Oral Answers to Questions

Rachael Maskell Excerpts

Tuesday 26th April 2016 Commons Chamber

[Mr Vara]

The Government are disappointed with the findings of the Supreme Court on the residence test, particularly when the last Government listened to Parliament and the public, and we made exceptions to that test. I am minded to say that there are millions of people across the country who take the view that it is right that there should be some sort of connection with Britain for people who seek to have their legal aid funds paid for by the British public.

[Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)]

19. Claudia Lawrence from York was last seen on 18 March 2009; she is still missing, as are around 2,500 people in the UK. In the midst of their grief, families have to battle to deal with financial and property affairs, and they need access to justice. There is a simple solution: guardianship on behalf of the missing person. The Government promised this over a year ago. Will the Secretary of State commit to putting it in this year’s Queen’s Speech?

[Mr Speaker]

That is a very good example of what I call “shoe-horning”. The hon. Lady shoe-horned in a later question into this one, and was just about in order. She is very ingenious.

Legal Guardianship and Missing People

Rachael Maskell Excerpts

Wednesday 23rd March 2016 Westminster Hall

[Julian Sturdy (York Outer) (Con)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered legal guardianship and missing people.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Owen. I want to put on the record that all our prayers and thoughts across the House are with those affected by the horrific events in Brussels yesterday morning.

It must be devastating when a loved one goes missing without any explanation or reason. We can only imagine the trauma and turmoil that brings to their families and friends. It is the sort of life-changing event that can be truly understood only by those unfortunate enough to experience it first hand, like my constituent, Peter Lawrence, whose daughter, Claudia, went missing on her way to work in York way back in 2009.

The uncertainty of a loved one going missing for weeks, months or even years on end is in itself devastating, but the practical implications cause unnecessary stress and challenges to their families. At present, when someone goes missing there is no legal authority in place to support families in dealing with their loved one’s affairs. Ownership and control of their property is effectively left in limbo until they are found or declared presumed dead, which happens only after seven long years.

In its current form, the law dictates that a person is presumed alive until proven otherwise and they retain direct accountability for all their property and affairs as if they were not missing. There is no assumption that they have lost capacity to manage their estate. Clearly and sadly, this is not the case in reality. As it stands, the law has some very serious consequences when it comes to managing a missing person’s financial affairs. For example, families are left unable to make mortgage payments, risking repossession, and cannot cancel direct debits or ensure that creditors are paid.

If the missing person has dependents, this further complicates the matter and, as I am sure you can appreciate, Mr Owen, it is incredibly distressing to watch helplessly as the financial affairs of a friend or family member are ruined. That happens at a time of complete turmoil for the family. Understandably, third parties such as banks and other financial institutions require direct consent from their customers before they will act on their behalf. The fact that someone is missing clearly makes this impossible. We need greater clarity for families and third parties in managing these issues. I am pleased that this view is widely accepted by all parties and the Government.

Many people will be aware that last week marked the seventh anniversary of Claudia Lawrence’s disappearance, making this debate timely and an occasion to remember her and the thousands of other missing people in the UK. Claudia’s father, Peter Lawrence, has campaigned tirelessly on behalf of all families who suffer from having a mother, father, daughter or son go missing, and I think his work should be commended.

We still do not know what happened to Claudia, but Peter’s campaign to change the law to help families who find themselves in such an incredibly difficult situation is inspirational. He is in London again today, campaigning for the change. With the assistance of the Missing People charity, Peter played a key role in pressing the Government to consult on creating a new legal status of guardian of the property and affairs of missing people back in August 2014. I, with other Members of Parliament, interested groups and members of the public, contributed to the consultation.

Exactly a year ago, in March 2015, the Government published their response to the consultation. They expressed their strong support for this new legal status and committed to introducing primary legislation as soon as possible. That was welcomed by all at the time and was seen as a huge step forward in the campaign. None of us thought in March 2015 that we would be at the same point a year on. It is deeply disappointing that no significant progress has been made.

In January, I received a letter from Lord Faulks informing me that

“work is progressing on developing the draft legislation”.

That is all we have been told and we are not seeing any action.

[Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)]

Claudia Lawrence lived in the hon. Gentleman’s constituency. As the Member for York Central, I am pleased to see her father in the Chamber today. He has been a real campaigner for missing people.

Would it not be expedient, as the forthcoming Queen’s Speech is so imminent, to bring in legislation on guardianship? We would love to see that in the Queen’s Speech to bring relief to families in sorting out the financial and property affairs of missing people.

[Julian Sturdy]

I agree entirely with my honourable neighbour, who is absolutely right. The debate is timely because we are six or eight weeks away from a Queen’s Speech, and that would be an ideal opportunity to see some progress on this important legislation.

[Mr James Gray in the Chair]

It is simply not good enough that, a year after promising action as soon as possible, we still have nothing to show the families who desperately need our help. Families continue to be unable to protect their missing loved one’s finances and property. It is unacceptable that no action is forthcoming and I call on the Minister today to commit to a clear parliamentary timetable for introducing this Bill.

When Claudia went missing in 2009, Peter soon discovered that he was powerless to act on behalf of his daughter. He was defeated by needless obstacles at every turn. The creation of a new legal guardianship status would allow families to act in the best interests of the missing person and give third parties the legal assurance that they need to help to resolve ongoing issues that are currently constrained by contract and data protection. The consultation paper proposed a system that is overseen by the Office of the Public Guardian and administered by the courts. Clearly, that will require detailed legislation that will need proper scrutiny before the House.

Oral Answers to Questions

Rachael Maskell Excerpts

Tuesday 26th January 2016 Commons Chamber

[Mr Vara]

We constantly ensure that matters are kept under review. We are committed to having a review of the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012 three to five years after its implementation.

[Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)]

The Law Society describes access to justice as being

“on the verge of a crisis”.

Funding for civil cases has fallen by 62% since civil legal aid was cut. Will the Minister carry out a full review to understand the equality impact of the changes in civil legal aid?

[Mr Vara]

As I have just said, we will be carrying out a full review of the implementation of LASPO. We still have one of the most generous legal aid budgets in the world, notwithstanding the reductions we have made.

Psychoactive Substances Bill [Lords]

Rachael Maskell Excerpts

Wednesday 20th January 2016 Commons Chamber

[Paul Flynn]

Before I start, may I point out one major error? A picture of me has been widely retweeted by Members of the House. It was taken from American television, where tens of millions of people were informed in the caption that I was leader of the Labour party. I just want to point out that this information is a tad premature.

It is generous to describe this Bill as a landmark in legislative futility, because it is in fact worse than that: this Bill will do harm, as all the other prohibition Bills in the 28 years in which I have been here have—they have all done harm. The Home Affairs Committee does not seem to have considered what has happened in the two countries that have passed legislation very similar to this Bill. In Ireland what happened was that, certainly the head shops closed down—of course they did; they were illegal—and the sites closed down, but they were replaced by other illegal head shops; they were replaced by a market that is criminal and irresponsible. Furthermore, in Ireland the market among young people for using these drugs increased from 16% of the population to 22%. Those are figures from the European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction. Meanwhile in Poland there was a 3% increase. So now the countries that have passed similar Bills to this one have the greatest use of psychoactive drugs in the world.

This Bill will be counterproductive. In 1971 we passed the Misuse of Drugs Act. At that time we had 1,000 cocaine and heroin addicts in Britain. We have now got 300,000. I wish Members would consider the possibility, in respect of what they are doing and the ideas they have, that the conventional wisdom is the conventional stupidity. It would be madness to ban poppers, as everyone says.

This Bill should be considered on the evidence alone. Should we support the attempt to move cannabis into an area where scientists can work on it? That is an approach that is based not on superstition, rumour or prejudice, but on science, and it should be supported.

[Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)]

I shall be brief.

I wish to emphasise that although so many elements of the Bill are important, it is essential that it is strengthened in the field of education. New clause 1 addresses that and does answer what was set out in paragraph 76 of the Home Affairs Committee report, which says:

“Successive governments’ spending on education on the dangers of NPS has been shockingly inadequate to date. Action must be taken now, to educate young people”.

Therefore, we are dealing with a plea and a recognition that there has been an absence of education. This is not about politics; it is about evidence-based practice, which is why I am hopeful that the Government will support new clause 1.

Transpeople (Prisons)

Rachael Maskell Excerpts

Friday 20th November 2015 Commons Chamber

[Andrew Selous]

I am grateful for what my hon. Friend has said about our hon. Friend the Member for Keighley. I discussed this matter with him earlier, having noted his constituency interest.

We take seriously our obligation to provide the right level of emotional support for prison officers after events such as this. Help and counselling will be available to any who need assistance after this or similar events.

[Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)]

My thoughts are with the family and friends of Vicky Thompson. We debated the issue of the serious shortage of prison officers and mental health specialists in prisons back in the summer. Will the Minister work specifically with the trans community on the needs and risks assessments for specialists in prisons?

[Andrew Selous]

The hon. Lady has made a good point. I will speak to the officials who are conducting the review. As I told the House earlier, members of the trans community are involved in the review, but if we can add anything to it, I shall be open to that.

Maternity Discrimination

Rachael Maskell Excerpts

Tuesday 3rd November 2015 Westminster Hall

[Stuart C. McDonald]

I agree absolutely with the right hon. Lady, and I will briefly turn to some of the report’s findings. The issue is not just the scale of the problem, but the fact that the numbers seem to have increased over the last decade.

It is important to put on record some of the report’s findings. On the basis of interviews with over 3,000 employers and over 3,000 women with young children, investigators were able to conclude, as the right hon. Lady said, that unlawful maternity and pregnancy discrimination is more common in Britain’s workplaces than ever, with an estimated 54,000 pregnant women and new mothers—that is one in nine—forced out of their job each year. They also found that one in five women—as many as 100,000 a year across the UK—reported having experienced harassment or negative comments either because of pregnancy or flexible working. Investigators found that one in 12 women were treated with less respect by their line manager, and one in eight felt that they were treated less favourably in some other way, as a result of their pregnancy. One in 10 women were discouraged from attending antenatal appointments, despite those being absolutely essential for protecting the health and wellbeing of mother and baby, as well as there being a legal right to paid time off for antenatal appointments.

Investigators also found that one in six of the women interviewed reported suffering a negative impact on their health or stress levels because of poor treatment at work. One in 12 women who had attended a job interview while pregnant reported being asked during that interview whether they were pregnant, and finally, two in five women said that they would have liked to work more flexibly upon return from maternity leave, but did not ask to do so as they were concerned that it would not be approved, or that it would result in negative consequences.

[Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)]

I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on securing today’s debate. Does he agree that when maternity pay is just £138 a week, there is a disincentive for women to make tribunal claims against the discrimination that they experience, given that they have to pay £250 to submit their application and £950 for a hearing? Having to pay £1,200 is massive disincentive for women to make a claim, but on top of that, it means that employers are more likely to discriminate. Should that area of discrimination claims in the tribunal not be exempt from fees?

[Stuart C. McDonald]

The hon. Lady makes a very valid point, and I will turn in due course to tribunal fees and access to justice.

It is interesting to note that despite all the discrimination that I laid out from the report, only one in 12 of those women who raised a concern about their treatment at work obtained legal advice from an external advice provider such as Maternity Action, a law centre or a citizens advice bureau, so there is probably an awareness-of-rights issue, even before we get to the equally important consideration of tribunal fees.

