Youth Programmes and Girlguiding

Debate between Julian Lewis and Stuart Andrew

Tuesday 19th September 2023 Westminster Hall

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Stuart Andrew)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir George, and I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Gosport (Dame Caroline Dinenage) for securing this important debate. I also thank the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) and my right hon. Friends the Members for New Forest East (Sir Julian Lewis) and for Romsey and Southampton North (Caroline Nokes), who have spoken in the debate and collared me on these issues when they can. Others have not been able to contribute but share their passion, including Mr Deputy Speaker, the right hon. Member for Ribble Valley (Mr Evans), and the Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Sussex (Mims Davies).

A thriving youth sector is a critical part of so much that my Department and the whole of Government are hoping to achieve for young people. Approximately 85% of a young person’s waking hours are spent outside school, and it is during this time that thousands of youth workers and volunteers make a tremendous difference to young people’s lives, as my hon. Friend the Member for Gosport mentioned. They provide early intervention, help to reduce pressures on other public services and build trusted relationships, enabling young people to achieve their ambitions.

I was recently fortunate enough to visit a National Citizen Service residential in Doncaster and see how transformational youth services can be. The impact that such activities and trusted relationships provide cannot be underestimated. The young people told me at first hand that they felt more confident and had overcome some of their personal fears, developed new skills and made new friends, sometimes with people from backgrounds they had never mixed with before. All this gets amplified around the country, and I thank the volunteers involved.

I know that many right hon. and hon. Members present will have been disappointed to learn that Girlguiding has decided to sell its five activity centres in the UK and cease overseas operations. Having seen at first hand the benefits that young people can gain by participating in programmes hosted by organisations such as Girlguiding, I share that disappointment. However, as Members will know, Girlguiding is an independent organisation and its board of trustees has a fiscal responsibility to take decisions in the organisation’s best interests in order to secure its future and the safety of its members. The board tells us that it has not taken the decision lightly. That said, I understand the disappointment about the lack of consultation, which would enable people to make their views known.

[Sir Julian Lewis]

I fully recognise that this matter falls outside the Minister’s responsibilities, but does he agree that where millions of pounds appear to have been fire-hosed away from the objectives of the organisation, and where there is clearly a lack of internal democratic accountability, we have to look to the Charity Commission as a last resort to see whether the mismanagement can, even now, be limited in its terrible effects?

[Stuart Andrew]

My right hon. Friend raises a very important point. Of course, as a registered charity, Girlguiding is obliged to do the usual reporting. Anybody can raise any case with the Charity Commission, and colleagues may feel that they want to take that step.

I will outline a bit more what we have heard from Girlguiding. I understand that its decision to close the five activity centres is due to the significant capital investment required to ensure that they are fit for purpose, but it also reflects the ongoing running costs in the light of low levels of demand from Girlguiding groups. It is anticipated that funds from the sale of the activity centres, valued collectively at around £10 million, will be invested in a range of activities to support the future of Girlguiding and its members, including adventures away from home.

--- Later in debate ---

[Stuart Andrew]

My right hon. Friend will appreciate that I cannot make a commitment to stray into those areas of work, but I will absolutely and happily raise with my colleagues in DLUHC the issue that she brought up. I know that it was a big issue when I held that post for a short time, but I recognise that there will be concerns locally about what will happen to those sites. I will happily address those concerns to my hon. Friends in that Department.

[Sir Julian Lewis]

I will take the opportunity to stress that when Girlguiding UK says that only 10% of the movement uses the five centres, we are still talking about tens of thousands of young people. The response to the situation has been not, “We have to close one centre in order to subsidise the others”, but, “We have to close the whole lot while simultaneously losing millions upon millions of pounds on inappropriate investment in property hotel ventures.” That has to be questioned. The reason for donating Foxlease to Girlguiding 101 years ago was not so that it could be used for commercial development; it was donated to be used by young people.

