Oral Answers to Questions

Ian Lavery Excerpts

Tuesday 17th March 2015 Commons Chamber

[Chris Grayling]

I hope that it will make a big difference to our staff. I pay tribute to prison staff, who do a difficult job. It is particularly difficult at the moment, with an upsurge in violence. A lot of that is due to the prevalence of so-called legal highs—new psychoactive substances—in our prisons. We have taken a number of steps to try to restrict access to those drugs, which are absolutely unacceptable in our prisons. When serious assaults previously took place, prosecutions might not have happened because those people were in jail. Now, they will, and I hope that will be a deterrent.

[Ian Lavery (Wansbeck) (Lab)]

An obvious way of enhancing safety on the prison estate is by boosting morale, so why has there been a 0% pay award to prison staff and a threatened injunction from the Secretary of State if those staff dare to consider opposing this imposition?

[Chris Grayling]

The prison unions asked me to implement the review of the recommendations of the public sector pay body—the Prison Service pay review body—and I have done so.

Oral Answers to Questions

Ian Lavery Excerpts

Tuesday 3rd February 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

We are extremely grateful to the Secretary of State. Extreme pithiness is now required.

[Ian Lavery (Wansbeck) (Lab)]

Does the Secretary of State share my grave concerns at the recently published report by the chief inspector of prisons on HMP Northumberland? Does he agree that if the Government do not do something, one of these serious incidents will turn into a tragedy that we all regret?

[Chris Grayling]

I have visited HMP Northumberland. It has been going through a period of transition, but the model of a working prison that will substantially extend the amount of work done by prisoners in that jail must be the way forward. I look forward to seeing improved inspection reports in future and a dramatic increase in the amount of work done and in prisoners’ employability when they leave.

Oral Answers to Questions

Ian Lavery Excerpts

Tuesday 16th December 2014 Commons Chamber

[Andrew Selous]

My hon. Friend is a great champion of Gloucester. Such a clause would be problematic to a bidder, given that master plans can change, but a purchaser seeking to develop the site inappropriately would not obtain planning consent from the local planning authority. We hope to give my hon. Friend and Gloucester an early Christmas present by exchanging contracts before Christmas if possible, with completion proposed for April 2015.

[Ian Lavery (Wansbeck) (Lab)]

Will the Minister tell us how many prisons have been closed since May 2010, how many have been disposed of, and how much cash has been generated in receipts?

Prison Officers (Work-related Stress)

Ian Lavery Excerpts

Wednesday 10th December 2014 Commons Chamber

[John McDonnell]

I know that the Minister cares about this issue, and I alerted him in advance of this debate that that is one of the requests that we would make. The survey is shocking. Even the in-house survey carried out by the National Offender Management Service has some shocking results in comparison with other areas of the public service. I will come on to my request for a meeting on how we might take this issue forward.

In the survey, the prison officers scored considerably worse than any other sector on all the seven hazard indicators. There were large gaps—the well-being gap—on issues such as demands of the job; the control that people feel they have of their work; management support, which is extremely disappointing; and relationships and change. The gap was less on peer support, so prison officers appear to get better support from their colleagues than they do from management.

The survey was compared with the London prisons survey of 2010. The levels of well-being for peer support were similar, but the scores for management support, control, the roles that people play and relationships were considerably poorer. The management of change was rated considerably poorer than in the earlier survey.

The quotes from the individual members surveyed can be more revealing than the figures. One of the questions was about time and other pressures of work. I could cite numerous quotes from the report—I have provided the Minister with a copy—but I shall give just a few:

“The pressure is on from the time you walk in to the time you walk out. It is full on all the time. You try to get a moment to yourself but something always crops up and you are off again.”

Another officer says:

“Currently, with the staffing shortfalls and the new regime they’ve got in place, it is constant crisis-management every day of the week. There is no let up.”

On every question, the individual responses are stark and revealing. On management support, one officer said:

“No support or care. No compassion. More time spent defending ourselves against management than against inmates.”

Another said:

“Previously, every person I had to line manage I knew as an individual. I knew their strengths and their weaknesses. Now I’m lucky if I see the staff I report on once every couple of months.”

Prison officers work in a very specific environment, dealing with challenging individuals, so there is always a risk of violence and intimidation, but I did not realise the scale of that until I read the survey.

[Ian Lavery (Wansbeck) (Lab)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that the Prison Service is not only in crisis, but is a powder keg? Somebody must be held accountable because someone, somewhere will be seriously hurt in the Prison Service. Nine members of staff are assaulted daily, which means 3,400 a year, up 9.4%. More dramatically, serious assaults on staff have increased by 36% since 2010. What does that say about the Prison Service at this time?

[John McDonnell]

My hon. Friend refers to the crisis in our prisons, which is a consistent theme coming out not just from this survey but from all the discussions that have taken place, including the representations we have received from both prison officers and former governors.

A total of 49% of prison officers said that they receive intimidation and threats from prisoners often and regularly, and 30% had been assaulted with more than half of those having to take time off as a result. On the level of management support, 70% said there was little support from management. There is one quote from a prison officer that I found particularly startling:

“I have seen active service whilst in the army, but I have never felt as vulnerable and threatened as I do in my current role.”

On stress, one third reported that their doctor had diagnosed them with stress-related illness—a clinical diagnosis of stress—since working for their current employer. It was also felt that there was a stigma attached to disclosing stress, and that it could make a prison officer subject to discrimination. That is extremely worrying.

The survey included a general health questionnaire that is used to assess aspects of psychological health and somatic symptoms, such as feeling run down or suffering from headaches, anxiety and insomnia, social dysfunction—not being able to enjoy everyday life, or not being able to make decisions—and depression, where people felt that life was hopeless. I was shocked by the figures. Six out of 10 reported that they were under strain. The worst figure was that one in 10 reported that sometimes life was just not worth living. The researchers who undertook the survey are experts in this field. They said that there were unusually high levels of psychological distress and that a high proportion required some degree of intervention to improve their well-being.

