Welfare Cap

Ian Lavery Excerpts

Wednesday 16th December 2015 Commons Chamber

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary for Work and Pensions (Mr Shailesh Vara)]

I beg to move,

That, pursuant to the Charter for Budget Responsibility: Summer Budget 2015 update, which was approved by this House on 14 October 2015, under Section 1 of the Budget Responsibility and National Audit Act 2011, this House agrees that the breach of the Welfare Cap in 2016-17, 2017-18, and 2018-19 resulting from the decision not to pursue proposed changes to tax credits, as laid out in the Autumn Statement 2015, is justified and that no further debate will be required in relation to this specific breach.

The motion is about the Government accounting to Parliament and the public for decisions about welfare spending. It is something we on this side of the House take very seriously. That is why in 2013 the Chancellor announced we would be bringing forward a welfare cap to control welfare spending in a way that has never been done before. The cap would be set shortly after each new Parliament and assessed each year by the independent Office for Budget Responsibility. Any breach of the cap requires my Department to come to the House to set out one of three courses of action. The first would be to propose measures to reduce welfare spending to within the level of the cap. The second would be to seek the approval of the House to increase the level of the cap. The third would be to explain why a breach of the cap was justified. The House will be aware that, following the Chancellor’s autumn statement, the cap is forecast not to be met in the short term. The motion seeks agreement that this is justified.

[Ian Lavery (Wansbeck) (Lab)]

Even this early in the debate, the Minister is saying that he is going to justify breaching the cap. Is he not somewhat embarrassed about that?

[Mr Vara]

Not at all. If the hon. Gentleman will give me time, I will explain the justification. He will be aware that there has been a huge amount of debate on this issue, and that the Chancellor has listened.

[Ian Lavery]

I must have missed that.

[Mr Vara]

The hon. Gentleman obviously did.

In making our case, I want to set out the circumstances that have led to this forecast. The cap was initially set in line with the OBR’s March 2014 forecast. In the summer Budget, the Chancellor set a lower welfare cap to help to reflect our move to a lower tax, lower welfare and higher-wage economy. Since then, as part of the autumn statement, the Chancellor took the decision not to pursue proposed changes to tax credits. This will give families longer to adjust as we make work pay and provide better support for people in work.

This change has been possible partly because of improvements in the nation’s finances, including improved tax receipts and lower debt interest payments. These are not free choices, however, and as a result of this change, we will be spending more in the shorter term than had been forecast in the summer Budget. That means that, based on current forecasts, the cap will not be met for the next three years: 2016-17, 2017-18 and 2018-19.

--- Later in debate ---

[Ian Lavery]

The Chancellor stood up and said that he was proud to have these targets set in stone. He tried to set a trap for the Labour party on this issue, but he wanted the benefits cap set in stone. The Minister is now explaining that, for the next two or three years, there is no chance of meeting those targets. Please tell us that you are slightly embarrassed or concerned.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Natascha Engel)]

Order. I am not embarrassed or concerned. The Minister might be, but I am not.

--- Later in debate ---

[Owen Smith]

I know, okay, the Chancellor: the right hon. Member for Tatton (Mr Osborne), in Cheshire—the Cheshire cat—and given that he is rather like Macavity, rather than the Cheshire cat, I thought that I would give the House a treat. I read that there were no Etonians on the Front Bench among the new intake, and I was worried that the lack of classical education from which the Treasury Bench normally benefits might mean that the Macavity reference went over Ministers’ heads, so I brought a little book with me, and I shall read a section from it. [Interruption.] It is not Mao; it is T.S. Eliot’s collected poems. It gives us Macavity the mystery cat, who is, of course, the Chancellor:

there’s no one like Macavity…

he’s very tall and thin;

You would know him if you saw him, for his eyes are sunken in—

I think that is the 5:2 diet—

He’s outwardly respectable

although

(They say he cheats at cards.)—

I bet he does—

And when the larder’s looted, or the jewel-case is rifled…

He always has an alibi, and one or two to spare:

At whatever time the deed took place—MACAVITY WASN’T THERE!

Macavity is not here today, is he? And the deed that he is ducking, of course, is this embarrassing, humiliating U-turn. The cap has been breached, and the Government have done it, of course, because of the spectacular, screeching U-turn on tax credits.

[Ian Lavery]

If my hon. Friend—he is a really good friend of mine—had done what the Chancellor has done in promising that the welfare cap would not be breached, would he have sat there and done nothing? I am sure that he would have been prepared to stand at the Dispatch Box, have the courage of his convictions and perhaps apologise.

[Owen Smith]

I would have been mortified had I been the Chancellor responsible for such a terrible U-turn and such an extraordinary, humiliating, screeching U-turn.

--- Later in debate ---

[Ian Blackford]

Absolutely. We fully support that: we want people to be able to move out of poverty and into meaningful work that is well paid, where the social security system will support them. We would happily support some reforms, but problems remain in relation to the level of sanctions and the cuts to universal credit that will happen over the next few years.

[Ian Lavery]

The real issue concerns in-work benefits and people who are in work. The Sports Direct model is failing, but the Conservatives are not prepared to get stuck into the likes of Sports Direct and of Mike Ashley. They believe that that is a fantastic model of employment, but it is not acceptable.

The Shrewsbury 24

Ian Lavery Excerpts

Wednesday 9th December 2015 Westminster Hall

[Ian Lavery (Wansbeck) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Howarth. The debate is timely and I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Steve Rotheram), who for many years has been a stalwart in trying to get justice for the Shrewsbury 24. I will say this on the record: this case is a catastrophic and deliberate miscarriage of justice deliberately organised by the state. Of that there is no doubt. If they have nothing to hide, let us see the papers. It is simple. I can see the Minister staring at me. He is a former worker, which is highly unusual among the Conservatives. He has worked in the services with distinction, so I appeal to his good side. We are not asking for anything out of the ordinary other than to see some documents. According to the Conservative Government, there is not anything in them. If there is not anything in them, why can we not see them? That is fairly straightforward.

We have discussed this case on various occasions in the Commons. The Back-Bench debate in the Chamber was one of the best debates we have had. We were solid behind the motion that was tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Blaydon (Mr Anderson).

I am a former miner. I have been through many strikes. I have been a picket and have suffered the same as some of the representatives of the Shrewsbury 24. It is simply not right for an ordinary person, who has never had any problems and never been arrested before, to get arrested for trying to save their job and look after their family. It is just not right. It is an abuse of political power. It is an abuse of the judiciary system, an abuse of individual human rights, and an attack on the fact that someone is prepared to be part of a collective organisation in the trade union movement. That is what happened back then. This was not an industrial dispute, but a political dispute. The state wanted to show, by example, what would happen if people dared to stand up against the state.

We have seen legislation after legislation introduced since then. The recent Trade Union Bill, which should be the anti-trade union Bill, builds on what happened all those years ago in the early 1970s. These people were on strike; they were not raving, militant lunatics and revolutionaries. They were on strike because people were getting maimed and killed in the building industry. They were fighting for wages and, in the main, for health and safety on building sites. Is there any better cause for trade union members to fight for than the health and safety of the people they work with in the workplace? I think not.

[Chris Stephens (Glasgow South West) (SNP)]

We hear much in this country about aspiration and about who represents those with aspiration. Surely, those involved in this dispute were an example of that—their aspiration was for a better life, better working conditions and better pay.

--- Later in debate ---

[Ian Lavery]

They had little in the way of aspiration other than to live the life of ordinary working people. If we think about it, this was about people being able to go to their workplace and do their job, to actually come home and see their families without having been maimed or lamed, and to put bread on the table at the end of the week. That is what these outrageous people were after. They have been targeted for years just for wanting to get on with their jobs in a safe environment and to create a decent life for their families.

When we had our debate nearly two years ago, the hon. Member for Aldershot (Sir Gerald Howarth), in response to my hon. Friend the Member for Blyth Valley (Mr Campbell), shouted that it was nice to see

“old Labour is still alive and well and, in some respects, seeking both to justify and to romanticise mob rule and violence and intimidation.”

Who was romanticising? Where was the mob rule? Where was the intimidation? Nobody was arrested on the day. There was not a problem. The police were there, and they were talking to the pickets. It was a fine example of how things should be. There were no problems until months later, when people started to get the knocks on the door. My hon. Friend the former Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire North said that the comments by the hon. Member for Aldershot

“reminded us exactly what the Tories are about”

in that

“workers should be…seen and not heard”.—[Official Report, 23 January 2014; Vol. 574, c. 485-501.]

I think he summed it up perfectly.

There has been new, compelling evidence, and I am sure my right hon. Friend the Member for Leigh (Andy Burnham) will explain exactly what it is and add to what has been said by my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton. However, a documentary was shown, including in Shrewsbury, during the court hearing. It was called “Red Under the Bed”. It showed scenes involving the men who were up for trial. Good Lord, is that fair? Who saw it? Who did not see it? However, it is also compelling evidence, isn’t it? Perhaps we could use it to show that there was no intimidation and mob rule, that people were not fighting and that bricks were not being thrown. There was none of that.

I want to put on record my support for, and my commitment to, every one of the Shrewsbury 24 pickets and their families. I give a guarantee that we will fight forever and a day to seek justice for them. However, we really should look for justice as soon as we can. As my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton mentioned, the youngest of these men is 68, while the oldest is 90, and five of them have died.