Christmas Adjournment

Debate between Julian Lewis and Stuart Andrew

Thursday 17th December 2020 Commons Chamber

[The Treasurer of Her Majesty's Household (Stuart Andrew)]

Thank you very much, Mr Deputy Speaker. I am not going comment on the tie or where it may have come from.

It is always a pleasure to take part in these debates. We have heard from colleagues from across the House raising all sorts of issues whether they be international, national or local. Every one of them has clearly been heartfelt and I thank them for their contributions. I, too, want to pay tribute to those Members who are new to this House. It is always difficult getting used to this place, but in this difficult year it really has been a challenge. I think they have, on all sides of the House—I mean this sincerely—done that with great professionalism. I hope that next year we can get back to some sort of normality, so that they can enjoy the rest of what this House is really like.

I would like to comment on a couple of issues that were raised. My hon. Friend the Member for Filton and Bradley Stoke (Jack Lopresti) mentioned that he wants a meeting with the Prime Minister. I am not going to commit to putting a slot in the Prime Minister’s diary, but I will certainly make reference to that and inform my right hon. Friend.

The hon. Member for Stockport (Navendu Mishra) quite rightly spoke about libraries and paid tribute to them. I have been quite impressed myself; I have a community library in Rawdon in my own constituency, which is now fully supported by volunteers who do tremendous amounts of work. Of course, this is a good time of year to get children in particular looking at books, with books such as “Cinderella”, “Dick Whittington”, “Snow White”, “Sleeping Beauty” and “Jack and the Beanstalk”—all the panto things that we can encourage them to start reading.

I am going to come on to my hon. Friend—or he was —the Member for Eastleigh (Paul Holmes). He gave a very long list of things he wants. Father Christmas at the moment is preparing all his reindeer—Prancer, Dasher, Rudolph, Dancer, Vixen, Comet, Cupid, Donner and Blitzen—to supply gifts to the children of this planet for their good behaviour; all I can say to my hon. Friend is that, if he carries on behaving well, he may be lucky in getting some of those gifts that he wants for his constituency.

However, my hon. Friend is right to raise some important issues. We have invested more than £280 billion in this very difficult year to support businesses up and down the country. It has been hugely challenging. He was right to raise the levelling-up fund, and I can assure him that it will be for all parts of the country. There is £4 billion there that is part of the wider £600 billion of infrastructure funding that we will be doing over the next five years.

My hon. Friend also quite rightly mentioned independent lifeboats. We have become dependent on charities in many walks of life and they do tremendous amounts of work. I pay tribute to all of them and the Government are doing what they can to help.

The hon. Member for Hackney South and Shoreditch (Meg Hillier) raised the very important issue of cladding. I do not think any of us will ever forget the horrific scenes we saw at Grenfell. I know that Ministers are constantly working on that; 80% of the dangerous cladding has been removed, but there is more to do, and I will certainly make sure that that is raised with my ministerial colleagues.

[Dr Julian Lewis]

Although I did not make a speech in this debate, I enjoyed the others greatly and I did make a short intervention. Will my hon. Friend take back to the Government the dangers of allowing free rein to graft extra top floors on to high-rise blocks with limited planning requirements? I have personal experience, as I said, and it is a disaster in the making. We should not be encouraging it.

[Stuart Andrew]

I will certainly make sure that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is made aware of those concerns. I know that planning is an issue that we will be discussing a lot over the coming months.

My hon. Friend the Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Elliot Colburn) quite rightly mentioned the small shops. I hope that, as we come out of the pandemic, there will be a real opportunity for many of our small town centres. Of course, the town centre fund will help us to achieve that. I am also glad that he mentioned the important issue of domestic violence; I think the Domestic Abuse Bill is one of the best things we have done in this Parliament for some time.

