Oral Answers to Questions
Andrew Bridgen Excerpts(7 years, 3 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Dr Phillip Lee)
My condolences go to Dean Saunders’ family. This is a dreadful case. I have seen the details of it, and I am seeking the details of all those cases to see whether there is a pattern in why they are happening. I hope to come forward later in the year with suggestions for policy change relating to mental health assessments in prisons.
Andrew Bridgen (North West Leicestershire) (Con)
Dr Lee
Of course, sentencing in individual cases is a matter for the courts. However, the Government are concerned that women—and, indeed, men—should not be sent to custody if they do not need to be there. Revised guidance on sentencing for non-payment of the TV licence fee was issued today by the Sentencing Council. The guidelines set out possible factors that could reduce the seriousness of TV licence evasion, including circumstances in which the culprit is experiencing significant financial hardship.
Oral Answers to Questions
Andrew Bridgen Excerpts(8 years ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Caroline Dinenage
The hon. Lady is absolutely right to raise this issue. The Government are absolutely committed to supporting all vulnerable and intimidated witnesses—especially those who have been subjected to domestic abuse—as well as to helping them give the best possible evidence and to seeing offenders brought to justice. That is why we have put in place measures that give witnesses the ability to give evidence using things such as a screen in the courtroom or a live videolink from a separate room or a location away from the court building. The hon. Lady will also know that, following the Court of Appeal judgment, we are taking immediate action to change our arrangements, and we are more than doubling the original time limit for evidence in domestic violence cases, from two to five years, and introducing a provision on the assessment of evidence of financial abuse.
Andrew Bridgen (North West Leicestershire) (Con)
Will the Minister outline how the Government’s prison reform plans will give prison governors greater autonomy, allowing them to tailor services such as mental health provision for the benefit of all prisoners?
Caroline Dinenage
We are moving towards full co-commissioning of mental health services between governors and NHS England, meaning that prison leaders can have much more say in defining the services their prisoners need and how the available budget is used. That will begin in reform prisons; if successful, it will apply nationwide from 2017. It will be backed by a high-quality, modern prison estate with rehabilitation and treatment at its core.
Oral Answers to Questions
Andrew Bridgen Excerpts(8 years, 2 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)
1. What recent discussions he has had with the Home Secretary on steps to remove foreign national offenders from UK prisons to their home countries.
Andrew Bridgen (North West Leicestershire) (Con)
4. What recent discussions he has had with the Home Secretary on steps to remove foreign national offenders from UK prisons to their home countries.
Suella Fernandes (Fareham) (Con)
9. What recent discussions he has had with the Home Secretary on steps to remove foreign national offenders from UK prisons to their home countries. [R]
Andrew Bridgen
Does my hon. Friend agree that it is totally unacceptable for the British taxpayer to be paying for foreign criminals?
Mr Raab
My hon. Friend is right. We have a range of existing measures, as well as the new action I have just described. The early release scheme allows for the early removal of foreign national offenders. We remove about 1,800 prisoners per year under that scheme and there are also prisoner transfer agreements. Overall, 29,000 FNOs have been removed between 2010 and 2015.
Transitional State Pension Arrangements for Women
Andrew Bridgen Excerpts(8 years, 3 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Mhairi Black (Paisley and Renfrewshire South) (SNP)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stringer. I shall be as brief as possible.
On 7 January, I was happy to lead a debate on the issues raised by Women Against State Pension Inequality. We heard, first, how consecutive Governments did not give women enough information or notification; and secondly, how, owing to the acceleration of equalisation, women were not given enough time to make appropriate financial arrangements for themselves. A motion was tabled calling on the Government to consider new transitional arrangements; it was overwhelmingly passed by the House, with 158 votes for and zero votes against.
Despite all that, I am still no further forward in understanding whether this Government have any intention of considering new transitional arrangements. Instead, I have been met with the same three rebuttals over and over—we heard some of them in the previous speech—given by the Government to justify doing absolutely nothing. I know that many colleagues will, as previous speakers have done, mention personal stories and examples showing the human cost of the issue, but I shall focus on the three rebuttals continually given by the Government.