These principled people were offered a fine of £50 if they would walk away. The police officers said, “You can be home at 3 o’clock if you accept a guilty plea.” They would not be here now—we would not be here now—if they had accepted. However, out of principle, they said, “We are not guilty of any charges that have been placed on us.” That is principle.

It is about time that we—as a country and as politicians—ensured that these people got justice. Let us see who was behind the decisions that were made at the time in the police and the judiciary and, most of all, who was behind the political decisions made against these honourable, hard-working people.

State Pension Age Equalisation

Ian Lavery Excerpts

Wednesday 2nd December 2015 Westminster Hall

[Barbara Keeley]

My hon. Friend spoke on Second Reading of the 2011 Pensions Bill, which I will address later.

Perhaps the Pensions Minister would benefit from understanding her powers. She was appointed after the general election, but her powers include the power to argue for changes needed to remedy injustice. I hope that Members on both sides of the House will focus on that injustice. The changes made in the 2011 Act were controversial, and hon. Members from all parties raised the particular impact that the changes would have on women born in the 1950s. As I have mentioned, the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions repeatedly referred to transitional arrangements on Second Reading, including, I think, in answer to a question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Scunthorpe (Nic Dakin). The Secretary of State said:

“I recognise the need to implement the change fairly and manage the transition smoothly…I say to my colleagues that I am willing to work to get the transition right”.—[Official Report, 20 June 2011; Vol. 530, c. 50.]

The changes were not managed fairly, and the Secretary of State did not put transitional arrangements in place, which is why I applied for this debate to discuss the issues caused by the changes.

[Ian Lavery (Wansbeck) (Lab)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this debate. This is an important issue, and every day now we are seeing issues that disproportionately affect women in this country. I spoke to two wonderful people from the Women Against State Pension Inequality campaign in my office on Friday, and they explained that they have not had any confirmation of any changes at any time. Surely that cannot be the case in this day and age. They should have received notification of the changes. This cannot be allowed to continue, and I am proud that my hon. Friend is continuing the fight on behalf of the Opposition to seek justice for these women.

[Barbara Keeley]

I thank my hon. Friend very much for saying that. He is right that campaigners for Women Against State Pension Inequality are doing a great job of informing MPs.

Employment Tribunal Fees

Ian Lavery Excerpts

Tuesday 1st December 2015 Westminster Hall

[Justin Madders (Ellesmere Port and Neston) (Lab)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the effect of the introduction of fees for employment tribunals.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Streeter. An essential part of any democracy is an economy that works for the whole population. That means there should be not only full employment, or as close to that as can be managed, but opportunities for everyone to make the most of that economy. There should be no glass ceilings. People from different backgrounds should all have the same chance of making it into their chosen job. Crucially, in the context of this debate, an individual should have the security of knowing that if things go wrong, they have a realistic avenue through which to seek redress.

To my mind, we have a system in place that puts security near the bottom of the pile in terms of priorities. Security should be the cornerstone of any settlement on how the workplace operates. No matter how imperfect the current system is, if there are workplace rights and protections that this place has deemed a necessary part of the social contract between Government and the country, we should be absolutely sure that those rights can be genuinely enforced, if we are not to have an illusory scheme of protection.

The employment tribunal system has a social benefit for everyone and should therefore be accessible to all members of society. It is worth reminding ourselves that tribunals took on their present character as employment courts to resolve disputes between employers and workers in 1971, as part of that year’s Industrial Relations Act, largely arising from the recognition that unresolved workplace grievances had led to a proliferation of official and unofficial industrial action. Those origins should serve as a clear warning that if we are to live in a just society, we need an accessible and fair system for resolving disputes.

[Ian Lavery (Wansbeck) (Lab)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on bringing this important issue to the Chamber. Does he agree that the introduction of these fees disproportionately affects women, particularly those who are pregnant or in part-time employment? That issue must be addressed.

[Justin Madders]

I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention. I will address later some of the disproportionate impacts of the fees, but they are part of a bigger picture: they are part of a sustained attack on working people in this country. A lot of the legislation in the previous Parliament and currently going through the House is nothing more than an attack on basic workplace rights and protections. If our ambition is to have an economy and country where everyone has a stake in their prosperity, we should value the security and sustainability of jobs as much as the means of creating them.

It is widely recognised that losing a job is one of the major occasions in life on which people face extreme pressure and stress. Obviously, it is not quite as significant as some other issues, but for many, it can be a pretty traumatic experience. It can affect a person’s marriage, health, home, finances and, of course, family, yet we seem to be fostering a culture in which an individual is considered a disposable item to be cast aside with barely a second thought. While that culture exists, it is important that we have strong protections in place and—this relates to today’s debate—an effective and accessible system enforcing those protections.

Let us look first at the stark data, which show that the number of tribunal claims lodged has fallen off a cliff since the introduction of fees in July 2013.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jo Stevens (Cardiff Central) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Streeter. May I refer the House to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests regarding my previous occupation as a director of Thompsons Solicitors, which is a national firm of employment law specialists that conducts a substantial number of employment tribunal cases on behalf of trade unions and their members?

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Justin Madders) on securing the debate. Like him, I am deeply concerned about this issue. As he outlined, the impact of the coalition Government’s tribunal fees has been to price people out of access to justice. The Conservative party calls itself the party of working people, but if there is one single policy that totally exposes that statement as a myth, it is the introduction of employment tribunal fees. The Conservatives knew exactly what the impact of the policy would be, because they and their Liberal Democrat coalition partners at the time were told repeatedly and forcefully that the proposal would decimate access to justice. Just as with legal aid cuts, civil court fee increases, restrictions on judicial review, the Trade Union Bill, the proposal to repeal the Human Rights Act and the intended increase to the small claims limit that the Chancellor announced in last week’s spending review, employment tribunal fees were not introduced to solve a real problem. They were introduced to diminish the voice of ordinary working people, of trade unions and of their members.

I am sure the Government will try to say that the rationale for introducing the fees was to defray the cost of the Courts and Tribunals Service. If that really was the rationale, it has failed spectacularly, because so few people can afford to bring claims that the revenue has not been generated, as my hon. Friend the Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston said.

The Minister for the Cabinet Office and Paymaster General openly stated that the purpose of the fees was to deter people from bringing employment tribunal claims. In an article for The Telegraph website in March 2014, he wrote:

“Unscrupulous workers caused havoc by inundating companies with unfounded claims of mistreatment, discrimination or worse. Like Japanese knotweed, the soaring number of tribunal cases dragged more and more companies into its grip, squeezing the life and energy from Britain’s wealth creators.”

He went on to say that the tribunal system had

“become a system that in too many cases was being ruthlessly exploited by people trying to make a fast-buck.”

Where is the evidence for that? If the situation really was as he stated, the success rate in employment tribunal cases brought after the introduction of fees would have risen significantly, because the fees would have acted as a disincentive for unmeritorious claimants. What has actually happened? The success rate has stayed at the level it was at before the introduction of fees.

Preventing access to justice through high fees, therefore, weeds out not just unmeritorious cases—I accept there will be a few of those—but nearly all cases. In that respect, the policy has been tremendously successful. Fees have had a severe negative impact on the ability of people—particularly those on low and average household incomes and the more vulnerable in society—to access the justice system. That was a shameful intention. We had a Minister openly stating that he and his coalition partners wanted to prevent members of the public from accessing the justice system.

[Ian Lavery]

My hon. Friend will not be surprised by that attack on hard-working people in the workplace who want to seek justice. Like me and other Members, she has experienced the gagging Bill part 1, the gagging Bill part 2 and what is classified as a trade union Bill. All in all, they are a concerted attack on people who just want to get on in life. If there is a problem with justice in the workplace, they want to be able to challenge it.

[Jo Stevens]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. I could not have put it better myself.

As we have heard, there has been a 69% drop in single-applicant cases since the introduction of fees. However, I want to comment on a couple of other statistics. There has been a 90% drop in sex discrimination cases and a 45% drop in pregnancy-related unfair dismissal cases. That is yet another example of the Prime Minister’s problem with women. He does not want public money spent on women, so they bear the brunt of 75% of his Government’s public sector spending cuts. He does not want to do anything about the grossly unfair VAT regime—the tampon tax. Instead, he cuts funding for domestic violence refuges and rape counselling services, and he makes women pay for those services themselves through the VAT on sanitary products. Furthermore, if any of us is subject to sex discrimination at work or sacked because we are pregnant, he prices us out of access to an employment tribunal to challenge that unlawful treatment.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Mr Shailesh Vara)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Gillan.

I congratulate the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Justin Madders) on securing the debate. It is an important subject, and I know that in his case it is particularly so, given his background as an employment solicitor. I thank the other contributors, the hon. Member for Glasgow South West (Chris Stephens) and the hon. Member for Cardiff Central (Jo Stevens), and the two Front-Bench spokespeople, the hon. Member for Dumfries and Galloway (Richard Arkless) and the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull East (Karl Turner). I also thank the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston for allowing me the opportunity to put on record the Government’s position.

The Government recognise the crucial service that employment tribunals provide to those employees who have serious disputes with their employers. It is vital that people in that position have meaningful access to justice and an effective way to remedy their problems.

[Ian Lavery]

If it is that vital for ordinary people in the workplace to access justice, will the Minister explain why his Government introduced a £1,200 tribunal fee?

[Mr Vara]

I ask the hon. Gentleman to bear with me, as I will turn to that issue, and also to the issue of working people that has been mentioned by a number of colleagues.