The hon. Member for Mitcham and Morden (Siobhain McDonagh) mentioned children having food. I will say clearly that I do not think there is anybody in this House who does not want to see our children have food—I was in receipt of free school meals myself, so I know how challenging it can be for families—but how we achieve that is sometimes an area of debate. That is why this Government are trying to do that through a targeted approach, so that the neediest children receive that help, and we will continue to do so.

The hon. Member for Reading East (Matt Rodda), like many others, thanked our voluntary groups and the many key workers who have worked incredibly hard to ensure that all the services run as best they can in these challenging times. I must say that I dispute his call for us to look at the Christmas rules again; personal responsibility will allow us and our families to have some time together in what has been a very difficult year.

My hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Jackie Doyle-Price) reminded me a little of Queen Elizabeth I, who was at Tilbury fort, and I can imagine that my hon. Friend will be rallying the troops to ensure that her bid for a freeport is successful. From listening to the impressive amount of work that the partnership has been doing, I hope that their bid will be looked at with great interest by Ministers. Bidding closes on 5 February, so we will wait and see. I am sure she will be popping the champagne. [Interruption.] I cannot give that commitment, but let us hope she will be popping the champagne—that is how I had better put it.

The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) is, as always, the most courteous man. He appears in every debate that happens, whether here or in Westminster Hall. I was somewhat surprised once when I was leading a debate on HS2 to see him walking in, as I was thinking, “How on earth are we going to connect London to Leeds and then across to Northern Ireland?” However, he managed to get a perfect intervention in. My hon. Friend the Member for Congleton (Fiona Bruce) talked about the serious human rights issues and, of course, what is going on in China. It is absolutely right, as was mentioned, that we raise these issues here. The Government are working with all our international partners to ensure that we speak up where there are human rights abuses.

Now I come on to the masterclass from my hon. Friend the Member for Southend West (Sir David Amess). If I were to try to answer everything he raised, we would be here until new year’s eve. However, I will ensure that, as he wanted, he gets a reply to the letter he sent. He raised very important issues, including, of course, the city status one. My little briefing note here may give him some cause for an opportunity, as it says, “The Cabinet Office continues to explore whether there is an appropriate royal occasion on which to hold a city status competition.” We all know that there is one coming, so let us see whether he is finally successful. I have no idea what he will talk about afterwards if that ever happens.

My hon. Friend the Member for North West Durham (Mr Holden) certainly showed what a busy year he has had, and, yes, I was intrigued by the combination of motor homes, tax relief and public toilets. I am glad that he mentioned the private Members’ Bills, and I want to thank him for the support he gave to our colleague my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesham and Amersham (Dame Cheryl Gillan) with her private Member’s Bill. I am her Whip and I know that she was extremely grateful for that support. He also mentioned dull Christmas lights. I can tell him that we had the same problem in my constituency, but through a lot of hard work from community volunteers we have been able to change a lot of the town. The only problem I would warn him about is that this results in your being up ladders in the freezing cold of November, but it is worth doing.

My hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Aaron Bell) raised the serious issue of landfill in his constituency. Clearly, this is not a very pleasant experience for those residents, and I will raise the matter with my colleagues in the relevant Department. I say to the company involved that it really should engage. I think we can all say that companies that engage effectively with our communities certainly get a better response.

I am running out of time so I had better finish by saying that my hon. Friends the Members for Wantage (David Johnston), for Stoke-on-Trent North (Jonathan Gullis) and for Ipswich (Tom Hunt) all gave great speeches about their constituencies. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent North on the birth of Amelia. I am also glad that my hon. Friend the Member for Ipswich raised the issue of special educational needs, because I have always believed it is an important area where we can get the very best opportunities for everybody.

