Lewis Atkinson MP: speeches

4 Jul 2024–3 Jul 2025

How these years work

Our reporting years run from 4 July to 3 July, starting with the 2024 general election. They are not official parliamentary sessions. Office costs keep IPSA’s April–March financial years. Records may cover only part of a year; a missing record does not mean no work was done.

Read what this MP said, asked and contributed in Parliament.

12 published records · newest first.

Speeches

  • 25 Jun 2025 · Armed Forces Recruitment: North-east England · Hansard source
    More

    I absolutely share my hon. Friend’s sentiments. The strength of the veterans’ charities network also speaks to the wisdom of the Government’s approach to veterans. It is about building a network of support for veterans—on top of the fantastic work that our veterans charities do—through Operation Valour and the £50 million that the Government are investing, recognising the strength of community that already exists. It has been a really good debate this afternoon, and I am grateful to have had the opportunity to contribute. I hope that by giving people in our communities the opportunities that they need while strengthening our armed forces, we can make some changes in the coming years to strengthen recruitment under this Government.

  • 25 Jun 2025 · Armed Forces Recruitment: North-east England · Hansard source
    More

    I will absolutely do that. I commend the gentleman in the Public Gallery and all those who serve. The tradition of connection between place and service is so important and an asset that we must continue to use as we consider recruitment in the future. One in 20 of my constituents are veterans, probably one of the highest percentages in the UK. Sunderland as a whole—not just my constituency, but the local authority area—has 11,000 veterans. That is partly due to that proud military tradition, but also because, particularly in the ’80s during the period of deindustrialisation when the pits and the shipyards closed, young people lacked work opportunities and, naturally, they joined the forces. There are veterans alive today in my constituency who made incredibly significant contributions in the Falklands, Iraq, Afghanistan and other conflicts. As other Members have mentioned, the forces offered apprentice-style careers that gave people great life chances, apprenticeships and opportunities to travel around the world. They opened up opportunities and horizons for working-class men and women in the north-east. Our cadet units play a key part in that tradition. I will not repeat the points that my hon. Friends have made, but I want to pay tribute to the units in my constituency. For example, the excellent Southmoor academy, a local community school, has a combined cadet unit embedded in it, enriching the curriculum for those who participate and those who do not. It provides a pathway to options for further recruitment. There are also Territorial units and facilities in my constituency, in particular the Territorial Army centre in Seaburn, which is a base for the Rifles and a medical regiment. I will, however, refer mainly to issues regarding our regular forces. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Newton Aycliffe and Spennymoor (Alan Strickland) on securing the debate and opening it, and, as he said, there has been a recruitment crisis in the wider country and particularly in the north-east of England. The most recent statistic available for Sunderland Central is that around 10 people per year have joined each of the services. If we contrast that with the 11,000 veterans across Sunderland as a whole, we can see the drop-off.

  • 25 Jun 2025 · Armed Forces Recruitment: North-east England · Hansard source
    More

    I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend. There are occasionally differences between the Tyne and the Wear, but this is absolutely not one of them. I think of the Royal Naval Association on Roker Avenue in my constituency, another representation of the community and the service of generations of seafarers and those who have served in the Navy, and I know that in his constituency HMS Calliope fulfils that role. As the Secretary of State reflected recently, the fact that three in four recent applicants for the forces gave up before they reached even the medical element or were rejected for any other reason is just not good enough. I am sure that the Minister will say more about the mobilisation of the new recruitment service, which I welcome. I understand that it will operate on a tri-service basis, which will be increasingly important as we seek to have multi-skilled forces that are able to work on that basis. It absolutely makes sense—including, presumably, economic sense—for recruitment to occur on a tri-service basis, so that different forces are not competing. Will the Minister say something about the mobilisation period, which I understand extends to 2027? How quickly does he expect the delivery of the training start date within 30 days of application? Terms and conditions are important for both attraction and retention, but when we talk about retention we sometimes miss the link back to attraction. There should be no better advert for joining the forces than current service personnel. If they are having a good experience, they are the best recruiters for others.