Hon. Members will be aware that the Government were elected as a majority Government with a clear mandate to eliminate the budget deficit during this Parliament. That requires a responsible approach to funding public services, which must include the courts and tribunals, both now and in the future. When the Government introduced fees in employment tribunals in 2013 it was estimated that the cost of running the service was about £84 million per year. Before the introduction of fees, the whole burden of that cost was met by taxpayers. Fees were introduced to reduce the burden, and to ensure that those who were using the service and benefiting directly from it were making a reasonable contribution to the cost, when they could afford to do so.

At the time the fees were introduced, we also applied Her Majesty’s Courts and Tribunals Service fee remissions. That scheme is there to ensure that those on low incomes are not prevented from lodging a claim. Under the scheme, those who qualify may have their fees waived, either in part or in full, depending on their financial means. I am a little disappointed that although much has been made of the employment tribunal fees, only a passing reference was made to the conciliatory scheme introduced by ACAS, to which I will turn shortly.

As far as remissions are concerned, I am grateful for, and have very much taken on board, hon. Members’ practical comments, and I can assure colleagues that my officials are looking at how applications are made to see how the process can be made simpler and more user-friendly.

Police and Fire Shared Services

Ian Lavery Excerpts

Tuesday 3rd November 2015 Westminster Hall

[Ian Lavery (Wansbeck) (Lab)]

As ever, it is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Pritchard.

I congratulate the hon. Member for Cannock Chase (Amanda Milling) on bringing this debate on an extremely topical and important issue to the House. We might have some disagreements about it, but perhaps we will have agreements as well. I have to say at the outset that I do not share the view that taking fire engines away from a fire station means that people feel safer, as one speaker said. Quite often, taking fire engines away and dropping pumps off at local fire stations does not make people feel safer.

[Jake Berry (Rossendale and Darwen) (Con)]

I certainly share the view that taking fire appliances or engines away from fire stations does not make anyone feel safer, but does the hon. Gentleman share my view that the people who are expecting firefighters to turn up on the frontline are probably pretty relaxed about who does the human resources for the fire service and whether that function is shared with the police force? It would not make them feel any safer, or any less safe, if HR were shared between the fire, the police and the ambulance services.

[Ian Lavery]

The hon. Gentleman makes a viable point, which can and should be discussed if we want a top-class blue-light service, whether it be the ambulance service, the fire service or the police service. That can, and will be I am sure, the topic of much discussion in the future.

[The Minister for Policing, Crime and Criminal Justice (Mike Penning)]

It is unusual for me to intervene, but there are four emergency services in this country. We must not forget Her Majesty’s Coastguard. It would be inappropriate for me, as a former Shipping Minister, not to raise that point.

[Ian Lavery]

I thank the Minister. There is actually a fifth emergency service—the Mines Rescue Service.

[Mike Penning]

We could carry on.

[Ian Lavery]

Of course we can. The only problem is that we have only one mine left—but anyway, I am sure we will discuss that. The coastguard is an important service as well.

The issue that has been brought to the House is the greater collaboration and work between the police and the fire service. I think we all agree that we want a top-class service, across all four blue-light services. We want to have the best possible and the safest service we can have—top class, with the best technology and everything that the communities that we represent need. The real cause for concern is that this is not just about having a top-class service or enhancing the blue-light services; it is being approached as a cost-cutting exercise. That is what the general public are concerned about.

Since 2010, there has been a huge reduction in the police service and the fire service and we cannot get enough people in the ambulance service. People are rightly concerned about the cuts in the services, whether front-line or back-office staff.

[Sir Oliver Heald]

Suppose that the fire service had someone who wanted to train as a paramedic and also someone who was capable of filling out the accident book, as the police do at a straightforward road accident. Why should that multi-tasking not take place? If it saves money, what is wrong with that?

--- Later in debate ---

[Ian Lavery]

It is not as easy as that. I wish it was. To multitask between being a crime officer and being a fireman or woman in the fire and rescue service is difficult. To be a paramedic takes a three-year university course. It is not as simple as transferring basic skills; the individual needs to be properly skilled, with a university degree. Unlike in other parts of the blue-light services—in the NHS, for example—there are no bursaries for people to train to be paramedics; they have to pay their own way. The issue might seem simple, but it is not as simple as many people believe.

[Mr Jim Cunningham]

No matter which way the argument is put by Government Members, the fact remains that there will be rationalisation, which means saving money that will not be ploughed back into the service. As I said earlier, West Midlands police has lost about 2,500 policemen. In Kent, the private sector is being employed to do the police’s job. It is surely all leading to privatisation.

[Ian Lavery]

There is obviously a whiff of privatisation in the air in relation to all the blue-light services. The people involved in the services fear that themselves. It is not just me or my hon. Friend as Members of Parliament who are suggesting that; people working in the services are worried. That is why we have to consult with people and listen to those who are delivering the services.

[Amanda Milling]

Are we not also accountable to the public? If the public see us purchasing or procuring two things that are exactly the same, are they not going to say, “That is waste and there are savings to be made.”? We can get rid of the duplication.

[Ian Lavery]

I totally agree with that. I will come on to this, but if there is duplication in procurement, of course it would be sensible for that procurement to be done jointly. There is no argument about that.

[Kevin Foster]

Is the hon. Gentleman interested to hear that my police force in Devon and Cornwall is involved in the project in Hayle that has produced the UK’s first tri-service responder? A gentleman called Andrew Hitchens is an on-call firefighter and an ambulance service emergency first responder, and he has been trained in specific crime and disorder duties, too.

[Ian Lavery]

Well, that is interesting. That could be put on the table in the consultation with other people up and down the country who work in the services. We need consultation and discussion with those delivering services, such as the gentleman that the hon. Gentleman just mentioned.

There is a huge difference between a firefighter and a police officer. They have completely and utterly different remits. The police are law enforcers—it is as simple as that. The fire and rescue service is basically a humanitarian service. The two services have totally different remits. For example, firefighters need to be neutral in their communities and politically neutral. They cannot be seen as law enforcers or even to be connected in any way to law enforcement. In many areas, they have built up trust that the police probably do not have.

[Mike Penning]

I am listening with great interest to the hon. Gentleman, and I declare an interest as a former firefighter. The fire service is exactly as he described—part of the community—but its members have been law enforcers since day one. As a fire prevention officer, I used to do that sort of work. We would go to clubs and we would shut them down because we were protecting the public, as the police do in their way. It is wrong to say that members of the fire service are not law enforcers, because they are, they will be and they must be.

[Ian Lavery]

That is something we must disagree on. I think that the two roles have to be completely different. Firefighters are not law enforcers in the name of the law or in statute—[Hon. Members: “Yes, they are.”] I disagree. Perhaps the Minister can send me the information that shows that each firefighter in each community is, as part of their job, a law enforcer.

[Mike Penning]

The hon. Gentleman is being generous in giving way. We are good friends, so it is right that we debate this matter. As a young fire officer, I used to do FPO inspections in clubs. If that club did not adhere to the recommendations made, in statute that club could be closed and sometimes it was closed. That was the fire authority; it was nothing to do with the police or anybody else.

[Ian Lavery]

I understand the instances to which the Minister refers. In my constituency, fire authorities have checked alarms and different things in buildings, and I understand that, but what I am describing now is the different in terms of law enforcement. As the hon. Member for Cannock Chase said, we will not have fire and rescue service officers detecting crime and clipping young people around the head or doing things of that nature. It will be completely different. I understand that there is a duty and obligation on the fire and rescue services in relation to alarms and things of that nature, and they do an absolutely fantastic job; they have built up a great reputation. The Minister was a member of the fire and rescue service many years ago. I am sure that he was up to the task then and that he will support the issues we are raising today. When he was in the service, I am sure he had the utmost respect of his community, because that is what happens with the fire and rescue service.

There are alternatives that will not compromise the trust in and integrity of the fire and rescue service, and they are what we need to look at. The hon. Member for Cannock Chase mentioned joint procurement, which is absolutely on the money. Why should there not be joint procurement? There is no reason not to look at sharing administrative services and, potentially, servicing roles with other public sector bodies where that is appropriate—but not necessarily between the fire and rescue service and the police service. It should be with other public sector services that share the humanitarian remit, rather than the crime remit.

That brings us on to a number of points, such as the difference in the roles and remits. As I have just explained, there is a huge difference between the fire and rescue service and the police, and that needs to be considered. The police and the fire service perform very different roles and consequently have very different command and control structures. If the proposal went ahead, that would limit the opportunities available for any joint working.

Members have mentioned the police and crime commissioners. I am sure we will have a massive disagreement about this, but there is already a lot of concern about the police and crime commissioners’ role, without giving them extra responsibility for the fire and rescue services. After all, they were elected by, on average, only 15% of the electorate. I am not even sure that the commissioners themselves want any additional responsibilities; in fact, commissioners up and down the country have emphatically said, “We don’t want any additional responsibilities. We are police and crime commissioners. What on earth have we got to do with the fire and rescue service?” Again, we have to listen to the people who are actually delivering services on our behalf.

It is obvious that, unlike many public sector organisations, including the police, the fire service lacks common guidance and a natural procurement channel. That is a wasted opportunity. We must improve the procurement channel for fire-specific products.

The hon. and learned Member for North East Hertfordshire (Sir Oliver Heald) mentioned the ambulance service. I have to be honest: the ambulance service—certainly in my area—is creaking. The North East ambulance service needs 120 recruits—the paramedics we discussed, who cannot suddenly appear because of the training and expertise they require—so I wonder whether the ambulance service should be involved in these proposals.