I want to finish by wishing the whole House a very happy Christmas. Happy Christmas to you, Mr Deputy Speaker, to Mr Speaker and to the other Deputy Speakers. On behalf of the whole House, we would like to thank all Members, the peers, the staff of the House, civil servants, security, cleaners, broadcasting, Hansard, catering and the doorkeepers, who always keep us in order—mainly. They have been helping to keep Parliament working safely during what has been an incredibly difficult time in this pandemic. We also thank Members’ staff, who have sometimes had to face a lot of abuse—that is just not on, and they do so with such good grace. We have done a lot in this pandemic: 188 Divisions have happened; and 190 statutory instruments have been passed since March. That is thanks to everybody who has worked so hard. So I wish everybody a very happy Christmas, and let us hope for a much better new year.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered matters to be raised before the forthcoming adjournment.

National Shipbuilding Strategy

Debate between Julian Lewis and Stuart Andrew

Thursday 11th July 2019 Westminster Hall

[Stuart Andrew]

I said that I would come on to those issues a little later, and I promise I will—I will not hide from them.

The strategy is important for the Ministry of Defence, but I am keen that we look at this across Government too. For that reason, I have asked to meet the Minister for Business and Industry and the relevant Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State at the Department for Transport so that we can discuss how best to support UK shipyards, from the perspective of not only defence, but the opportunities that may exist for the commercial maritime sector and whether it is ready and prepared for them. I want this to be a cross-Government approach to securing the future of the industry.

The strategy sets out an ambitious plan to put the UK at the forefront of the technologies of the future. That is why investment in science, technology, and innovation is key, as they have the potential to drive improvements in productivity, to grow prosperity in the UK and to build an internationally competitive industry that is resilient to the peaks and troughs of both military and civil shipbuilding.

We have heard today about the success of the BAE Systems approach when it comes to the Australian and Canadian work; the company has also been successful in terms of the Royal Thai Navy’s offshore patrol vessel requirements. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has had conversations with both the previous and the current Secretary of Defence in the United States about whether the Type 26 and Type 31 might be appropriate and suitable for their requirements. That is something that she will continue to pursue, as will we all.

Of course, there are all sorts of other investments happening, such as the Royal Navy’s new autonomy and lethality accelerator. This £45 million programme will deliver rapid and ongoing transformational change across the maritime environment. The Royal Navy is also forging ahead with things such as the 3D printers that the right hon. Member for North Durham sent me a question about recently. There is a lot of work going on in that innovation area that will continue to support the wider supply chain to our industry.

A few hon. Members have mentioned the Type 31e programme, so I will give an update. It is, of course, a pathfinder for the delivery of the new shipbuilding and capability vision set out in the strategy. We announced the award of contracts for the competitive design phase in December. I am pleased to say that the competition is still on track, and it is our intention to announce the outcome of the competition for the design and build of the ships by the end of the year. It has been a vibrant and healthy competition.

I take the point that the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Gerald Jones) made regarding the value. I have been checking throughout the price we have, which is £250 million per ship. We made some initial adjustments to make it tie in with the way we have procured other warships in the past, so we have taken costs such as Government-furnished equipment out of that £250 million. The Royal Navy assures me—both I and the Secretary of State have been quite robust with it—that the capability we will receive will meet its requirements; it has given us that absolute reassurance, and it is looking forward to receiving the ships.

I will go over some of the other points that have been made. In opening the debate, the right hon. Member for North Durham rightly talked about the skills agenda—I will come on in a minute to the points about the supply chain. He is absolutely right that we must ensure that we learn the lessons from the submarine programme. It has been blindingly obvious to me, as I have been learning this job, that ensuring that Barrow is right up there again and capable of delivering our submarine programme has been a major challenge.

Coming on to the drumbeat, it is our intention to ensure that the industry has that 30-year plan of what the Royal Navy’s requirements will be, so that it can see where the opportunities will arise and where there may be potential gaps that it may need to fill. That said, we have of course provided 20 years’ worth of work on the Clyde. I will comment in a minute on what my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is doing in this area, because it will be incredibly important.