Looking at the other side of the coin, the research found that seven in 10 employers felt that mothers should declare up front in interviews if they are pregnant. Almost three in 10 employers felt that pregnancy put unreasonable cost burdens on the workplace, and a horrifying one in four of the employers surveyed wrongly believed that it is lawful to ask women job candidates about their plans to have children.

The sad fact is that these findings, published in July, probably did not come as a surprise to campaigners. For example, in its 2013 report, “Overdue”, Maternity Action estimated that up to 60,000 women were being forced out of employment because of maternity discrimination. As the research suggests, it is a sad fact that the problem is becoming more, not less, widespread. The number of mothers being forced out of work through maternity discrimination is almost double the figure of 30,000 identified in similar research undertaken back in 2004-05 by the then Equal Opportunities Commission.

The hon. Member for York Central (Rachael Maskell) touched on the point that causes some of us the most concern: it is beyond reasonable doubt that certain Government policies have made it harder, not easier, to tackle the issue, by making it more difficult for women to challenge such discrimination. The supply of free legal advice has been severely reduced by funding cuts. Maternity Action’s free helpline now receives 42 times more calls than it is able to answer, and as she said, since July 2013, there have been up-front fees of up to £1,200 to pursue an employment tribunal claim for pregnancy, maternity or other discrimination, which has undoubtedly had a devastating impact on women’s access to justice. In the words of Lord Justice Underhill,

“It is quite clear…that the introduction of fees has had the effect of deterring a very large number of potential claimants.”

It is important to say that not only are fewer claims being made, but it is undeniable that meritorious claimants are being stopped from proceeding.

Those statistics are easy to rattle through, but on their own, they do not give us a proper understanding of the nature of what is going on. That comes only from hearing the very individual stories of women across the UK who endure this discrimination, such as the stories that I was told yesterday during our Twitter debate and by various campaign groups. I heard appalling stories of pregnant women being forced to use different toilets at work, finding it impossible to access their employer’s maternity packages, being told that they had taken too many sick days, or being made to take antenatal appointments during their lunch breaks or on annual leave. The treatment of pregnant temporary workers seems particularly awful, according to the messages that I received.

So what are we looking for by way of a response from Government? Maternity Action, members of the Alliance Against Pregnancy Discrimination in the Workplace and members of the public taking part in our debate yesterday all believe that it is clear that Ministers need to respond with a strong, comprehensive and effective plan of action, including a number of detailed measures.

First, Ministers must send a strong message to employers that there is simply no excuse for flouting the law on pregnancy and maternity discrimination. Perhaps the Government could consider that in their proposals for a new director of labour market enforcement—a post being introduced, rather oddly, under the Immigration Bill. Alongside that, support has to be provided to small and medium-sized enterprises and start-ups to assist them with planning for maternity leave, as smaller employers in the private sector were most likely to report difficulties across many areas in managing pregnancy and maternity issues.

Secondly, the Government must develop a high-profile information campaign aimed at improving women’s awareness of their rights, and employers’ understanding of their legal obligations and the business benefits of compliance. Best practice should be benchmarked, and the benefits of best practice, including flexible working, should be highlighted. Too often, the women most vulnerable to discrimination are those who know least about their workplace rights, and that includes young workers, recent migrants and many of the millions of women working in small, non-unionised workplaces. We can put that right.

Thirdly, that general awareness-raising must go hand in hand with a significant injection of funding to the specialist information and advice services that pregnant women and new mothers clearly need to help protect their rights at work. Pregnancy and maternity discrimination presents a massive challenge to women when they are least able to handle the additional stress and financial costs. Too many are unable to benefit from a trade union’s advice and support services, and cannot afford to pay for legal advice.

Fourthly, when women are aware of their rights and have the specialist advice that they need, they must have genuine access to justice. That means getting rid of the employment tribunal fees introduced in July 2013, which, beyond doubt, represent a substantial barrier to justice. We should also consider extending the time limit for claims from three to six months, or even beyond, because during pregnancy or after birth are hardly the time to pursue stressful legal claims.

Once women have access to the tribunal, we must ensure that those awarded financial compensation for pregnancy or maternity discrimination receive the money due to them. It is unacceptable that Government-commissioned research in 2013 suggested that 50% of all awards go unpaid by employers. I hope that, as a starting point, the Minister will agree to meet Maternity Action and the Alliance Against Pregnancy Discrimination in the Workplace. I have barely scraped the surface of this topic; I look forward to colleagues filling in as many of the gaps as possible.

In conclusion, pregnant women and new mothers deserve strong protection and high levels of support. Too many experience the opposite, and discrimination is far too widespread. It is time the Government stepped up to the plate; they must do so now.

Oral Answers to Questions

Rachael Maskell Excerpts

Tuesday 3rd November 2015 Commons Chamber

[Andrew Selous]

I am grateful for my hon. Friend’s support. The prison we are building in north Wales, for example, has a large industrial workshop complex that will enable us to create the positive rehabilitative environment we all want.

[Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)]

Given that the reoffending rate is nearly 50%, but that at Askham Grange open women’s prison just outside York it is 6%—the lowest in the country—and it has the best outcomes on all measures, why do the Government want to close that prison?

[Andrew Selous]

I heard from the hon. Lady in last week’s Westminster Hall debate how highly Askham Grange was performing, and I pay tribute to all its hard-working staff, who are doing extremely well. We have to look at the prison estate as a whole to make sure it is fit for purpose across the country, and all these decisions will be considered, but we will continue to focus on improving education and work opportunities for all prisoners.