  • 27 Mar 2025 · Prevention of Drug Deaths · Hansard source
    More

    It is a pleasure to serve under you, Dr Murrison. I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) for securing this debate. As colleagues have said, 5,448 drug-related deaths in England and Wales is truly a public health crisis, and we need a response that meets the urgency of that crisis. When the last Labour Government came into power, we were approaching 2,000 drug-related deaths a year, and that was considered serious enough at the time to implement a new national drug strategy, with funding, and to set up a national treatment agency to provide evidence-based treatment. That was at almost 2,000 deaths a year. The effect of that intervention was that drug-related deaths, which had been inexorably rising for a decade or more, levelled out and stopped rising. Thousands of lives were saved and improved. I know a little bit about that, because it was the privilege of my NHS career to manage NHS drug treatment services in the north-east of England for three years when that strategy and system were in place. A harm-reduction approach was key to treatment, as other colleagues have said. Drug deaths are horrific, and so are the wider harms, including the impact on crime. The amount of acquisitive crime in this country that is driven by addiction is really significant. The Government are focused rightly on tackling crime as well as wider health themes. This is an intervention that meets a lot of the Government’s missions. The harms around children are also significant. Many children are taken into care as a result of parental drug use. A prevention approach would reduce costs for the state by ensuring appropriate drug treatment. Treatment, particularly for opiate use, must focus on substitution therapies. It was disappointing that in the last decade ideology against opiate-substitution treatment trumped the evidence base for it. There are people who could still be alive today if it were not for that ideology. The scale of the treatment gap is significant. In Sunderland, in my constituency, adult mortality from drug causes is about twice the average in England, but around 60% of opiate and crack users are not in treatment today. That must change, and I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response on that. Under the last Labour Government, the policy and health landscape was rather different. As well as the policy urgency, there were clear national levers to pull, with a primary one being the National Treatment Agency for Substance Misuse. Since then, we have moved to a more diffuse system that is not at the centre of Government but commissioned by each council individually through the public health grant. The provider landscape has fragmented. Whereas NHS treatment services used to be the norm, now there is a significant pattern of commissioning—in some cases there is competitive tendering every few years. That has not helped to tackle this issue with the urgency it needs. I look forward to hearing from the Minister. I do not think legislation is required to improve treatment. This issue requires clear political will and focus, and I hope we will hear a lot more of that from the Government today and in the coming months.

  • 19 Mar 2025 · Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill (Twenty-sixth sitting) · Hansard source
    More

    My instinct is that it would not. If the Bill becomes law, it would be a lawful choice. The hon. Gentleman may not characterise it as healthcare, but it would be part of healthcare and end-of-life services. We would not accept such stipulations on other healthcare services. I can see a sketch that some may choose to draw; someone mentioned housing supported by a religious institution. The reality is that people do not go out of their way to offend, and they try to live in harmony with those around them. If people are clear that they might actively explore assisted dying as an option, they will not choose to spend their last days in a community where others are ideologically opposed to their choice; it would be uncomfortable for the individual. They would, however, have the legal right to do so.

  • 4 Mar 2025 · Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill (Seventeenth sitting) · Hansard source
    More

    I will be brief. I am pleased to hear my hon. Friend the Member for Spen Valley confirm that she is minded to support amendment 341. It is incumbent on all of us, but perhaps particularly those in favour of the Bill, to place on record our appreciation and recognition of the fact that many people who work in our health services have strongly held religious beliefs, or beliefs of conscience—however they are motivated. As is the case for a range of other procedures and medical interventions, the law has to allow them scope to continue to practise. They make a valuable contribution to our health service and national life, and we should not do anything to impinge on that. There is already strong guidance from the General Medical Council about personal belief, and that applies, as the hon. Member for Reigate mentioned, to the Abortion Act, as well as to the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 1990, the Female Genital Mutilation Act 2003 and other procedures. It is not for any of us to second-guess someone’s conscience.

  • 26 Feb 2025 · Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill (Fifteenth sitting) · Hansard source
    More

    I was not intending to, but I will speak very briefly to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Ipswich. I agree that what is set out in amendment 50 is entirely sensible and I support such provisions. However, I will not vote for it, and I want to explain why. We will go down a very difficult route if we set out the regulation in primary legislation for every individual area of medical practice in this country. We do not have an equivalent version for how doctors should talk to their cancer patient and what information they should provide. We do not have the equivalent in various other sensitive acts, such as the Abortion Act 1967, the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 2008 and so on. The reason is that we rely, as set out in statute, on regulation through the General Medical Council. I want to read into the record some of the existing General Medical Council guidance for doctors on giving information to patients. Of course, this covers any doctor-patient interaction, and it would apply in this case as well: “The information you give patients 10. You must give patients the information they want or need to make a decision. This will usually include: a. diagnosis and prognosis b. uncertainties about the diagnosis or prognosis, including options for further investigation… c. options for treating or managing the condition, including the option to take no action d. the nature of each option, what would be involved, and the desired outcome e. the potential benefits, risks of harm, uncertainties about and likelihood of success for each option, including the option to take no action.” That is already set out by the General Medical Council.