[Steve McCabe in the Chair]

I have heard a number of people say that the FSS are warships, and that no other country in Europe buys its support ships or other ships from international orders. That is not quite true: for example, Germany had an international competition for its multi-purpose frigate, Norway has procured a support ship from South Korea and five frigates from Spain, Australia has had two support ships from Spain, and New Zealand has an auxiliary ship from South Korea. It is not true to say that all those countries always have their ships built in their home countries.

[Dr Julian Lewis]

What the Minister says is completely correct. The question is not so much whether countries choose to do this but whether they have to. In the case of Germany, its expenditure on defence is notoriously a much smaller proportion of its GDP than ours is of ours, so it is probably doing it for the same sort of reasons. That does not make it the right policy.

[Stuart Andrew]

I will come on to my right hon. Friend’s comments. He talks about funding, which is absolutely the heart of the issue. With a very challenging budget, we must ensure that we get the maximum capability possible for our armed forces at the best value. I must say that in the past, international competition has proved very successful; on the MARS tankers, it saved a considerable amount of money. We want to go for two of the ships on the FSS with the option of a third.

[Dr Lewis]

rose—

[Mr Kevan Jones]

rose—

[Stuart Andrew]

I will give way to my right hon. Friend, but there will be a fixed budget, and we must get the best we can out of that money.

[Dr Lewis]

I fully understand the logic of the Minister’s position, but it just goes to what I was trying to convey in my speech: it is a question of short-term savings that will show up in an annual budget, compared with medium to long-term costs when the time comes that we want to build other ships and we find that we have lost our industrial footprint to some extent and have to reconstruct it. I acknowledge that that is the dilemma that he faces.

--- Later in debate ---

[Stuart Andrew]

I am grateful for the point that my right hon. Friend makes. That is the balance we are struggling with at the moment; I will be completely up front about that. It will probably be helpful if I go on to talk about what my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has said. In the speech that she gave to the Royal United Services Institute, she was quite right to say that we needed to look at where we could explore changing policy so that the UK could at least have the choice, if it so wished, to just build in the United Kingdom.

A tremendous amount of work is going in to reviewing the national shipbuilding strategy. We have Sir John Parker’s comments and of course we are taking stock of those. My right hon. Friend asked for a review to learn the lessons from the MARS tankers, so that we can feed them into potentially changing the policy, but I assure hon. Members that all that, and all the debates, meetings and questions I have had, is followed through.

[Dr Lewis]

Will the Minister give way?

[Stuart Andrew]

I had better give way to the right hon. Member for North Durham first, and then I will come back to my right hon. Friend.

[Stuart Andrew]

I assure the right hon. Gentleman that the report we commissioned will look at every single aspect of that, including the benefit to the supply chain in the United Kingdom. There is some evidence that a number of UK supply chain companies have seen their international work increase as a result of being part of that. We are formulating our response to the review of the strategy.

[Dr Lewis]

The Minister is being amazingly kind. I really appreciate it. Let me put this sunny scenario before him. Let us imagine that the wishes of the Defence Committee come true and the defence budget is restored to 3% of GDP, as it was right up until the middle of the 1990s, quite a few years after the end of the cold war. Will he at least acknowledge that if there were an uplift in the defence budget, spending some of that extra money on securing the shipyards and the defence-industrial footprint, even if that sometimes meant that we spent more than we might spend in the short term if we contracted with an overseas builder, would be a sensible strategic decision?

[Stuart Andrew]

Again, that is part of the work that the Secretary of State is looking at, so that the United Kingdom can make a choice on those options. Of course, that will require more money. We have to accept that. I look forward to right hon. and hon. Members securing similar debates, so that Treasury Ministers can answer those questions.

[Dr Lewis]

They never do. They always try to put it back to you.

