Crime Reduction Policies

Debate between Elfyn Llwyd and John McDonnell

Thursday 22nd January 2015 Westminster Hall

[John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab)]

Thank you, Mr Brady. May I apologise to other Members? I was happily working away elsewhere, thinking that large numbers of people would be debating the green deal—in fact, I thought that that debate might overrun—and I was advised that this debate would start at about 3 o’clock. I am grateful for your flexibility.

I came to the Committee during the last stages of its consideration of the report, and I was available for only the last couple of sessions, so I congratulate those Members who were involved in preparing the report. As I have said before, certainly in the Committee, this is the first such Committee I have served on in the 17 years I have been in the House—I cannot think why—and it has been a real challenge. It has been interesting to see not just how a Select Committee works, but how this whole area is examined by Parliament and opened to democratic accountability. The report is a good example of what a Select Committee can do and how it can create an agenda that the Government then have to address.

I want to deal with two issues, which are raised in the sections of the report on access to mental health treatment and access to drug and alcohol misuse treatment. I want to do that in the context of the figures we now have on deaths in custody, which are extremely worrying. In other debates, I have been more than angry about the various reform proposals the Government have implemented and the way they have impacted on staff in the system—in the judicial system and in prison. I do not want to go over those issues again; I have put my views on the record with real anger, because I felt that the impact of the reforms was detrimental to all those operating in the system.

Let me turn, however, to the two issues I want to raise. In the press this morning, we seem to have the latest figures—I believe the Government will announce them next week—for deaths in prison. The figures, which come from the Howard League for Penal Reform, confirm that last year saw 82 prison suicides—the highest number in our prison system for seven years. Ministers, including the Secretary of State, have expressed concern about that, but we now need to put emergency measures in place to address the problem.

Of the 82 prisoners who took their lives last year, 14 were young people between the ages of 18 and 24. It looks from the figures that the highest numbers of deaths occurred at the biggest prisons. Four people took their lives at Wandsworth prison, in south London. The jail holds 1,633 prisoners, but it was designed for 943. Four people took their lives at Elmley, in Kent, which holds 1,231 prisoners, but which was built for 943. There were 235 deaths in prisons in 2014, with more than 120 people dying from natural causes, and a further 24 deaths yet to be classified. There were also two alleged murders, one in Cardiff and another in Altcourse prison.

I am concerned about the suicides, because they might well relate to the concerns in the report about access to mental health treatment and supervision, and we have to examine that area with some concern. However, I am also concerned about the non-self-inflicted deaths. Obviously, some people will naturally come to the end of their lives, but I am anxious that those numbers have also increased.

There seems to be a steady increase in non-self-inflicted deaths; that may just reflect the increase in the overall prison population, but it is nevertheless significant. The number of deaths has gone from 52 in 2001 to 109 in 2014. That is a doubling, and there has also been a doubling in the prison population, so the figures may well simply be a reflection of the increase in the prison population. However, my concern in 2001 was that the number was too high, and we should address these issues to reduce the number of non-self-inflicted deaths.

[Mr Llwyd]

I fully agree with what the hon. Gentleman says about suicides, but perhaps I can offer an explanation, and I mean to be helpful. The number of non-self-inflicted deaths could reflect the fact that the largest increase in the prison population is in the over-65 cohort, because of historical sex abuse and so on.

Prison Officers (Work-related Stress)

Debate between Elfyn Llwyd and John McDonnell

Wednesday 10th December 2014 Commons Chamber

[John McDonnell]

Given our concerns about that prison—a Titan prison that will house a larger number of prisoners than any other prison has housed—and about the scale of such a prison and the problems that will result from it, I think mindfulness would be an important strategy that should be built in from the beginning.

As I was saying, the health and safety questionnaire was developed in consultation with employers and union representatives. It is now used widely across the public and private sectors and is based on a self-report questionnaire. It is a standard procedure used by academics who in this case established a survey online. They received 1,682 respondents, which is as large as any national opinion poll, and it was a fairly representative sample.

[Mr Elfyn Llwyd (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC)]

I congratulate the hon. Gentleman warmly on obtaining this Adjournment debate. The Prison Service is little short of being in crisis. Since 2010, prison officer numbers have been cut by 41%, but the prison population has gone up. The ratio of prison officers to prisoners has never been so bad, and that is a danger. Both the hon. Gentleman and I are officers of the justice unions parliamentary group, and I hope that the Minister will agree to meet us to discuss this important issue.

