Prison Officers: Mandatory Body Armour

Thursday 26th March 2026 Westminster Hall

[Clive Betts in the Chair]

13:49

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

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.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I commend the right hon. Gentleman for securing this debate. The figures in Northern Ireland have also increased in recent years, with 96 attacks recorded in 2024, up from 59 in 2023 and 66 in 2022, reflecting rising safety concerns in Northern Ireland’s prison system, as he has referred to. It is attributed to factors such as overcrowding and higher prison populations. Does he agree that if we are to address the issue of prison officer safety, we need to address the issue of overcrowding and higher prison populations? Every prison officer should have access to body armour to ensure their safety.

[Sir Julian Lewis]

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?

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Mr Clive Betts (in the Chair)]

Order. Six Members wish to contribute to the debate and we have about 50 minutes, so people can do the sums on that—it is about eight minutes maximum for each speech.

15:11

[Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith and Chiswick) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to talk about this very important matter under your chairmanship, Mr Betts. I suspect there will be quite a degree of agreement across the House.

The first thing that struck me was a quote from some evidence that the Prison Officers’ Association submitted to the Lords Justice and Home Affairs Committee last year:

“prisons are inherently violent institutions to live and work in because they are places where large numbers of often violent criminals are forced to stay against their will”.

That may seem rather obvious, but if it is true, and I think it is, then we need to take every step to minimise the levels and seriousness of violence. This would not be tolerated in any other profession or environment, and it should not be tolerated in prisons. I pay tribute to the courage and fortitude of all our prison officers, who have to put up not just with assaults, but with risk and vulnerability every day—10,000 assaults a year, or 30, including three serious assaults, a day. That is not acceptable.

As the Chair of the Justice Committee, I routinely receive the chief inspector’s reports, as well as urgent notifications when there are particular problems, and I will refer to two that I received in the past few days. One relates to HMP Woodhill, of which the chief inspector says:

“The prison was not safe. Rates of violence were very high and at the time of this inspection, only Swaleside (also subject to a UN) had a higher rate of violence among similar prisons. The rate of serious assaults on staff was the highest in the long-term high secure estate and around a third of all violent incidents involved the use of weapons. Unsurprisingly, 61% of prisoners said they had felt unsafe at some point.”

On Swaleside, the other prison referred to there, the chief inspector states:

“Our inspection of Swaleside, a category B training prison on the Isle of Sheppey, revealed a prison in disarray, with the lowest scores in my five years as chief inspector…levels of violence were some of the highest of any prison in England and Wales and assaults on staff, many of which were serious, had more than doubled since our last inspection in 2023.

Much of the violence had been driven by the large amounts of drugs being brought into the prison by drones. Drug debts and gang rivalry were often the cause of assaults, and many prisoners were routinely making and carrying weapons.”

I appreciate that that rather dystopian description is not typical of every prison in the country, and certainly not of every prisoner. However, if that is the level of harm, then we have to give proper protections to prison officers, including body armour. In principle, I support that, and I pay tribute to the right hon. Member for New Forest East (Sir Julian Lewis) for securing this debate just before we pack up for the Easter recess. I am glad, as he is, to see so many people here, because it is a vital issue.

[John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab)]

I declare an interest as an honorary life member of the Prison Officers Association. I also apologise as I am trying to represent my constituents in about four different debates today.

One of the issues that the POA has consistently raised is the nature of the people it is dealing with at the moment. Many prisoners have severe mental health problems. The POA says that they should not be in prison; they should be in specialist units, as should those who are drug dependent. Recently, there have been examples of the POA having tried and failed to negotiate safe practices with management. Limited action has taken place and the union has been dragged through the courts because of the ban on it being able to withdraw its members’ labour. That has to be addressed; there have to be some basic protections. As well as body armour, which I support, there has to be the protection of workers having the ability to take industrial action and negotiate a safe working place.

[Andy Slaughter]

I thank my right hon. Friend for all the work that he and other Members present do in supporting the POA and making sure that its voice is heard. It is often the case with prisons that out of sight is out of mind. Both because of the conditions in prisons, which are deplorable in many cases, and in particular for the welfare of staff, it is important that we speak loudly on this subject.

The basic principle of this debate is absolutely right and should be followed through, but I have three qualifications to make. First, I believe—we will no doubt hear this from the Minister—that the Government have done a substantial amount more to address this issue. Body armour was first available in particularly dangerous institutions and is now available in all high-category prisons. That is a huge improvement, which has been acknowledged on all sides, including by the staff. It is in the lower-category prisons where it is not routinely available. That may be where we are moving to, but I want to acknowledge what has been done so far because it is a significant development. Both the current and previous Lord Chancellors have been clear on their intention to give the upmost protection to staff.

Secondly, if there is a danger that, through the widespread, customary, routine use of body armour, we will get into a mode of accepting levels of violence. Violence should never be acceptable in our prisons. Yes, the first priority is to keep staff safe, but beyond that, we have to do something about the appalling conditions in prisons. My right hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) mentioned mental health; we could equally talk about the chronic levels of drug addiction, organised crime and overcrowding, and the conditions in prisons, all of which create an environment in which violence thrives. That is what I worry about.