  • 24 Feb 2025 · Breakfast Clubs: Early Adopters · Hansard source
    More

    I know that my right hon. Friend and constituency neighbour, the Secretary of State, is personally committed to delivering the best start to life for children in Sunderland, and I warmly welcome the fact that the Richard Avenue, Hudson Road, St Joseph’s and Dame Dorothy schools in my constituency have been announced as early adopters. Will she say a little bit about regional variation in the availability of early years staff, which, as she knows, is a particular challenge in our city?

  • 30 Jan 2025 · Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill (Seventh sitting) · Hansard source
    More

    Q It is late, and I am far from being an expert on Welsh devolution, but I want to ask Professor Lewis a question, not least because we have not come to him for a little while. Although it is not my area, I absolutely note the concerns and the discussion about respecting the democratic will of the Senedd in these matters. Would you suggest any potential avenues in the Bill to incorporate an element of positive affirmation by the Senedd, or its consent? What do you suggest we look at? Professor Lewis: Formally, there is a need in any event for a legislative consent motion in relation to the specific bits I mentioned earlier, I have suggested one potential avenue, which is that the Senedd and Welsh Government take on responsibility for whether and when the Act commences in Wales. Another option might be to do a thorough “think once, think twice, think Wales” review to see to what extent other functions of the Secretary of State might be better exercised in Wales by the Welsh Ministers. That is a non-exhaustive list, but I hope it helps.

  • 28 Jan 2025 · Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill (Third sitting) · Hansard source
    More

    I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Spen Valley. Having agreed to extend the time on Thursday to hear devolution issues and from the Royal College of General Practitioners and the Royal College of Psychiatrists, by adding two further witnesses, the amendment to the amendment would reduce the time available on those options. In an ideal world we would like to hear from all sorts of people. The option of written evidence is available. We have got other evidence, and I want to ensure that Thursday’s session is focused on the proposals that my hon. Friend has made.

  • 27 Nov 2024 · Engagements · Hansard source
    More

    Q9. Antisocial behaviour involving modified and off-road bikes is a menace, and has a huge impact on communities such as mine in Sunderland. Although I welcome the work that Northumbria police does in partnership with our council, they need stronger powers and more resources. Can the Prime Minister outline how he will back the police to tackle the misery caused by intimidating and downright dangerous antisocial behaviour on bikes?

  • 2 Sept 2024 · Violent Disorder · Hansard source
    More

    My constituents were appalled by the criminal disorder that we saw on our streets at the start of August, which was in no way representative of our city. The contrast between thugs who preferred destruction and the decent law-abiding majority was clear in our community’s response—be it Northumbria police officers standing up and protecting our communities in the face of attacks; the hundreds of residents of every race and religion turning up the day after to sweep away not just the shards of glass, but the shards of hatred that had been sown the night before; or the Sunderland citizens advice bureau refusing to let the arson attack prevent it from providing services. Will the Home Secretary join me in praising the response of the people of Sunderland and of similar communities across the country, and does she agree that we should build upon their example as we look to strengthen community cohesion in the future?

Explore activity by topic or department

Contributions by debate topic

4 Jul 2024–3 Jul 2025. Existing keyword taxonomy applied to official debate titles and contributions; a contribution may appear in more than one topic and unclassified records are retained.

View as listCommunities and local government: 12Communities and local government12Culture, media and sport: 7Culture, media and sport7Defence and foreign affairs: 9Defence and foreign affairs9Democracy and constitution: 19Democracy and constitution19Economy and business: 16Economy and business16Education and skills: 8Education and skills8Environment and energy: 5Environment and energy5Health and care: 149Health and care149Housing and planning: 8Housing and planning8Immigration and borders: 2Immigration and borders2Justice and policing: 21Justice and policing21Social security and pensions: 19Social security and pensions19Transport: 4Transport4Unclassified: 6Unclassified6
What this shows and doesn't show
4 Jul 2024–3 Jul 2025. Existing keyword taxonomy applied to official debate titles and contributions; a contribution may appear in more than one topic and unclassified records are retained. Published records do not measure effort or effectiveness. Methodology.
Department or topicPublished records
Communities and local government12
Culture, media and sport7
Defence and foreign affairs9
Democracy and constitution19
Economy and business16
Education and skills8
Environment and energy5
Health and care149
Housing and planning8
Immigration and borders2
Justice and policing21
Social security and pensions19
Transport4
Unclassified6

Published records only — not a full account of an MP’s work. How we work →