Another issue considered was emotional exhaustion— the concept of burn-out. This was extremely high, with 74% saying that they felt emotionally drained at work at least once a week. Some of that related to physical health, with 18% reporting chronic health problems. Hypertension is the most common problem. The survey also included questions about work-life balance, which is one of the psychosocial issues that comes up when assessing one’s enjoyment of work and career. Eight out of 10 responded that their time at work stopped them participating in family life, and six out of 10 frequently felt too emotionally drained to participate in family life. They were asked a question that is fairly common in such surveys: whether they dwelt on work problems outside of work. Some 70% said they could not switch off, while 50% were troubled by work-related issues when not at work. On job satisfaction, six out of 10 had considered leaving the Prison Service in the near future, and seven out of 10 said that if they could choose again they would choose a different job.

What conclusions can be drawn from this? First, it is blindingly obvious from the survey that psychosocial working conditions are far from satisfactory. None of the Health and Safety Executive’s objective benchmarks has been met. The researchers said that the psychological stress levels for this group of workers were far higher than in other emotionally demanding occupations, including police and social workers, with reports of anxiety, sleep disruption, cognitive failure including memory loss and, most worryingly, the one in 10 who felt that life was not worth living. The researchers said that there is an urgent need for employment bodies to take steps to protect the psychological well-being of their staff.

Some of these issues have to be addressed urgently. Like other Members, I have talked to POA members, front-line staff and representatives, and the same story comes up time and again. Staffing cuts have placed the service in crisis, and the staff and the prisoners they look after are suffering. My hon. Friend the Member for Wansbeck (Ian Lavery) mentioned the number of assaults. Nine members of staff are assaulted every day—up 9.4% recently—which is 3,400 a year, while the number of serious assaults is up 36%. Last year, we published a report on prison violence. It was circulated to hon. Members, but I will place it again in the Library. It was a shocking report, and I make no apologies for insisting that pictures of assault victims be published as well, because they are absolutely horrendous. Nobody should have to experience or risk that on a daily basis in their working lives.

As we know, the number of prison suicides has increased by 69%. It is a tragedy for the prisoner and their families, but it also has an impact on other prisoners and the staff who have to handle and deal with the suicide. All the evidence suggests that it can be devastating for the members of staff, and there is evidence of post-traumatic stress disorder among staff who have to deal with suicides.

I return to the conclusion that many have reached, which is that much of this is related to staffing cuts. I have asked for the figures provided by the Prison Service to the Prison Service Pay Review Body, because I thought that they would be the most accurate. There has been a cut in staff numbers from 51,212 to 37,218 in the past four years—a cut of 27.3%. In the prison officer grades, there has been a cut from 25,553 to 18,934 members of staff—a 25.9% cut. I know that various figures are bandied about—the Minister and others have presented us with various figures—but whatever the exact figures, the scale of the cuts has been acknowledged overall.

As I said in the Justice Committee, I think the Government miscalculated the prison population and cut too many staff, and I am told that they are now recruiting up to 1,700 officers—almost in a panic measure—and trying to recruit the 800 staff laid off in the last year into a reserve army to be used almost on an agency basis. As a result of the staff cuts, as the right hon. Member for Dwyfor Meirionnydd (Mr Llwyd) said, there has been a significant increase in the staff to prisoner ratio from 1:2.9 in 2010 to 1:3.8. Overall, that means we have fewer members of staff looking after more offenders.

Staffing numbers are an issue, but staffing support also matters. The Minister has a responsibility—well, we all have a responsibility—to build sufficient staff resource into the system to address the stress and psychological well-being issues identified in the report. I have heard reports of what is available to staff now, but there seems to be a significant lack of confidence in the facilities available and in the management support given to staff.

The POA and prison officers generally have also raised the issue of the retirement age. Prison officers now face having to work until they are 68. When he reported on public sector pensions provision, Lord Hutton recommended that exceptions be made to the overall increase in pension age for uniformed services, where

“the Normal Pension Age should be set to reflect the unique characteristics of the work involved. The Government should consider setting a…Normal Pension Age of 60 across the uniformed…services…and keep this under…review.”

Unfortunately, the only uniformed services identified were the police, armed forces and firefighters. For some reason I have yet to discover, prison officers were not included, even though they are a uniformed service and even though, as we see from the research, they are suffering from greater stress and psychological problems arising from their work load—more than the police or social workers.

[Ian Lavery]

Is it right that in 2014, we as a nation should be asking 68-year-old men and women to tackle some of the most dangerous people in the country?

[John McDonnell]

I fully agree with my hon. Friend. A question was put to prison officers in a survey, and 75% indicated that working after 60 would very much or significantly impair their job performance. The prison officers do not think that they can do their job effectively after the age of 60. I have to say that sometimes we just have to listen to the people who do the job.

I had some discussions with prison officers and a number of them agreed with the view that they were being asked to do an impossible job. They said that they were being put under unacceptable further pressure and that the Government needed to look again at the issue of pension age and at why this uniformed service was discriminated against in comparison with the others.

Let me suggest a way forward. We received research commissioned by the POA but undertaken independently by the university of Bedfordshire, and there is also the Prison Service’s own survey. Particularly concerning are the differences between the scores highlighted for members of the Prison Service in comparison with others in the civil service. There were large discrepancies between how people felt about their job and how they were being treated. Let me cite an example. When it came to recommending Her Majesty’s Prison Service as a great place to work, only 21% were positive. In the area on “my work” there was a score of minus 15% in comparison with the civil service survey and from high performers the score was minus 18%. On “my manager”, it was minus 24%; and on “resources and workload” it was minus 19%—and so it goes on. When it came to discrimination, bullying and harassment, 19% said that they had experienced discrimination at work over the past 12 months, while 18% had experienced the bullying or harassment themselves. Even in the National Offender Management Service survey, some of the figures are somewhat worrying.

The overall evidence from the university of Bedfordshire and even from the Government’s own survey shows clearly that we need another way forward. First, we need an urgent meeting between the justice unions parliamentary group and the Minister to discuss the research and to establish how to develop support for staff and tackle some of the identified issues of work-related stress.

Secondly, in light of this research, I urge the Government to look again at the pension age of prison officers. If necessary, they should commission further research if the current research is not satisfactory. If we need a more detailed examination of forcing prison officers to work until they are 68, I would welcome the opportunity at least to engage in a further review of that decision, backed up by further research.

