Prison Officers: Mandatory Body Armour

Grahame Morris Excerpts

Thursday 26th March 2026 Westminster Hall

[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.

Sentencing Bill

Grahame Morris Excerpts

Committee of the whole House
Tuesday 21st October 2025 Commons Chamber

[Dr Mullan]

The Minister shakes his head. If he wants to intervene and explain why that is not the case, he can. No, he is not going to do so.

Let us be clear: earlier releases will not be done on a retrospective basis. When the measure is enacted, every criminal in prison at that point in time will be able to benefit from these measures, including thousands of serious criminals. It is very clear to me that what is being said by Ministers—I anticipate that they will say the same later in defence of these plans—is in danger of misleading MPs. As it stands, Labour MPs will have to vote in support of the Government’s position that the most serious offenders are excluded. I invite MPs to reflect on how the Justice Secretary can possibly say that any rape—let alone hundreds of them—is not one of the most serious offences. Will Labour MPs who vote against amendment 24 tonight be able to say to survivors of child sex abuse that they supported a Government who wanted to classify thousands of child sex offences as not being the most serious offences?

The Government have said that earlier releases will have to be earned through good behaviour, but that is simply not true. I appreciate that it can be difficult to always believe what MPs from Opposition parties are saying, but MPs do not need to take my word for it. The House of Commons Library briefing note on this Bill is there in black and white for everyone to read. It says:

“As currently drafted, the provisions of the bill do not bring in any new criteria for people to adhere to prior to being released at the one third or halfway point, or any discretionary elements to release.”

I will repeat that: the Bill’s provisions do not bring in any new criteria.

Labour MPs need not look any further than emergency release measures and contrast them with this permanent, long-term change to find evidence that the Government’s approach is totally unprecedented. The SDS40 scheme and other schemes that have come before and sat alongside it have many more exclusions—for example, sex offenders—yet this permanent, non-emergency approach does not. What Ministers have been telling Labour MPs to secure their support is not accurate, which should always make Back-Bench MPs wary. If the Government are making inaccurate statements about a measure in a Bill that they want MPs to support because they cannot face the reality of what it does, then MPs should think very carefully about voting for it, because there is no going back. They will have to defend that decision.

This morning, I emailed every single Labour MP the Library briefing note so that they could see it for themselves, regardless of whether they listen to this debate. Ignorance will be no excuse, because today will not be the end of it. I guarantee Members that the harsh reality is that history tells us that some of the criminals whom Labour MPs are being asked to vote to release will almost certainly commit further serious offences, at a time when they would otherwise have been locked up. MPs will then have to explain why they voted for non-emergency changes that let such people out earlier. I would not be surprised if one of these cases is sufficiently serious that the Government amend the Bill’s measures in future, in response to a public backlash. There is every chance that they will make Labour MPs go through the Lobby tonight and vote for the indefensible, and then at some point pull the rug from under them. I appreciate that a lot of Labour Members are new to this place, and they can speak to longer-serving Members about how it will make them look when they are forced to follow a line that is later withdrawn.

I have made our position clear, and I have set out the consequences. MPs voting against our amendment 24 this evening will be voting to reduce jail time for extremely violent criminals, paedophiles, child groomers and rapists. I have done as much as I can to stop that happening. Ministers are resorting to saying things about the Bill’s measures that are inaccurate to secure support from their Back Benchers, and MPs should not let them get away with it. We have set out clearly how our amendment would ensure that appalling criminals do not see their punishment cut. I know it is difficult for Back Benchers to stand up to the Government and say no, but if we do not, thousands of the worst criminals will get out of prison earlier.

Labour MPs now have to decide whether to vote for what victims of child abuse, family members of people killed by dangerous drivers, victims of rape and others want—victims whom many of them care about—or for what the Prime Minister and his Whips want. Tell the Prime Minister no, tell the Whips no, and vote for our amendment tonight.