[John McDonnell]

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

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

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

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

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

Another officer says:

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

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

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

Another said:

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

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

--- Later in debate ---

[John McDonnell]

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Mr Llwyd]

rose—

Offender Rehabilitation Bill [Lords]

Debate between Elfyn Llwyd and John McDonnell

Tuesday 14th January 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Llwyd]

I agree entirely with the hon. Gentleman. That feeling is held widely across the House, and not just on these Benches. The hon. Member for Southport (John Pugh) referred to ideology. The Bill is a victory for ideology over common sense. That by itself is ridiculous enough, but the inherent dangers of it make it even more insidious.

To avoid treading over old ground, I will not talk about the risk register. None the less, it still alarms me that the risks were seen as so high at the commencement of this exercise, and I have no reason to believe that they have changed for the better since.

Briefly, let me refer to new clause 4. The impetus behind it is to ensure that we do not rush headlong into implementing these reforms without first having a pilot, which would be independently evaluated and reported on to both Houses of Parliament. I notice that the esteemed Chair of the Justice Committee, the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Sir Alan Beith), is in his place, so I must be careful about what I say. Over the past few weeks, we have taken evidence from many sectors involved in probation and rehabilitation. A considerable amount of it was from people who had been involved in previous Government privatisations. Surprisingly, they were saying, “Don’t do it. Don’t rush in. It is not proven. It may not be cost-effective and it could cause huge problems.” Such people are surely aware of the risks involved and they came before the Committee to give their opinion. It is not simply a matter of one political divide against the other. Some of those people presented as being more in sympathy with the Government than with anybody else, but they said not to do it because it is unproven and could be dangerous.

The probation service has prior experience of the damage that can result from privatisation. Building management, for example, has been contracted out to the private sector, which has resulted in a great deal of waste and inefficiency. I have heard of an engineer being sent from Liverpool to Cardiff to fit a carpet tile even though, ironically, there is a carpet shop opposite the Cardiff probation office—you could not make it up.

In 2007, the running of bail beds was outsourced to a company called ClearSprings, which had no experience in the criminal justice sector. Numerous complaints were made about antisocial behaviour and drunkenness and the contract had to be removed. We know about Serco and G4S, so I will not go there again. Clearly, there is a significant prospect of disorder and possible dangers if the plans do not prove to be sensible. As for the Government’s risk assessment, time is short so I will not go there.

The restructuring will mean that there will have to be an entirely new operating model with 21 new government companies; that staff will have to be allocated to new roles in community rehabilitation companies and the national probation service; that no fewer than 18,000 staff members will be transferred to new employers; and that up to 250,000 offender cases will be reallocated. It would be foolhardy indeed to proceed without some guarantee of success.

It would not be unheard of for new measures being introduced to the justice system to be piloted nationally. Recently, pilots on payment by results have been held at HMP Peterborough and Doncaster, albeit voluntarily, while in recent years Governments have held pilots on satellite tracking, the domestic violence 28-day prevention order and drug reduction schemes. Piloting is not unheard of.

This is not a question of reputational risk for the MOJ. We are all concerned about the safety of the public more than anything else. A further risk register produced by the probation employers last November of last year warned of a high risk of

“a failure of the programme to be delivered either in scope or within the timescale set by ministers”.

At this eleventh hour, I plead with the Minister and his colleagues to give the scheme a chance and to give us all a chance to evaluate it. We might come back one day saying, “Yes, it was right,” or, “No, it was not.” If the answer is no, many people will suffer. Those members of the public are the people whom it is our duty to protect.

[John McDonnell]

I apologise to the House for the fact that I will leave after my brief remarks, because at 3 o’clock I have a meeting, which I have been seeking for a couple of months, with the Secretary of State for Education, about a school in my constituency. I hope that I will be back in time for the Minister’s response.

Let me pick up on the point made by the hon. and learned Member for Harborough (Sir Edward Garnier). We have all been pressing for some time, under the previous Government and this Government, for the supervision of offenders with sentences of less than 12 months, but we all expected that to proceed normally—that is, with a proposal being made with a budgetary paper attached that the existing system would be challenged to meet—so that we could plan the development of the probation service. If there were to be additional funds, some of us would have lobbied the Treasury while others would have argued that the service should swallow its own smoke and keep the budget within its existing budgets. That was what we expected.