The third issue is about staffing. I know that the Minister will report that new staff are being recruited. I hope that that happens as quickly as possible and that we can get them trained and into our prisons. We have, however, lost a lot of experienced trained staff as a result of the cuts. As a consequence, I believe that our prisons are now not only less safe, but are not fulfilling the role of rehabilitation that we want them to fulfil. Thus, for now and the future, lessons need to be learned from the staffing cuts that we have seen. I am convinced that we will have a constructive response from the Minister to the idea of having a meeting and working on these issues together to resolve what I find to be an extremely worrying situation.

--- Later in debate ---

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

I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell), who initiated the debate. He is a member of the Justice Committee, as is the right hon. Member for Dwyfor Meirionnydd (Mr Llwyd). I almost regretted allowing the right hon. Gentleman to speak, for fear of being unable to pronounce the name of his constituency, but I hope that I have done it justice.

Last, but certainly not least, I am grateful to the hon. Member for Vale of Clwyd (Chris Ruane) for his remarks. Let me deal with his points about mindfulness straight away. I can tell him that the NHS has set out five ways to well-being, the fifth of which is mindfulness. The Ministry of Justice has already started working on this issue and will launch projects on mindfulness in the new year. The director of NOMS in Wales, Sarah Payne, takes a particular interest in this important issue, and I thank the hon. Gentleman for raising it.

Let me say at the outset that prison officers face significant demands on a daily basis, and that working effectively with some of the most difficult members of society face to face takes a special set of skills, values and ability. I am immensely proud of the commitment of our prison staff in delivering their work. Behind the closed walls of prisons, these civil servants undertake essential services on behalf of society, and they do so professionally to keep us all safe. The POA-commissioned survey on work-related stress among prison officers draws attention to several important themes. Although there are some differences in the outcomes of the separate 2014 NOMS staff survey, it would be wrong to dwell on those at the expense of a more focused debate. We need to understand the work environment that prison officers encounter on a daily basis and what is done to support those charged with carrying out one of the most difficult but rewarding jobs in society. It is also important to recognise that the challenge that prison officers face has increased over recent months as a consequence of staffing shortages, an unexpected rise in the prisoner population and the unprecedented change being delivered by the prison benchmarking programme. That programme has the support of the POA.

Substantial work is under way to address the shortfalls and to support change but, in the short term, it is understandable that many staff have felt under significantly more pressure during 2014. It is also important to acknowledge that, regrettably, that position has been exacerbated by an increase in prisoner assaults on staff and prison violence in general. Understandably, in some cases staff have reported to governors that they feel less safe. I want to make it absolutely clear that NOMS understands that, and that every incident and every event of violence against NOMS staff is taken extremely seriously. It is not acceptable that any member of staff is injured in the line of duty.

[Ian Lavery]

Does the Minister share my concerns about the situation at HMP Northumberland, which is in my area? When that prison was privatised, Sodexo immediately reduced the work force by a third, yet the prison population has been increasing. Have not prison officers who are left to carry out the work every right to be stressed? What will the Minister do about it?

[Andrew Selous]

Those who manage contracted prisons absolutely have a duty to make sure that they keep their staff as well. If the hon. Gentleman will bear with me, I will go on to say what we are doing about this important issue.

NOMS takes its responsibilities under the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974 very seriously. We are working towards a new protocol for escalating matters when prison staff are victims of assault to the Crown Prosecution Service, which rightly recognises the seriousness of these incidents. In my time as Minister, I have encountered excellent examples of how governors and their teams have worked closely with staff and trade unions to listen to concerns and to introduce more structured regimes that better reflect the resource available and provide more reassurance for staff.

It is also relevant to this debate that we are clear about what NOMS is doing to address the staffing situation and that we explore in more detail the significant welfare support that NOMS already has in place to support this group of front-line public servants in critical roles. To address the staffing shortfalls, NOMS has over the past few months recruited new prison officers at unprecedented levels: 850 will have joined by Christmas, with a further 250 by February; and NOMS is on target to have recruited 1,700 in total by April. Plans are already in place to meet the future prison officer recruitment plan for 2015-16, with a further 1,000 prison officers starting at that point.

In addition, NOMS has an active staff reserve, which is made up of experienced former prison officers, to provide flexible additional support as part of a modernised service. As those resources come into place in prisons, the operational pressures on staff to work additional payment-plus hours and to provide detached duty support to other prisons will reduce significantly and beneficially in the new year. That information has been welcomed by POA colleagues and will impact positively on staff well-being.

In the new year, as prisons begin to reach their new benchmark staffing levels and transition to new safe, decent and secure operating levels, staff will have an increased opportunity to focus on the quality of the work that originally interested them, namely to reduce reoffending and to change lives for the better.

The evidence that the Prison Service continues to provide a rewarding career in which staff are able to change lives is irrefutable. It is demonstrated in the commitment and tenacity that prison officers have shown in recent months in the difficult circumstances that I have described. It is also evident in the organisation’s ability to attract 1,700 new prison officer recruits.

Staff turnover is only 2% for NOMS employees. Officer leaving rates for 2013-14 were 3.8%. More than 96% of the officers employed by NOMS choose to stay. The average length of service of a prison officer is 14 years. This is a demanding but rewarding role in which staff can and do make a significant and positive impact on offenders’ lives.

NOMS will continue to support staff and to provide them with the skills and development opportunities that they need to be able to perform their duties with confidence. New prison officers are tested for their suitability to work in a prison environment. They must pass a fitness test and full occupational health assessment before they are appointed to the role. Importantly, NOMS training investment also includes a strong focus on providing the necessary training and development that line managers need to support, coach and mentor staff.

For those staff who are regrettably assaulted on duty or who suffer ill health as a result of the impact of their work, there are well-established support mechanisms in place to help. It is perhaps one of the disappointing aspects of the POA-sponsored survey that it does not reflect the exceptional work between staff, managers and occupational health that has, in many cases, led to staff returning successfully to full duties through phased return-to-work programmes and counselling support.