The Prison Reform Trust has said:

“The real drivers of prison violence—unsafe conditions, lack of purposeful activity, and poor mental health—can only be addressed through improved safety, decency, and respect. That means better staff training, supporting leadership development, and the political will to invest in prison conditions and reduce demand for drugs.”

I hope that view will be echoed on all sides. Rolling out body armour across the entire prison estate may be the right thing to do, and it may be that what has been done so far needs to be improved upon, but it should not hide the systemic, dangerous problems and conditions in our prisons, which are the result of decades of neglect, overcrowding and failure to provide decent standards for prisoners and for staff, who have an incredibly difficult job.

15:19

[Liz Saville Roberts (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC)]

It is an honour to speak under your chairmanship, Mr Betts. I congratulate the right hon. Member for New Forest East (Sir Julian Lewis) on securing today’s debate. For more than a decade, I have had the honour of being the co-chair of the Justice Unions Parliamentary Group, during which time I have heard first-hand accounts, some of them grim, visited many prisons and heard from prison officers, the Prison Officers Association and others about the violence and how deeply it affects people.

The Prison Officers Association has been warning for years that its members’ health and safety is in practice a low priority for the Prison Service—that is the reality of what they experience. It has been difficult for the union, for a long period, to improve the safety of prison officers. We must now find a way to change that, but that has been their experience, and some aspects of their experience have yet to be addressed in any meaningful way.

Six years ago, I helped to launch the first Safe Inside Prisons Charter, developed by the Joint Unions in Prisons Alliance, a coalition of 10 national trade unions representing the majority of prison staff, including the POA. The third updated version of that charter was published last year, but the Prison Service has yet to adopt its common-sense recommendations. I press the Minister to tell us why it has not done so. A vast majority of unions that are present in prisons have adopted it and saying, “Every union needs to adopt it,” as a reason not to take it on board is not a reasonable rationale.

It is important to highlight how significantly violence in prisons has increased over the last 15 years. We have heard already how the rate of prisoner-on-prisoner violence has risen from around 130 assaults per 1,000 prisoners in 2013 to 240 last year, nearly doubling. The rate of prisoner-on-staff violence has also soared from roughly 40 assaults per 1,000 prisoners to just under 120, tripling in just over a decade. I also have a snapshot from Wales. In 2024, assaults on prison staff rose 22% on the previous year, with a total of 536 attacks. At HMP Berwyn, the nearest prison to my constituency in north-west Wales, there was an increase in that year of 42%. Unsurprisingly, recruitment at that prison in Wrexham has long been challenging.

In any other workplace, this would be all over the news as a national emergency, but because this is about prison staff, who are effectively hidden in their work behind high walls, the POA tells me—and I have seen this—that it is treated as just business as usual by the Ministry of Justice, as if this is what people should expect in this workplace.

The POA gave evidence to the Justice and Home Affairs Committee in the other place last year, in which it described being taken to the High Court by the previous Government after two horrific attacks on staff at HMP Lindholme in South Yorkshire. One of those attacks saw a prison officer strangled to the point of unconsciousness, but when officers at the prison told the governor that the prison was unsafe and demanded immediate changes, this was put into effect with the operation of a controlled lockdown to restrict the regime, and the MOJ responded by dragging them into court. Something is very wrong when the response to such extreme workplace violence is to punish those very workers at the sharp end of the assaults.

At the High Court, what shocked me most about the POA’s evidence is that the Government barrister, according to media reports at the time, made the argument that although the violence at Lindholme was “deeply regrettable”, it was—once again—

“business as usual in a prison”.

The POA was dragged back to the High Court again the following year, also for standing up for the health and safety of its members. Because of the permanent injunction that the Government have against the union from taking any form of industrial action, the POA was fined a six-figure sum for what the court called the illegal inducement of members to take action.

Even more outrageous were the threats made in court by Government lawyers to imprison the POA’s leadership for simply protecting their members, meaning that prison officers were threatened with jail for protecting other prison officers. That is the context in which we are talking about the steady increase in violence and the feeling in the profession that there is a lack of response.

I wish I could say that the direction under the Labour Government was significantly different, but evidence suggests that we must question that. When officers at HMP Liverpool took issue last year with the governor’s changes to the prison regime—changes that he himself admitted to the Justice Committee carried an expectation of leading to a potential increase in violence—he cut off direct contact with the local POA committee and restricted facility time, threatening members with disciplinary action and dismissal simply for exercising their health and safety rights.

It is clear to me from talking to the POA many times that the blanket ban on its members from taking any form of industrial action is one of the key factors in prison officers’ discontent. They sense that they are impotent and unable to change their circumstances. The European Committee of Social Rights recently ruled that the UK is in breach of its obligations under the European social charter because of that very ban. It said that

“the blanket ban on prisoner officers striking cannot be deemed proportionate and thus goes beyond the limits permitted by Article G of the Charter.”

The committee concluded that

“the situation is not in conformity with Article 6§4 of the Charter on the ground that that there is an absolute prohibition on the right to strike for the prison officers.”