I think that clause 1 was inserted in the Bill in the other place because none of us expected the use of the previous legislation to introduce proposals for the wholesale privatisation of the probation service—that is what this means for 70% of the service going forward. When that legislation was going through, I opposed it and I warned those on my Front Bench that it could be abused in such a way. I was assured that the legislation, which was supported on both sides of the House if I remember rightly, would ensure that the third sector, voluntary sector organisations and others could participate in rehabilitation, and that it would introduce flexibility to the system. A number of organisations lobbied for that, particularly in the drugs rehabilitation field. That is why I think that this is an abuse of process. It is an abuse of the previous legislation, which was never intended to be used in this way, and I think that is why the other place inserted the clause.

I have been angry and have shouted about the subject in this House, and it is not good for my health. This is, however, a leap in the dark, and I am fearful for my constituents. As with other privatisations, there is a financial risk, but that is nothing in comparison with the risk to life and limb. As a result of this leap in the dark, there could be safety problems that will bear down on Ministers in the future.

I warn the House that if we allow this Bill to go through and any of our constituents suffer and are harmed in some way as a result of an offender not being properly supervised, we will, quite properly, be held responsible. The hon. Member for Southport (John Pugh), my hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham (Sarah Champion) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Dwyfor Meirionnydd (Mr Llwyd) have made exactly this point: why not ensure that the alternatives proposed by the Government are properly tested? Setting up pilots and then ending them without taking any account of them seems extraordinary and completely illogical.

In previous debates, we seized on the risk register because advisers to the Government were saying that there were risks. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Dwyfor Meirionnydd has said, there is an 80% risk of failure in some instances. The Secretary of State argued that the risk registers are only there at the beginning to point out a range of issues that will then be addressed, so we asked, “Why not publish the risk register and make it completely public, and why not publish those mechanisms you have put in place to address the specific risks? At least then we could be assured that they have been properly addressed and, perhaps, overcome.” As my right hon. Friend has said, we are walking into the dark and putting our constituents at risk as a result.

As other Members have explained, the experience of privatisation in the justice service has given us sufficient warnings that we need to tread very carefully. I do not want to go over those again, but many of us have had experience of the justice system over the years and I have never seen the system so vulnerable as a result of private interventions. There are riots almost monthly, and concerns expressed within our prison system. The introduction of the Serious Fraud Office into investigations of companies that provide services within the justice system is ironic, to say the least.

I support the amendments tabled by my hon. Friends on the Front Bench, which are supported by the chair of the justice unions parliamentary group and by the group overall. We have also tabled a number of other proposals that are somewhat bureaucratic but, I think, important: new clauses 10, 9, 11 and 13, which are all in my name. They are simple suggestions. First, if the Government are going down this path let us have full and open transparency. The new clauses suggest that the contracts should be fully published. The Minister has said that the draft contracts should be published, but I think that it is important that the full contract should be published so that we can all see it, in particular the elements of the contract that include the requirements and expectations of the providers’ performance. It is important that in future the National Audit Office can investigate and assess the effectiveness, economy and efficiency of the implementation of the contracts.

One change that I have suggested is just common sense: no company that has been investigated for fraud should be able to bid for the contract. I do not wish to see sleight of hand, with the suggestion that such companies will not be the primary providers but can be part of a consortium. They will play a key role within those consortia because of the resources they have.

New clause 9 suggests that companies that are the prime contractors for the Work programme in an area should not be able to bid, and I say that because there is a potential conflict of interest. If one company is implementing the Work programme at the same time as the new probation system for those with sentences of less than 12 months and there is a sanction, the Work programme will lose out. That introduces a conflict of interest within the system. What worries me is that a number of companies will bid for a range of contracts in an area, across the piece, with the result that mini-monopolies will be built up in particular geographical areas.

My new clauses are simply administrative amendments. New clause 13 says that we need an annual report to Parliament and I know that that is a standard amendment that we table for a range of legislation, but in this instance it is vital. I want to know from an annual report from the Government exactly how the contracts are being performed against, how safe my constituents are, how safe the offenders are and how successful the implementation of the new system is.

I do not want to go over everything I have said before. I am extremely worried and I will hold Ministers to account if any of my constituents are injured as a result of the Bill. I have said that twice before. In fact, the late Paul Goggins advised me that I was threatening Ministers and I said, “Yes, I am actually, because they are threatening my constituents with this legislation.” I hope that today we will be able to defeat it or at least pass some amendments that will stabilise the system and enable us to gain some accountability. If not, I hope that the other place will say no and introduce an element of common sense to the debate.