Military Aircraft Manufacturing

Debate between Julian Lewis and Stuart Andrew

Wednesday 8th May 2019 Westminster Hall

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Stuart Andrew)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship for the first time, Mr Rosindell. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Fylde (Mark Menzies) on securing the debate and on his work for many of his constituents. He often grabs me in the corridor to raise issues that are of concern to him and them. As he rightly said, his constituency has a proud tradition in military aviation. Over recent years, BAE Systems Military Air & Information at Warton has been the central assembly facility for the Eurofighter Typhoon. That was one of the first visits I made when I was appointed to this job, and the passion that goes through that company was clear, from the management to the workforce. We should be proud of what it has done.

The area has a strong heritage. Warton was originally the base of English Electric and the testing ground for the legendary Lightning fighter—the supersonic interceptor of the 1960s and 1970s, rather than today’s world-beating F-35 Lightning II stealth jet. It is doubly appropriate, therefore, that the debate has highlighted the proud history of the UK in the field.

Let us make no mistake that the UK remains a global leader in military aerospace for three reasons. The first reason, which my hon. Friend touched on, is innovation. We have a long heritage of leading the world in aerospace thinking—in taking cutting-edge industrial, technical and scientific know-how from the drawing board to cutting-edge military capability. The first purpose-built air-to-air combat fighter was designed and built in Britain, as was the first vertical take-off and landing aircraft. That heritage remains undiminished.

The second reason is our history of successful international collaboration in producing some of the best military aircraft in the world, such as Jaguar, Tornado and Typhoon, with our partners on the continent, and now the F-35 with the United States, as my hon. Friend pointed out. The third reason is the strength of our domestic combat air sector, which has created skilled jobs and prosperity not just in his constituency, but across the nation.

It is worth mentioning the recent successes for the UK industry in the sector. Programmes such as the F-35 are creating considerable industrial benefit, with 15% of the value of more than 3,000 airframes being built by British industry. The Government are also delighted with the UK’s recent success in securing another batch of F-35 avionic and aircraft component repair work, which will bring an additional £500 million of work to north Wales and secure hundreds of skilled jobs. Overall, the combat air sector has an annual turnover of more than £6 billion. It directly supports more than 18,000 skilled jobs across the UK and many more in the wider supply chain, which are equally important.

To maintain and strengthen the sector’s competitive international position, the Government established the £2 billion future combat air system technology initiative following the “Strategic Defence and Security Review 2015”. That initiative sustains investment in the sector to ensure that the UK remains at the forefront of developing the next generation of technological capability.

Last year, the Government further demonstrated their commitment to the sector by launching the combat air strategy at the Farnborough international airshow, as my hon. Friend said. The strategy defined a clear vision for the sector that preserves our long-standing national advantages in the field and our freedom of action in deciding how our combat air capability is delivered. All future combat air decisions will be based on a national value framework that takes full account of our armed forces’ requirements, the contribution to the nation’s industrial capacity and prosperity, and the significant benefits that military aviation provides to our international influence.

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

As the Minister knows, the Defence Committee is quite worried that not enough is being done to protect the defence industrial base. In advance of his appearance before us on 21 May, when we will look into some of these subjects, can he tell us how much consideration is given to the knock-on benefits of investing in production in the UK rather than buying off the shelf, given that the money spent is then channelled back into the British economy?

[Stuart Andrew]

I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for his intervention, and I say with some trepidation that I am looking forward to appearing before his Committee in a couple of weeks’ time. He is absolutely right to raise that important issue. We are doing a tremendous amount of work across the Department, and a lot of it is of course the focus of the fantastic report by our right hon. Friend the Member for Ludlow (Mr Dunne) on the important prosperity that the defence industry can bring. We are also engaging a lot with small and medium-sized enterprises around the country to encourage more of them to take part in many of the competitions, and to ensure that they do more business with defence. Wherever we build new platforms, we are encouraging wider prosperity among those in the supply chain in the United Kingdom.