That is an important ruling, and I urge the Minister to consider its implications seriously, especially in the light of the POA’s current case before the European Court of Human Rights.

Let me go from one aspect of safety to another: back to body armour. The roll-out of stab-proof vests in the high security estate is of course to be welcomed, but it needs to be the norm. The POA is calling for that vital equipment to be mandated across the entire closed male estate. I urge the Minister to take seriously other demands, such as replacing the cumbersome and impractical utility belts, which are weighed down with equipment, with lightweight slash-proof vests, which redistribute weight and can prevent injuries, especially for female officers.

According to the POA, the last Government objected to utility vests because they look too militaristic and intimidating, but surely that is yet another example of the low priority given to prison officer health and safety. In the circumstances, those were not credible objections. Protection at work for prison officers means more than just the right personal protective equipment; it also means the legal protections that almost every other worker enjoys, and specifically the right to take industrial action as a last resort. The last Government treated prison officers as expendable. I urge this Government not to make the same mistake.

15:27

[Brian Leishman (Alloa and Grangemouth) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Mr Betts. I thank the right hon. Member for New Forest East (Sir Julian Lewis) for bringing this very important debate to Westminster Hall.

Even though the prison system is largely a devolved matter, I would like to speak about things from a Scottish perspective. I regularly speak about prison officers’ working conditions in this place, in both Chambers and as a member of the Justice Unions Parliamentary Group.

I am fortunate to know many serving and recently retired officers from HMP Glenochil in my constituency. Officers at Glenochil and every other prison in Scotland do remarkable work every day for pay and conditions that, in all honesty, do not match their skills, commitment and efforts. The 3.5% pay award that officers are due to receive this coming year is just not enough—not when inflation is sitting at 3% and is projected to rise with ongoing global war and conflict, increasing energy costs and a cost of living crisis that shows no sign of stopping. Prison officers deserve better—all workers deserve better. No one should become poorer. When we factor in the fact that those officers are expected to work until they are 68, which is ludicrous for any worker, and when we look at the mental and physical demands of being a prison officer, we see that it is unrealistic, unjust and utterly unacceptable.

Let me talk briefly about the psychological strain of the profession. No amount of body armour will assist an officer who has to deal with criminals who are looking to gain psychological advantages over them and trying to ingratiate themselves, ultimately to manipulate the officer and to garner information. It is a relentless mental attack, all done to assert power, control and dominance over the officers.

Many officers have said that the mental strength and fortitude necessary to be always in a heightened state of alertness is incredibly exhausting. There is also the physical element of working on landings. It is absolutely ridiculous to ask someone in their mid to late 60s to cope with the demands of going up against a prisoner who could be 40 to 50 years younger. Common sense says that that just should not happen.

Why are we considering body armour provision as a solution? Scotland’s prison population is the largest we have ever had. Overcrowding is making everything much more difficult. It has an impact on officers’ ability to look after prisoners safely, and a negative impact on the likelihood of effectively rehabilitating offenders. We simply do not have enough prison officers to safely manage a prison population of this size.

Alongside the record numbers, the complexity of the prisoner demographic means an urgent need for extra prison spaces, increased investment in staff training, a staff recruitment drive and an overall longer-term strategy that will define the purpose of our prisons. With much of our prison estate in dire need of investment, many facilities are not at the standard necessary to keep officers and prisoners safe. Facilities that are outdated and unhygienic must be addressed. No one should go to their workplace if it is in a decrepit condition.

Our prison officers pride themselves on their professionalism. They are rightly concerned about conditions for the prisoners that they are tasked with keeping safe, but also with helping to rehabilitate. If these issues are not tackled, the strain on our prison system and on the officers who staff it will only keep growing, leaving our prisons much more dangerous and rehabilitation much less likely.

Overcrowding, squalid conditions and increases in prison violence can be attributed to the political cuts of austerity. Rising numbers of assaults on officers have led to retention issues. With so many officers leaving the service, that means an exodus of vital skills and expertise. This is no anecdotal tale. The Prison Officers Association has stated that since 2010, over 116,000 years of cumulative prison officer experience have left the UK wide service.

Time is pressing, so I will lay out some questions for the Minister to address either today or, if it is more convenient, by letter. On body armour, does he agree with the POA that stab-proof vests should be mandated across the entire closed adult male estate, not just separation centres and close supervision centres? Does he agree that slash-proof vests should be available to all prison officers, wherever they work? Does he accept that one of the drivers for increased prison violence is the amount of experience that has left the Prison Service? Can he name another profession that encounters such high levels of violence, where it is so normalised and where workers are expected to work until they are 68 years old? Does he accept that prison officers working until 68 is unrealistic and that the unjust retirement age is a factor in the staff recruitment and retention issues in the service? Finally, will the Government do the right and sensible thing and lower the retirement age for prison officers?

15:33

[Esther McVey (Tatton) (Con)]

I thank the Backbench Business Committee for granting this debate, and the hon. Member for Washington and Gateshead South (Mrs Hodgson), who instigated it and who does so much in this area. I also thank my right hon. Friend the Member for New Forest East (Sir Julian Lewis) for securing the debate, and you, Mr Betts, for chairing it.