We are committed to running safe establishments and are working hard to reduce violence in our prisons. We do not tolerate violence of any kind in prison and any assault is taken extremely seriously. A new violence reduction project is being established. There will be guidance to governors on that issue in early 2015, and we will implement a coherent set of short-term tangible actions that are aimed at reducing violence, some of which may involve trialling innovative approaches in targeted establishments.

The violence reduction project has been created to gain better understanding of the causes of the current levels of violence in prisons and to ensure that there is strength in the handling of violence in terms of both prevention and response. The project will consider such issues as the use of body-worn video cameras for prison officers, raising our intelligence capability to protect those officers and staff, developing more robust case management of violent prisoners, and the potential impact of the growing use of new psychoactive substances. We expect to be able to announce more in the new year.

We have always had a complex and challenging prison population, but we are taking appropriate steps to ensure that we carefully manage the increased levels of violence. We are also committed to managing violence and supporting the victims of assaults. The new joint protocol, to which I have referred, which is produced by NOMS, the Crown Prosecution Service and the Association of Chief Police Officers, will set out that when there are serious assaults on prison staff, the perpetrator will be prosecuted unless there is a good reason why not. As I have said, that initiative has been warmly welcome by the Prison Officers Association.

The increase in serious assaults is wholly unacceptable. However, we are holding a more violent population and, as I have told the Justice Committee, the number of people sentenced to prison for violent offences has increased by 40% over the past decade. We will never tolerate violence against our staff. We do not underestimate the hard work and challenges that they face on a daily basis and are continually looking at new ways to offer support. We are exploring new technology to protect staff, including body cameras and slash-resistant material to be worn under shirts.

The access that prison staff have to a range of counselling interventions is on a par with the very best of employers. Staff are provided with an occupational health adviser, who will work with them and their line manager to support them in the goal of a successful return to work. We have many examples of that working well. When staff are involved in a difficult prisoner incident, a structure that involves the use of in-house staff care teams, staffing debriefs and continuing support comes into effect as a matter of course.

Equally, the access that staff who are unable to work for a period of time have to sick pay provides a full opportunity for them to recuperate before returning to work. For staff who are unable to work for a period of time due to sickness absence, NOMS will pay six months on full pay and six months on half pay as part of the individual’s terms and conditions of employment. That can be extended in the case of an injury at work, as the governor has the opportunity to grant sick absence excusal in appropriate cases.

In recognition of the stressful nature of the prison working environment, NOMS is committed to supporting the well-being of staff by reducing stress and increasing employee attendance. There is also well-publicised support available to staff, including a comprehensive employee assistance programme, which operates 24 hours a day, 365 days a year. It includes access to counselling and other therapies as required, a health promotion website and well-being zone, specialist trauma support services and mediation. A network of peer support in the form of care teams also operates in every prison and can be extremely effective.

Work on improving the management of stress in NOMS includes: regional stress action plans; individual stress risk assessments; a 24-hour helpline for staff; the inclusion of stress-related issues in people plans, listen-to-improve sessions and team meetings; governors using team meetings and focus groups to identify local stress issues, to show transparency in decision making and to offer feedback in resolving them; and the roll-out of stress-awareness workshops across the estate.

In addition to that support, I want to take this opportunity to share some of the good practice happening in the prison estate. There are numerous examples of governors maintaining regular contact with staff who are off and of presenting deputy director of custody commendations in cases where staff have been assaulted. The young people’s estate is also developing and implementing a post-assault protocol for supporting staff, which identifies a process to follow to ensure that staff are fully supported when they return to work.

Well-being days are also actively pursued as establishments recognise what a positive impact they have on staff. Staff who have been off sick are being given a mentor outside their line management. Staff have also been visited by their governor, either at home or in a neutral venue, and numerous establishments have referred staff to bespoke counselling sessions. I want to put all that on record to show the full extent of the care we take to look after our staff when they are assaulted, wholly unacceptably, in the line of their work.

In 2013-14, NOMS delivered 49 staff well-being events across the agency. Approximately 3,200 staff members attended those events for advice, support and health checks. Additionally, most prison staff are able to use the prison gym facilities at allotted times and may access support from local physical education instructors to design their own bespoke fitness and well-being programmes.

NOMS conducts an annual staff survey that includes elements that focus on well-being and motivation. This year’s survey had a 44% response rate, and 75% of respondents stated that they wanted to remain working for NOMS for at least the next year or three years. In line with the focus of the POA-sponsored survey, NOMS has adopted the Health and Safety Executive’s stress management standards as a framework for the prevention and control of stress, and it has issued a toolkit containing guidance and useful documents for use locally. NOMS encourages all staff, irrespective of their role or position within the organisation, to contribute actively towards the identification, prevention and management of stress. As I said, stress awareness workshops for staff are provided, as well as a 24-hour confidential helpline that staff can ring.

I am conscious that the well-being report makes reference to the retirement age of prison officers, so I wanted to respond to that by being clear that safe systems of work are in place across the prison estate to ensure that staff work in an environment that is as safe as reasonably practical. In this context, the current fitness standards and assessments for prison officers are based on the requirements of an individual to perform the job safely. Since July 2007, NOMS has been recruiting staff to work until the age of 65. It has employed new prison officers in their 60s who have passed the fitness test and are performing their roles effectively. In addition, a number of staff who have the right to retire at 60 now choose to work beyond their retirement age. A recent statistical report identified a total of 814 prison officers over the age of 60, with an average length of service of 24 years, who are working within NOMS.

I know that the Prison Officers Association will wish to put its case forward for further consideration on the retirement age of prison officers, as it is entitled to do. Following a meeting with my officials and the POA on 1 December, I agreed that officials and the POA could meet to discuss changes to the pension scheme and the associated retirement age. I know that members of the POA met officials on 1 December and I will consider the next steps on this matter with the Cabinet Office.

I conclude by thanking the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington and all right hon. and hon. Members who have spoken this evening. I have a personal commitment to this extremely important matter. I find it wholly unacceptable that anyone who works for the state in any capacity should be assaulted in their line of duty. I take this issue seriously, I raise it regularly with officials and I will follow up on the initiatives that we have announced. Of course, my door is always open. I will agree to meet the hon. Gentleman and the right hon. Member for Dwyfor Meirionnydd at some point, our diaries permitting.

