson had said in that radio interview because I had challenged him about it. I must say, although it may not meet the high standards of court litigation, that when the Prime Minister brushed aside my challenge to him on 21 November, he sat down with a very notable and ingratiating grin, and I turned to the person sitting next to me and said, “He’s definitely going to appoint Mandelson.” It was his decision.

• 2 Jun 2026 · Murder of Henry Nowak · Hansard source

  More

  Is it normal police practice to handcuff a person who is lying helpless on the ground and clearly offering no resistance? Given the Home Secretary’s admirable and utter rejection of differential treatment of people according to their race, will she undertake to examine and withdraw the policing policy document identified by the shadow Home Secretary as embodying precisely such differential treatment?

• 20 May 2026 · Defence Readiness · Hansard source

  More

  As my hon. Friend knows, the then Defence Committee did two reports into this question, and in the course of those inquiries, we interviewed four eminent professors of law, including one particularly famous left-wing one. We did not ask them what they wanted to happen; we asked them what could legally be done about a statute of limitation. They all agreed, however reluctantly, that it would be legal to have a statute of limitation provided that it was coupled with a truth recovery process that met the requirement for an investigation to occur. Their other key condition was it should be applied to all people involved in the conflict. The Government could pursue the line that those four professors of law took, but they do not want to do so. They are happy to shelter behind court judgments that they could appeal against but will not.

• 18 May 2026 · Youth Justice · Hansard source

  More

  May I ask the Justice Secretary to explain a bit more about the intensive community placements to which he made brief reference? Can I put to him a particularly challenging scenario? Imagine that we have, say, a single parent—a single mum—who is very much afraid of her own adolescent child. She is aware that that child has been getting machetes and other violent accessories through internet-related delivery services. Let us imagine that she does what she is supposed to do, and what we would all think she ought to do, which is to report the child. Given that no offence has yet been committed by the child, what protection will be offered to her against potentially lethal violence from her own adolescent son?

• 27 Apr 2026 · Dunmurry Police Station Attack · Hansard source

  More

  Given what the Secretary of State said about the nature of the Lurgan bomb, it sounds as if these weapons are unsophisticated and presumably not detonated remotely. This must mean that the delivery drivers were in exceptional peril, because such crude devices could have gone off at any time. Will the Secretary of State confirm that he is liaising closely with people in the Republic of Ireland, and that their attitude is nowadays one of complete support for the discovery and prevention of a new version of the terrorism of the troubles?

• 21 Apr 2026 · Peter Mandelson: Government Appointment · Hansard source

  More

  I am really surprised that the hon. Gentleman is swallowing this guff about this being a borderline case. It was quite clear that security vetting put this case in the red box, which meant “fail”. Sir Olly is being lauded to the skies now because he is the victim of ruthless prime ministerial politics, but he also has an angle on this: he massaged, shall we say, his own judgment because he knew the pressure on him from the Government. There was nothing borderline about this; he is saying that it was borderline only because he needs an excuse for having overridden it when he should not have done.

• 14 Apr 2026 · Knife Crime · Hansard source

  More

  Where psychopaths are concerned, deterrence is unlikely to work, but I was interested to hear an expert from the Internet Watch Foundation, who was interviewed on Times Radio this morning, say that people who commune on the internet with those who supply them with knives could instantly bring together red flags and warn people, if they wanted to. Is it part of the Minister’s strategy to try to arrange for that? As for others, am I right in thinking that a very high proportion of people who commit knife crimes are detected? If so, surely a campaign saying, “If you commit knife crime, you will almost certainly be caught” could act as a real deterrent to those capable of being deterred.

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

  More

  I beg to move, That this House has considered the potential merits of mandatory body armour for prison officers. May I begin by thanking all the Members who have taken the trouble to attend and hopefully speak in this important debate, and also the Minister and shadow Minister for their anticipated contributions? Members of all parties in the House will wish to put on the record our appreciation for prison officers up and down the country, who work tirelessly and courageously to protect our society. Let us especially pay tribute to Claire Lewis, a brave constituent of my friend the hon. Member for Washington and Gateshead South (Mrs Hodgson), the newly appointed Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, who we heard in full voice a few moments ago on another debate topic. She rightly drew attention to Claire’s work on 18 June last year. After suffering a horrific assault, Claire set up a petition calling for anti-stab and anti-slash protective gear to be made mandatory for all prison officers. It achieved over 32,500 signatures. She had been severely stabbed in the back with a broken bottle while working on a supposedly less risky general population wing at HMP Frankland as a prison officer in 2010. In her own words, the attack left her with “life-changing physical injuries and deep psychological toll…to this day.” I understand Claire is watching at home today, so this is a good opportunity to acknowledge her remarkable commitment and dedication in turning such a dreadful experience into an inspirational campaign for change. No one should be subject to needless vulnerability while doing his or her job. Prison officers work constantly to safeguard society from some of the most dangerous and violent people. They are entitled, in return, to expect from us the maximum practicable protection from attack. Sadly, Claire’s experience is no isolated incident. According to The Independent , the number of assaults on staff in adult prisons in England and Wales nearly trebled in the decade from 2014 to the end of 2024, from 3,640 to 10,605.