Transforming Rehabilitation Programme

Rachael Maskell Excerpts

Wednesday 28th October 2015 Westminster Hall

[Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)]

Thank you, Mr Nuttall. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship.

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Aberavon (Stephen Kinnock) for setting out the importance of focusing on the Government’s transforming rehabilitation programme. The debate is highlighting the risks and confusion that are manifest as a result of introducing an untested programme and reorganisation affecting some of the most vulnerable people in our society. Getting prison and probation wrong fails victims, the public and the offender. The issue is too important. For Labour, therefore, penal reform has to be about evidence-based practice, to ensure that all interventions that are deployed have the highest opportunity of being transformative. Opposition Members will not be heard calling for nothing to be done when reoffending rates sit at about 47.5%—that figure has remained static for many years. Labour is the first to demand intervention.

In June I was the Member in charge of a debate in Westminster Hall that highlighted many of the serious issues in our prisons leading to the failure to help offenders turn their life around. Throughout the debate Opposition colleagues emphasised things that need to be dealt with to stem the reoffending rate. Intervention is vital, but intervention is very different from reorganisation.

The transforming rehabilitation programme has been about more than only reorganisation; it has also been about privatisation. As with health, education and so many public services, the Government’s main interests are political rather than purposeful. They have made it absolutely clear that they will be seeking the involvement only of private and voluntary sector organisations in their programme, not of the public sector—not of those with the highest expertise. We have scrutinised so many Government attempts to transfer the accountability of services from the state to shareholders, followed by cuts. That is what we are now witnessing across the probation service. With each such change, we see a shift in risk from the Government, so that when things go wrong they may simply point a finger—but they no longer have a responsibility to lift a finger.

The community rehabilitation company that serves my constituency and the whole of Humberside, Lincolnshire and North Yorkshire, Purple Futures, is a combination of Interserve—the main provider, which describes itself as a leading

“multinational support service and construction company”—

and three minor partners, social enterprise and charity P3, Shelter and 3SC, which manages the contract. None of those organisations boasts any expertise in the provision of rehabilitative services for offenders. They have worked together for only a short time and have not built up any evidence to prove that they can transform rehabilitation.

The fracturing of the prison, probation and now rehabilitation services has of course, as with all such arrangements, created serious issues, which also means risk. Predictably, issues of IT, communications—as we have heard—and barriers to information sharing have come to the fore. We have also seen increased bureaucracy. That is why it is so important to be able to scrutinise what is going on, but without access to information and without freedom of information making it freely open to the public, it is hard to scrutinise services and therefore safety.

We have seen the job losses that inevitably follow the privatisation of services. As a result, confidence in the service has fallen, and as we heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Torfaen (Nick Thomas-Symonds), staff morale has plummeted to only 65%. Again, ideology was put before evidence. I want to contrast that with a successful prison-to-community service just outside my constituency. Askham Grange women’s open prison, provided by the state, has a very different story.

The national reoffending rate is 47.5%, but at Askham Grange it is below 6%, the lowest in the country. Askham Grange is an open establishment operating a resettlement regime for women. It provides support for up to 128 women at any one time, including 10 mothers and babies. Its ethos is built on the maintenance of decent and respectful relationships between all who live, work and visit there. Its focus is to provide support in achieving positive family relationships and to provide individual learning programmes that include education, work skills and personal development.

[Fiona Bruce (Congleton) (Con)]

I am so pleased that the hon. Lady mentioned family relationships. If rehabilitation is to work, it is essential that while prisoners are in custody their family ties are maintained, so that they have a home to go to when they leave, whenever possible, and the best chance of not returning to detention later.

[Rachael Maskell]

I thank the hon. Lady for emphasising the importance of family. That is why Askham Grange can be held up as a good example, which facilitates such family relationships.

Individual potential is also realised at Askham Grange, with progression through a resettlement regime and into community work and/or paid work placements that reflect the training and skills gained throughout the sentence, as well as those already held. Askham Grange enables women to participate in sport and provides health facilities, a strong chaplaincy service and a wide range of courses, from the Open University programme to creative writing, business administration and employability skills. A range of vocational training opportunities are also on offer, from gardening to service assistant posts, which can lead to City & Guilds qualifications. The Ministry of Justice rated that service as exceptional in all criteria. It is one of only three prisons to have such high commendation.

Her Majesty’s inspectorate of prisons provides consistently good reports of the prison. It describes how women feel “safe” there and says that

“Askham Grange continues to be an impressive…prison”.

Indeed it is. With such excellent services, the only shocking thing is that the Government want to close the prison. The independent monitoring board described that as “bewildering”.

The Government want to replace just about the best rehabilitation service in the land with an untried and untested programme—can you believe it? If the Government are really committed to the safety of our communities, turning around the lives of some of the most vulnerable women and truly transforming rehabilitation, it is time for them first to announce that Askham Grange will not close and, secondly, to use the 70 years of evidence-based practice at Askham Grange to provide excellence across our prison and probation services.

Assisted Dying (No. 2) Bill

Rachael Maskell Excerpts

Friday 11th September 2015 Commons Chamber

[Lucy Allan (Telford) (Con)]

I am very grateful to the hon. Member for Wolverhampton South West (Rob Marris) for bringing this Bill to the House today. It is incredibly important that we are discussing this issue. I have been incredibly moved by many of the speeches that we have heard. This is a matter of public interest. We all know from our postbags that there are passionately held views on all sides. I am also very grateful to all Members of the House for the manner in which the debate has been conducted. It is a very sensitive, difficult issue, and people have dealt with it with respect. That is absolutely the way in which the debate should be conducted.

