Male Suicide and International Men’s Day

Debate between Andrew Percy and Philip Davies

Thursday 19th November 2015 Westminster Hall

[Philip Davies]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right; we hear very little about that. If there were a shortage of female primary school teachers, I suspect we would hear a great deal more about it.

The fight for equality on all things that suit women has ended up in a situation where we are quick to point out that women need special protections and treatment in certain areas but need greater equality in others. Let me give the example of prison uniforms. Men in prison have to wear a prison uniform; women in prison do not. How, I have asked on many occasions, can that possibly be fair? Where is the equality in that? I will come on to the treatment of men and women in our justice system later, but that is clearly an issue. What is the explanation? I am told that it is because women are different. As I have said, it is a question of equality, but only when it suits.

[Andrew Percy (Brigg and Goole) (Con)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing the debate. I may not agree with everything he has said until now, but one thing I very much agree with him on is the constant obsession with gender equality. Does he agree that some of the people who have the worst life outcomes, particularly in our areas, are working-class men, who suffer some of the worst health issues and have some of the poorest life chances? Simply replacing a middle-class, privately educated man with a middle-class, privately educated woman does very little to increase diversity and opportunity for working-class lads.

[Philip Davies]

I very much agree with my hon. Friend. Increasingly, working-class boys are some of those who are doing the worst at school and need the most help. I certainly agree with him about political representation. I have often said that replacing Rupert from Kensington and Chelsea with Jemima from Kensington and Chelsea does not do much for diversity in the House of Commons, but that is perhaps a debate for another day.

Of course, some people believe that only men can be sexist. Frances Crook of the Howard League for Penal Reform, for example, tweeted the following a few years ago:

“Sexism is not about choosing between two genders, it’s about historic & current oppression by men. Only men can be sexist.”

That view is not uncommon, but it is, I believe, misguided. If it is not okay for a man to be sexist, it cannot be okay for a woman to be sexist. A good example of that is positive discrimination, which is portrayed as a great thing that can rebalance things for oppressed females, yet it is just discrimination. Whether we put the word “positive” in front of it or not, it is still discrimination. In my opinion, there is absolutely nothing positive about positive discrimination, and it certainly has nothing to do with equality.

Just a few months ago, a publishing house declared that it would not accept any male authors for a year to redress some perceived discrimination against female authors. I never quite understood that, because as far as I can see, there are plenty of published female authors, but leaving that aside, people commended the publishers for their stance. Imagine if another publisher had said that it was not going to publish female authors—there would have been an outcry. Thankfully, when I put a complaint to the Equality and Human Rights Commission about that, it agreed with me that it would be unlawful. However, it is interesting to note the number of people whose minds that clearly did not cross; because it was in favour of women, they thought it was fine.

--- Later in debate ---

[Philip Davies]

The hon. Lady has made her point. I would prefer that we actually dealt with trying to prevent people from taking their own life, or committing suicide, or whatever term anybody wants to use. The end result is the same and that is perhaps the thing we ought to concentrate on the most, rather than focus on what we call it, which does not necessarily help anybody who is a victim of it.

According to the Office for National Statistics, the number of female suicide victims declined from 10.9 per thousand in 1982 to 5.1 per thousand in 2013, whereas male suicide rates in the UK were much higher and were virtually the same in 2013 as they were in 1982—19 per thousand in 2013 and 20.6 per thousand in 1982. Those statistics sound bad enough, but it is nothing compared to the reality of suicide: according to the House of Commons Library, what that means is that in 2012, more than 4,500 men felt they had no choice but to take their own life. Given that there was an increase in suicides in 2013, the figure for that year is nearly 5,000 men.

In fact, over the last 30 years, according to ONS figures supplied by the House of Commons Library, more than 130,000 men have taken their own life. That is a staggering number: it is a staggering number of people who have needlessly died, and a staggering number of families left behind—parents, spouses, children, friends and colleagues —all of whom have been left grieving and suffering.