We have fantastic blue-light services—the four services—and every member of every one of those services deserves lots of credit. They have all suffered massive cuts. They are all working as hard as they can in the most stringent financial circumstances, and that is very difficult for them. It is easy to criticise them, but I am not sure the answer is to bring them all together and plonk them in one place, although I accept that some of the measures I have mentioned should be looked at for the common good.

The hon. Member for Cannock Chase said it was time to move to a mandatory position, rather than a voluntary one. Well, call me a dinosaur—

[Jake Berry]

Dinosaur.

[Ian Lavery]

Thanks—

[Mark Pritchard (in the Chair)]

Order. That remark was made from a sedentary position. If Members want to intervene, I encourage them to stand up.

[Ian Lavery]

I have lost my thread, Mr Pritchard. I was in full flow until I asked people to call me a dinosaur.

[Sir Oliver Heald]

One of the latest and most popular cartoons is called, I think, “The Happy Dinosaur”.

[Ian Lavery]

I have been called a dinosaur many times, but rarely have I been called a happy dinosaur, so that is a first.

In her very good speech, the hon. Lady suggested that we need to move immediately from a voluntary to a mandatory arrangement. We have a duty as Members of Parliament to listen to the people on the frontline—the police who are dealing with crime in our communities, and the fire and rescue services that are dealing with problems every day—rather than just tell them what to do.

[Mr Anderson]

I concur that my hon. Friend is a dinosaur, because he has a big heart. Is there not a pattern here? The Government just do not want to talk to ordinary people. For example, they insist on places such as the north-east having regional mayors without any consultation with local people. They insist on police and crime commissioners, even though there is no demand for them. They are now suggesting that we combine the roles of police and crime commissioners and fire commissioners, which would do away with another job done by local, elected people. Is this not really about the diminution of democracy?

[Ian Lavery]

That is a fair comment. There is a lot I could say about the failure of the democratic process nationally, regionally and locally.

[Jake Berry]

I fundamentally disagree. Actually, combining the police and crime commissioner and fire commissioner roles will give much more democratic accountability. Does the hon. Gentleman think that a fire panel made up by local authority councillors is much more accountable? Could he name everyone on the fire panel in his area? I admit that I cannot do that for my area. If MPs cannot do that, how are constituents meant to?

[Ian Lavery]

That is a fair point. The Northumberland fire and rescue service is completely different from the services in the rest of the country. I can tell the hon. Gentleman the names of the people elected to run the service on behalf of Northumberland County Council because I have met them on numerous occasions, but I understand his point about whether constituents know who is on the fire panels.

To conclude, this is a serious issue. I understand the points that have been raised by almost everyone here. There are a lot of things that need to be discussed, and I urge the Government not to move forward with any plans without holding proper consultations with the people who deliver these services. It is important that we represent those people and, of course, the people in our communities who rely on these services in the most difficult times.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

Oral Answers to Questions

Ian Lavery Excerpts

Tuesday 3rd November 2015 Commons Chamber

[Michael Gove]

As I acknowledged earlier, the criminal courts charge is a cause of concern across the House, but it is also important that we maintain a balance between the funding of our courts coming from the taxpayer and that coming from those who use our courts. My hon. Friend makes a valuable submission on which I shall reflect.

[Ian Lavery (Wansbeck) (Lab)]

HMP Northumberland, like many other prisons, is awash with the legal high, spice. It is creating a really dangerous environment for prison officers and offenders alike. What action is the Minister taking to tackle that very dangerous situation?

[The Minister for Policing, Crime and Criminal Justice (Mike Penning)]

As the House is aware, we have just come out of the Committee stage on the new psychoactive substances Bill. I amended the provisions in Committee with the support of Her Majesty’s Opposition and the Scottish National party to make it a criminal offence to have spice, or any other NPS, in prison. That was at the request of the governors and the officers’ union.

HMP Northumberland

Ian Lavery Excerpts

Wednesday 14th October 2015 Westminster Hall

[Mrs Anne-Marie Trevelyan (Berwick-upon-Tweed) (Con)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered safety at HMP Northumberland.

I am grateful to have the opportunity to bring to this place my constituents’ concerns about the safety of those involved in activities at HMP Northumberland. As the newly elected MP for Berwick-upon-Tweed and a long-time campaigner in the county, I have met and talked to employees at HMP Northumberland for more than 10 years. I have also met many individuals who form the voluntary groups that work in the prison providing literacy skills, addiction support, chaplaincy services and support for life after prison in its multitude of areas. I declare a personal interest as a trustee of the Oswin project, a charity that supports HMP Northumberland prisoners, creating second chances for them through training, support and employment as they become ex-offenders, in order to break the cycle of reoffending.

The prison has been under constant change pressures for the past four years, first from a merger in 2010 of HMP Acklington, a category C men’s prison, and HMP Castington, a category B young offenders institution, into one adult male prison on two sites that were physically merged into one unit in 2013. This has created one of the largest prison estates in the country: a site of some 800 acres with a perimeter fence of more than four and a half miles.

In December 2013, the newly formed prison was put into the private management of Sodexo Justice Services. Management changes have only now settled this year following a turbulent 2014 in which some 200 staff of nearly 600 were invited to take voluntary redundancy between February and April. During this time there was no change in the prison population; the prison continued to be 99% full.

[Ian Lavery (Wansbeck) (Lab)]

I congratulate the hon. Lady on bringing this really important issue to the House. As she said, once Sodexo took over and the privatisation of the prison, there was a massive decrease in staff while the prison population continued to increase. That surely says something about the privatisation of HMP Northumberland. As a result, there have been some horrendous occurrences and serious incidents at the prison. Does she agree?

[Mrs Trevelyan]

As I will discuss later, I am informed that the present staffing levels are what the National Offender Management Service would expect for the number of prisoners in the prison estate—or slightly more, owing to the new intake into the younger end of the officer grouping. Realistically, being in private hands or public sector ownership would have made no difference to the numbers, but there is a challenge for HMP Northumberland and I will set out why.

As I said, the prison has continued to be 99% full. It has a mixed population of some 880 main prisoners and 450 vulnerable prisoners—quite a complex mix. As a result of my many links with the prison, I have been privy to many conversations with staff about their concerns over safety issues. It is perhaps unsurprising that, following the loss of one third of the staff in the space of a few months in 2014, there would be immediate pressures on all those working and living on the prison estate. That certainly seemed to be the case last year.

Newspaper reports talked of the prison as a “powder keg” and as “failing miserably”. In my view, the use of social media to inflame the situation and spread discontent was real, and some in the Prison Officers Association have referred to the concerted media attacks as “Operation Certain Death”, which time has—thankfully—proved to be misplaced in large measure.

The new director, in post since early 2015, has brought stability and clear focus to the challenges of getting HMP Northumberland back on its feet in practical ways. Although the media storm has passed, continued anxieties reach me from those still working or volunteering on the prison estate. There seem to be good relations between management and the Prison Officers Association, which is most encouraging, and all the staff have a strong and committed work ethos.

However, according to the Howard League for Penal Reform, there has been a cut of more than 50% in prison officer grade staff over the period from 2010 to 2015. These reducing levels of experience among prison officers means that the difficult situations that the mix of main and vulnerable prisoners brings is quite challenging to deal with. Again according to statistics from the Howard League, there were three deaths in 2013, five in 2014 and four to date this year. Younger officers tell me that these deaths and the more frequent suicide attempts from vulnerable prisoners is traumatic for the staff who have to deal with such situations.

The Howard League states that there was a 50% increase in prisoner on prisoner assaults between 2013 and 2014, perhaps due in part to the destabilisation caused by the huge and sudden staffing cut creating the opportunities that some prisoners took to cause mischief. Staff tell me privately that there were noticeably increased levels of bullying among fellow inmates, leading to increased suicide attempts: a situation not only appalling for the prisoner, but really hard for the prison officers to have to deal with on a personal level. I have been hugely impressed by the caring attitude towards inmates that our prison officers show as well as their deep understanding of the local communities that they come from and of the problems resulting from chaotic and complex family lives.

There has been a history of drug use in our local prison for many years. Given the four-mile boundary fence, a half-decent cricketing arm can easily get a tennis ball or other object over the fencing to be collected by prisoners at an appropriate moment. Until the privatisation process, the prison used drugs dogs to scan visitors as they came into the visitor centre. I spent the day with this team a couple of years ago and it was an eye-opening experience. The dog handlers asked me to hide vials of a variety of drugs in my clothes and asked the dogs to indicate where they were in turn. It was an extraordinary thing to watch and they had a 100% success rate. An extraordinary relationship with and training of those dogs was a really vital tool in identifying and stopping the entry of drugs into the prison from visitors, as well as locating drugs falling over the perimeter fence through regular walking tours.

--- Later in debate ---

[Ian Lavery]

I am sure the hon. Lady, like me, would heap praise on the Prison Officers Association and the people and the staff in the prison who do a marvellous job under the circumstances, but there is a huge problem not only with illegal drugs being thrown over the fence, but with legal highs, which seem to be running amok through the prison system, particularly at HMP Northumberland. They cause huge problems.

[Mrs Trevelyan]

The hon. Gentleman anticipates the next part of my speech.

Sodexo has recently invested in ion scanners, which have a good track record for identifying cocaine and some amphetamines, but they are considered less accurate at picking up heroin and legal highs. I am concerned that the continuing supplies of legal highs, most especially Spice, which are making it through to prisoners, despite regular hauls of drugs—through stuffed toys, inside mobile phones and the like—means that usage is prevalent throughout the prison, putting other prisoners and officer safety at risk.