I am in favour of the Bill. Parliament may decide today to kick it into the long grass, but even if debate is closed down on the issue of assisted dying, we cannot make it go away. People will go on taking their loved ones to Dignitas. Doctors will go on giving just that little bit more morphine to a dying patient to relieve unbearable pain, knowing that it could lead to death. Ex post facto, the Director of Public Prosecutions will continue to be able to exercise discretion if they so choose.

I believe that is wrong. We need legal clarity on this issue. The law needs to be brought up to date to reflect modern, contemporary Britain and the way in which advances in medical care have accelerated and social attitudes have changed.

[Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Lucy Allan]

No, I am sorry—I only have two minutes.

A vote against this Bill will not stop assisted dying; it will simply send the message that we in Parliament will not debate the issue further.

I want to add something from a constituent that I found particularly moving. She is talking about her dying mother, and she says:

“It broke my heart on a daily basis watching her suffer…My darling Mom would scream from morning till night ‘please Lord, help me, let me die, please take me’. She was in so much pain, her tiny body was racked, worn and exhausted…I prayed that God would make me strong enough to gently place a pillow over her face to end her torture, but, sadly, I could not as I loved her too much, and selfishly wanted her to stay…it destroyed me because my Mom was my world, and I could see and feel her pain yet could do nothing.

Although it has been 3 years since Mom’s passing, I cannot move on or forget because all I see, and all I remember is her terrible suffering…It is impossible to erase her last days as they were horrific, no human being should EVER have to endure.”

This Bill is about principle: it is about freedom and choice. Although I respect the views of everybody who has spoken today, it is not for us to deny people a say in how they die. It is their life, not ours.

Safety in Prisons

Rachael Maskell Excerpts

Wednesday 17th June 2015 Westminster Hall

[Mr Peter Bone (in the Chair)]

Before I call Rachael Maskell to move the motion, it might help colleagues to know that I intend to call the winding-up speeches at 10.30 am at the latest. There are three Front-Bench spokesmen.

[Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered safety in prisons.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Bone. I am grateful to have secured this important debate on the growing risks to personal safety in our prisons.

My interest in penal matters was instilled in me in early childhood by my late uncle, Professor Terence Morris. He was a great penal reformer who played an active role in the Longford committee, which advised Prime Minister Harold Wilson on penal reform. Terence Morris’s seminal work “Pentonville: a Sociological Study of an English Prison” transformed the prison service, and he was a leading member of the movement to abolish the death penalty. Beyond being an academic in criminology, to me he was my mentor, and he continued to be so until his untimely death two years ago.

I made my maiden speech on the subject of mental health, due to the rising risks in my local services. For the past five years, I have been representing people who work in our high-security psychiatric hospitals, as Unite’s head of health. I have campaigned alongside members who are challenged by the increased risks they experience due to skill-mix, the rise in pension age, cuts to staff and the threat of other changes to their terms and conditions. Therefore, I am well aware of the physical and mental dangers faced by staff working in such environments.

However, today I will focus on Her Majesty’s prisons and the risks that are increasing as the environment grows ever more dangerous. The changing demographics of our rising prison population—that is taking place against the backdrop of cuts—are escalating the challenges faced by prison officers and staff. I want us to examine why our prisons have become ever more understaffed and overcrowded, resulting in high risk and even violence to prison staff.

[Alex Cunningham (Stockton North) (Lab)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on her election to Parliament and on securing this important first Westminster Hall debate. She will bring huge experience to Parliament on these matters.

The Government say they are providing new prison places, yet today new statistics show that there has been an increase in the number of prisoners forced to share cramped accommodation. More than a quarter of all prisoners now do so. Does my hon. Friend agree that that can lead only to greater tension in prisons and will further put safety at risk?

[Rachael Maskell]

I thank my hon. Friend for raising that important issue. Overcrowding is affecting safety in prisons, and I will set out how it is having an impact. The sharing of cells is one of the problems being faced in our prisons today.

[Kate Green (Stretford and Urmston) (Lab)]

I, too, congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this important debate. Does she agree that another issue that is increasing risk in prisons is the change to the conditions relating to earned privileges and the crackdown on release on temporary licence? Such changes make prisoners feel more stressed, which affects behaviour and risk.

[Rachael Maskell]

My hon. Friend makes an important point about the opportunities prisons have to rehabilitate people and enable them to reform their lives. I will pick it up later in the debate.

[Mr Jim Cunningham (Coventry South) (Lab)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on being elected to Parliament and on securing the debate. In 2013, £45 million was spent on redundancy packages, and the staffing of the service is now dangerously low, to say the least. Will she comment on that problem?

[Rachael Maskell]

I thank my hon. Friend for making that important point. The reduction in prison officer numbers is having a serious impact on safety in prisons. Again, I will return to the subject, because it has greatly contributed to making prisons so unsafe today.

I want us to consider why Labour’s 1997 ambition to be tough not just on crime, but on the causes of crime, is rapidly fading in the ideological drive to cut public services. Urgent investment and resolution are required to bring an end to those unnecessary trends.

Our prison infrastructure, as is the case in all public services, has shifted towards the private sector, which has resulted in a landscape through which to steer change that is fragmented and which forever draws resource from the service into the market. That has particularly failed where private companies have bid for and won loss-leading contracts, resulting in severe cuts to staffing. The Sodexo contract with Her Majesty’s prison Northumberland is one such example, where a staggering 50% cut to staffing has had profound effect. Since 2010, 18 prisons have closed—many of them smaller prisons and some high-performing centres, despite the evidence that demonstrates that smaller prisons correlate to safer environments. New prisons have been built. A Titan prison is being built in Wrexham, which is to house 2,000 prisoners, despite the research on the effect of the size of prisons on safety.