[Andrew Percy]

In our county of Yorkshire, 81% of the deaths from suicide in 2013 were men. To take my hon. Friend back to my earlier point, does he not agree that we have to do more to intervene early, particularly for young men from the poorest social backgrounds, who are the most at risk because of unemployment, low self-esteem caused by low educational outcomes, or the social conditions in which they live? Again, that is a particular group of our society to whom the services are not necessarily best placed to respond, but for whom we need to do better as a nation by intervening earlier.

[Philip Davies]

I am sure that my hon. Friend is right and that most people would agree with him. In fact, in the time allocated to this debate, statistically at least one man will have taken his own life, which means that yet another life will have been ended prematurely and another family will have been left devastated.

According to the Campaign Against Living Miserably, which is supported by many individual charities and which I would like to thank for its help with today’s debate, a YouGov poll this month that surveyed 2,000 men found that

“42 per cent…had considered suicide, with…41 per cent…never talking to anyone about their problems.”

In addition:

“49 per cent…of those who didn’t seek help ‘didn’t want people to worry about me’. A third…felt ashamed, nearly four in 10…did not want to make a fuss and…43 per cent…didn’t want to talk about their feelings.”

According to various sources, including the Government’s suicide prevention strategy for England, the suicide rate is highest among males aged 30 to 59. It has fluctuated in recent years between 30 and 44, but it is currently those who are aged 45 to 59 who have the highest suicide rate.

We might ask why these men feel that they have to end their lives in such numbers. There is the obvious issue of mental health problems; not wanting to ask for help could mean that those go untreated in some men. I was sent a briefing by the Royal College of Psychiatrists, which said:

“Three quarters of all people who end their own life are not in contact with mental health services and men who are suffering from depression are much less likely than women to look for formal help from mental health professionals.”

There are also clearly other things that are likely to affect men more than women—for example, being in debt or being a war veteran. The Samaritans point to evidence that suicidal behaviour comes about as a result of a complex interaction of a number of factors. In the case of men, financial worries play a big part—so unemployment and redundancy can be a trigger—and also the influence of a historical culture of masculinity.

In some cases, men might feel—usually mistakenly—that they are a burden on others or that people would be better off if they were dead. The fact that men still see themselves as the providers in many cases means that financial hardship is very significant, and in their mind reduces their contribution to the family unit. Someone in debt might think that their family would be better off if they were not there. Even putting aside the enormous emotional loss to those left behind, the financial gain may not be as the person intended, as taking their life could invalidate their life insurance.

--- Later in debate ---

[Philip Davies]

I agree with my hon. Friend that we need to do more to make sure that we have genuine equality, and not the “equality when it suits” agenda. We need to do as much as we can to help families stay together, wherever possible.

I will move on to talk about violence. In this House, we always seem to be hearing about strategies for combating violence against women and girls—in fact, there have been debates in the House on that very subject—so people might be forgiven for thinking that there is a special problem of violence against women and girls, and that it does not apply to men and boys. Some might think that far more women and girls than men and boys must be victims of violence, but the reality does not always match people’s concerns. It is a fact that in this country, men are much more likely than women to be victims of violent crime. The most recent biennial statistics from the Ministry of Justice on the representation of females and males in the criminal justice system confirmed that 1.4% of women interviewed in the crime survey reported being a victim of a violent crime, compared with 2.3% of men.

It is not just when it comes to violence generally that men do worse than women. Women accounted for around 30% of recorded homicide victims between 2006-07 and 2012-13, while men were the victims in the remaining 70% of cases. The picture emerging is that men and boys are far more likely than women and girls to be victims of violence and murder, but there is little or no mention of men and boys in our debates and strategies relating to females. I asked the Secretary of State for Education in Parliament last November

“what her policy is on educating children about violence against men and boys.”

I also asked

“what her policy is on educating boys about domestic violence against men and boys.”

The reply from the Minister for Schools was:

“Education has an important role to play in encouraging young people to build healthy relationships, and to identify those relationships which are unhealthy. Pupils may be taught about violence against men and boys in personal, social, health and economic (PSHE) education.”