The reality is that there is a violent culture between prisoners that is heavily exacerbated by the drugs trade. A prisoner who “buys” Spice from a fellow inmate will have strict instructions from his dealer to get his girlfriend or his mum to make payment outside the prison walls to a colleague of the drug pushers. Failure to make payments ensures that a drug-addicted prisoner’s life will be made a misery and his family will be put under pressure or assaulted.

The latest HM Chief Inspector of Prisons report indicates that in prisoner surveys, more prisoners than the comparator said it was easy to get illicit drugs and alcohol in the prison. The average positive random mandatory drug testing rate for the six months to July 2014 was 11.7%, higher than the national average of 8.9%. Illicit drugs such as Spice and illicitly brewed alcohol have been identified as problems. The inspector also praised the prison staff for the drug strategy, which firmly integrates drug reduction as a key target.

I understand that suspicion drug testing has been restarted following a break due to a lack of staff last year, but I am not certain that all requested tests are completed in a timely fashion. The inspector of prisons has recommended that mandatory drug testing should be appropriately staffed to ensure tests are completed within prescribed time scales, and I would be grateful for assurances from the Minister that he is now certain that this key recommendation is being fully implemented.

I ask the Minister to investigate whether the levels of drugs seized compared with the levels of continuing drug abuse are at an acceptable ratio. Will he consider bringing back drugs dogs to increase the chances of catching those poisons before they can get to prisoners? I am keen to hear from the Minister how the Department assesses whether any prison is managing its drugs problems in individual prisons across the country’s full estate of 136 prisons, and whether there is any best practice guidance or mandatory levels that the Minister expects his prison governors to achieve in reducing the quantity of toxic substances reaching our prisoners.

On my most recent visit to HMP Northumberland, prison officers showed me the new portable body cameras that they are trialling—it is one of 30 prisons to do so. There was a really positive vibe from the officers about their effectiveness in reducing antisocial behaviour among the inmates; the threat of being recorded seemed to remind them that poor or threatening behaviour is just not acceptable. Body cameras have been used by the police for some time now, and a recently published study found that equipping them with body cameras reduced their use of force by around 50%, while complaints against them by the public dropped by almost 90%.

Those startling figures were revealed by a research study conducted by the University of Cambridge, based on a 12-month trial conducted among police officers in Rialto, California. The dramatic results have led to calls from police chiefs throughout the country who are keen to equip their officers with cameras, especially in the light of increased tensions between police and local communities. The year-long study, which began in 2012, had its findings published in the Journal of Quantitative Criminology in November and answered the hotly debated topic of whether cameras can reduce both police force and the number of complaints filed.

I urge the Minister to look closely at the data from the prisons that are currently testing body cameras, and I encourage continued and extended use of the technology if the results are anything like as good as those for the police. I was pleased to hear from prison officers that Sodexo has purchased the cameras that are currently in use at HMP Northumberland. It absolutely wants to be able to continue to use them for the foreseeable future. What is the Minister’s assessment of the trial of body cameras to date? When does he intend to determine whether their use should be made permanent?

Although it is an excellent decision for the health of prisoners and officers alike, the impending ban on smoking in prisons is going to bring some serious problems to HMP Northumberland, and no doubt to every other prison. Most legal highs are taken by being smoked, so prisoners will stop getting not only their nicotine fix but other drug fixes. I am deeply concerned about the short-term risks to officers’ safety as inmates suffer from no doubt very real withdrawal symptoms, about the new culture of smuggled smoking paraphernalia, and about the health and potential fire risks. The cigarette, the box of matches, the lighter, the bag of loose tobacco and Rizlas will no doubt threaten to become new prison currency for prison officers to manage.

The Prison Governors Association has cautiously welcomed the move to ban smoking from 2016, but has called for the ban to be implemented in a safe and staged way, because 80% of prisoners smoke. Even as the ban on smoking in cells is due to come into force before the end of this year, it is of grave concern to all those who will have to manage these changes, knowing the behavioural impact it will certainly have. I have watched family members give up smoking, and even with all the support around them it has never been easy—sometimes it was deeply unpleasant for the rest of us—so how much harder will it be for those incarcerated, for whom a tab is a comfort and boredom-filler through the long days inside? I would appreciate assurances from the Minister, along with details of the tangible policy plans that are being set in place to manage the transition to a smoke-free prison estate.

Last, but definitely not least, are my concerns for the safety, both real and perceived, of visitors to the prison, be they chaplains, readers, educationalists, or support workers for those preparing to seek work when they leave HMP Northumberland. Over the past 18 months, I have received repeated calls and emails from individuals concerned about the level of officer cover during their visits.

For example, where two officers used to be present during chapel services, there is now only one. Historically, if a prisoner started to misbehave, he would have been removed, leaving other participants to continue their faith practice peacefully. With only one officer on duty that is no longer possible, so the calm and contemplative time supposedly provided by such services is broken and continues to be disrupted. As a result, fewer prisoners now come to chapel services and have less contact time with faith leaders, who have a vital role to play in supporting their spiritual and personal wellbeing.

My concern for the safety of volunteers is a challenging issue to solve, since the director of HMP Northumberland informs me that the current number of prison staff meets—indeed, slightly exceeds—the standard NOMS ratios for prisoners in the estate. Because of the geographical size and layout of the prison—a large RAF base in a former incarnation—the need for officers to manage the movements of prisoners and to monitor them means that there just are not the numbers to provide the level of cover to get prisoners to voluntary activities like faith services or to provide support at a practical level in chaplaincy activities and other provisions.

The huge reduction in staff numbers last year has also led to a decision to provide Manchester college’s education and training programme over four days rather than five. Although prisoners are still able to access the same number of hours per week, it is done over four days, leaving Friday, Saturday and Sunday without constructive activity to focus on. I can only imagine that three long days at a stretch with little to do is less than conducive to best behaviour, and the Sunday outing to chapel might easily seem like an opportunity to release frustration—an opportunity that was previously less abused. Given that HMP Northumberland is now supposed to have a working prison ethos, does the Minister believe that it is doing enough? Can it possibly meet the aim of five days’ full working and training opportunities with staff numbers that are so physically stretched by the nature of the geography and layout of the prison?

HMP Northumberland has some unique challenges to address. Although I am impressed by the steps now being taken, after four turbulent years, to move forward and find new training and work opportunities for the prisoners, will the Minister come and see for himself how difficult that will be to achieve in practice without continued investment in manpower and training for better safety and a sense of security for all those who work and volunteer there? I am grateful to have had the opportunity to raise this issue, which is of concern to many of my constituents. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response, with the hope that some of my concerns might be unfounded or resolvable.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Andrew Selous)]

As always, it is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Betts. I warmly congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mrs Trevelyan) on securing what I think is her first Westminster Hall debate. If I may say so, she gave a very polished performance, finishing exactly halfway through the time allotted for the debate. I will do my best to address all the points she raised. She spoke about the volunteers who visit the prison, and I gather that she is involved in helping at the prison herself. I thank and commend her not only for being a visitor but for doing something practical to support the prison.

My hon. Friend is absolutely right that safety is central to everything we are seeking to achieve in prisons. I welcome this debate as an opportunity to highlight the activity that is underway at HMP Northumberland to maintain safety and decency and to tackle violence. I am aware that my hon. Friend recently visited the prison—as she has over many years—and met the director and staff. Sodexo has been running prisons for many years and has responsibility for three other prisons in England: Bronzefield, Peterborough and Forest Bank. HMP Northumberland is a category C training prison. It is a very large site holding more than 1,300 adult male prisoners and, she said, it also holds a number of often vulnerable prisoners, mainly those with a history of sex offending.

[Ian Lavery]

I have met the Minister on numerous occasions and those meetings have always been positive. Is he aware that, because of the lack of staff, there is integration of the seriously vulnerable prisoners among the ordinary prisoners? That is causing great concern for safety—mainly for the sex offenders. One thing that has been reported to me on numerous occasions that is absolutely unacceptable is that the food given to some of these vulnerable prisoners has often contained human faeces.

[Andrew Selous]

I am really appalled to learn of that. The hon. Gentleman has raised some detailed points; if he will allow me, I will get back to him. In response to the request by my hon. Friend the Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed that I visit the prison, I would be delighted to do so. That would give me the opportunity to look further into the specific concerns raised, quite properly, by the hon. Gentleman.

The transition from a public sector prison to a private provider is complex and should not be underestimated. A transfer from a public to a private prison has happened only once before, with HMP Birmingham. Such change is unsettling and the transition takes time. As with the experience at HMP Birmingham, the transition at HMP Northumberland presented some challenges for the new provider, which I acknowledge. That was also picked up in the report by the chief inspector of prisons published earlier in the year. The prison has taken action to address the chief inspector’s recommendations, which included completing a review of its induction unit. That has resulted in moving the induction unit to a larger location in the prison, with improved capacity and improved classroom facilities. The National Offender Management Service and Sodexo have worked closely in partnership, particularly during the transition period.

I am aware that concerns have been raised about the numbers of staff at the prison. The merging of two prisons led to a duplication in some services, such as catering and facilities management. Since Sodexo became responsible for the prison, it has implemented new structures and new ways of working that have resulted in fewer staff being necessary to operate the prison. In total, 210 staff left the prison on voluntary exit terms and there were no compulsory redundancies.