I know there has been some controversy about some of the platforms we are buying from overseas, but we are working with these industries to ensure that they work closely with the UK supply chain, so that we can increase the prosperity that comes about because of the platforms we are buying. For example, Boeing recently took a lot of SMEs over to the United States to talk through how they can bid for business from that company. Of course, Boeing has made investments in this country, but we want to see even more of that happening, and I will be happy to develop a bit more of that when I come before the Committee chaired by the Member for New Forest East (Dr. Lewis) my right hon. Friend.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Julian Lewis and Stuart Andrew

Monday 14th January 2019 Commons Chamber

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

The Ministry of Defence is evidently well prepared to respond very quickly to drone threats, once it is asked for assistance, but can the Minister explain the policy whereby installations are not already in place and a crisis has to arise before that assistance is deployed to the airports?

[Stuart Andrew]

As I was saying, the protection of airports is in fact an issue for those airports. I know that the Department for Transport is working with airfields across the country to ensure that they have the protections they need. The response by the MOD was incredibly swift, and I pay tribute to it for that.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Julian Lewis and Stuart Andrew

Monday 26th November 2018 Commons Chamber

[Stuart Andrew]

As I have said before, we now have a national shipbuilding strategy that is ensuring that our shipbuilding industry knows exactly what the MOD will be building over the next 30 years so that it can plan accordingly and be competitive in the world market. Surely, we should be welcoming that.

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

May I give the Minister a second chance to answer the question that he could not hear earlier about veterans being given the opportunity to revisit the battlefields on which they have fought?

Prisons (Property) Bill

Debate between Julian Lewis and Stuart Andrew

Friday 14th September 2012 Commons Chamber

[Stuart Andrew]

My hon. Friend, as ever, makes a wise contribution. That suggestion is also of great merit. It would be good that those items could be used in that way, and we will certainly consider his suggestion as the Bill continues through the House.

The situation is not only ludicrous from a legal point of view; it sends out entirely the wrong message. Unauthorised items can prejudice safety and security in prisons, and there have been instances of their being linked to serious crimes. Mobile phones, for example, have been used to organise crimes including murder, drug dealing and witness intimidation, and to access social networking sites.

When I was researching these matters, I was astonished to see the amount of mobile phone communication that had taken place from prisons. I have some examples here. Murders have been carried out from prison. In April 2006, Andrew Wanogho was shot dead in a London street in the early hours. The culprit had a cast-iron alibi; he was in jail at the time. The fact that he was on remand in Belmarsh prison had not prevented him from co-ordinating the murder using a smuggled mobile phone, however. Even more shocking is the fact that he rang the victim’s mobile phone after the shooting to check that his rival was dead. It is astonishing that such activities are going on in our prison system. In September 2007, Ryan Lloyd was jailed for life for the murder of Liam Smith, who was shot dead outside a prison in Liverpool in 2006. Lloyd had used a contraband mobile to call an accomplice. In 2009, another gang leader was jailed for organising the murder of a 17-year-old man from his cell in a prison in Humberside.

Drugs have been sold from prison. One drug dealer was behind bars in a prison in Lewes when he realised that he had a captive market, using the fact that there are drug addicts in the prison system. Before his imprisonment, he had been part of a small heroin and cocaine distribution ring based around Worthing. Once inside, he not only continued to run the business, issuing instructions to his team by mobile phone, but expanded his operation to include the prison itself. Packages of drugs were hidden in socks and thrown over the prison walls, to be collected by inmates at pre-arranged times. That was all made possible by the fact that he had access to a mobile phone.

We then come to intimidation from prison. I have a constituent whose 16-year-old son was murdered by a gang of 30 youths. Four of them were prosecuted, but one escaped to Pakistan. He has taunted my constituent from there on Facebook, telling her how much he was enjoying his freedom. That has been terribly difficult for her, because it means that she can never really let go of that horrible day. Let us imagine, therefore, what it must be like to get that kind of intimidation from someone in prison. I think that it would add insult to injury. That happened two years ago, when it emerged that one of Britain’s most dangerous gangsters was using Facebook to threaten his enemies from his high-security prison. The gang boss, who had been locked up for 35 years, was able to correspond with up to 565 “friends” on Facebook for more than two months, until the page was shut down. Some of the things he wrote were, frankly, astonishing. He wrote:

“I will be home one day and can’t wait to look into certain people’s eyes and see the fear of me being there. It’s good to have an outlet to let you know how I am, some of you will be in for a good slagging and some have let me down badly and will be named and shamed”.