Putting that evidence aside, the issue of overcrowding across the prison estate is now at crisis point and we must seek urgent redress. It is reported that 80 out of 118 prisons are now categorised as overcrowded. For example, Wandsworth prison was running at 177% capacity in 2014—nearly double what it was designed for. Other full prisons are being ordered to make emergency space available for prisoners. Therefore, as my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton North (Alex Cunningham) said, prisoners are doubling up in cells designed for one person. In some cases, three prisoners are sharing one cell.

There are 20,672 prisoners—more than a quarter of the prison population—living in overcrowded accommodation, and the number is increasing. That is clearly putting a serious strain on our prison infrastructure and facilities. Only half of prisons inspected are achieving “reasonably good” or “good” standards.

[Steve Rotheram (Liverpool, Walton) (Lab)]

I also congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this important debate. As she knows, I have two prisons—a privately-run prison and what we still call a Government-run prison—in my constituency. She may be aware of the death of a prisoner in custody at Altcourse prison. Does she agree that serious incidents involving staff or inmates should be reported to the local MP, so he or she can assure their constituents on the safety of the prisons and address any issues surrounding serious incidents in prisons in their area?

[Rachael Maskell]

I thank my hon. Friend for raising that tragic situation. Of course reports should come to Members of Parliament, because it is important that we scrutinise the environment we are responsible for overseeing in our communities. We are able to raise such important matters and drill down to find out why such incidents are occurring in our prisons and get some real answers. He therefore makes an important point.

With the overcrowding of our prisons, violent tendencies are being exacerbated. Overcrowding is now cited as one of the major risk factors for prison staff and prisoners. The toxic mix of overcrowding and financial and staff cuts is causing the penal system to fail those who are incarcerated, and it also has a longer-term impact on the public and wider society.

Over the past two decades, the prison population has nearly doubled to 84,485. The number of women in prison has also doubled. Since 2010, staffing has been cut by 28%—a staggering loss of 12,530 personnel—and over the past three years resources have been cut by £263 million. The impact of the cuts has been observed not only by Her Majesty’s Opposition, but by the chief inspector of prisons, Nick Hardwick, who considered it extremely serious and concerning. He said that the system is not coping, and warned that, because of staff shortages, men are locked up together for 23 hours a day, causing huge tensions.

Nick Hardwick also highlighted that extra resources were needed or the prison population would have to be reduced. He said that

“this is a political and policy failure. This isn’t the fault of... staff… the demands on the system have… completely outstripped the resources available to… them.”

The annual report of the chief inspector of prisons at the end of last year highlighted the significant decline in safety and the enduring impact of time spent in custody. The average sentence has risen to 15.5 months or, for those on mandatory life sentences, up to 17 years. Punitive incarceration, which is all that can be achieved through long periods of detention without opportunity for rehabilitation, restoration and the development of skills, worth and value, does not break the crime cycle. That is evidenced by the extremely high, although now fairly static, reoffending rates, which put the public at further risk.

The previous Government had to take a U-turn on banning guitars in prison, and on banning other basic functions, such as being able to take a shower or make phone calls. Banning those provisions dehumanises prisoners, which has consequences. Minimal time out of a cell does not provide a prisoner with sufficient release but instead contributes to the escalation of risk, whether violent or otherwise. Physical, sexual and verbal assault rates remain unacceptably high and the number of violent incidents in prisons has increased. The number of serious assaults last year rose by a third.

The national tactical response group, which deals with serious incidents and riots in prisons, has seen an 89% increase in demand since 2010, with 223 calls in 2014 compared with 129 two years earlier. Only this week, we witnessed a riot involving 60 prisoners at Her Majesty’s prison Stocken. An officer was stabbed and hospitalised. The Prison Officers Association states that prisons throughout the land are on the brink of such incidents due to the dangerous staffing levels and the challenges caused by overcrowding. Substance abuse, the sharp rise in the availability of legal highs and alcohol abuse are challenging safety in prisons, and are now at serious levels in a third of prisons, with a marked prevalence found particularly among women prisoners, leading to negative behaviours and creating risks.

To dwell a little more on staffing numbers, they have fallen dramatically despite the number of those held in custody rising. That has not only put a tremendous strain on remaining staff, but led to an unsafe skills mix. Staff without sufficient competencies are now being required to take on responsibilities beyond their scope. That is not only a failure of the duty of care that prison management have to their staff, but it impacts on safety standards and increases the risk to staff.

The lack of staffing and changes in skills mix has a direct correlation with the number of violent incidents in our prisons. From 2013 to 2014, assaults between prisoners rose by some 14% and have reached the highest level ever recorded. Serious assaults on inmates have risen dramatically by 38%. In 2013, there were 11,397 assaults on prisoners; in 2014, there were 16,196. Serious assaults rose from 1,588 in 2013 to 2,145 in 2014—an increase of a third.

Four homicides took place in prison in 2013. Some 41% of prisoners now feel unsafe in their environment. Incidents against staff rose by a third—including the highest ever level of serious assault—and staff now have an unacceptable level of sickness, averaging 10.8 days compared with the national average of 4.4 days. These are not statistics, but lives being put in danger. Prisoners are being put at risk, as are staff who are going to work and carrying out their duties day by day. We must never forget that.

The number of prisoners at risk of suicide and self-harm is at an alarming high. Over the past year, the suicide rate has risen by 69%. Eight of those suicides were carried out by prisoners placed in segregation, four of whom were known to be at risk. The rate has risen significantly for the first time in five years. The proportion of prisoners at risk of suicide—21% of men and 46% of women—is substantially higher than the rest of the population, in which 6% are at risk. A staggering 23,478 prisoners self-harmed last year. The time officers can invest in building relationships has depleted; there is no time to sit down to have a conversation and a cup of tea, and to talk through the stresses and strains on prisoners. Instead, prisoners are turning on themselves in desperation.