In order to provide assurance, bidders were required during the competition to submit a detailed response, which was assessed by a team of assessors made up of operationally experienced governors. Sodexo had to show that it had built its staff profiles and to demonstrate the expertise of the team that designed them and the governance process that assured the design. It had to show that it had taken into consideration environmental and other factors and operational resilience.

Sodexo subsequently reviewed its staffing levels at the prison and decided that a further 16 permanent staff were needed, and I am pleased to say that it has now filled all those vacancies. As my hon. Friend said, the current staffing levels are considered to be sufficient to run a safe, decent and secure prison, and they are kept under review. Sodexo informed us that a total of 402 full-time equivalent staff are employed at HMP Northumberland, of whom 372 worked at the prison before the transition, so their valuable experience has been retained. The majority of the existing senior managers have a wealth of custodial management experience within public sector prisons, and the new director who joined the prison earlier this year, of whom my hon. Friend spoke highly, has extensive custodial management experience, including in the public sector.

HMP Northumberland continues to take staffing issues seriously. It is undertaking a consultation programme with staff to identify and address any further issues that transpire as a result of the transition to Sodexo. HMP Northumberland is addressing the transition issues positively, and I am grateful for the leadership, resilience and professionalism that staff have shown in maintaining delivery at HMP Northumberland under these changing circumstances.

My hon. Friend raised concerns about safety. I cannot emphasise strongly enough how importantly the Government take the issue of safety for all prisoners and staff. Violence in prisons is wholly unacceptable and we treat any assault extremely seriously. Any prisoner who commits an act of violence can expect action to be taken against them, which may include a loss of privileges or sanctions under the prison disciplinary procedures. Where appropriate, they may face criminal charges and prosecution.

We are under no illusions about the scale of the issue. Assaults in prisons increased from 14,664 in 2013 to 16,196 in 2014. Some of that increase is due to an improvement in the reporting of assault incidents following changes in data assurance processes, but those reporting improvements do not account for all of the increase. Serious assaults, including those on staff, rather than other prisoners, have risen even more. They have increased by 35%, from 1,588 assaults in 2013 to 2,145 in 2014. The increase in serious assaults is completely unacceptable. We are, however, holding a more violent prisoner population: the number of people sentenced to prison for violent offences has increased by 30% in the past 10 years.

In addition, the illicit use of new psychoactive substances, or NPS, has been a significant factor. I refer to them as “lethal highs”, and I encourage my hon. Friend and the hon. Member for Wansbeck to use that term. Getting the language right helps us in this incredibly important battle. There is strong evidence that the increase in the illicit trade and misuse of synthetic drugs or new psychoactive substances is linked to the recent increase in violence across the prison estate. HMP Northumberland is also experiencing the effects of such substances, as my hon. Friend said. It has increased its levels of target searching and enhanced its security procedures for visitors to help to address this issue. To answer my hon. Friend’s specific point, we will introduce mandatory drug testing for NPS for all prisons when new contracts are agreed early next year. In the interim, we will shortly trial NPS testing as part of mandatory drug testing in some prisons. NPS are also an increasingly prominent problem in the community at large, and hon. Members will be aware of the Government’s new legislation to control such substances.

During the transition period, HMP Northumberland retained its own drug dogs. All drug dogs at HMP Northumberland are accessed through the north-east drug dog scheme. Drug dogs will be provided to the prison in response to its individual needs. I can tell my hon. Friend that dogs have now been trained to detect new psychoactive substances. A meeting was held this month between the prison and the drug dog unit to agree the way forward and ensure that adequate drug dogs are available to the prison.

We have taken the decision to ban smoking in closed prisons. Let me assure my hon. Friend that banning smoking will be done in a way that ensures operational stability. We will draw on the lessons we can learn from elsewhere, including Canada and New Zealand, where smoking bans have been successfully introduced. The ban should also be a gain in tackling NPS misuse, and as the roll-out of the smoking ban proceeds we should see reduced NPS misuse.

Violence reduction remains a key priority for HMP Northumberland and activity to address that issue is reviewed on a regular basis. Sodexo has already made improvements, including installing CCTV in part of the prison. It has also introduced more structured interventions towards the perpetrators of violence. The National Offender Management Service has a programme of activity in train across both public sector and private prisons to tackle violence in prisons. Action taken includes issuing new guidance to governors to support the development of their local violence reduction strategy. There is currently a pilot of body-worn cameras across 24 establishments, including HMP Northumberland. We are building on the existing evidence of significant benefits in prisons that already have experience of using them. The evaluation report for that scheme will be available in March. When I have been to prisons recently and seen them, I have been extremely impressed. Staff and prisoners told me that they feel safer as a result of their use, but we must obviously wait for the full evaluation.

There were two new offences in the Serious Crime Act 2015: being in possession of a knife or other offensive weapon within a prison without authorisation, and throwing items over a prison wall without authorisation. The first of those offences is already in place and is actively being used, and the offence of throwing items over prison walls will be introduced shortly. It is aimed at the criminal gangs that are throwing packages containing illicit drugs into prisons. It will attract up to two years in prison on conviction. Both offences are intended to send a clear message to offenders that we are not prepared to tolerate that type of criminal behaviour in and around our prisons.

A joint national protocol conducted by NOMS, the Crown Prosecution Service and the police was published in February with the purpose of ensuring a nationally consistent approach to the referral and prosecution of crimes in prison. The protocol sets out a requirement for prisons to submit a prison community impact assessment, with each case referred to the police, which will explain the impact the offence has had on the establishment and will ensure that it is properly understood and taken into account in the determination of referred cases.

Deaths in prison custody have risen over time. With the overall ageing of the population, there is an increasing number of elderly prisoners. Of the four deaths in the past year that my hon. Friend referred to, three were from natural causes and one was self-inflicted. Of course, that is one too many. In every case, the prison has worked on the recommendations made by the prisons and probation ombudsman on the deaths, and action been taken. For example, the prison has reinvigorated its local personal officer policy to provide clarity for staff on their role in supporting individual prisoners who are at risk.

NOMS is also taking forward a programme of work to address the rise in self-inflicted deaths. A review of compliance and delivery of the assessment, care in custody and teamwork process has taken place and is due for completion shortly. Multi-agency work is being undertaken on the person escort record, which accompanies individuals transferred between police stations, courts and prisons.

We have heard some criticisms of the prison today. I can tell my hon. Friend that the hours out of cell are 10 hours on Monday to Thursday, with eight hours on Friday and seven and a half hours at the weekend. That is an average of nine hours during the week.

There have been some significant successes. For example, the prison has almost doubled the number of prisoner work hours since Sodexo took over. We should be grateful for that achievement. As my hon. Friend rightly said, productive work is important in ensuring that we have a safe and secure prison. The prison has achieved Red Tractor accreditation for its horticultural food produce and it undertakes various charitable works for the local Northumberland community. It runs a bicycle repair workshop on behalf of the Margaret Carey Foundation and refurbishes bicycles for use in developing countries, so some positive things have happened since Sodexo took over.

I absolutely accept the points that my hon. Friend raised, which we take seriously. I look forward to visiting the prison, hopefully with her, at some point in the not too distant future.

Question put and agreed to.

Oral Answers to Questions

Ian Lavery Excerpts

Tuesday 23rd June 2015 Commons Chamber

[Andrew Selous]

As my hon. Friend may know, when soldiers leave the Regular Army, we encourage some of them to join the Army reserves, and I suppose that this concept is similar to that. The prison officer reserve has about 100 members, which gives us flexibility. I cannot update my hon. Friend any further on what I have said in the past, but this is the right thing to do.

[Ian Lavery (Wansbeck) (Lab)]

Does the Minister share my deep concern about the fact that some of the prison officers who are currently being recruited have not even undergone a simple Criminal Records Bureau check?

[Andrew Selous]

I am very surprised to hear that. We take prison officer training extremely seriously, but I shall look into what the hon. Gentleman has just told me as a matter of urgency. We are increasing the amount of time that prison officers spend being trained, and we continually improve the training we give them.

Safety in Prisons

Ian Lavery Excerpts

Wednesday 17th June 2015 Westminster Hall

[Ian Lavery (Wansbeck) (Lab)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for York Central (Rachael Maskell) on her excellent contribution on this extremely important issue. The Prison Service and the probation service, which has been mentioned by different speakers, are in total and utter chaos. We should not be surprised. I will give a number of examples from HMP Northumberland, which is not in my constituency but is in the lovely county in which I live.

It should not be a surprise that we have this crisis in prisons when we look at how we have sold off the Prison Service to private companies such as Sodexo, which is, after all, a French catering company running prisons in places such as Northumberland. The fact that that type of organisation is running prisons does not inspire any confidence among the public. When Sodexo took over HMP Northumberland, it immediately made one third of the staff redundant. What happened? The prison was in chaos. As my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) said, the prison then had to get a bank of people it had just made redundant to make themselves available, and that is still the case. There have been horrific situations at HMP Northumberland. Whose safety are we looking at? Not just that of the staff. I want to put on the record what a fantastic job prison officers do under tremendous pressure. The level of stress-related illness among prison officers is beyond all imagination, as my hon. Friend the Member for York Central described.

Look at what has happened because of staff reductions. Throughout the country, a third of the staff has been made redundant. In some prisons, the staff has been reduced by 50%. Are we surprised that there are problems in prisons? Are we surprised that there has been an increase in assaults on prisoners of around 10%? Are we surprised that there has been an increase in assaults on staff of 11%? Are we surprised that serious assaults on prisoners are up 35% and serious assaults on staff are up 33%? Of course we should not be surprised when there is no one managing prisons as they should be managed. I mentioned that there are a lot of people on bank working, if and when they are needed; we have lost a lot of experience in the Prison Service as well.