Styal prison, in my constituency of Tatton, is a closed female prison and young offenders institution with approximately 450 prisoners. Violence levels there have increased significantly: 189 assaults on staff and 167 assaults between prisoners were reported in the 12 months to March 2025. That, in itself, tells us that greater protection must be afforded to prison staff. In one horrific incident, a prison officer in Styal, Chloe Armstrong, was left with a tennis ball-sized lump in the back of her head, a swollen face and black eyes after she was repeatedly kicked and punched for just delivering a prisoner’s lunch. What a horrific attack as a thank you for a lunch.

Nationally, violence against prison staff is up. Assaults against prison staff have almost trebled in the last decade. In the 12 months to March 2025, there were more than 10,500 assaults on staff, a record high: 26% involved improvised weapons, while the rest involved blunt force or liquids such as hot oil or boiling water. It should come as no surprise that the rate of prison officers leaving each year is more than 13%—a very turnover rate that no doubt leads to understaffed facilities and further exacerbates the safety risks to both staff and prisoners.

The reality is that life as a prison officer, even at the best of times, is extremely challenging. They must confront and contain unthinkable situations almost daily. To do the job, they must possess a level of bravery that most of us simply do not have. But to do the job without proper protective gear is beyond belief.

If staff do not feel safe at work, it will be hard to attract and retain new employees. We know from a recent survey of officers by the POA, the largest union of prison workers, that officers want extra protection. Who wouldn’t? Some 74% want to be issued with slash and bite-proof vests. Yes, the Government have made body armour mandatory for officers working with the most dangerous offenders, and the news last year that 10,000 more officers in high-security facilities would get stab vests and tasers was greatly welcome, but the Minister should not be surprised that with the increase in violence against staff, I and other Members would like to see the Government go further.

Protective equipment and clothing should be provided irrespective of the category of prison. Sadly, violence can happen in all types of prison. Figures from the Ministry of Justice and His Majesty’s inspectorate of prisons consistently show that local prisons, which are mostly category B rather than A—the high-security ones—have extremely high numbers of assaults. Although the lower categories of C and D have less violence, the risk can still be considerable, and it is rising.

I will end by quoting the retired prison officer Claire Lewis, who was mentioned by my right hon. Friend the Member for New Forest East. She was brutally stabbed in the back while on duty—an entirely preventable incident that left her with life-changing injuries. Claire said:

“Protective clothing is not a luxury—it’s a basic necessity. It can mean the difference between an officer walking out of their shift or being carried out. Prison officers deserve to feel safe.”

I have just read—this must really be a slap in the face for prison officers—that killers and terrorists have just got £1 million in compensation, plus legal fees, for being segregated alone in a prison, which was viewed as unlawful and in breach of their human rights. Surely money cannot be spent on violent criminals for their human rights when we are not looking after the human rights of our officers, who are there to protect and look after those prisoners, and who do such a good job for us in society.

[Mr Clive Betts (in the Chair)]

The right hon. Lady had the courtesy to advise me in advance that she would have to leave shortly after 4 pm, so I think it was reasonable to allow her to speak in the debate.

15:38

[Grahame Morris (Easington) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Betts, and to follow the right hon. Member for Tatton (Esther McVey). I congratulate the right hon. Member for New Forest East (Sir Julian Lewis) on securing the debate.

Like my hon. Friend the Member for Alloa and Grangemouth (Brian Leishman), I declare my membership of the justice unions parliamentary group, which hears quite regularly from the Prison Officers Association. My region, the north-east, has seven prisons, and I have regular contact with prison officers and their representatives. I have visited all seven prisons in recent years and have heard at first hand the problems, challenges and dangers that prison officers face daily while they protect the public. I place on record my admiration for the professionalism and bravery of prison officers and prison educators in the face of extreme adversity. I pay tribute to all prison staff, who have to deal with often violent and dangerous criminals so that we do not have to.

The horrific attacks on prison officers in the high-security estate—including HMP Frankland, which is near my constituency and in which quite a number of my constituents work—were shocking. They were a wake-up call for the Government and the Prison Service to take action, as the Prison Officers Association has long called for. I acknowledge the Minister’s active involvement and willingness to engage on this and other issues, and I welcome the roll-out of stab-proof vests across the high-security estate, but I question why it took such an appalling security failure for the Government to listen to the union properly. I hope that Ministers will not make the same mistake again by ignoring calls from frontline workers. It is not just the high-security estate; frontline officers more widely say that they need body armour. Prisons have become much more violent over the past decade or so.

We must try to understand why prisons have become so dangerous. There is a degree of consensus on the issue across the Chamber, but we must not forget that the austerity cuts saw a quarter of prison officers leave the service. That triggered a vicious circle of violence and collapsing experience. As prison officer experience goes down, violence goes up; as violence goes up, more officers leave and experience falls still further. It is a vicious circle. Prison officer experience really matters, as I am sure the Minister understands.