Our youth justice system also faces challenge. Because of the shortage of appropriate placements, young offenders are often placed in those dangerous environments.

[Steve Rotheram]

Before my hon. Friend moves off the point, and as there is a Minister here, the Government know the statistics that she is quoting. The Government have to provide a safe working environment for staff. Does she believe that they are failing in their duty of care?

[Rachael Maskell]

Clearly, staff working in prisons—officers and other staff—are being failed. It is not acceptable that people are put at risk day by day when they turn up in their duty to serve. Therefore, I call for urgent attention to the issue and for a resolution. It is not acceptable just to read and listen to statistics. We have to take action.

With the right facilities, staffing levels, support and approach, much of the problems can be avoided. The impact of cuts to our public services has led to this perfect storm, failing people who then end up in a life of crime. We have no less than a moral duty to properly resource our services now to ensure that the prison populations fall in the future. Societal and Government failure has led to too many challenged individuals ending up in a life of crime.

Let us look at who the people behind the bars are—we have to look at what is happening in wider society to understand why people are ending up in prisons. Some 39% of the prison population experienced neglect or abuse as a child. Three quarters had an absent father; a third had an absent mother. A third of looked-after boys and nearly two thirds of looked-after girls end up in crime, which I hope is addressed in the Education and Adoption Bill.

Half of women prisoners have experienced domestic violence and a third have experienced sexual abuse. Some 66% of female prisoners and 38% of male prisoners committed offences to buy drugs. Half of all violent crimes are committed under the influence of alcohol. Some 49% of prisoners have anxiety and depression, and 25% of women prisoners suffer from psychosis. Some 20% to 30% of prisoners have learning difficulties and 47% have no qualifications, which emphasises society’s failure—Government’s failure—in providing steps and measures early on, and making interventions that can turn around the life course of those individuals. Those people should not be in our prisons and we have serious questions to ask.

It is a shameful story that the state has not intervened and given those people the hope and the opportunity that many of us have had. The fate of ending up in prison must be addressed. Not providing the right support at the right time is a crime of the state, which is why today’s debate is crucial. If we do not change the course of those people’s lives across the country, the prison population can only rise.

Will the Government stop and appraise the next wave of £30 billion of cuts and address the root causes of why our prisons have become overcrowded and unsafe? I challenge the Minister to resolve the reoffending rates. Such a punitive penal system as we have now, ever stripped of rehabilitation and resettlement opportunities, results in increased uncertainty and diminished hope for prisoners, and in a reoffending rate as high as 45.2% within a year and, for children, 68.2%.

[Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP)]

I congratulate the hon. Lady on securing the debate. She has touched for the second time on reoffending rates. Does she agree that addressing high reoffending rates—the reason that many of the profound problems that she has outlined continue to prevail in our prisons—is a fundamental part of what the Government need to do?

[Rachael Maskell]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for making an important point. There is a revolving door, with people leaving prison without support and rehabilitation and ending up back in the criminal justice system. That is a failure of our finances and of our investment in the lives of those individuals, who are then marked, with a life of crime ahead of them.

Picking up on that point, too many people are leaving prison without having the support they need, whether incarcerated or on leaving prison. Some 50,000 prisoners who were released last year did not get any support and post-release supervision. I heard from a woman in my constituency who left prison with no discharge support and ended up on the streets, exposed to exactly the same risks that she was exposed to before being placed in jail. She was fortunate to be picked up by the voluntary sector, which was able to address some of those issues. However, the voluntary sector is seriously under-resourced and it could make only a little step towards making her life a little different.

[Alex Cunningham]

The previous Justice Secretary talked about a rehabilitation revolution, but does my hon. Friend agree that some basic things need to happen for that to take place? If people are to be prepared for a better life outside prison, they need education, including basic literacy and numeracy, and, of course, supported training.

[Rachael Maskell]

We are not seeing any revolution in rehabilitation. Prisoners are locked up in their cells for 23 hours a day, unable to have chances in life and without the investment they need. The reduction in prison officer numbers is such that prisoners have no alternative opportunities until they reach the prison door and then, of course, people return to the life they knew before, without the turnaround that they desperately need, or the support, that would change the course of their life. We need to address not just that revolving door, but overcrowding, because the reality is that, as people return to the penal system, we are building on the overcrowding crisis.

We must also look at our probation service, which has also experienced severe cuts as it has been taken on its own journey around privatisation and out into the market, meaning that it is not able to integrate fully with the rest of the criminal justice system. We have to ask serious questions about that.

[Jenny Chapman (Darlington) (Lab)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this important debate. The probation service is not just fractured from the rest of the criminal justice system; it is fractured within itself due to an unnecessary, pointless, destructive and quite dangerous separation.

[Rachael Maskell]

I was talking yesterday to Napo, the trade union representing probation officers, about further cuts that are going to be made to the service at a time when, including in this debate, we are hearing that we need investment rather than cuts, without which we will not be able to break the cycle. This reorganisation of the probation service is yet another that has no purpose or point in respect of feeding into the bigger picture.

[David Simpson (Upper Bann) (DUP)]

Although we understand that there is overcrowding in our prisons, does the hon. Lady not agree that a lot of the responsibility for running prisons has to be at the top, from the governor and management down? She mentioned some investment in a number of prisons. In Northern Ireland it is perhaps slightly different; it is political. For example, some £10 million has been spent on Maghaberry prison in the past four years, because prisoners have damaged it and some infrastructure work has been done. Surely it starts with the management of the prison as well.

