Oral Answers to Questions

Ian Lavery Excerpts

Tuesday 3rd February 2026 Commons Chamber

[Ian Lavery (Blyth and Ashington) (Lab)]

Prison officers face appalling levels of violence at work every day, but their hands are tied because of the Tory ban on any kind of industrial action—they cannot resist. Does the Minister agree that prison officers should have the legal right to withdraw their labour and to take industrial action to protect themselves and others while at work in what is an extremely dangerous workplace?

[Mr Lammy]

I recognise the seriousness of the issue my hon. Friend raises. I met prison officer unions just two weeks ago to discuss these very issues. My judgment is that, with the prison capacity crisis as it is and the pay increases we have been able to make to prison officers, this would not be the right time to explore changes in the practices he underlines.

Oral Answers to Questions

Ian Lavery Excerpts

Tuesday 11th November 2025 Commons Chamber

[Sarah Sackman]

I thank the hon. Member for his question, and I commend all lawyers who provide pro bono support to their clients, which is incredibly commendable. However, it is ultimately a sticking-plaster and no substitute for a well-functioning legal aid system. That is why, as well as increasing fees, we are investing in the transformation of the IT digital platform to enable providers to cut through some of that red tape.

[Ian Lavery (Blyth and Ashington) (Lab)]

6. What steps his Department is taking to help increase access to justice for people from all social backgrounds.

[The Minister for Courts and Legal Services (Sarah Sackman)]

This Government are committed to access to justice, and that involves supporting people from every social background to uphold their rights. As I said earlier, we are investing in civil legal aid. We have introduced the greatest expansion in a decade of legal aid through the Hillsborough law, and we continue to provide financial support for law centres and Citizens Advice so that people—wherever they come from, whatever their background—can access legal support.

[Ian Lavery]

The Labour Government’s investment in legal aid and legal services is hugely welcome. However, expert analysis has shown categorically that young people from more deprived backgrounds find it extremely difficult to access justice. Many people from constituencies such as mine are very much unaware of what might be available to them when they most need it. Can the Minister assure me that everything possible is being done to ensure that our people are acutely aware of what is available to them to access the justice they so rightly deserve and, in many cases, they urgently require?

[Sarah Sackman]

My hon. Friend raises a very important issue. If people do not know their rights, they cannot enforce their rights, so raising awareness is incredibly important. It is important that we expand access to legal support where people are living their lives, and the online service where people, especially young people, can access digital legal advice is a vital component of that.

Duty of Candour for Public Authorities and Legal Representation for Bereaved Families

Ian Lavery Excerpts

Wednesday 3rd September 2025 Westminster Hall

[Ian Lavery (Blyth and Ashington) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Hobhouse. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool West Derby (Ian Byrne) for his contribution.

The issue here, really, is class. When we look at what happened at Hillsborough, what happened at Orgreave, what has happened with contaminated blood, what happened with the nuclear veterans, what happened with Windrush and what has happened at Grenfell, who suffered? Working-class people—that is the common denominator. As soon as people uncover it, and the establishment are questioned, they circle the wagons of injustice and discredit everybody other than themselves to try to protect the establishment.

This cannot continue—I really mean that. The default position of the powerful—the establishment—is to attack the powerless. We had 72 people killed at Grenfell, we had 97 people killed at Hillsborough, people with contaminated blood are dying weekly, and we have other issues such as Orgreave. Still we have not sorted these issues out. It is an absolute disgrace from a Government that have promised so much—a Government that I am proud to be a Member of Parliament for.

It is reputations versus truth and accountability—that is where we are at this moment in time. It cannot continue. We have to get to the truth. The Prime Minister this week said “delivery, delivery, delivery”. He needs to make sure that we deliver on a proper, full Hillsborough law, which was written a number of years ago and accepted by all. We cannot let down the people in Liverpool, or any of the other people I have mentioned. We cannot let people down. We have to get to the bottom of the truth.

I have a question, by the way—in seven seconds. Why do we need a law for a duty of candour—for people to tell the truth? What on earth is this about?

Oral Answers to Questions

Ian Lavery Excerpts

Tuesday 11th March 2025 Commons Chamber

[Shabana Mahmood]

The hon. Gentleman makes an incredibly important point. Fixing the problems that he notes requires work by not just the Ministry of Justice, but the devolved Administrations and the Home Office. I will ensure that he can engage with the relevant Ministers on the issues he raises.