Question put and agreed to.

Oral Answers to Questions

Ian Lavery Excerpts

Tuesday 18th March 2014 Commons Chamber

[The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Simon Hughes)]

The position is clear and I tried to clarify it in my letter to the hon. Lady. Sadly, there has been a drop in the number of cases that are going to mediation. There has therefore been a drop in the number of cases that are going through the process. The percentage of successful mediations has not dropped. That is the issue to which the Secretary of State was referring. The Government are committed to doing what she would want, which is to ensure that from next month, when the law changes, there is an increase in referrals to mediation and an increase in successful mediations.

[Ian Lavery (Wansbeck) (Lab)]

Her Majesty’s prison Northumberland was privatised on 1 December 2013. In the four months since, there have been 180 redundancies. Nearly a third of the work force have been released. Is the Secretary of State confident that HMP Northumberland is a safe place for prisoners and staff?

[Chris Grayling]

We are having to take difficult decisions about staffing levels across the prison estate. I am confident that every one of our prisons is a safe place to detain prisoners. I have not pursued a privatisation strategy across the prison system but accepted the recommendations of the Prison Governors Association and others, and the benchmarking programme that we are putting in place across the prison system was recommended in-house by the public sector team.

Mesothelioma (Insurance Premiums)

Ian Lavery Excerpts

Wednesday 29th January 2014 Westminster Hall

[Andy McDonald (Middlesbrough) (Lab)]

It is an honour to open this important debate and to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hollobone. I draw Members’ attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests.

It would be remiss of me to start my speech without paying tribute to my right hon. Friend the late Paul Goggins, who was such an assiduous advocate for mesothelioma sufferers and their families. I attended his funeral the week before last at Salford cathedral with many other colleagues, and had a conversation with the hon. Member for Foyle (Mark Durkan), in which he reflected on Paul’s innate decency and many wonderful qualities. He summed up Paul’s parliamentary contributions by saying that his arguments were well marshalled and his responses well mannered. I will strive for those high standards today, but I fear I will never be able to emulate such a brilliant parliamentarian.

In essence, this is a mercifully simple matter, but perhaps a few moments spent establishing the background are warranted. We are here to address provisions in the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012—LASPO—that relate to mesothelioma cases. The relevant background is that changes were made by LASPO to the way in which the generality of legal cases were funded.

I practised for many years as a solicitor with Thompsons, and before arriving in this place in December 2012, headed up a specialist unit looking after those who suffered catastrophic injuries, including brain and spinal chord injuries, and sadly, on too many occasions, cases resulting in fatalities. I also had the privilege of representing members of the armed forces who sustained serious injuries in the service of their country. I never did represent those suffering from asbestosis or mesothelioma, but I had the privilege of working alongside some wonderful colleagues who devoted their professional, and often significant parts of their personal, life to the service and representation of those suffering from this most dreadful of diseases and their families. I pay tribute to the tireless work of my former colleague, Ian McFall, who is not only an international authority in the field of mesothelioma litigation, but has been, and continues to be, a wholly committed advocate of the cause.

With the move away from legal aid support for personal injury cases, and with such state support being removed altogether, the era of the conditional fee agreement came into being. I cannot count the number of conversations I had while in practice over many years, in which I tried to explain that the description of so-called “no win, no fee” agreements was wholly inadequate. The basis of conditional fee agreements, as they are properly termed, was that if a claimant was unsuccessful, he or she would not face a bill for either their costs and disbursements or those of their opponent. Any risk was principally borne by the claimant’s lawyers. Their reward was that when they succeeded for their clients, they benefited from an uplift on their costs—a success fee paid for by the unsuccessful defendant. All that was designed to take account of other cases that were unsuccessful.

The structure was underpinned by insurance: in the event of the claimant not succeeding, wholly or in part, that insurance would provide cover for the unrecoverable disbursements and the defendant’s costs. In the absence of suitable pre-existing, before-the-event legal expenses cover, that policy would be arranged on an after-the-event basis, known as ATE. The insurance premium was borne by the unsuccessful defendants in cases where the claimant won. In successful cases, the defendant bore a success fee and the ATE premium.

All that changed with LASPO. In short, from 1 April 2013, in return for a 10% uplift on the damages paid, the principle of recovering success fees and ATE premiums was extinguished, and those cost items would now be paid by the claimant; that represented a significant erosion of a claimant’s damages. It was argued in this place that mesothelioma cases should not fall foul of those provisions, and that those cases should be exempt. It was entirely right to have those exemptions in that Act in section 44, which concerns success fees, and section 46, which relates to after-the-event insurance premiums, and the reason for that was eloquently summed up in recent times by Paul Goggins:

“An amendment was passed in the House of Lords that exempted mesothelioma sufferers. Hon. Members from both sides will recall our vigorous debates in the House of Commons over the issue and the strong sense that it was repulsive that people who are given a diagnosis of mesothelioma and know that they might have only months to live might have to give up 25% of their damages to pay a success fee to their lawyers and would therefore have to shop around to get the best deal from those who might represent them. The idea was repulsive.”––[Official Report, Mesothelioma Public Bill Committee, 12 December 2013; c. 93.]

The idea remains repulsive, and no case has been made for changing the position. A claimant in these dire circumstances should be focusing on the quality of representation and nothing else. The exemption, securing 100% recovery, allows that to happen.

Section 48 made it clear that there would be a review, in that sections 44 and 46 could not be brought into effect in cases of diffuse mesothelioma until such time as the Lord Chancellor had

“carried out a review of the likely effect of those sections in relation to such proceedings, and…published a report of the conclusions of the review.”

The Government will doubtless point to the consultation launched in July 2013 on mesothelioma claims. The relevant part is chapter 4, which runs to three pages and asks:

“Do you agree that sections 44 and 46 of the LASPO Act 2012 should be brought into force in relation to mesothelioma claims, in the light of the proposed reforms described in this consultation, the increase in general damages and costs protection described above, and the Mesothelioma Bill?”

