Prison Officers: Mandatory Body Armour

Debate between Clive Betts and Esther McVey

Thursday 26th March 2026 Westminster Hall

[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.

SEND Provision

Debate between Clive Betts and Esther McVey

Thursday 5th September 2024 Westminster Hall

[Esther McVey]

Not at the moment.

We know that families have to go through a rigorous set of tests to obtain an EHCP, often ending in an appeal or taking many weeks to be finalised. In those cases where the plan has not been finalised, parents will have to make the difficult decision whether to send their child to an independent school. In those instances there will be a significant uplift in those pupils’ fees—a massive worry for parents. Some will now no longer be able to afford the fees. We can only imagine their guilt and concern. What are they going to do? Will they have to stop their child’s progress at that school? Will the child need to leave that school?

How can it be fair that a child who is delayed in the education, health and care plan process, through no fault of their own, faces VAT costs, while another child who has secured their EHCP in time does not have that burden? Could the Minister explain that unfairness that the Government have now introduced into the system, and whether they plan to put a stop to it as soon as possible? In light of that unfairness, I urge the Government to look at what steps can be taken to reduce the time that the assessments for an EHCP take, more generally.

There are three local authorities in my constituency, all of which consistently go beyond the legal timeframe. I asked Cheshire West SEND accountability group for parents how long the EHCP process takes. Legally, it should take only 20 weeks, but some have waited more than 60 weeks. Anecdotally, they say on average it is taking 30 to 50 weeks—

[Mr Clive Betts (in the Chair)]

Order. I call Sharon Hodgson.

Flats and Shared Housing: Fire Risk

Debate between Clive Betts and Esther McVey

Tuesday 28th January 2020 Westminster Hall

[The Minister for Housing (Esther McVey)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Gray.

I thank the hon. Member for Reading East (Matt Rodda) for securing this debate and for speaking so thoughtfully on fire safety last week in the Grenfell Tower public inquiry debate. I am also grateful to all Members who brought key issues before us today and made pertinent points. I thank the hon. Member for Sheffield South East (Mr Betts), the Chair of the Select Committee. His job is to scrutinise, and he has been present to do exactly that. There is much—if not all—that we agree on, but the question is how we deliver safety to everyone so that when they go to bed of a night time, they know that they are in a safe home and can feel safe and secure.

I hope to get through the points that everyone has made as best I can, but I will also recap briefly some of the key things that we have already done, because people have asked what has been done. The Government have committed to bringing about the biggest changes in building safety regulation in almost 40 years. After the Grenfell Tower tragedy, we took decisive action on the safety risks exposed by that fire. We banned the use of combustible materials in cladding systems on high-rise tower blocks and committed to £600 million of funding to replace aluminium composite materials of the Grenfell style. In the autumn, we committed to adopting in full the recommendations of the Grenfell Tower inquiry phase 1 report and, on 21 January, we published our Government response to that report. However, as more issues arise, the Secretary of State says that we will widen up to address concerns as they are brought forward.

We have established the new regulator, and we are doing that at pace. We are ensuring that the regulator has the information it needs. We are reviewing fire safety guidance and the sprinkler and fire safety measures, going further on combustible materials, which the hon. Member for Sheffield South East spoke about. We are providing clear advice to building owners, setting clear expectations for all residential buildings, for remediation of fire doors—that was raised—ensuring that there is a more comprehensive assessment of building risk, speeding up the remediation of unsafe ACM cladding, reviewing all remediation timescales and ensuring sufficient action. Inaction will not be allowed. We will bring forward the fire safety Bill and the building safety Bill to ensure that the necessary remediation happens. We will also support those who were affected. I agree wholeheartedly that that must be done at pace. The hon. Member for Reading East talked about the enormous scale of the task. What we do has to be thorough and rigorous, but it has to go at pace.

The Government have also accepted the independent Dame Judith Hackitt review of building safety, and we will introduce that legislation. We expect all housing developers not only to deliver good-quality housing, but to deliver it on time and to treat house buyers fairly. We intend to legislate to introduce a requirement for developers of new home buildings to belong to a new homes ombudsman, to protect the interests of home buyers and to hold developers to account when things go wrong. The hon. Member for Cardiff South and Penarth (Stephen Doughty) raised that point. What are those developers doing, how are we bringing them to account and are they delivering the building—the homes—that people expect?