First, we hear that the single-tier pension will solve all the problems these women face, but the reality is that they will receive the higher rate of the new state pension only if they have paid national insurance for 35 years. That means that many individuals who have had low-income or part-time jobs, or who have been in and out of work because they have cared for children, elderly parents or disabled family members, will not meet the 35-year contributions level. It is important to note that approximately 80% of those in this category who will not qualify for the higher rate are women. The idea that the single-tier pension is the answer to the problems that these women face is absolute nonsense and totally irrelevant.
It is also incredibly damaging to continue sending that message. Only this month, The Telegraph reported inaccurate communication from the Department for Work and Pensions to pensioners, after thousands of workers were told that the number of years needed had been reduced to 30, when the new scheme will actually require 35 years. Similarly, and rather embarrassingly, the Select Committee on Work and Pensions raised concerns about the Prime Minister’s misleading claim that the new single-tier pension will start at £150. The Pensions Minister, Baroness Altmann, had to explain:
“That is the full new rate for someone who starts building up from April 2016. That is where there has been so much misunderstanding”.
The whole reason why we find ourselves with this problem in the first place begins with poor communication between the Government and those affected, and it seems that this Government have not learned any lessons from that poor communication. They cannot continue to imply that the single-tier pension will solve the problem, because it will not.
Andrew Bridgen (North West Leicestershire) (Con)
The hon. Lady is making a powerful case, but will she concede that thirty thirty-fifths of the new single-tier pension are still worth more than the old pension?
Mhairi Black
I accept that point, but how is it relevant to what these women are facing?
It would seem that this is not the first time that the Government have misled people, or certainly gotten their facts wrong. The Pensions Minister gave inaccurate information to the Work and Pensions Committee when she said that WASPI was calling for the Government to undo the Pensions Act 1995—in other words, to reduce the pension age for women back to 60. That is strange, given that she was so involved with WASPI before being employed by the Government.
That brings me on neatly to the second reason why the Government think that nothing should be done: the principle of equality. We hear time and again that this is about equality, which is why we cannot repeal the 1995 Act and why the women affected should just put up with it. Let me set the record straight for the Government and for the Pensions Minister so that there can be no more confusion or inaccurate information: no one is calling for the 1995 Act to be repealed. No one is against the principle of equality. Neither I nor my colleagues nor the WASPI women—nor anybody in this room, I think—are against the principle of equalisation; it is about the speed of it, and the inadequate time and information given to the women affected. I truly hope that when the Minister responds to this debate, we do not hear at great length why equalisation is important. That is agreed. We want the Government to address specifically the speed at which it is being implemented.
The third and final reason commonly given to justify doing nothing is that the issue has already been debated, in 2011. That is correct. The changes were previously considered, and the concerns being raised now were raised then, which is why the Government rightly recognised that the initial transitional arrangements were not appropriate and responded, “Do you know what? We’ve listened, and you’ve got a point,” and changed the waiting period from two years to 18 months.
But if colleagues speak to Pensions Ministers or pensions experts, as I hope they do regularly, the Ministers and experts will say that quite often they do not fully know or appreciate potential problems with pensions until they experience them, and it is then that they have to respond appropriately. So yes, although this issue was debated in 2011, we are returning to tell the Government that in fact the initial six-month concession is not enough. It is not working out, so they have to consider something else that works better.
I have outlined why the Government’s responses have been completely inaccurate and often irrelevant. I do not want to hear that the new single-tier pension is the answer, because it is not; I do not want to hear speeches about the concept of equality, because it is irrelevant; I want to hear a genuine response from the Government on this matter. I said during the last debate that I did not believe that the policy was vindictive or deliberate, but with the knowledge of everything that is happening, it will become deliberate. That is not something I want tied to my name.
Oral Answers to Questions
Andrew Bridgen Excerpts(8 years, 3 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Vara
I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for raising the issue of employment tribunals, because it allows me to say that this Government’s aim is to ensure that people do not have to go to court or tribunal in the first place, and therefore do not have to incur the legal expenses or experience the stress. In the case of employment tribunals—he might not be aware of this—the ACAS early conciliation service, which is free, was used by 83,000 people in its first 12 months. I very much hope that when constituents bring problems to his surgery in future, he will point them towards that free service.