I know it is a bit predictable, but every year I table a question about the current cumulative experience of frontline prison officers. My hon. Friend the Member for Alloa and Grangemouth, my good friend, referred to the latest figures for 2025, which show that more than 116,000 years of cumulative prison officer experience have been lost since 2010. That is an awful lot of prison officer experience. Jailcraft is not something that can be learned in a book or from a training video; it comes with the experience of years served in the Prison Service. It has drained away from our system because of the political choices of the previous Government.

This is a complex problem, and there is no single solution. Body armour is part of it, but it is not just about safety equipment. The recent announcement of a 3.5% pay increase for prison officers, while MPs receive 5%, has caused some upset and has been derided by the Prison Officers Association in the face of the ongoing cost of living crisis that its members face. It will take serious investment—a full return of the many millions taken from the Prison Service as a result of austerity, and then more—to bring violence down to its previous level. Prison officers who bear the brunt of this violence must be properly protected. The bottom line is that if the Prison Officers Association says that its members need stab-proof vests in prisons, who are we to say that they do not?

I understand that the union wants slash-proof utility vests, which the right hon. Member for Tatton mentioned, for officers in other prisons, such as open prisons and the female estate, so they do not need to carry such heavy equipment on their belts, which causes discomfort, health issues and even injuries, as we have heard. I urge the Minister to listen to frontline prison staff on this issue too. Proper personal protective equipment is not enough by itself; tackling prison violence will take a multitude of actions. We need a broad-spectrum antibiotic—there is no magic bullet.

It is easy to criticise, but in the previous Parliament I introduced my Prisons (Violence) Bill, which sought to establish a duty on prison management, in public and privately run prisons, to take all reasonable steps to minimise violence in prisons. We do not have time to go into it now, but in brief, my Bill proposed setting targets for staffing levels, staff retention, experience and so on, as well as for reducing assaults against staff and prisoners, and then penalising bosses if the targets were not reached. The proceeds from any financial penalties would be used to fund extra therapies and treatments for staff assaulted at work, and targeted pay awards to encourage retention in failing prisons. Of course, it is no surprise that my Bill did not make any progress under the previous Government, but I hope that the Minister will consider some of the ideas I raised with an open mind and engage with the logic behind them.

More importantly, I hope that the Minister will take seriously—I know he will—the concerns of his own frontline staff, and listen to his workers when they say they need better protection now. Prison officers protect us, the public, every day of their working lives. It is up to us, in Parliament, to make sure they are properly protected in return.

15:49

[Jayne Kirkham (Truro and Falmouth) (Lab/Co-op)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Betts. I thank the right hon. Member for New Forest East (Sir Julian Lewis) for securing the debate and for writing to tell me it was happening—otherwise I would not have known.

I am here mainly because I have a very good friend who was a prison officer. A number of years ago, he received an award for exceptional service. He took along his young daughter, and I think the video of what happened must have been shown, because afterwards she begged her dad to give up that job, and he eventually did. That stayed in my head for a very long time—what she saw had happened in the prison that day—so I have taken an interest in the issue since.

I have been in this place for only 20 months, but I have met the justice unions parliamentary group secretary and gone to HMP Wandsworth. When I went round the prison, it was obvious that the cuts over the last decade mean that a large number of officers have gone and there is a lack of experience on the landings. There are now perhaps just half the number of officers.

When I was there, the alarm went off, and it amazed me how all the officers literally ran towards the violence—that is what they have to do—and locked all the doors behind them. It was an education for me. There are examples of good practice at Wandsworth: I saw the new neurodivergent wing, which was working extremely well. There are positive things, of course, but what I saw there stayed with me. The officers and the governor are doing the best they can with what they have, but the lack of experience, and the fact that that will need to be rebuilt over a number of years, is telling.

Like a number of other hon. Members, I am asking the Minister to mandate stab-proof vests across the entire adult male closed estate, not just the separation centres. When the new uniforms come out from August, the heavy belts could be replaced with the more practical vests, so that the weight can be distributed around the prison officer’s body.

[Mr Clive Betts (in the Chair)]

We move on to the Front Benchers, who are entitled to 10 minutes each. I hope that we can allow at least two minutes for Julian Lewis to wind up at the end. I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

15:49

[Clive Jones (Wokingham) (LD)]

It is an honour to serve under your chairship, Mr Betts. I thank the right hon. Member for New Forest East (Sir Julian Lewis) for securing this very important debate.

Our prison system has been pushed into a deep crisis by years of neglect and mismanagement under previous Governments. Prisons are overcrowded, understaffed and unable to properly rehabilitate offenders. Attacks on prison officers, including on three officers at HMP Frankland last April, shine a light on the consequences of a prison system left overstretched and under-resourced by previous Governments.

I know at first hand the impact that the stressful environment can have: my dad was a prison officer for nearly 20 years, following his 22 years of service in the Army, which included serving in the second world war. My dad worked as a prison officer at Maidstone, and then at the infamous Dartmoor prison in Devon where there were notorious criminals including Frank Mitchell, who was involved with the Kray twins. My dad then moved to Albany prison on the Isle of Wight, which became a maximum security prison. He was looking after many IRA criminals, which made the job particularly stressful as they regularly rioted and caused problems. He then moved to Reading prison, which is how I came to live in the Wokingham area.