[Grahame Morris (Easington) (Lab)]

I will try to make my remarks fairly brief—not because I am against short sentences, but because I recognise that there are time pressures. I would like to record my support for three amendments to the Bill in the form of new clauses 2 to 4. I might say that I agreed with virtually everything that my good friend my hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith and Chiswick (Andy Slaughter) said.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir John Hayes]

The hon. Gentleman is an old friend, and I appreciate his attempt to improve the Bill. The new clauses that he supports are interesting and have merit. Will he acknowledge, though, that it is not just probation services that will be put under extra pressure by this Bill, but that the police will be too? Will he invite the Minister, when he sums up, to talk about the extra resources he can make available to Lincolnshire police and other authorities, as well as to the Probation Service, to implement the provisions of the Bill that he has brought to the Committee?

[Grahame Morris]

I am grateful for that intervention, which I think is quite sensible, and I support the contention. I hope the Minister will respond appropriately when he has the opportunity.

Does the Minister agree that HM Inspectorate of Probation should have the powers outlined in new clause 4? They are just the sort of safeguards we need in the Bill before more pressure is placed on the Probation Service. We are all aware that it is really overstretched, principally as a result of funding cuts implemented by the previous Government and some of the decisions taken before the present Government came into office.

Finally, I am pleased to register my support for new clause 3, in the name of my right hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell), who is my good friend. I echo the concerns that he expressed at length on Second Reading about the potential for exploitation by private companies, such as when unpaid work in London was privatised in 2013. Indeed, that was criticised by the International Labour Organisation as an abuse. Does the Minister agree with the probation union, Napo, that unpaid work orders should always be about payback to the community, that they should be run for public good, not for private profit, and that this safeguard should be placed in the Bill?

[The Second Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Caroline Nokes)]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

Sentencing Bill

Grahame Morris Excerpts

2nd reading
Tuesday 16th September 2025 Commons Chamber

[Grahame Morris (Easington) (Lab)]

I welcome the Bill for many of the reasons already highlighted by the Justice Secretary and many Labour colleagues earlier. My hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith and Chiswick (Andy Slaughter) made many of the points that I wished to make so, because of the shortage of time, I do not intend to repeat them, although I would like to reinforce them.

The Bill is a bold step towards easing the pressure on our overcrowded prisons and repairing a criminal justice system so badly broken by the Conservative party’s agenda of economically illiterate austerity. However, concerns have been expressed to me by the trade unions—including Napo, which represents probation staff—especially on the extra workload that the Bill will mean for their members. I say respectfully to the Minister and to the Justice Secretary that I hope they will engage fully with the justice unions as the Bill progresses in order to address these legitimate concerns in good faith.

Robust community sentences in the right circumstances —contrary to what many Opposition Members have been saying—can offer a better and more effective alternative to prison, provided that they are supported by new tagging technology, but only if that is done correctly. At Justice questions this morning, the Justice Secretary gave some excellent responses to concerns raised about the existing contract that the previous Government signed with Serco. Indeed, the Government’s own assessment suggests that change will be required, and the changes will require hundreds of additional probation officers in order to keep the public safe. Early release for good behaviour is supported by the unions, provided that prisoners show that they are turning their lives around and addressing the issues behind their offending. Again, early release comes at a cost, and at a cost to the Probation Service.

Other measures in the Bill have been welcomed by people working in the sector. Probation staff have long complained that rehabilitation activity requirements and post-sentence supervision, which are leftovers from the previous Government’s failed privatisation experiment, are ineffective and time-consuming. Napo is therefore relieved to see the Bill abolish them for good. Although it is true that this will free up more staff time, the Bill still puts additional pressure on the Probation Service. Yes, the extra resources already announced by Ministers will help to bring more staff into the service, but what will make them stay? Attrition rates—the rates of skilled probation officers leaving the service—are appalling. That is unsurprising, given the unbearable workloads for staff on top of 15 years of real-terms pay cuts and a degradation in the service presided over by the previous Administration. I am also told that the Government still have not made a formal pay offer to probation staff this year, so I respectfully encourage Ministers to reflect on how best to hold on to these key workers, who perform such a vital and demanding role.