Andrew Bridgen (North West Leicestershire) (Con)
Since the Government changed the criteria for access to legal aid there has been a huge increase in claims of domestic violence. Has the Minister made any assessment of the link between those two items?
Oral Answers to Questions
Andrew Bridgen Excerpts(8 years, 6 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mike Penning
We will respond point by point as we develop the review of sentencing in this area, and of course, as the Minister with responsibility for victims, I will meet the hon. Gentleman. The Under-Secretary of State for Justice, my hon. Friend the Member for South West Bedfordshire (Andrew Selous), will perhaps also be available to meet the hon. Gentleman’s constituents and the team, as we respond.
Andrew Bridgen (North West Leicestershire) (Con)
What assessment has the Minister made of the trends in the length of sentences handed down to those found guilty of causing death by dangerous or careless driving?
Mike Penning
We have extended the sentence from two to 10 years for driving without a licence or while suspended, and we continue to look at the sentences. At the end of the day, however, we must convince people to drive sensibly so that the highways are safer for all of us. The figures are dramatically down, but we are continuing to look at the sentencing regime.
Assisted Dying (No. 2) Bill
Andrew Bridgen Excerpts(8 years, 8 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Rob Marris
Many disability organisations appear to think that this Bill has particular relevance to those with disabilities, but it does not. Disability is not an illness—it is rather old-fashioned to suggest that it is—and disability is certainly not a terminal illness. Despite repeated requests from its members, the British Medical Association has refused to debate this issue since 2012, and it has refused to poll its members. That is regrettable. In that context, The British Medical Journal editorial supports the Bill.
Rob Marris
No, I will not for the moment. I must make some progress.
I respect the views held by people who are strongly opposed to my Bill. I share their motives for wanting a better society and to ensure that we have a law that protects people. On the tube this morning, I stood next to a man in a hoodie on which it said, “Understand difference”, which I thought was quite appropriate. This debate is not about opinion poll numbers; it is about a matter of conscience, ethics and the kind of society in which we live. We need such a debate, and Parliament should not only debate this issue today when 85 hon. Members wish to speak but scrutinise the Bill in Committee in detail, and it should come back to the House for further scrutiny.
Steve Brine (Winchester) (Con)
In my five years in this House I have found that a great deal of what we do here tests our nerves as well as our politics and faith. Some days test them far more than that, and today is one of those days. Legislating in this place is, of course, about the principle and the big picture, and that is what Second Reading is all about. We must also ask ourselves whether the practicalities of the Bill match the principle.
I mentioned faith, and it is no secret that I am a Christian. That is not something that is said often in this House, and I was not elected as a Christian Conservative in May. That is part of who I am and it guides me in what I am saying today, but it is not the whole story. Indeed, at least in part, I surprise myself with how I intend to vote today, which is against Second Reading. I say that because I am hugely sympathetic to many of the arguments that have been put forward, not least by the Bill’s promoter who I thought spoke with dignity. I have received a huge mailbag on this issue, as have many Members, and it has been a pleasure to receive genuine letters and emails from constituents, instead of click-send robotic emails.
I understand that there is not insignificant support in the medical community for this Bill, and that there is nothing compassionate about someone having to travel far from their loved ones at great cost in order to die, if that is the awful conclusion they have reached. I am aware of the published opinion polls among the public, but I use the word “published” deliberately because as Winston Churchill said:
“There is no such thing as public opinion. There is only published opinion.”
There was just one opinion poll, and as we know from this year, opinion polls are not entirely always accurate.
Steve Brine
I will not because it is only fair that I crack on and give everyone a chance to speak.
Ahead of today, I read widely and I have thought about this issue deeply for a long time. I have met constituents who urged me to vote in support of the Bill, and those on the other side of the argument. Those supporting the Bill include members of Dignity in Dying in my constituency whom I met before the recess, and I could feel their sense of optimism and hope that many years of campaigning were finally coming to an end and that this is the moment that they had hoped and campaigned for—it certainly would not be the last moment during this Parliament.