On 27 January, Her Majesty’s chief inspector of prisons, Nick Hardwick, gave a damning report on HMP Northumberland, saying that

“not all prisoners received a thorough initial risk assessment or induction… prisoners said they felt less safe at Northumberland than at comparable prisons… recorded assaults were high and work to confront bullying and violence lacked rigour… there had been three self-inflicted deaths since 2012”—

the list goes on and on. I understand from the way that you are looking at me, Mr Bone, that others want to speak, but that list shows clearly what is going wrong and why there is a crisis in Her Majesty’s prisons.

My hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington mentioned Sodexo, the French catering company that runs HMP Northumberland. Members of the Prison Officers Association have come to see me to explain what is happening in the prison. If anyone here likes “Porridge”—it is one of my favourites—let me tell them that I have been told that the prison is run on the basis of that fantastic comedy, and that is frightening. Sex offenders who have been put in open wings and had their lives threatened have come to see me, as have prisoners across the board and lecturers and civil servants working there who are afraid. That situation is absolutely unacceptable.

My good colleagues have mentioned lots of figures and I would love to mention lots more. How can those in prison have mobile phones? How can they readily get alcohol? How can they get drugs, when they want them, more easily than they can purchase soap and toothpaste? That is totally unacceptable; that should not be the case.

On reoffending, there has been privatisation of the probation service, which is in utter chaos, to say the very least. In Northumberland, Sodexo runs the probation service and the prison, so for Sodexo it does not really matter if people are rehabilitated in prison, or if it fails to rehabilitate them under the probation service, because there is a merry-go-round of finance, and that company can make a fortune from doing absolutely nothing. It can make a fortune from failure, which must be a conflict of interests. Will the Minister look at that? With increases in the prison population, in overcrowding and in violence and reoffending, it is of major importance that we get this right.

--- Later in debate ---

[Andrew Selous]

Will the hon. Gentleman let me make a little progress? I am conscious of the fact that I have only six minutes left.

I pay tribute to the many people who work tirelessly in our prisons. Prison officers, probation staff and staff from the health, education, vocational skills and voluntary sectors work day in, day out to improve the lives of people in custody. Each time we successfully prevent an offender from reoffending, we also reduce the number of victims and make our communities safer. That is difficult work that goes largely unseen, and too often it is unrecognised in our public discourse, but it is vital and is making a difference.

The challenges of maintaining safety in prisons are, and always have been, significant. We are working with a challenging and complex population in excess of 85,000 prisoners, and there is a high prevalence of mental health problems. Many prisoners have had negative life events that increase the likelihood of their harming themselves or taking their own lives.

We are also holding—this is important—a more violent prisoner population. The number of people sentenced to prison for violent offences has increased by 40% in the last 10 years. In addition, the illicit use of new psychoactive substances—lethal highs such as Spice and Black Mamba—has been a significant factor in fuelling violence in prisons. Last year alone, staff responded to nearly 26,000 self-harm incidents, and they frequently prevent deaths through timely intervention.

On any given day, staff support more than 2,000 prisoners assessed as being at risk, looking after them under the assessment, care in custody and teamwork process. It is to their credit that, through their dedication and commitment, they continue to improve outcomes for offenders and to prevent many self-inflicted deaths and incidents of self-harm.

Staff and prisoners should no more face violence than should any other person in society. Violence in prisons is wholly unacceptable. We treat any assault extremely seriously. Any prisoner who commits an act of violence can expect to have action taken against them, which may include the loss of privileges, sanctions under the prison disciplinary procedures and, where appropriate, criminal charges and prosecution.

To that end—this venture was introduced by the previous Government—a joint national protocol between NOMS, the Crown Prosecution Service and the National Police Chiefs Council was published in February to ensure that the referral and prosecution of crimes in prison is dealt with consistently. The protocol sets out the requirement for prisons to submit a prison community impact assessment with each case referred to the police. The assessment will explain the impact an offence has on an establishment and ensure that that is properly understood and taken into account in the cases concerned.

In 2014, due to an unexpected increase in staff turnover and in the prison population, there were delays in bringing staff numbers up to the level required. However, we have exceeded our target of recruiting 1,700 new-entry prison officers by March 2015, and we are continuing to recruit officers and operational support grades across the country. We will focus our efforts particularly on London and the south-east, where there is further need.

Violence is an issue I take extremely seriously, and there have been increases, which have been referred to. NOMS has established a violence reduction project. There is a pilot involving body-worn video cameras across 24 establishments, and I am taking a keen interest in its development.

Two new offences have been introduced through the Serious Crime Act 2015: being in possession of a knife or other offensive weapon in a prison, and throwing items—anything dangerous, such as Spice, or mobile phones—over a prison wall. Both those offences will attract prison sentences. Action is also being taken on new psychoactive substances. In particular, we need a test for them, and we are working hard to bring one about.

I reassure Members that safety is fundamental to rehabilitative work, which is one reason I care so much about it. Without safety, we cannot do the education and the other work.

[Ian Lavery]

Will the Minister give way?

[Andrew Selous]

I need to give the floor to the hon. Member for York Central, who introduced the debate.

The Shrewsbury 24

Ian Lavery Excerpts

Tuesday 24th March 2015 Westminster Hall

[Mr David Anderson (Blaydon) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to speak under your chairmanship, Mr Caton.

I do not intend to rehearse the issues raised during a debate on 23 January 2014, because I think that all hon. Members in this Chamber attended it. However, I shall say that the will of Parliament is being defied by this Government. The will of Parliament on 23 January 2014, by 120 votes to three, was that documents should be released so that people who were locked up in 1973 could have the chance to clear their name.

We were advised and supported by the Minister, who said he would try to help us take this matter forward. He met us in the Lobby after the debate, and he then met us—me, along with Ricky Tomlinson, who was one of those locked up in 1973, and Eileen Turnbull, who works for the campaign—in July last year. We told him then that there were far more documents than he related in his response to the debate—four redacted letters, currently being withheld. We said there were a lot more than that; and, to give credit where it is due, the Minister went away and released an Excel spreadsheet of 2,282 file references being held by the Government.

Out of those 2,000-plus, the campaign team, led by Eileen Turnbull, selected 51 that she believed could have a direct connection to the trials. When she inquired whether those files could be released from the National Archives, she was told that she would have to apply to each respective Department where the files were being held. She has applied for six files from two Departments by way of freedom of information requests. She has been told in no uncertain terms that “None of the above” will be available for public scrutiny. They are being withheld under section 23 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000. On asking for a review of those decisions in February this year, she was told on 20 and 24 February that the response to the application for a review was not to release the documents. Therefore, with great respect to the Minister, the words he gave us had no bearing. We have moved nowhere.

Those of us who are involved in this issue are clear that we would like to see a number of files. I will list just six, but that is out of a great big bunch that we could go into. First, we would like access to the relevant un-redacted Cabinet documents and internal police, intelligence and Security Service records for the period from the start of the national strike in May 1972 to the subsequent convictions in March 1974, together with any such files relating to the Shrewsbury pickets beyond those dates. Secondly, we would like access to documents that deal with communications between Departments and the National Federation of Building Trades Employers, particularly those involving Sir Robert McAlpine.

Thirdly, we would like access to any documents that deal with the decision to set up a police investigation squad in north Wales led by the chief constable of Gwynedd and the chief constable of West Mercia after the strike in 1972 to collect statements that led to the prosecution of the 24 Shrewsbury pickets. Fourthly, we ask for a copy of the joint report of the chief constable of Gwynedd and the chief constable of West Mercia in 1972-73, which included a statement that, in their view, any violence by pickets was sporadic and episodic and that they did not have the evidence to bring conspiracy charges against the pickets, although those were ultimately levied against them in court.

Fifthly, we would like records of communications between any combination of the following: the Home Secretary and the Home Office, the Attorney-General, the Director of Public Prosecutions, Treasury counsel, the chief constables of West Mercia and Gwynedd and Sir Maurice Drake, QC, who was acting for the prosecution in 1972-73. Finally, we would like all documents relating to the decision of the Lord Chancellor to make the practice direction ending the right of the defence to know the occupation of jurors, something that was overturned just before the case. We would also like a copy of said direction. That document, which should be in the public domain, is still unobtainable through the usual sources. That is a short list of some of the things that have been hidden from public view by this Government and by previous Governments.

What we are talking about in this debate is justice, integrity and honour, but we are also talking about real people’s lives—the 24 men who were convicted in 1973: John Carpenter, John McKinsie Jones, John Elfyn Llywarch, Kenneth Desmond Francis O’Shea, Eric Tomlinson, Dennis Michael Warren, William Michael Pierce, John Malcolm Clee, John Gary Davies, Derrick Hughes, Samuel Roy Warburton, Thomas Brian Williams, Alfred James, Dennis Morris, George Arthur Murray, Patrick Kevin Butcher, William Charles Leslie Hooson, Terence Renshaw, Graham Roberts, John Kenneth Seaburg, Peter Alfred Sear, Bryn Thomas, Edward Leonard Williams and Thomas Bernard Williams.