[Ian Lavery (Blyth and Ashington) (Lab)]

T3.   Last year, assaults on prison staff were up by 19% and serious assaults were up by 22%, yet the pensionable age of prison officers is still 68—it is simply too late. Can the Minister update the House on any discussions he may have had with officials regarding that industrial injustice and say when these loyal public servants might expect to see this long-standing issue corrected?

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Sir Nicholas Dakin)]

We recognise the unique and challenging role that prison officers play in protecting the public and reducing reoffending. The Lord Chancellor has requested advice from officials on the pension age of prison officers, and we will continue to engage with trade unions as we work through this complex issue while considering the wider fiscal context. I am meeting the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire North and Moray East (Seamus Logan) to discuss this important issue next week, and I am very happy for my hon. Friend to join that meeting if he wishes.

Oral Answers to Questions

Ian Lavery Excerpts

Tuesday 12th September 2023 Commons Chamber

[Ian Lavery (Wansbeck) (Lab)]

Is it not the case that last-minute cancellations in magistrates courts are largely caused by the inability to recruit and retain legal advisers, who are paid a lot less than other Government legal advisers? What steps will the Minister take to ensure an increase in wages and better terms and conditions for those legal advisers? Will he sit down with the PCS Union to try to resolve this intolerable situation?

[Mike Freer]

We look carefully at why all cases are vacated; in fact, the biggest cause of vacation is often the non-availability of prosecution or defence counsel, not of legal executives.

Cammell Laird Workers Imprisoned in 1984

Ian Lavery Excerpts

Tuesday 7th February 2023 Westminster Hall

[Ian Lavery (Wansbeck) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship as ever, Sir Christopher. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow West (Gareth Thomas) for bringing this debate to the Chamber this afternoon. I will declare an interest: I am a proud trade unionist—always have been, always will be.

In 1984-85, I was a striking miner. A lot of the things that have already been said resonate with me, my friends, my family and our communities. This is simple; it is about justice for ordinary people. It is important that people are seen to get justice from the state. They need answers. Who was behind this? Who was behind the instructions that ensured that 37 hard-working people were put in jail for contempt of court? It is ludicrous, man! It is unreal to think that could happen to ordinary people who were fighting for employment. That was the charge: fighting for employment. They wanted to keep their jobs, they wanted to put food on the table, they wanted to clothe their kids. Those are not crimes, yet they were put in jail because they fought for that, for heaven’s sake.

It is not acceptable. It is not acceptable no matter which way we look at the situation. It was a severe miscarriage of justice. They were incarcerated for trying to secure the future of their families and their communities. They had not committed a crime and they were put in prison with murderers, armed robbers and rapists just because they wanted to maintain employment.

Of course, it was all about privatisation—the industrial cancer of working people—wasn’t it? They were trying to maintain their standard of living and sustain their economies. There is a lot to be answered. The potential merits of a public inquiry into the imprisonment of Cammell Laird workers? Of course there is potential for an inquiry because many people would not believe that this sort of thing would happen in a free and democratic —or so-called free and democratic—nation such as the UK.

The Shrewsbury 24 have already been mentioned twice by colleagues. It was the first ever national building workers’ strike in 1972. Again, pickets were jailed. In fact, one of them died shortly afterwards as a consequence of being imprisoned. They fought. My hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Ian Byrne) mentioned Eileen Turnbull. She and her campaign team campaigned vigorously to get these convictions quashed. You know what? Forty-seven years later, it actually happened. On 23 March 2021, the court quashed the convictions against the Shrewsbury pickets. I urge the campaigners and everyone concerned to learn from what has happened in the past. Never give in, because you are on the side of the angels; never give in, because you are right. That needs sorting as quickly as we can. There needs to be a demand for justice.

The consequences of being put in prison for something to do with retaining employment are never getting a job again and being blacklisted. If someone is put in prison, people look at them as if they are something else. I could not imagine ever being in prison. I was in a police cell a number of times during the miners’ strike. That was bad enough. To be locked away from their families and from the people they were seeking to support in the first place is so degrading that I could not begin to think what it might be like.

Margaret Thatcher’s fingerprints are all over this. They were all over the papers during the miners’ strike and it was the same time. As my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow West mentioned, Margaret Thatcher’s name and fingerprints are all over the situation with these 37 lads from Cammell Laird. They need to find out whether that is the case; they need to find out who made the decision. Who deliberately targeted these ordinary people? It happens in the Chamber every other day now. If someone dares to question the Government, they are a militant. If someone is fighting for their job, if they are fighting for wages, terms and conditions, and if they are fighting for health and safety, they are a militant. That is strictly not true—and by the way, I wish there were more militants. I will be perfectly honest. I wish there were. This is the way that ordinary people are being tret.