The fact that this has come from within the person’s cell is horrendous.

The taunting of victims’ families from prisons is another problem. One of the killers of 16-year-old Ben Kinsella used his Facebook page to taunt his victims’ families from behind bars. He boasted that he was “down but not out”, and for his profile picture he mocked up a T-shirt emblazoned with his face and the slogan “Free Jade Braithwaite”. From his cell, he wrote how he wanted “remote control” so that he could

“mute or delete people when I need to”.

Ben’s sister Brooke, who is 28, said at the time:

“My family and I are appalled that Jade Braithwaite is able to operate a Facebook page from inside prison—and to use the site to protest his innocence is really upsetting. We are disgusted by the comments on the site and feel it is a real insult to Ben’s memory.”

We are letting down these families if we do not deal with this problem. I have more quotes, which I may come back to later, but that gives a flavour of the real problem and its effect on the families of victims and on the victims themselves.

Phones today are not just instruments of communication; they often have cameras and recording devices. Pictures can be taken from inside prison and communicated outside, which could facilitate the opportunity to escape or help with smuggling drugs and other contraband into prison. What message does that send to victims, particularly when we have to store these items if they are found?

There is a real effect on prison discipline. Some items of property may not be illicit in themselves but have not been authorised for possession by a prisoner, including items that might have been smuggled in by visitors or obtained from another prisoner. Currently, too many prisoners use the lack of legislation to their own advantage. Prison officers discover items, but prisoners know that no legislation is in place to allow their destruction and demand that the items are put in storage. That is bad not only for good order, but for the morale of staff who work in the prison.

Glyn Travis of the Prison Officers Association states:

“The POA welcome this Bill and believe it is long overdue. Staff do get frustrated when they work hard to confiscate contraband and are then taunted by prisoners who use the loophole and force staff to store the property for them when they are released. This has a knock on effect and cost to the tax payer as property has to be transferred if the offender is. If property is classed as illegal/contraband, it should be destroyed and not stored. If the loophole is not closed compensation claims may arise if property is lost.”

If we do not pass the Bill today, we will let down the people who work so hard for us in those prisons.

The impact on resources within the prison system is another issue. When I was doing research for this Bill, I visited HMP Leeds—I hope it will prove to be the only time I go there—which is an extremely large and imposing Victorian building in which space is at a premium. I am extremely grateful to all the prison staff who gave up a considerable amount of their time to talk me through the process of prisoners entering the prison and to explain the many issues they face daily. They also told me what the problems were in the prison system.

As many Members will know, when prisoners arrive from court they must declare the items they have on them, and those that are permitted in the prison are listed on a card for the records. Prisoners are allowed to keep some of the items on them, and some will be stored. That is legitimate, and the Bill does not deal with those items. Others, such as mobile phones, are not allowed, but as long as prisoners have declared them in the court, they will be listed on a second card and stored until the prisoners are released. Storing the legitimate items is demanding enough given the number of people who are involved in the prison system, but the pressure is increased by the fact that prison staff are forced to store all the unauthorised items as well. It is estimated that storing the tens of thousands of mobile phones alone costs about £20,000 a year.

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

Are steps taken, or sanctions imposed, when people are found smuggling items into prison, and do prisoners who are found to have been receiving items inappropriately lose any privileges?

[Stuart Andrew]

In some cases restrictions are imposed, but one wonders how many people are smuggling things into prisons and hiding them without being detected. Why would they fear being caught if they know that the items that they have smuggled in may be stored? We want to send the clear message that it is not even worth trying, and I hope that that is what the Bill will do.