With respect, that can hardly be properly described as a review, but more importantly, that chapter dealt with one of many matters consulted on, including fixed costs, secure gateways and new protocols, all of which were abandoned. It simply cannot be properly described as a review; equally, what happened subsequently was not by any means a report.

What we have had is an announcement, by way of a written ministerial statement from the Under-Secretary of State for Justice, the hon. Member for North West Cambridgeshire (Mr Vara), who announced that the Government

“have concluded that they intend to apply sections 44 and 46 of the LASPO Act to mesothelioma cases”.—[Official Report, 4 December 2013; Vol. 571, c. 56WS.]

That cannot by any stretch of the imagination amount to a credible review or report as specified by section 48. Statute says that those things simply have to happen before the relevant sections can apply to mesothelioma cases.

To have introduced a new regime in April 2013 with the exceptions, and then to consult on whether the exceptions should still apply, alongside a host of other matters in relation to mesothelioma claims, in July 2013 was simply ludicrous. There were just three months between the introduction of the new regime in April and the July review; that was simply far too soon for any proper assessment to have been made of the likely effects of sections 44 and 46 on mesothelioma claims. No one can tell at this stage how much clients will be charged by solicitors under LASPO. The situation is developing as the market adapts. The same can be said of the cost of ATE insurance. The Government are jumping the gun. They need to pause and commit to a genuine process of review.

[Ian Lavery (Wansbeck) (Lab)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on bringing this very timely debate to the Chamber. With regard to the section 48 review, it is generally thought that it is pure poppycock and nonsense, although probably not in legal terms. Would it not be better to abandon the section 48 review and instigate a thorough review of the effects of sections 44 and 46 on mesothelioma claims?

[Andy McDonald]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend. His intervention is apposite. There is only one respect in which I would slightly disagree with him: he says that the review is poppycock, although perhaps not in the legal sense, but we may find that there are legal consequences to it. I am of the view that it does not withstand scrutiny as a proper process. No doubt we will return to that.

Making these changes at this pace makes it abundantly clear that the Government had made their mind up way before April 2013 that these exemptions would not last any time at all. Thereafter, to try, in some tortured way, to create a link between the mesothelioma scheme as laid out in the Mesothelioma Bill and the provisions in LASPO is simply to conflate unconnected matters. If there was one American blues artist who epitomised the approach of the Government on this issue, it would be the inimitable Muddy Waters.

--- Later in debate ---

[Ian Lavery (Wansbeck) (Lab)]

It is, as ever, a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hollobone. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough (Andy McDonald) on securing this important debate.

Before Christmas, I was a member of the Public Bill Committee that scrutinised the Mesothelioma Bill, and it really was informative. The Labour Opposition and I missed great opportunities to try to get the rightful compensation for people who have suffered greatly as a consequence of mesothelioma. As I look around the Chamber, I see people, including the hon. Member for Chatham and Aylesford (Tracey Crouch), who clearly understand how this disease affects individuals. It is as vicious as any work-related condition that anyone could experience. We must never forget the impact it has had on families and friends.

Mesothelioma is one of those diseases where once someone has been diagnosed, the prognosis is basically death within—if they are lucky—18 months. As politicians of whatever party—red, blue, yellow or whatever— we have a duty to look after people whose only crime was going to work in unsafe conditions. At the time they were very much unaware of how unsafe the conditions were. We heard tales of people—young people; apprentices—making asbestos snowballs at work and throwing them at each other, not knowing that in future it could have a dramatic impact on their lives and those of their families. The issue is really, really serious.

I cannot continue without paying tribute, as has each Member who has spoken, to the late Paul Goggins. He made a fantastic contribution to the Mesothelioma Bill Committee and was for a long time a fantastic campaigner on similar issues, particularly those related to cancer. Of course, he was especially dedicated to mesothelioma, and throughout our consideration of the Bill he was at the front, together with the Labour Front-Bench team, fighting for what was right and for justice for these people.

The Mesothelioma Bill was a missed opportunity. Once enacted, it will underpay people who are suffering—the victims. As the hon. Member for Chatham and Aylesford said, we must at all times “put the victim at the centre of the process.” Too many others have been involved, such as the insurance company that has led things from the front. During scrutiny of the Bill, the Minister in the Committee, the Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions, the hon. Member for Hemel Hempstead (Mike Penning), said quite clearly that it was not a case of bringing the insurance companies to the table to discuss compensation; they had to be dragged there. The insurance companies have made fortunes—millions if not billions of pounds—from premiums. We must not forget that premiums were paid. It is not a case of insurance companies looking for finance that was not there: the premiums had been paid by the employers, and the insurance companies have paid out dividends to shareholders instead of keeping the money for compensating dying victims of mesothelioma.

We often forget the families. The cut-off date in the Mesothelioma Bill is July 2012. That means that millions—sorry, I am getting carried away with my figures—certainly hundreds if not thousands of people will miss out on any form of compensation. At best, the individuals affected will receive 75% of damages. It is beyond me why they have to accept that. If someone gets hurt and the employer accepts it, why should the insurance company demand that they get only 75% of what the injury is actually worth? That is absurd and should not be the case for this horrendous disease. At the same time as getting only 75% of damages, the benefits clawback is being pitched at 100%.

These people, who have suffered, are suffering greatly and will suffer in future, are confused. They are confused by our debating LASPO. These people are ill, their families are looking ahead to a lifetime without their loved ones, and they are trying to understand what LASPO and CFA mean. As politicians we should be above that. We should have ensured that the families came first, as the hon. Member for Chatham and Aylesford said. The families are not aware of what section 44 and section 46 mean. They have not got a clue and, let us be honest, they are not even bothered what section 44, section 46 and section 48 of the LASPO Act mean. What they want is justice for their families and for the person who sadly will be leaving the family within 18 months at best. The review is totally flawed. As I said in an intervention, the Government should abandon the section 48 consultation.

One reason I say that the review is fatally flawed is that the Government abandoned the consultation reforms that were relevant to sections 44 and 46. They conceded that the Mesothelioma Bill really has nothing to do with the effects of sections 44 and 46, but they said that it was always their intention to “synchronise” the section 48 review and the Bill.