I believe that people being sent to prison for contempt of court is absolutely unreal and that needs to be looked at. There needs to be some sort of public inquiry, as has been suggested. It has been mentioned that the Hillsborough disaster inquiry took a long time. The Orgreave Truth and Justice Campaign is still campaigning for an inquiry into the policing of the miners’ strike. It has done a fantastic job. I pay credit to the GMB union, by the way, for the campaigning and support it has given to the 37 individuals. It is about time we realised that being in a trade union and standing up for your rights is not a crime. It is about time we realised that being in a trade union and standing up for your community and what is right is not a crime and people should not be castigated for it in any way, shape or form. That is the sad situation we have had with the Cammell Laird 37. It is a serious miscarriage of justice and I strongly urge the Government to think about a potential public inquiry into what happened all those years ago. It is a scar on the lives of the 37, their families and their communities. Sort it out!

Prison Officers: Pension Age

Ian Lavery Excerpts

Tuesday 16th November 2021 Westminster Hall

[Gordon Henderson]

I certainly do agree with my right hon. Friend, and I will cover all those points in my speech.

The truth is that prison officers deal every day with individuals who have been locked up to keep the rest of us and our communities safe. Too often, those men and women face violence and hostility just for doing their job. Despite that violence and hostility, which would be challenging for fit young people, these dedicated emergency workers are still being told that their retirement age will rise to 68.

[Ian Lavery (Wansbeck) (Lab)]

I declare an interest as a life member of the Prison Officers Association.

In his 2011 report, Lord Hutton said that firefighters and the police had a pensionable age of 60 because of the “unique nature” of their job. A lot of people in the Commons are at, around or above the age of 60. How many of them would be able to work in a prison and grapple with some of the most vicious and violent people in this country?

--- Later in debate ---

[Ian Lavery (Wansbeck) (Lab)]

As ever, Sir Charles, it is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship.

I congratulate the hon. Member for Sittingbourne and Sheppey (Gordon Henderson) on securing this really—I wish I could say it was a timely debate, but it is not a timely debate, is it? It is something that we have discussed many times before. Eight years ago, when I was a flying Parliamentary Private Secretary to my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Camberwell and Peckham (Ms Harman), I resigned my position on this very issue, because for the life of me I could not understand why prison officers had to work until the age of 68 before they got their pension. To be honest, I still have not had any answers; we still have not had any facts, figures or answers to qualify the fact that prison officers should work until they are 68, while at the same time the police and firefighters get their pension at 60—and rightly so; I agree that they should.

Basically, we should not keep having this competition between different frontline public services, because it is not a competition. What we see is something that is terribly, terribly, terribly unfair. What is also strange is how we allow a French company that deals in hospitality to run some of the prisons in this country. However, that is a subject in itself, for another debate.

I congratulate the staff—every one of them—at HMP Northumberland. I agree that “68 is too late”; it is far too late. I have been speaking to prison officers who are frightened; I have been speaking to prison officers’ families who are frightened; I have been speaking to prisoners who are frightened; and I have been speaking to auxiliaries who are frightened. The stress levels, because of what is happening in our prisons at this moment in time, are unacceptable.

We have got to deal with this situation. I hope that the Minister agrees, if she only agrees to do one thing today, to meet the Prison Officers Association to discuss a way forward, so that pensioners in the Prison Officers Association who are working in prisons can get a decent pension at the age of 60.

[Sir Charles Walker (in the Chair)]

Thank you very much, Mr Lavery. Mr Day has up to five minutes in which to speak.

--- Later in debate ---

[Victoria Atkins]

As I have said, I have already met the Prisoner Officers Association. I hope I was very clear when we first met that this was the beginning of a constructive and positive relationship. I will happily meet the POA, of course, and I would be delighted if my hon. Friend the Member for Sittingbourne and Sheppey would join me in that meeting. I want to be frank, though. I do not want there to be any claims of inadvertently misleading people. I cannot commit today to discussions on pensions per se, but I am very happy—as I have said in the past, in fairness—to listen to the Prison Officers Association and its members. I am very keen to do so.