During his career, my dad was under immense stress and pressure, often working very long hours with others to look after notorious, violent criminals on a daily basis. From my dad’s experience, I know that stress and safety fears were constant concerns that wore him and many others down.

Violence is unacceptably high in prisons. There is an average of 28 assaults on staff every day in the prison system. In the 12 months to March 2025, the rate of assaults was 7% higher than in the 12 months to March 2024—a new peak of 10,568 assaults on staff. The crisis of severe overcrowding in the prison system is clearly taking its toll on staff. In 2024, England’s prisons lost almost 150,000 working days due to mental health related sickness—a 44% increase since 2019.

What support do prison officers get? According to the Ministry of Justice, all prison officers have access to mental health support, including a 24-hour helpline, but the Prison Officers Association has said that it has consistently called on the service to fund specialist on-site mental health support. It is clear that prison officers do not feel properly supported at the time when they need it most: when they are actually at work.

The crisis in the prison system is also linked to serious staffing issues. The Justice Committee found that the prison operational workforce has struggled with recruitment, retention and sickness in recent years. As of 30 June 2025, there were 22,702 band 3 to band 5 prison officers in post, with a leaving rate of 11.6%. Despite the recruitment of new officers, the number of prison officers decreased by 4% on the previous year. Those are signs of a workforce seriously struggling to cope in a crumbling prison system.

On top of that strain, in September 2025 it was reported that hundreds of prison officers recruited from abroad may lose their jobs and be forced to return to their homelands due to changes to the Labour Government’s immigration policy. That shift came after the Prison Service began sponsoring skilled worker visas for overseas applicants to address staff shortages. To put that in numbers, according to the Prison Governors Association, more than 1,000 prison officers—nearly 5% of the workforce—have a limited right to work in the UK and are reliant on a skilled worker visa to continue. If that solution to the staffing crisis is in danger, the Government need to do more to protect prison officers and provide the support they need so that they do not leave the service.

Ministers have said that they will make new protective vests mandatory in close supervision centres and separation centres, which hold the most dangerous offenders. They then said that more evidence was needed before rolling out the vests to prison officers. It is a welcome step forward that the Lord Chancellor recently announced a big increase in protective body armour for frontline officers, but more needs to be done to ensure that all prison officers have the protection they need to do their job safely and effectively. Having the relevant protective vest will help to improve prison officers’ mental health.

No one should feel unsafe when fulfilling their professional duties, working in a prison, and of course, any changes must always be made in consultation with the officers themselves. Finally, I thank all prison officers, past and present, who have worked tirelessly to protect their colleagues and the public, and who have supported the rehabilitation of prisoners and offenders into our society.

15:55

[Dr Kieran Mullan (Bexhill and Battle) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Betts. I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for New Forest East (Sir Julian Lewis) on securing this important debate. I also thank the hon. Member for Washington and Gateshead South (Mrs Hodgson) for the work that she has done in relation to her constituent. I pay tribute to Claire. She has taken what must have been a horrific experience and, rather than letting it overwhelm and subdue her, used it to empower herself to have a voice on this issue for the benefit of others.

I record my thanks to prison officers and prison staff across the country. They go to work in difficult, dangerous conditions, doing a job that most of us would struggle to imagine. I come from a public service background—I was a doctor, I volunteered as a policeman, my mum was a nurse and my dad was a policeman—and I have always been struck by the contrast in our public discourse. It is interesting that we have an awareness of, and give our recognition to, those sorts of public emergency service workers but we do not do the same for prison officers.

Prison officers do a job that is just as important, if not more important, and under more difficult circumstances. I know that multiple Secretaries of State for Justice have tried to address that with initiatives to change the public’s perception and help them recognise how important that work is. I absolutely recognise it, and I think that prison officers should be held in exactly the same esteem as other emergency service workers, because that is what they are.

In discussing violence, to some extent this debate has focused on blades because of what happened to Claire, but we have seen violent assaults that have used whatever was to hand. Only two weeks ago, we had reports of an offender who attacked a prison officer with a plastic knife, so it does not matter what the particular weapon is. In recent months, we have seen assaults across the estate using boiling liquids and makeshift implements.

There are much broader issues around the safety of officers. After the appalling attack in April last year on three officers at HMP Frankland—the same place where Claire was attacked—Ministers commissioned a snap review and announced, in June last year, that protective body armour, meaning stab-proof vests, will be mandatory for officers working in close supervision centres and separation centres, with segregation units in the high security estate also benefiting from the roll-out. I welcome any sensible steps to make it more likely that officers will go home safe.

In September 2025, the Minister for Prisons, Probation and Reducing Reoffending told Parliament that “stab-and-slash-resistant” protective body armour

“will be made and issued as quickly as possible”

and that it was expected to be issued “by autumn 2025”. Later that month, the Government announced £15 million of investment, increasing the number of vests available to staff from 750 to 10,000, including 5,000 to equip every officer working in long-term and high security prisons. That announcement also stated that prisons had already begun to receive kit that week, “ready to be worn”. Those are great and welcome commitments.