[Kate Green]

Does my hon. Friend agree that that must be at best a quite cynical statement? The argument about the Mesothelioma Bill was that a deal was being negotiated with the insurance industry, and that it would not be possible to introduce a scheme to have effect prior to the conclusion of that deal on 25 July 2012. It seems that at the beginning of 2012, when the LASPO Act was passed, Ministers were envisaging a deal that did not exist, as the present justification for saying that the two can be synchronised. They cannot possibly have been waiting to synchronise with a deal that might never have come to fruition.

[Ian Lavery]

My hon. Friend has hit the nail on the head with that important point, which she raised during the progress of the Bill.

The second issue is the fact that the section 48 review did not ask respondents to make the case for the mesothelioma exemption. It asked if respondents agreed with the Government that the exemption should be lifted in the light of the consultation reforms, plus the CFA reforms and the Mesothelioma Bill. Had the Government asked for the case to be made, the recent legal ombudsman’s report on no win, no fee arrangements would have been most pertinent. The report states that the CFA agreements are not simple to understand and contain unclear terms and conditions, and that there is evidence of some lawyers failing to make clear the financial risks of CFA agreements and trying to pass on the risk to customers. That is precisely the situation that the Lords feared and would not tolerate for dying mesothelioma sufferers.

As it stands, the review is not based on the effects of sections 44 and 46 on mesothelioma claims. It is based on a reiteration of the Government’s intention to apply the CFA LASPO reforms to mesothelioma claims. That can hardly be described as a review. Members of Parliament should ask the Government to abandon the so-called review and seek a proper, fuller one.

[Andy McDonald]

Does my hon. Friend agree that the whole premise of the review is fatally flawed? It includes the question:

“Do you, agree that sections 44 and 46…should be brought into force in relation to mesothelioma claims, in the light of the proposed reforms described in this consultation”?

Those did not proceed; they were abandoned. Does not that put the skids under the entire project?

[Ian Lavery]

I fully agree with my hon. Friend about that—it is question 15 of the section 48 review. It is even more reason for us to seek agreement to the abandonment of the review, and to get to grips with the real problems cutting across the Mesothelioma Bill. MPs should ensure that the outcome of a proper section 48 review is brought before Parliament and not introduced via a commencement order, as the Government probably intend. [Interruption.] Someone has turned my telephone on during the debate, Mr Hollobone: I am sure I switched it off before. I apologise for that.

The legal aspect of the matter seems extremely complicated, and I make an appeal to politicians from across the Chamber. The legislation is not really what I or many other Labour Members wanted, but it is progress. It will mean that individuals can get some form of compensation through the scheme. We must put individuals at the heart of things—the sufferers: people who are losing their lives, and families who will lose loved ones within 18 months. Such things should be cleared pretty quickly, so that families will not be bogged down in legal problems, and will fully understand the compensation procedures they want to embark on. Even if there was 100% compensation for mesothelioma it would not be enough; there cannot be enough compensation for the loss of a breadwinner, father and husband, or mother and wife. There cannot be enough compensation for the loss of someone so important in family life.

Shrewsbury 24 (Release of Papers)

Ian Lavery Excerpts

Thursday 23rd January 2014 Commons Chamber

[Ian Lavery (Wansbeck) (Lab)]

The lack of Members on the Government Benches shows exactly how much interest there is in this topic from this coalition Government of Tories and Liberals.

This Shrewsbury 24 debacle represents a catastrophic and deliberate miscarriage of justice by the state against working individuals. I say again for the record that this was deliberate. This attack on the Shrewsbury 24 was a deliberate, calculated miscarriage of justice. It is a catalogue of deceit, deception, secrecy and discrimination worthy of the best of the best North Korean governmental political plots. It truly is a must-read true-life story of thriller proportions. The covert, politically inspired interference of faceless decision-makers, be they politicians, civil servants, police or the judiciary, made life hell for ordinary hard-working people whose only crime was to dare to take industrial action against the mega cash-rich building companies of that time.

These people—the Shrewsbury pickets—were fighting for £30 for 30 hours and better health and safety on the building sites, where, as has been mentioned on more than one occasion, 571 people in the construction industry were killed in three years. Is that not fair? Is that not what we should be seeking in a modern-day society—health and safety, preventing people from being abused and killed when they take their sandwiches to work and want to return to see their families at night? Is that a crime? Should they have been punished—should they have been imprisoned, as the six Shrewsbury pickets were? The answer to that is of course not.

I have tremendous experience of picketing, and I am proud of having been a picket during many disputes. I witnessed what happened on the picket lines during the miners strike. It was absolutely disgraceful. What we have seen in the last two or three weeks is again a Government refusing to allow papers—confidential and secret papers—relating to that dispute to be released. What we have seen is absolutely ludicrous. There has not been the outrage there should be, but we have seen that senior Cabinet Ministers in a previous Government and a Prime Minister—Thatcher—stood at the Dispatch Box and deliberately misled the Commons, and deliberately misled the Government. Where is the public outcry from the press? There is not one, because they are not interested in ordinary people.

A lot can be said about this but I would like to finish on this point. We cannot even begin to understand how these men and their families felt when they were hammered by the state—by the Government. They were offered lesser charges and they would have been freed. They stood by their principles so that people in the future would benefit, and they went to prison. We cannot begin to think what it was like for these people, who could have been free—“£50 fine and you can go home tonight and be home by 3 o’clock.” That was the agreement, but they stood by their principles. We cannot begin to imagine how they suffered in their time in prison.

Let me say a word on Des Warren, who was treated very badly in his time in prison. The liquid cosh killed him and as a result we are where we are today.

Prisons

Ian Lavery Excerpts

Wednesday 18th December 2013 Ministerial Corrections

[Ian Lavery]

To ask the Secretary of State for Justice what capital expenditure projects his Department commissioned at (a) HMP Blundeston, (b) HMP Dorchester, (c) HMP Northallerton and (d) HMP Reading in each of the last five years; what the cost of each such project was; and if he will make a statement.

[Official Report, 8 October 2013, Vol. 568, c. 75-6W.]

Letter of correction from Jeremy Wright:

An error has been identified in the written answer given to the hon. Member for Wansbeck (Ian Lavery) on 8 October 2013.