Those 24 men have never had their names cleared. Sadly, four of them—John Carpenter, Des Warren, Alfred James and John Kenneth Seaburg—will never know if their names will be cleared, because they are now dead. Their families are still living with the burden that their husbands, fathers and brothers have gone to their graves as convicted criminals. The youngest of the men still surviving is almost 70 and the oldest is 90. It is 42 years since they were convicted and this Government are holding on to records, transcripts and paperwork that could clear their names. It simply is not right in this day and age. We are constantly told by our Prime Minister that we should let the sunshine in and have transparency. That is all we have asked for in these debates, and it is the one thing we have never had.

With your latitude, Mr Caton, I want to quote from the transcript of the court case. I will quote from the summing up of the case, first from Ricky Tomlinson and then from Des Warren. Everyone knows who Ricky Tomlinson is—he is a national treasure and an icon—but he still clearly regards himself first and foremost as a City and Guilds plasterer who was doing a job trying to protect himself and the men he worked with from working in some of the worst and most arduous conditions in the world. While he was waiting to be sentenced, this is what he said to the judge—the judge did not want to hear it, and I am not surprised. These are just some snippets. He said:

“It was said by Goebbels in the last war that if you repeat a lie often enough it eventually becomes accepted as the truth. This I have observed being put into practice here in this court…I can sympathise with members of the jury because they have been used in this charade in just the same way as myself and my colleagues. We must remember that British justice must not only be done but must be seen to be done…No sentence passed on me by this court, however lenient or however severe, can hurt me more than I have already been hurt. I have been almost continuously unemployed since my arrest and, of course, this punishes my wife and two infant sons to a far greater extent that it does me. During the length and course of this trial my family have been abused by the very people whose duty it is to assist them…The sentence passed on me by this court will not matter. My innocence has been proved time and again by the building workers of Wrexham whom I represent, and also by the building workers from all over the land who have sent particular messages of support to myself and my family and my colleagues…I know my children when they are old enough, will understand that the struggle we took part in was for their benefit and for the benefit and interest of building workers and their families.”

That is true; sadly, they know that their father is still effectively a convicted criminal. He then went on to say these words, which are why we are here today:

“I look forward to the day when the real culprits of these crimes, the McAlpines, the Wimpey’s, the Laings and the Bovis’s, and all their political bodies, are in the dock facing charges of conspiracy to intimidate workers from doing what is their lawful right, picketing.”

He also spoke about the fact that those companies were running building sites in this country where one builder a day was dying. The companies were abusing health and safety legislation, which was there to protect the men and boys working on the sites.

I now move on to the speech made by Des Warren. He was the first to admit that he was a political activist. He was one of the “reds under the bed” that people were terrified of in the 1970s. He never hid away from that, but he was also a proud working man. This is what he had to say:

“I have spent a week in jail, and people in there and various other people, not including my counsel, have told me that it was always a mistake to make a speech from the dock, because whatever you are going to get will be doubled. I tried to explain to them that the system that operates is purely for the upper class, and I don’t expect any leniency or mercy from it, so I’ll continue anyway.

It has been said in this court that this trial had nothing do with politics. Among ten million trade unionists in this country I doubt if you would find one who would agree with that statement. It is a fact of life that Acts of Parliament have been passed and picketing and strikes are looked upon as a political act. It therefore follows that every action taken in furtherance of an industrial dispute also becomes a political act…On the other hand, employers, by their contempt of laws governing safety requirements, are guilty of causing the deaths of a great many workers, and yet they are not dealt with before the courts. Mr. Bumble said: ‘The law is an ass.’ If he were here now he might draw the conclusion that the law is, quite clearly, an instrument of the state, to be used in the interests of a tiny minority against the majority. It is biased; it is class law, and nowhere has that been demonstrated more than in the prosecution case in this trial…Was there a conspiracy? Ten members of the jury have said there was. There was a conspiracy, but not by the pickets…The conspiracy was between the Home Secretary, the employers and the police. It was not done with a nod and a wink. It was conceived after pressure from Tory Members of Parliament who demanded changes in picketing laws…The working class movement cannot allow this verdict to go unchallenged. It is yet one more step along the road to fascism, and I would remind you that the greatest heroes in Nazi Germany were those who challenged the law, when it was used as a political weapon by a fanatical gang for a minority of greedy, evil men.”

This man died as a direct result of the way he was treated in prison. He was treated disgracefully. He was beaten up and given liquid medication that caused him to develop Parkinson’s. He suffered desperately. My sister nursed him in the 1980s and said it was the hardest she had ever done. This man was effectively killed by the state, even if it took 30 years for him to die.

So this is a debate about justice and honour, but it is also about the Minister; because the Minister, if he does not help us today, will again defy the will of Parliament. We all recognise his long track record inside and out of the House of being honest and being honourable—of being a seeker after truth. What we saw in the mid-1970s was a group of men who were set up and who were locked up. Ever since then there has been a cover-up, which has lasted 42 years.

[Ian Lavery (Wansbeck) (Lab)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this very timely debate. Does he agree that the only crime that these men committed was to fight for better health and safety on the building sites? During that time, 571 people had been killed in a three-year period and 221,000 people had been injured on construction sites. That, coupled with £30 for 30 hours, was what these people were fighting for. It was a miscarriage of justice of the highest order.

[Mr Anderson]

I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention. Like me, he worked in the mining industry, which saw some of the most horrific accident and death statistics going back centuries. We fought against that and turned it around in the mining industry. The people in the building industry were trying to do exactly what we did. They wanted to bring to the building sites the sort of legislation and protection that we had achieved, sometimes through industrial action, but also through coming into this place and getting legislation passed to protect people at work. That is what these men were doing. They also wanted a decent living wage, because £30 was not a lot of money in 1972. They wanted a reasonable pay rise, but they were also defending people’s lives and limbs.

--- Later in debate ---

[Simon Hughes]

I absolutely understand the hon. Gentleman’s drawing that conclusion. To be fair—trying to step back for a second—the fact that nothing has been said can be open to interpretation in either direction, but I completely understand the view that if there were nothing to hide, someone might have said that. Legalistically, however, people might rightly have said that they could make no comment.

May I be helpful in two other ways? In fact, I want to say three other things in the remaining few minutes. Four documents are central to the case, so let me put on the record what they are: a Security Service report; a letter from the director-general of the Security Service to the Cabinet Secretary, which was released but for one redacted paragraph; a minute from the Cabinet Office to No. 10 referring to the report, which was released except for a single paragraph; and a minute from No. 10 to the Cabinet Office in reply, which has been released except for a single paragraph. Those are the four documents that we are talking about—the four documents that we know about.

We also know that the bulk of the documents on the subject that are held by the Government have been released. According to the figures I have, of the 1972 records—all records, not only those concerning the builders’ strike—93.5%, or 50,917, are available to the public already; 2,932 are closed at the National Archives; and 1.1%, or 625 documents, are retained by Departments. The assiduous researcher of the hon. Member for Blaydon has addressed herself to those Departments on the hon. Gentleman’s behalf. The Departments have the responsibility to decide whether to release the documents. I do not have the power to order other Departments to release documents. If release is refused, there is a right of appeal under the Freedom of Information Act to the Information Commissioner and the Information Tribunal. I will continue to be as helpful as possible.

[Ian Lavery]

My hon. Friend the Member for Blaydon (Mr Anderson) commented that the Minister was a respected person. I have no doubt that that is the case. Will the Minister tell us what powers he has to progress the matter? He has been in his position for quite some time now and I am wondering whether he has done anything at all.

[Simon Hughes]

Within my powers as a Minister in the Ministry of Justice I have done all that I can do. I do not have the power to direct other Departments to release documents for which they have the responsibility. The process is: application to the Department, which the researcher of the hon. Member for Blaydon has made, and, if turned down, a Freedom of Information Act appeal to the commissioner and to the tribunal. My advice continues to be to fight the case, as it were, in the other Department—this is not in relation to the four documents, which are covered by the Cabinet Office secrecy blanket. To see if there is further material, other documents have to be pursued Department by Department.

[Ian Lavery]

I understand all that. The question is, what powers does the Minister have and what powers has he used since becoming a Minister to progress matters in his own Department?

[Simon Hughes]

We do not hold any of the documents in my Department. The reason why I was responding to the debate is in part that I am the Minister with responsibility for freedom of information. I have ensured that the hon. Gentleman and the hon. Member for Blaydon know exactly how to use the powers given to them by the law. I cannot take those powers away from them and I cannot tell Departments which information to release if they choose to refuse to do so, but there is a process in law that will take the hon. Gentlemen to the courts in order to have the information released.

May I share one other thing that I hope will answer hon. Members’ questions? I am keen, if possible, for the FOI requests to be accepted and for the information to be released across the Departments, as well as from the Cabinet Office. Under this year’s Cabinet Office process to decide whether to retain the documents, officials look at the material afresh and the test is whether the transfer of the records to the National Archives or any other place of deposit creates a “real risk of prejudice” to national security. That is the criterion they have to judge by. Officials have to make that decision with authority delegated from the Cabinet Office Minister.

The Lord Chancellor looked at the papers in 2012 and satisfied himself that the test was applied, but even that decision—if the hon. Member for Blaydon goes to the Cabinet Office to make the request and the papers are still not released—can be challenged by asking for that information through an FOI request, which has an appeals process, and through judicial review if appropriate. I am happy to put the resources of my Department at his disposal as a seeker after the facts, but it is the Cabinet Office, subject to the courts, that makes the call that will determine whether a document is released. I hope that there can be progress this year and that, for his sake and the sake of those whom he represents, there is therefore the release of the documents. The decision, however, is that of the Cabinet Office Minister.