[Mr Betts]

The new homes ombudsman is an interesting idea, and we look forward to hearing from the Government about the timetable for that legislation. Will the ombudsman have teeth? If it finds one of those scandalous situations in which developers have built shoddy homes, will individuals be able to get compensation? Will the ombudsman be able to ensure that the compensation is paid?

[Esther McVey]

The hon. Gentleman is correct. The ombudsman must have teeth so that it can support homeowners and ensure that they get full recompense. It must have teeth so that they will not be needed, and so that people follow the rules, the guidelines and the regulations.

Members have talked about sprinkler system safety. Our consultation on sprinklers and other measures for new build flats is now closed, and we have carefully considered the responses. The Secretary of State has said that he is minded to lower the height threshold from 18 metres to 11 metres. We will set out detailed proposals on that and the plans for other aspects in the full technical review of the fire guidance in February.

In December 2018, the Government banned the use of combustible materials on the external walls of high-rise buildings, and my Department has concluded the review into the effectiveness of the ban. Last week, the Department launched a consultation on the ban, including on lowering the height threshold from 18 to 11 metres. As I said, when things come forward, we have to look afresh, and that is why there has been a wider consultation.

--- Later in debate ---

[Esther McVey]

The hon. Member makes a good point. I wonder whether we could have a meeting to talk about some of the things we think should be put in place, so that I can make representations to the Secretary of State and the Chancellor.

I would like to leave some time for the hon. Member for Reading East to make his closing remarks, but first I want to talk about the stringent rules that private landlords must follow. By law, privately rented properties must already be free from the most serious health and safety hazards, which include fire. Landlords must put up smoke detectors on every floor, and they must have gas boilers and installations checked every year. Earlier this month, we laid before the House regulations requiring landlords to carry out safety inspections at least every five years, and to prove that the electrics in their property meet the legal standard. If they do not, the landlord must get the work done to make them safe.

The hon. Member for Glasgow East (David Linden) mentioned electrical safety inspections and the safety of electrical goods that people buy and plug in at home. He asked whether we could work with the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy and other Departments to ensure that such goods are safe. That is a fair point. We do work across Departments, but we need to do that as well as we possibly can. Landlords must ensure that all fire escapes are clear—

[Mr Betts]

Will the Minister give way?

[Esther McVey]

I will, but I was just about to talk about households in multiple occupation—a point that the hon. Gentleman raised.

[Mr Betts]

Going back briefly to inspections, what is a competent inspector? The question of who will do the inspections is important.

[Esther McVey]

As time is running out, I will write to the hon. Gentleman to explain what is meant by a competent inspector.

Enforcement is key. We will hold landlords to account to ensure enforcement. At the end of the day, we must ensure that homes are safe and people can sleep safely at night, knowing that we are mindful of those points.

Remploy

Debate between Clive Betts and Esther McVey

Monday 10th December 2012 Commons Chamber

[Esther McVey]

Of course it is about getting these people into work. It has nothing to do with levelling down. We have taken the advice of the Sayce review and disability organisations, which have said that they want as many disabled people as possible in mainstream work. We are proceeding with that. I do not need to remind the Opposition that their failed modernisation plan, which started in 2008, was a disaster and we, as always, are picking up the pieces.

[Mr Clive Betts (Sheffield South East) (Lab)]

Since March, neither the management nor the unions at Remploy Sheffield have received any information about, or any assistance with, securing the future of their factory. I have identified some local business people who may be interested in becoming involved. They contacted Remploy HQ, but received no reply. I have tried to set up a meeting between a local Remploy manager and these local business people, but he says that he cannot meet them, because everything has to go through KPMG. Is it not time for the Minister to start cutting through the bureaucracy and provide real assistance to people who want to become involved in trying to keep Remploy Sheffield as a going concern?

[Esther McVey]

Of course we are cutting through any bureaucracy. However, a process has to be fulfilled and carefully followed. The process has only just started and a 90-day consultation will begin in January, so those people whom the hon. Gentleman has found who might be interested in taking the factory forward should now make their case and it will be taken up by the Remploy board.