The full answer given was as follows:

[Jeremy Wright]

The following table shows the centrally-funded capital expenditure projects commissioned at HMP Blundeston, HMP/YOI Dorchester, HMP/YOI Northallerton and HMP/YOI Reading in each of the last five years and their cost. As at 6 September 2013 there have been no projects in those prisons in 2013/14. The total projected maintenance requirements for the four prisons over the next five years would have amounted to £17 million.

The Department needs to modernise the estate to provide prison capacity at much lower cost and in the right places to deliver our ambition of reducing re-offending. That is why MOJ are replacing older accommodation that is expensive to run with newer, cheaper and more efficient accommodation that will provide better value for money.

Football Referees

Ian Lavery Excerpts

Tuesday 4th June 2013 Commons Chamber

[Chris Heaton-Harris]

That is true, actually. The Referees Association offers insurance to referees, so if someone joins it—not all referees do, but most do—it will help and guide them down that route. If, though, there is a physical assault on a football pitch, it should first be a matter for the police, but if they choose not to act, perhaps there could be this second way of doing it.

To return to the subject on which I would like the Minister’s help, the FA would appreciate automatic feedback from the courts on football cases to ensure that any criminal cases involving footballers are also subject to football disciplinary hearings. A simple communication would suffice to ensure that if a banned player tried to play for a different football club, they would not be allowed to. Furthermore, assaulting a referee should automatically mean a formal interview by the police. It has been suggested that sometimes the police only log details and do not formally charge a player with assault, saying that it is a footballing matter. Any player who assaults a referee should be formally interviewed by the police as a matter of course, and witness statements could be taken to prepare for appropriate action. A simple interview after an assault would also act as a strong deterrent.

In the more serious cases, we need to urge the CPS to treat this type of assault seriously and to ensure that football offences do not receive more lenient sentences than the same crimes committed off the football pitch.

[Ian Lavery (Wansbeck) (Lab)]

I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on securing this important debate. He has mentioned serious offences, suggesting that some are not so serious. What would he say is the difference?

[Chris Heaton-Harris]

Less serious offences would include one that the hon. Gentleman might have seen Paul Gascoigne commit in a football game not so long ago—taking the yellow card out of the referee’s hands—or a gentle shove. If the hon. Gentleman will allow me, I will come to the details of more serious offences, but there is a gradual scale, as there is in all matters to do with assault.

Essentially, referees would like the police to be more willing to charge those who assault match officials, rather than leaving the issue to be dealt with in-house by local county football associations. Police action is a far greater deterrent and would ensure that referees felt more supported, thus helping to retain the number of referees we need in our game.

I said earlier that I had been lucky. I have not been physically assaulted while officiating, although I once had to go to the police because of what I perceived to be a very real threat made against me. However, I had a horrible experience once when I gave a penalty and the manager of the team, who thought he was a bit like Alex Ferguson, did not like my decision. Unlike Alex Ferguson, he decided to charge on to the pitch. Fortunately, one of his own players rugby-tackled him, inches away from me on my blind side before he got to me. As I did not really know that he was coming at me, who knows what could have happened? That happened on what I chose as my last ever game of Sunday morning football.

Others have not been so lucky. Anyone who goes to a referees’ society meeting and talks to those present will hear some horrific tales. In 2011, a Coventry referee was assaulted at a match that took place on Sowe common on a Sunday morning. He was taken to hospital by ambulance and needed stitches inside his mouth and other things. Two police cars attended with four officers. Two of the officers went and spoke to the assailant, but decided not to arrest him and walked off the pitch saying that the football authorities would deal with the incident.

Last year in Manchester, an individual walked out of court with a suspended jail sentence and community service for a cowardly assault on a referee. The referee had sent the player off for aggressive behaviour and swearing during a Manchester amateur Sunday football league match. As he recorded the red card in his notebook, the player ran towards him, jumped with both feet off the ground and kicked him in the face—a karate kick of some kind. The referee needed a number of stitches around his eye and was left scarred for life. Doctors told him that he was lucky not to have been blinded. The player was eventually charged and pleaded guilty at a Manchester Crown court to the charge of assault occasioning actual bodily harm. The judge did not give him a custodial sentence—he said he had escaped “by a whisker”—but suspended a 10-month jail sentence for two years. The player was also ordered to carry out 100 hours’ unpaid work and pay the referee £750 compensation. However, if that had happened on a Saturday night in any town or city across the country, the result would have been very different.

Referees across the country are concerned that assaults of this nature are not always taken seriously by the authorities. We are seriously worried about that, because we know of recent examples elsewhere, such as the case of Richard Nieuwenhuizen in the Netherlands, who was killed in December 2012 as he officiated at a game of football in Holland, or, just last month, that of Ricardo Portillo in the United States. In both cases, the assault of an official resulted in their death. I am not saying to the Minister that he must act now or this could happen here, but I would like assurances from him that, after this debate, he will send the appropriate message, as strongly as he can, that officials of all sports across the country can pack their kits for this weekend, comforted in the knowledge not just that they are appreciated, but that there is an extra deterrent that will stop those who use violence to show their disappointment at a decision that the ref has just made.

Rehabilitation of Offenders

Ian Lavery Excerpts

Thursday 9th May 2013 Commons Chamber

[Chris Grayling]

My hon. Friend makes an important point. We intend to ensure that any passing of risk down a supply chain is done in a transparent way. We will do everything we can to protect the interests of smaller organisations, but they must take advantage of that protection and not simply sign up to deals that they cannot afford.

[Ian Lavery (Wansbeck) (Lab)]

There is no doubt in my mind that the proposals are simply the privatisation of a highly valuable, well performing public service—the probation service. Despite a cut of more than £1.8 million last year, the Northumbria Probation Trust in my area is one of four trusts graded excellent performers. Why does the Justice Secretary not just admit it and come clean that the statement is not about reoffenders or the general public, but about the prize of privatisation, political dogma and ideology?

[Chris Grayling]

I understand full well where the hon. Gentleman comes from politically. The problem with his argument is that the legislation that enables me to make these proposals was passed by the Labour Government.