[Rachael Maskell]

This is about not just management, but providing leadership throughout the Prison Service. The Government have an important role to play, as do leaders in prisons, whether directors or governors. There is such churn in the number of governors that they are in post for only about three and a half years before moving on, so they do not build relationships with the organisations they have responsibility for, which has a serious impact on providing leadership for the organisation to follow.

Another big question is why so many people end up in our prisons in the first place. We know that the number of community orders has fallen, despite their effectiveness, and that many people are held in prison while awaiting trial, with 27% not returning to prison afterwards, having been given other sentences.

I challenge our incarceration of so many people who are experiencing mental health challenges or addiction and substance abuse. I question whether it is right for people struggling with health issues to be locked up for 23 hours a day and whether, if that is not the right environment for them, we cannot find alternatives that will really help to address their health issues and issues around reoffending.

There is a clear correlation between safe staffing levels and safety in prisons. That is most evident in the 28% cut in the number of prison staff. The ratio of prisoners to prison officers is 1:4.8, whereas in 2000 it was 1:2.9. Prison officers are carrying so much more responsibility. Therefore, the effectiveness of their interventions is diluted.

Staff are enduring an unacceptable number of assaults, although I must say that all assaults are unacceptable. In 2014, prison staff experienced 3,637 assaults, 477 of which were serious—an increase of a third—and 10,000 working days were lost due to absence, mainly for physical reasons, but also increasingly because of work-related stress. Is it not the worst environment imaginable to fear for your life every day at work? Those 10,000 days lost could be dealt with by increasing the number of prison officers, making the workplace safer, but we also need to think of the real cost of that situation.

Of course, staff have been challenged by the higher levels of violence in their workplace and prison officers have to face risks that few in our population can even begin to understand. The prison population is becoming more violent and dangerous. Violent incidents have risen from 32 to 42 a day, eight of which are to members of staff. In 2012, there were 213 hospital attendances by officers, compared with 170 in just the first two quarters of 2013. These officers are experiencing injuries so serious that they have to be taken into the care of our emergency services.

[David Simpson]

The hon. Lady mentions the commitment and sacrifice of prison officers. I would like to put on record the assassination of Prison Officer David Black, in my constituency, on the road to Maghaberry prison, by republicans. Some 31 prison officers have been murdered over the past number of years. They have made the supreme sacrifice.

[Rachael Maskell]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for drawing attention to that tragic situation, where the lives of prison officers are being put at such high risk that many do not return to their families at the end of their working day. That is unacceptable. Early intervention to ensure that people have safe passage to and from work, as well as at work, is crucial for our public servants.

We know that the reward is not great for our prison staff. They are stretched regarding cover and there is work intensification, and they are challenged when dealing with the emotional demands of the work, because they are not able to fulfil their ambitions for those they serve, such are the pressures put on them.

We also hear from the Prison Officers Association that there is a lack of support from management. There are high levels of bullying in an already tense and violent environment. We have seen cuts to pay in real-terms, cuts to pensions and a real fall in morale. The report into health and safety shows that 30% of officers have been physically assaulted in the past four years. Many more experience psychological distress or emotional exhaustion. We know that there are real challenges with recruitment and the retention levels of prison staff. Given the environment I have described, we can see how that can come about. Prison governors are not in one place for long enough. They are moved on before they can provide the stability that staff need and build the relationships of trust necessary to provide that prison with a vision, a sense of purpose and direction.

The Labour party is calling for some clear measures to be taken. Starting with leadership, we need governors to be established in prisons for longer to bring stability and the leadership necessary to ensure that reforms can take place to make prisons safer. We believe that that should be accompanied by better governance by prison boards, rooting jails in their local communities with representatives from councils, charities, the probation service, the police and other organisations. That would provide the opportunity to build the bridge back into community living, which is so important for the future lives of prisoners.

We need to refresh Her Majesty’s inspectorate of prisons, so that inspectors are truly independent of political interference and so that they publish their action plans and demands for the resourcing necessary. We need to see those plans supported so that actions follow. That way, we will not just have action plans, but results coming to fruition from them, and we will be able to scrutinise the process behind that. Above all, by breaking the cycle of crime we can ensure that prisons stop fuelling crime. That will be achieved only by properly resourcing early intervention measures to prevent people from falling into crime in the first place. For those who do fall through the net, we need evidence-based rehabilitation programmes that focus on developing education, training and skills, on improving health, wellbeing and self-worth and on re-orienting prisoners to life after prison, where they will not be exposed to the same risks they faced before their convictions. That will only be achieved by giving prisons the best facilities and adequate staffing levels to facilitate such transformation. Such a programme will secure staff and prisoner safety and cut spending on the prison service in the longer term.

To conclude, we come into politics not just to talk about issues or ideas, but to exercise every moment to bring transformative change to the lives of the people we are sent here to represent. Our prisons are in a very dangerous situation. Is the Minister willing to challenge the system and ensure that the service is made safe and effective? I thank you, Mr Bone, for allowing me this time today.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

--- Later in debate ---

[Rachael Maskell]

I thank all hon. Members for their contributions. They have raised many of the challenges facing our penal system.

As we have heard, there are unacceptable levels of reoffending, but we have not had real answers on how we are going to turn the figures around—they have been static, but they are not coming down. We have heard many shocking statistics about the violence and abuse in our prisons, but I have not heard how we are going to address that.

We have heard evidence of how overcrowding, mixed with understaffing, is the real issue facing our prisons. I am sure no prison officers will take comfort from the Minister’s response, because they will still be at risk when they turn up for work today, tomorrow and the next day. That is the subject of the debate, and I am saddened that we have not progressed the issue.

It is vital that we get the response we need, which is about stable staffing and ensuring staff are safe. It is also about making sure our communities are safe—

Motion lapsed (Standing Order No. 10(6)).