I am conscious of giving my hon. Friend time to respond. The retirement age for prison officers is linked to their pension arrangements. Prison officers are classified as civil servants, so are members of the civil service pension scheme. This is a defined-benefit scheme that pays a pension for life without investment uncertainties. It has one of the lowest employee contribution rates across the public sector; employers make contributions of 27% into the scheme on behalf of the employee.

When a pension age of 65 for new entrants was introduced in 2007, I am told it was done so following great consideration of the prison officer role and the demands it makes of prisoner officers and other operational roles in the civil service. I am told that the POA signed up to this scheme. Following the introduction of the alpha scheme in 2015, the normal pension age for prison officers is set at state pension age, which is between 65 and 68.

[Ian Lavery]

Will the Minister give way?

[Victoria Atkins]

I am conscious that I have only 4 minutes, so I will continue.

My hon. Friend the Member for Sittingbourne and Sheppey has already made the point that we have tried to make change on this before. When the Prison Officers Association membership were balloted eight years ago, they did not accept the package to retire at the lower age of 65 with heavily subsidised additional contributions to the scheme. Although POA members rejected the offer, the Prison Governors Association accepted it and as a result some manager grade staff now have a lower pension age. Another offer was made in 2017, in which prison officers would have incurred no cost to access a pension at the age of 65, but again this was rejected by a union ballot union.

Fire Service: Flooding and Statutory Duties

Ian Lavery Excerpts

Wednesday 8th June 2016 Westminster Hall

[Mike Penning]

I may give way in a moment. Time will be difficult.

The fire service continues to evolve and not every fire service will come under police and crime commissioners. Around five PCCs are looking into this, but other PCCs and clinical commissioning groups are considering whether the ambulance service could be included. My views on this are pretty well known. I think the blue light emergency services must work much more closely together than now. I am chuffed that in London we have co-responding, but that is just the start. In Hampshire, there are qualified paramedics who are firemen. I apologise to the ladies, I mean firefighters. When I was in the job, there were only firemen.

It is important to see where the job is going. Yes, we are going to more flooding. We have always gone to flooding, I went to flooding and the London fire service went to a flood yesterday. None of the national resilience back-up was used yesterday. I asked the question before coming here today.

I am a former member of the Fire Brigades Union. I met the leadership and it put similar arguments to me. I will keep the matter under review. I will not comment too much on the numbers, not least because in other parts of the country we have seen firefighter numbers drop, but there has been a different way of delivering the service, including retained firefighters. London still has this policy, which I thought was an anomaly when I was in Essex—it will not allow retained firefighters on to its ground even if in their day job they are fully qualified firemen. I have never understood that and it is something that must be addressed as we evolve. I know that the union is trying to protect jobs, but in retrospect it is probably not doing that.

Lancashire has developed a completely different model. The union there wanted to protect jobs and to keep stations open. There was a risk of them closing so it went to the eight-eight day model, so that they were manned during the day with back-up crews during the evening. That is a completely different model. That is why local decision making is vital.

I am not denying that there are fewer firefighters, but there are dramatically fewer turn-outs. Fire prevention work started during our time in the job. I remember vividly arguing that firemen should go into homes to help to install smoke detectors. The situation has dramatically changed but there are still too many deaths and there is a lot more work to do.

[Ian Lavery (Wansbeck) (Lab)]

It is often said that there are far fewer fire incidents, but that varies from region to region, as I am sure the Minister is aware. The fact is that there are more and more flooding incidents in this country than ever before. Does that not mean we should be looking at the recommendations of the Pitt review in 2008 and give the fire and rescue service a statutory duty on flood and resilience?

[Mike Penning]

I will try to make my point a bit stronger. Respectfully, I disagree with the hon. Gentleman, and the reason is that I cannot find an instance in which the fire service is not doing what it would do if there were a statutory duty. In fact, I have real concerns that, if we put in statutory powers, fire services would have kit—and crews—sitting there, at huge expense, and the likelihood of it being used regularly would be completely different from what it would be in Cumbria, York and other parts of the country.