The problem is that when Parliament has asked very simple questions, namely how many of those vests have actually been issued, Ministers have not been able to answer. In October, the Government said that the roll-out across the long-term and high security estate was expected to begin during 2026. In February this year, when asked in the Lords specifically how many of the 5,000 stab-proof vests for high security prisons have been issued, Ministers again did not provide a number but just said they

“expect to begin implementation across the estate”

this year.

My first set of questions to the Minister is straightforward and factual. How many stab-proof vests have been procured since September? How many have been delivered to prisons? How many have been individually fitted to officers? What proportion of the long-term and high security estate is now operating with every officer equipped as the Government promised?

Secondly, will the Minister set out clearly what “mandatory” means? We know that protective body armour is mandated in close supervision centres, separation centres and high security segregation units. We also know, from a September 2025 written answer, that body armour is already issued for Operation Tornado deployments and for operational response and resilience unit deployments, and that it is required for planned use of force or high-risk prisoner management. We also know, however, that the question of routine issue across other prison categories is very much alive. In Justice questions, a Labour Member told the House,

“Unlike in category A prisons, prison officers at HMP The Verne and HMP Portland are not routinely issued with protective body armour”,—[Official Report, 17 March 2026; Vol. 782, c. 750.]

and they asked for appropriate armour for officers regardless of category. I ask the Minister: are the Government now considering the provision of appropriate body armour for all prison officers irrespective of the category of prison in which they serve?

Will the Minister provide a clear and comprehensive statement following this debate—as I appreciate he will not be able to go through all the details now—on where body armour is mandated on a unit-by-unit basis, where it is mandated by activity, and where it is available to officers if they want it, but is not required? That level of transparency is essential for the House, given the promises and pledges that the Government are making. We welcome them, but they do not seem to be transparent about what they are actually delivering.

The point was made that it is not about just saying, “Here’s some armour—get on with it.” We need detail on the weight of the armour, the heat burden, the cover design, and what in-life monitoring and replacement cycles are in place. Those are also important, as is how the Government ensure proper fitting and equality of provision, particularly in relation to female staff.

I am afraid the Government have a lot of work to do. I know the Minister will be critical, as others have been, of our time in government, but if we look at their record in government when it comes to prison officer numbers, they are down. In March 2025 there were 22,737 full-time equivalent band 3 to 5 prison officers in post. As of December, that was down by around 700 to 22,067, and that builds on drops from their earlier time in government.

Although the previous Government took steps to equip officers by rolling out body-worn cameras and introducing safety tools alongside a clear emphasis on training and de-escalation, I recognise we should have gone further on the provision of body armour and other equipment where officers in the POA felt it was in prison officers’ interest, and I regret that we were not able to. As the Minister knows, we have worked together on the change to the law for whole-life orders for people who murder prison officers on duty or off duty. We worked together on that successfully on a cross-party basis. We support the Government on measures that are helpful.

I want to finish with Claire. The offender who attacked Claire is currently held in HMP Frankland in a separation centre and is subject to isolation. We have already discussed the attacks that took place at that centre where people were gravely injured. Sadly, we have seen the Government give thousands of pounds of compensation to people who have been responsible for vile crimes in isolation centres because of a breach of their human rights. That is on the record and we know that that has happened. The Mirror reports that the same person who attacked Claire—the person I am sure the Minister will get up and condemn; I am sure the Minister will pay tribute to Claire and say how fantastic her campaigning is—will get compensation from the Government for having been in an isolation unit. That would be a disgrace and deeply insulting to Claire and all the other prison officers who would see that as an insult after what Claire had gone through.

I ask the Minister to write to Claire’s MP, the hon. Member for Washington and Gateshead South, to tell her very clearly—if he cannot tell us now—whether the Government have paid or are going to pay compensation to the man who so brutally attacked Claire? He does not deserve a penny of taxpayers’ money. When will the Government bring forward their promised plans to review the legal framework through which these vile people get taxpayers’ money because apparently we have breached their human rights?

In the response to the independent review of the isolation units, the Government promised to bring forward a review of the framework. They still have not done that. Can the Minister tell us, following the cases in the public domain, whether there have been any further claims lodged by offenders because of the time they have spent in isolation? I think we deserve to know that, and we deserve to know for certain that the person who attacked Claire, who we are all here paying tribute to, will not get a penny of taxpayers’ money.

16:03

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Jake Richards)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Betts. I am grateful to the right hon. Member for New Forest East (Sir Julian Lewis) for securing today’s debate on this very important subject. I will attempt to directly answer the questions he posed. All our prison officers, to whom I pay tribute today on the record, deserve protection. Whether that means we should roll out mandatory body armour is a more complex question and requires a more complex answer. Some of the reasons why it is a complex task have been set out by the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle (Dr Mullan) who quite rightly raises questions about the commitment that we have already made. He then also, quite rightly, asked about the training and the process by which the roll-out will take place, where items will be stored and ensuring that all staff agree with such a roll-out. I accept the premise of his question, but it is somewhat more complex than perhaps it may seem from the outset—and we are working on that.