The Bill would benefit from stronger safeguards around tagging and unpaid work, to ensure that the biggest beneficiaries are the public at large, not profit-hungry private corporations. We have heard many times in the House recently, including at Justice questions this morning, about Serco’s catalogue of contractual failures, especially with electronic monitoring. As we expand the use of tagging, we should try our hardest to reduce private sector involvement, partly because it has proved to be such a costly failure in the past and partly because this new form of punishment should be harnessed and used for the public good, not private profit. The Government have earmarked an extra £4 million a year at least for tagging expansion, but that money must not be used simply to line the pockets of rip-off failing privateers.

In conclusion, if we want to turn our criminal justice system around, we must work harder to prioritise public good, not private profit. I know that this Labour Government share that ambition and I hope that they will work closely with their own frontline workers in the Probation Service to fully realise the benefits that the Bill could bring.

Oral Answers to Questions

Grahame Morris Excerpts

Tuesday 16th September 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lammy]

I did see that the shadow Lord Chancellor had visited France. I looked seriously and closely at what he was proposing, and I propose to make some announcements in that area over the coming weeks.

[Grahame Morris (Easington) (Lab)]

Last week in Brighton, the TUC unanimously backed the “Safe Inside” campaign promoted by the Joint Unions in Prisons Alliance calling for urgent action against record-high levels of prison violence and second-hand exposure to psychoactive substances. Does the Secretary of State agree that current conditions are quite intolerable for prison staff and that the Prison Service needs to be held directly accountable for the health and safety of everyone who works in prisons, all of whom deserve to be safe inside?

[Mr Lammy]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that question. We are talking to the unions. I hope that the £40 million we have put in will be able to alleviate some of the problems, but he is right that the assaults on our staff are entirely unacceptable. That is why I am committing from the Dispatch Box to making further announcements in the coming days.

Drones: High-security Prisons

Grahame Morris Excerpts

Tuesday 14th January 2025 Commons Chamber

[Sir Nicholas Dakin]

The hon. Member is right that it is important that local police forces work strongly with HM Prison and Probation Service on this issue. That is what is happening. He will know that funding, both locally and nationally, is dealt with in an appropriate way.

[Grahame Morris (Easington) (Lab)]

The Prison Officers’ Association has been saying for the past five years that the threat of drones destabilises our prisons and poses a massive security risk. Let me draw the Minister’s attention to the anti-drone system at HMP Guernsey, which very effectively prevents that threat. Can we expect this new system to be implemented in all prisons in England and Wales?

[Sir Nicholas Dakin]

Anything that works will be built upon—that is part of it. Drone technology has been accelerated through the Ukraine war. We know that we need to work very hard to keep ahead of the felons on this.

Joint Enterprise (Significant Contribution) Bill

Grahame Morris Excerpts

2nd reading
Friday 2nd February 2024 Commons Chamber

[Kim Johnson]

My hon. Friend makes a valid point on the consequences of the landmark case of Ameen Jogee, whose mum is in the Gallery today. People are being given mandatory life sentences for murders that they did not commit. Thousands have been locked up for life because they have been deemed, in effect, guilty by association. Since that ruling very little has changed, with only one successful appeal, as is shown in the research by the Centre for Crime and Justice Studies that my hon. Friend referred to.

[Grahame Morris (Easington) (Lab)]

I compliment my hon. Friend on bringing forward this private Member’s Bill. Through her good offices, I have had the opportunity to meet some of the families involved. To describe some of the cases as egregious injustices is no understatement. One of the appalling things I have found is the inconsistent way in which joint enterprise guilt by association has been applied. There are cases where one might think it would have been applied, such as in the murder of Jay Abatan in 1999. I would like to highlight the Justice for Jay Abatan campaign, which is still fighting for justice 25 years on.

[Kim Johnson]

I thank my hon. Friend for raising that point and particularly for raising the Justice for Jay Abatan campaign, which is very similar to the Stephen Lawrence campaign.