• 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.

• 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 · 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 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.

• 16 Mar 2026 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  T3. Successive Governments have refused compensation to the nuclear test veterans, but now the Sunday Mirror ’s investigative journalist Susie Boniface has revealed documents showing that, in fact, levels of radiation were known to be much higher than the court was led to believe in a case in 2016. Will Ministers address this matter with the seriousness it deserves, while veterans are still suffering and the widows of veterans still lack any recognition or compensation?

• 25 Feb 2026 · Grenfell Tower Annual Report · Hansard source

  More

  It is very surprising to those of us who are not experts on this matter to hear the Secretary of State say that the police are undertaking such a vast and complex investigation, because the circumstances of this uniquely terrible tragedy do not seem terribly complicated at all. Why is the police inquiry taking so long? Will he at least assure the House, and the country at large, that there is a dedicated unit within the police that is determined to bring this matter before the courts?

• 25 Feb 2026 · Diego Garcia and British Indian Ocean Territory · Hansard source

  More

  Will the Government pause any steps in this matter until the judicial review proceedings that are being brought on behalf of the Chagossian people have been resolved one way or another in the High Court?

• 23 Feb 2026 · Local Government Reorganisation · Hansard source

  More

  I realise now that it was simply fresh legal advice that led to this change of policy, rather than anything to do with the court case brought by the Secretary of State’s least favourite political party. Does he agree that the Government, in handling local government reform, should give at least an appearance of being impartial? Despite the Government’s consistent advice that the existing district and borough council areas should be seen as the building blocks for the new unitary authorities, Labour-controlled Southampton city council is still insisting on trying to dismember the New Forest East constituency by going for boundary changes that would strip off the Waterside, near Southampton, from the New Forest, to which it has always looked. Will the Secretary of State assure me that when he and his colleagues take decisions on this and similar issues, the fact that it is a Labour-led council asking for the guidelines not to be followed will not weigh on them in an appropriate way?

• 10 Feb 2026 · Local Power Plan · Hansard source

  More

  Does the Secretary of State agree that the Mandelson scandal illustrates the reputational risk and damage that can be done by ignoring aspects of criminal exploitation? Does he know whether there is a difference in the cost of solar panels that are imported from China compared with other possible sources? What sort of safeguards do the Government have to ensure that we are not encouraging people to put on their roofs the products of criminal activity and forced labour exploitation?

• 10 Feb 2026 · Court Reporting Data · Hansard source

  More

  It is certainly a cause of great concern if an AI machine now has access to people’s private home addresses. What investigations have the Government carried out to establish how much personal information that should not have been released is now out there for anyone, no matter how ill-intentioned, to dial up at will?

• 9 Feb 2026 · Jimmy Lai: Prison Sentence · Hansard source

  More

  I am sorry, but this is really hopeless. I mean no disrespect to this particular Minister, but I am sure that you, Mr Speaker, have noticed, as I have, that whenever something indefensible comes up, the Government always put middle-ranking or junior Ministers on the frontline. Perhaps the Foreign Secretary is abroad or perhaps she is in her sick bed, but otherwise, why is she not voluntarily making a statement, rather than sending someone else to take the flak? This is really not fitting for the outrage that hon. Members—there are hon. Members on both sides of the House—feel about the fate of Jimmy Lai.

• 3 Feb 2026 · Iran · Hansard source

  More

  Will the Minister please get on with doing that? The fact is that the independent reviewer of terrorism has signalled a way in which something analogous to proscription can be done to the IRGC, even though it is a state body. Does the Minister accept that there is an analogy between the IRGC and the Gestapo and Hitler’s SS, both of which were designated as criminal organisations by the Nuremberg tribunal? Would he be as slow to act if we were operating in that context? For goodness’ sake, get on with it and implement the findings and recommendations of Jonathan Hall.