I also want to directly speak to Claire, if she is watching this debate. What she has suffered is horrific. Like the shadow Minister, I pay tribute to her for powerfully turning a horrific incident into a campaign on a number of issues, through her efforts and those of her Member of Parliament, my hon. Friend the Member for Washington and Gateshead South (Mrs Hodgson). I am very happy to meet her. It may be that Lord Timpson, who is operationally responsible for many of these matters, will also meet her as well. I will look to organise that as soon as possible with her MP.

I will try to deal with as many of the issues raised as possible, and otherwise, I am happy to follow up with hon. Members in writing.

[Sir Julian Lewis]

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.

[Jake Richards]

I absolutely accept the principle that prison officers should be safe at work and be given the tools to be so. Every prison of each different category has a different context, culture and working environment, and each has to make an assessment of the risks therein.

[Sir Julian Lewis]

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?

[Jake Richards]

I accept the principle that too often there are attacks in all sorts of prisons, but of course there are more acute settings where that risk is greater. I accept that we have to take protective measures in all sorts of prisons. I do not think that I can go as far as the right hon. Gentleman may want me to in accepting the second part of his premise—I can see that he is trying very hard to get me to, but I think it is more complex than that, and I hope I can set out a bit why that is in the short time that we have.

As I said, rolling out protective body armour—as we have committed to, and I am proud to be serving in a Government who are committed to doing what the last Government did not in the high-security estate—is not just about having equipment; it requires thoughtful planning. There needs to be secure and accessible storage so that officers can access their kit quickly while also preventing unauthorised use. There needs to be clear guidance on how to handle and check the armour, and regular inspections and proper replacement schedules so that equipment remains effective. Compatibility with other equipment is also vital. Protective body armour must work seamlessly with body-worn video cameras, radios, batons and PAVA—the synthetic pepper spray. It must fit within existing uniform requirements and the regulatory environment around that. We also need to consider the impact on other staff who are prisoner-facing, but who may not be equipped with protective body armour. Making sure that their safety is not compromised is also vital.

While protective body armour is important, the Government do not feel that it is an instant silver bullet. It is one part of a broader package to improve staff safety. Officers in the adult male estate already have access to PAVA spray, which is used to prevent serious assaults. We also have over 13,000 new-generation body-worn video cameras. Work on that began under the last Government and has been continued under this Government, and it means that every officer in bands 3 to 5 can wear one during their shift. They provide high-quality evidence to support prosecutions and include a pre-record function to help capture the often crucial lead-up to incidents.

We are also going further. His Majesty’s Prison and Probation Service is working to train, equip and deploy up to 500 officers in the long-term and high-security estate with tasers. That will improve safety and enhance frontline capability in the most high-risk environments.

[Liz Saville Roberts]

The hon. Member for Easington (Grahame Morris) raised how key performance indicators for safety would be one particular driver that the Government could bring in immediately, which would enhance all the factors that the Minister is mentioning. Does he agree that another critical KPI could be staff retention? That is the canary in the mine, because where staff are happy, they stay—and they stay with all their expertise.

[Jake Richards]

I reassure the right hon. Member that details on violence in both the adult and the youth estate are seen by Ministers, and the Lord Chancellor and Deputy Prime Minister, on a regular basis. This is a key concern for all Ministers and the whole Department, and we are doing everything we can to clamp down on it. The same is true for staff retention. I am happy to call it a KPI, but it is absolutely at the top of our concerns about our prisons in this country. There is a long list of reasons why there are issues.

[Liz Saville Roberts]

The key point is what is measured publicly. I appreciate that Ministers will have the information, and I am delighted that they do, but the sense of what is measured and the standards by which our prisons are held to account—that the public are aware of—are key drivers in creating change within a culture that we know has needed to change for 12 years or more.

[Jake Richards]

Forgive me; I misunderstood the original question. I am very happy to look into what data is published and what is not, and to make sure that appropriate data—where it is safe, secure, quality assured and everything else that comes with that—is available to hon. Members. I will look into doing that in due course.

As I said, we are going further. HMPPS is working to train, equip and deploy up to 500 officers in the long-term high security estate with tasers. Violence against any prison officers is totally unacceptable. Perpetrators will face the full consequences of their actions, and measures are being taken to extend the punishment for such offences.

Prison officers do a valuable job in our prisons. They keep us safe, and we must do the same for them. Deploying protective body armour in high-risk areas and a wider roll-out is an important step. We will make sure that frontline officers have the tools to do their job safely. This is also part of our broader approach to reducing violence, strengthening control and, above all, upholding the safety and dignity of the staff who serve with dedication every day.

Members have raised other issues about conditions for prison officers. As I indicated to my hon. Friend the Member for Easington (Grahame Morris), I am very happy to meet Members and representatives of the Prison Officers Association, as I have done previously, to discuss these issues in some depth. As the Chair of the Justice Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith and Chiswick (Andy Slaughter), so wisely touched upon, all these issues come back to the stability of our prison system. Fundamentally, that comes back to issues of capacity and staff retention, training and recruitment. This Department’s No. 1 aim is to deal with and stabilise the prison capacity crisis, invest in our prison and probation staff—these two issues are innately interlinked—and make sure that we have a sustainable prison system that can keep the public safe in the future.

16:12

[Sir Julian Lewis]

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.

16:15

Sitting adjourned.