I know that the former Fire Minister understands this: if we say to the fire service, “You have a statutory duty,” it will put the kit in place. In many places, they have that kit. It would really worry me if we had lots of kit sitting around in areas where we know the risk is very minimal. I will keep the situation under review, but I am confident as to where we are. I am meeting in particular the metropolitan chief fire officers later today to discuss the issue, so I am not in any way saying that I will never look at it. I will keep it under review, but at present our position is like that of the Government in 2008. I accept that there are more flooding situations, but in terms of manning levels, we are going out to fewer calls, even though we are doing different sorts of calls. I remember going to flooding incidents quite extensively when I was in the job in the 1980s.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mike Penning]

I agree that the fire service is top-heavy in administration terms, which is why I am looking at PCCs who want to take over that administration and limit those costs, so that we have more money for the frontline; I am sure that we would all agree with that. Perhaps it is a question for another debate, on the number of fire and rescue services. That is a really emotive subject, because a local community relate, they tell me, to their fire service.

[Ian Lavery]

I will ask a very simple question and I am sure I will get a very simple answer. If it is right and correct that there is a statutory duty in Scotland and Northern Ireland, what is the difference with the people of England?

[Mike Penning]

I go back to the decision that was made in 2008. Devolved Assemblies will make their decisions on their priorities in their way. I have no evidence whatever that creating a statutory duty would enable our firefighters to do their job in regard to flood rescue and prevention any differently from how they do it now. However, I have said that I will keep an open mind. It is not a uniform view across the myriad fire and rescue services in this country that this should be statutory. The union has a view, and in most cases I agree with many of the things that the union says. I would do: I was a branch secretary for a short time. But on this issue, I do not agree, and the leadership know that I do not, so it will not come as a big surprise to them. This is really personal to me. I am sure the former Fire Minister will appreciate that if I thought that in any way, shape or form, this would do what it says on the tin, I would do it. I have real misgivings that actually there would be ongoing costs that would be disproportionate to what we were trying to do.

It has been very useful to discuss this issue this morning. I can probably look forward to further debates with the former Fire Minister and I am pleased to be giving him a few seconds now to respond.

Safety in Custody and Violence in Prisons

Ian Lavery Excerpts

Monday 9th May 2016 Commons Chamber

[Andrew Selous]

It was a great pleasure to go round HMP Northumberland with my hon. Friend not long ago, and I commend her for calling these terrible drugs “lethal” highs. From 26 May they will all be completely illegal when the Psychoactive Substances Act 2016 is enforced. That is very welcome, and my hon. Friend is absolutely right. We will not waver in our determination to crack down on those substances.

[Ian Lavery (Wansbeck) (Lab)]

I thank the Minister for an amicable meeting last week about HMP Northumberland. The common denominator throughout the whole prison estate across the country is simply a lack of manpower. That is causing the violence—whether it be prisoner on prisoner or prisoner on staff—mental health issues and the problems with alcohol, “spice” or whatever. The Minister has said that this issue is challenging. What extra measures can he take to ensure that plenty of staff are employed in prisons to maintain a safe environment for everybody on the prison estate?

[Andrew Selous]

My door is always open to the hon. Gentleman, and if he has further concerns about HMP Northumberland, he is welcome to come and see me again. If we analyse what has happened across the prison estate, we see that the increase in violence has taken place in prisons where there has been an increase in the number of officers and in prisons where numbers have stayed the same, and where there have been reductions. He is right to say that we need adequate levels of staff, which is why I give him the commitment that I have already given the House that we will carry on recruiting at our current level, which included a net increase of 530 officers last year.

Oral Answers to Questions

Ian Lavery Excerpts

Tuesday 8th March 2016 Commons Chamber

[Michael Gove]

I applaud my hon. Friend for the work that he did when he served on the Justice Committee in pioneering the case for a transformed approach towards justice. He is absolutely right. If we get prison reform right and get rehabilitation right, crime will fall, individuals will be safer, and of course the number of inmates in our prisons will fall.

[Ian Lavery (Wansbeck) (Lab)]

On a basic point of clarification, can G4S sell the Government contract it has in place on the secure training centres to the highest bidder without any Government veto or Government involvement? It really is concerning that that could be the case.

[Michael Gove]

First, I take this opportunity to thank the hon. Gentleman for his diligence in asking questions on behalf of his constituents, and also for his historic work for mineworkers in distress. I know that over the past couple of days there have been reports in the press. I want to say in the House that he is an exceptionally dedicated worker for people who have fallen on hard times and the vulnerable. As someone from another party, I want to say how much I admire him for that work.

The hon. Gentleman’s question was in that tradition. It is absolutely not the case that G4S can simply sell the contract to the highest bidder. We have the right to ensure that any transfer is done appropriately. I will make sure that he is briefed on the progress that we are making in order to ensure that these young people are looked after well.