The Centre for Crime and Justice Studies suggests that the 2016 judgment had little to no effect on the number of joint enterprise charges or convictions. Indeed, since 2016 there has been a new legal problem, whereby juries are deliberately not directed to consider the contribution that a person made to a crime, as in the case of Faisal Fiaz, who was in a parked car that was streets away from where the murder for which he was convicted occurred. Only Parliament can fix this.

A charge of joint enterprise too often leads to an assumption of guilt in the courtroom, with the defendant having to prove their innocence, turning our justice system on its head. This is a failure of our justice system, which is supposedly the best in the world, and an affront to the taxpayer, who is left footing the bill for sloppy sentencing. To quote Jimmy McGovern’s “Common”,

“joint enterprise might allow it, natural justice does not.”

If passed, my Bill will fix this wrong turn and help to return the law to its original intention.

Joint enterprise is currently wielded as a blunt instrument by the courts, allowing people who have not made a significant contribution to a murder to receive a mandatory life sentence. Lawyers and campaigners often describe the decision to prosecute or sentence someone to life as Russian roulette. My Bill seeks to enshrine in law the condition that a person can be prosecuted under joint enterprise only where they are proven to have significantly contributed to a crime. This would raise the bar for prosecution and provide the jury with the tools to differentiate between defendants who deserve to face a mandatory life sentence for the role they played in a serious crime and those who do not. There are countless cases where it is clear that we need a change in the law to provide juries with the basic legal test contained in my Bill.

Violence Reduction, Policing and Criminal Justice

Grahame Morris Excerpts

Wednesday 15th November 2023 Commons Chamber

[Grahame Morris (Easington) (Lab)]

I associate myself completely with the remarks of my good and hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Ian Byrne). I had not originally intended to speak in this debate, but given the appalling slaughter and suffering in the middle east and the ongoing tragedy in Gaza, I have to do so. As the Member of Parliament who brought forward the motion to recognise the state of Palestine, which was approved in the House on 13 October 2014, I am often a target for those who do not believe in peace or a two-state solution.

In the context of the then Home Secretary’s sowing of division and hate, it is interesting that hon. Members have referred to Remembrance Sunday, when I was moved and overwhelmed by the words, some of which I would like to share, of the Roman Catholic priest Father Marc Lyden-Smith. He said that although Remembrance Sunday is a time when people wear red poppies—a well-established tradition—he had for the first time seen someone wearing both a red and a white poppy. When he asked why, their reply was, “Red is for remembrance and white is for peace.” I found that very thought-provoking. Our hope in remembrance is grounded in peace, a peace that so many have given their lives for. We must remember that peace looks forward to what we are trying to build: justice, harmony, wellbeing and the opportunity for all to flourish.

The most powerful part of Father Lyden-Smith’s sermon was towards the end, when he reminded us that

“Jesus said: ‘Blessed are the peacemakers’. He did not say: ‘Blessed are those who won the war, those who had sufficient resources and advanced weaponry to crush their enemies’. He said: ‘Blessed are the peacemakers’—those who work to build a world of peace. We can all be peacemakers.”

We can all work towards bringing about peace internationally. We should let today be a wake-up call for us all, on both sides of the House, to work for peace and, when we pray every morning before the session starts, to work for reconciliation, understanding and harmony. That begins in this House, in our communities, in our homes, in our families, in our friendship groups and especially in our hearts.

Today, I will vote for a ceasefire. I will vote for peace. I will vote for a state of Israel and a state of Palestine to live side by side in peaceful coexistence. The horrors, death and destruction that we witness daily on our TV screens are a breeding ground for hate; but if we are ever to secure peace, and a lasting peace, we cannot be driven by hate. I vote for a ceasefire and I call on all hon. Members, but particularly the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition, to use their platforms and positions of authority not only to secure humanitarian aid amid the horrors we see in Gaza and have witnessed in Israel, but to work every day towards a lasting peace and the safety and the security that all people in Israel and Palestine deserve.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

I will call the Front Benchers for the wind-ups no later than 6.40 pm.