If I was going to vote in support of the Bill, I would have to be 100% sure that it replaced the law we have with something better, and I genuinely do not think that that is the case. I spoke in the Back-Bench debate in March 2012 to express support for the then DPP’s guidance on applying the Suicide Act 1961, and I still think—I listened to every word from the hon. and learned Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Keir Starmer)—that that strikes the right balance. The public interest factors that he set out tending in favour and against prosecution were widely consulted on, as he said, and it was a successful consultation that received strong support from this House on that day. In my opinion—and having the opportunity to express it is why we are elected as Members of Parliament—those public interest factors remain fit for purpose.
The question for me is this: should we allow a small number of high-profile cases, no matter how tragic—of course, any human being with any element of faith and compassion understands that they are tragic—to pressurise us into changing a law that I believe is working as intended?
Given that that is my view, how can we improve the current law? Does the Bill and its 13 clauses show a better way? I do not believe it does. There has been much talk of Oregon today and there will be much more. We are told by the campaign group, Dignity in Dying, that medical opinion is divided. It says to me that some 57% of doctors feel that assisted dying legislation, with up-front safeguards, would be the best way to protect terminally ill patients who want to die. But that presumably means 43% do not, if we take those figures at face value.
If a terminally ill person decides to make a declaration for an assisted death using a schedule to the Bill, they would reasonably expect to ask their doctor to be one of the two signatories they require. If the said doctor is one of the 43%, what then? Clause 5 rightly contains provision for conscientious objection, so will we see in this country what we see in other jurisdictions, which is known as “doctor shopping”?
We then have the new safeguard in the Bill, namely the High Court judge confirmation. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Congleton (Fiona Bruce) about this issue being so serious. How would it work in practice? The Bill sets out a timescale for court decisions that would make robust scrutiny almost impossible. What would the judicial signatory require? Would there be a hearing with evidence presented, or would it just act as a rubber stamp? On those two points, the practicalities of the Bill do not convince me.
Let me return, in closing, to the principle of changing the law to legalise assisted suicide. Many of those who have written to me ahead of today’s debate warn that the Bill will create a slippery slope. I do not necessarily buy that argument. As the Bill’s promoter said, any amendments to the Bill would have to come back to the House and undergo parliamentary scrutiny, but come back they surely would. I note in Oregon earlier this year that there was a move to change the six months to a year. The Bill proposes six months, but I can see that being moved. Of course, all this runs up against the evidence I have heard from palliative care consultants in my constituency that, as many other Members have outlined, six months is a long, long time to determine a death.
It seems to me that we live in a world today obsessed by choice and consumerism. We want to have a career and the perfect family life. We want to shop every hour of the week. I find myself agreeing with the Bishop of Bristol, who said last month how the supporters of the Bill present it, in part, as a simple matter of individual choice with
“choice being the great God of a consumerised society.”
I think he hits the nail on the head. I believe that choice creates the burden; it does not set you free. We must significantly up our game in respect of how we provide end-of-life care, rather than handing out the right in law to take a life away.
Andrew Bridgen (North West Leicestershire) (Con)
It is a great honour to speak in a debate, as brief as it is, on a matter of life or death. It is one of the hardest things for this Parliament to deal with, because the passions of the speakers and the strength of the arguments on both sides are compelling.
I have been lobbied about assisted dying since my very first month in this Parliament, and consistently. I have listened to all the speeches today on both sides of the argument, but I will vote against the Bill because I am very concerned about coercion. Any Member of this House who does not consider that coercion could happen, forcing vulnerable people to take their own lives, has perhaps an over-optimistic view of the human nature of a small but significant section of our society.
I spoke to an A&E consultant in my constituency who raised concerns about his Hippocratic oath and the change in the doctor-patient relationship that the Bill could engender. He had a shocking experience when he was resuscitating an elderly lady in A&E while her relatives were sharing out her assets at the foot of the bed. When the old lady was resuscitated, he saw the look in the relatives’ eyes, and he would certainly not be in favour of assisted dying legislation whereby vulnerable old people could be coerced into taking their own lives by unscrupulous or heartless relatives or beneficiaries.
The safeguards in the Bill are inadequate, and as a responsible parliamentarian I cannot bring myself to support a change in the law with such gaping holes in it. It is a blank cheque, as has been mentioned.
Andrew Bridgen
I will not, if my hon. Friend does not mind.
Supporters of the Bill have said that 80% of the public favour medically assisted suicide. I am not sure how much understanding those respondents had at that time, but when participants are exposed to the counter-arguments to legalisation, support wavers, in one poll dropping from 73% to only 43%, and among palliative care doctors 90% oppose the Bill.
I am a trustee of a local hospice charity, Hospice Hope, in Ashby de la Zouch. I am a great supporter of and believer in the hospice movement and palliative care sector. I would like to quote Dr Robert Twycross, a retired palliative care specialist, who recently stated that
“despite upsetting ‘horror stories’…palliative care does not…leave patients to suffer unbearably. In extreme situations, increasing the dose of symptom relief and sedative drugs is already permissible as a ‘last resort option’. The most appropriate response to horror stories is to increase the availability of specialist palliative care”—
not to kill people.
As has been said, many people are desperate when first diagnosed with a terminal illness. It is completely understandable, and it is easy to make a rash decision. Many feel a burden on their family and wish to die to alleviate that burden, when actually that family love them, want to care for them and do not want them to die. The way to alleviate distress in dying people and their families is to care for them properly with good palliative care, not to murder them.
I am aware of time pressures. I would ask hon. Members to bear it in mind that we fund, to a huge extent, the national health service. It is not the national death service. In a recent survey in May of 1,000 GPs, only one in seven was willing to get involved with this Bill. I feel that for vulnerable people the right to die will quickly become the obligation to die. The only thing that deserves a quick death is this Bill and I shall vote against it.
Oral Answers to Questions
Andrew Bridgen Excerpts(8 years, 8 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Raab
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. We want to protect fundamental rights, but we do not want to see them distorted by judicial legislation or abused by serious and serial criminals. Above all, we do not want to see human rights become dirty words in the minds of the public. That is what the Human Rights Act led to; our Bill of Rights will restore some balance.
Andrew Bridgen (North West Leicestershire) (Con)
Will the Minister settle the nerves of some Members of this House by confirming that human rights existed in this country before the Human Rights Act and will continue to exist after the repeal of that Act?
Mr Raab
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The convention already reflects a huge amount of the common law tradition but, as he says, Britain was a member of the convention and had a long tradition of respect for human rights before the Human Rights Act, and we shall have after it.
Oral Answers to Questions
Andrew Bridgen Excerpts(8 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Andrew Bridgen (North West Leicestershire) (Con)
Does my hon. Friend agree that this country has had a proud tradition with regard to human rights, and it will remain a central part of what we do to promote best practice around the world, but in the end, the country’s commitment to human rights will be judged on its actions, not merely the piece of paper it happens to have signed?
Mr Raab
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. We have a strong record on human rights. We will continue to set an example around the world, but in our own domestic laws we do need to make sure that we have a common-sense balance. It is not a left or right issue; it is what the public expect as a matter of common sense.
Oral Answers to Questions
Andrew Bridgen Excerpts(9 years, 1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Andrew Bridgen (North West Leicestershire) (Con)
11. What steps he is taking to ensure the safety of prisoners and staff on the prison estate.
The Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice (Chris Grayling)
We are committed to delivering safe, decent and secure prisons. Reducing the number of deaths in custody is a key priority, and we are working hard to reduce levels of violence in our prisons. We have introduced a new protocol that will ensure that when there are serious assaults on prison staff, the perpetrators will be prosecuted wherever possible.
Andrew Bridgen
What does the Secretary of State believe the new protocol between the Prison Service, the Crown Prosecution Service and the Association of Chief Police Officers will deliver with regard to prison safety?
Chris Grayling
I hope that it will make a big difference to our staff. I pay tribute to prison staff, who do a difficult job. It is particularly difficult at the moment, with an upsurge in violence. A lot of that is due to the prevalence of so-called legal highs—new psychoactive substances—in our prisons. We have taken a number of steps to try to restrict access to those drugs, which are absolutely unacceptable in our prisons. When serious assaults previously took place, prosecutions might not have happened because those people were in jail. Now, they will, and I hope that will be a deterrent.