Prison Capacity

Grahame Morris Excerpts

Monday 16th October 2023 Commons Chamber

[Alex Chalk]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Those are some of the most appalling crimes, which shatter not just the lives of the victims, but potentially those of so many others, including the victims’ friends and families, and he is absolutely right that we need to make sure there is always sufficient custodial capacity for that to take place. That is why I am announcing today that we will roll out a programme to buy the very locations we need next year, with additional money, to ensure that, well in advance of the prison builds needing to come on line, we have the planning permission in place so that there is the pipeline of places to ensure that justice can be done.

[Grahame Morris (Easington) (Lab)]

To be fair to the Lord Chancellor, from the length of his answers there is no doubt he is against shorter sentences. [Laughter.]

My question is about overcrowded and understaffed prisons that make rehabilitation almost impossible. Many prisoners now leave jail more criminalised, more traumatised and, indeed, more dangerous than when they first arrived. While the measures outlined today may make a positive impact, the Government must go further. Will the Secretary of State commit to tackling the crisis in prison officer retention by starting with the Prison Officers Association’s key demand to reduce the pension age, which it insists has a massive effect on morale and, therefore, on the retention of prison officers?

[Alex Chalk]

I thank the hon. Gentleman. In fairness, that was quite a good joke; it was not bad—

Oral Answers to Questions

Grahame Morris Excerpts

Tuesday 22nd November 2022 Commons Chamber

[Grahame Morris (Easington) (Lab)]

18. If he will establish a royal commission on prisons and the wider criminal justice system.

[The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Damian Hinds)]

The hon. Gentleman will know of our commitment. Following the pandemic, it is also right that we prioritise recovery in the criminal justice system.

[Grahame Morris]

Notwithstanding that answer, which I thank the Minister for, a little earlier the Justice Secretary referred to manifesto commitments, and I remind the House that the Conservatives made a manifesto commitment to establishing a royal commission on criminal justice, but that is looking like a pretty slim commitment. Prisons in particular are at the heart of our criminal justice system, and they are in crisis, plagued by violence, drugs, squalor and a shameful lack of meaningful rehabilitation activity. Does the Minister accept that the priority must be a full public inquiry with statutory powers to find out what has gone wrong?

[Damian Hinds]

The hon. Gentleman is of course right about the commitment, and I referred to it in my opening response. It is true that the coronavirus changed many things, including causing significant issues in the criminal justice system and in prisons. We have published the prisons White Paper, which sets out a strategy for further improvement in all aspects of the secure estate, and I am pleased to be able to report significant progress on matters such as employment, which we know is important to reducing reoffending, and accommodation, with a five percentage points reduction in the number of individuals leaving prison who are homeless or rough sleeping.

Oral Answers to Questions

Grahame Morris Excerpts

Tuesday 5th July 2022 Commons Chamber

[James Cartlidge]

My right hon. and learned Friend has made an extremely good point. He is aware of the article to which I referred in my answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst—the Chairman of the Select Committee—in which I made clear my wish to engage with the Criminal Bar Association on the next stage of reform, which includes the advocates’ graduated fee scheme and some of its core elements that were not in the first phase. As I have said, we adopted that two-phase approach precisely in order to deliver the initial increase in fees as soon as practicable, and it will be introduced in September: a 15% increase for criminal barristers working in magistrates courts and police stations and for those in the AGFS. We think that that is a very generous offer, and we hope the members of the CBA will think about it and stop their disruption of our courts.

[Grahame Morris (Easington) (Lab)]

T8.   I understand that the Government have now received the recommendations from the Prison Service pay review body for a rise in prison officers’ wages. I do not know whether the Secretary of State chats to any security guards on the House of Commons estate, but many of them are former prison officers who left the service because of poor pay and bad terms and conditions in our prisons. When will the Secretary of State respond to those recommendations, and will he agree to follow them in full and not pick and choose, which is what has been done for the past three years?

[Dominic Raab]

The hon. Gentleman has raised an important issue. I am considering the recommendations very carefully, and will respond shortly.