I will just leave that there for people to reflect on.

There has been a lot of talk about the female victims of domestic violence. Figures from the Office for National Statistics show that 8.5% of women were victims of domestic violence in 2013-14, but so were 4.5% of men. That is equivalent to 1.4 million female victims and about 700,000 male victims of domestic violence. That figure refers not to partner abuse, but to all abuse in a domestic setting, including among families. When we look at the figures for partner abuse, we see that 5.9% of women and 2.9% of men report being victims. It is quite clear that around one in three victims is a man.

[Andrew Percy]

I wanted to make a speech, but I cannot because I have constituents visiting. My hon. Friend makes an important point about domestic violence towards men, but the fact remains that most domestic violence is towards women. Does he agree that although we should tackle domestic violence against men, International Men’s Day is the perfect opportunity for men to stand up as part of the white ribbon campaign, for which I am pleased to be an ambassador, and say that we will never remain silent when other men commit violence against women? Although both issues are important, International Men’s Day offers a particular opportunity for men to take a stand against other men who commit violence against women.

[Philip Davies]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. All such violence is unacceptable, whether the perpetrator is male or female, and whether their victim is male or female. That is my point 100%. We should criticise them all equally.

There is evidence of under-reporting among male victims of domestic violence. In the crime survey for England and Wales, victims of partner abuse in the previous 12 months were asked who they had spoken to about the abuse that they experienced. A third of victims told someone in an official position about the abuse, but nearly twice as many women as men did. Perhaps more significantly, women were nearly three times more likely than men to tell the police. Despite what we might think from the focus on male perpetrators of domestic violence, there are also many female perpetrators. When anyone says “domestic violence”, the first thing that springs to most people’s minds—including mine—is a poor woman being attacked by a bullying man. The figures show that it is much more complex than that, however, and that stereotypical image needs to be smashed if we are to tackle the problem as a whole.

Something else that needs to change is the reaction to violence against males, certainly when it comes to female-on-male violence. Some see it as almost a laughing matter, but nobody would laugh or turn a blind eye if a female was the victim. Anecdotal evidence suggests that male victims are treated differently from female victims by the police and other agencies. Considering the sheer numbers involved, male victims are given hardly any resources in comparison with female victims. Resources should be available to both male and female victims of domestic violence.

Issues such as the lack of places of refuge and the lack of support for men need to be addressed. The ManKind initiative, which works with men suffering from domestic violence or domestic abuse, says that it will run out of funding in January. It needs people to back it now so that it can provide the emotional support and practical information that male victims need. There are moving stories on its website from men who have suffered domestic violence. Although there seem to be more female victims of domestic abuse, each male victim is also a person, not a statistic, and it is only right and fair that help should be there for victims of both sexes.

I have gone on longer than I thought I would because I have taken so many interventions. The final issue I want to raise is sentencing, and how men are treated differently from women in our criminal justice system. I had a debate here in Westminster Hall three years ago, at which I had plenty of statistical evidence to show that women were treated more leniently than men, but that did not seem to be accepted at the time. Since then, progress has been made, because that fact is now broadly accepted. For far too long, those who peddled myths were able to get away with it because people simply repeated their mantra without question. Perhaps someone would like to try to explain why women should be treated favourably in the criminal justice system, but at least it is accepted that that is the case.

Since that debate, I have amassed much more evidence on the subject. I will not go through it all now, otherwise we would be here all day, but I want to put some of the key facts on the record. About 5% of the prison population at any time in recent history has been female, and the other 95% has been male, yet so much consternation, time and effort have been expended on the very small number of women in prison. For every category of offence, men are more likely than women to be sent to prison. That is a fact. I will give an example to illustrate that: 45% of men sentenced for an offence of violence against the person will be given a custodial sentence, compared with just 23% of women. Of those with 15 or more previous convictions, 39% of men but only 29% of women are sent to immediate custody. In Crown courts, which deal with the most serious offences, probation recommends immediate custody in 24% of cases for male offenders, and just 11% of cases for female offenders.

The average sentence length for an indictable offence is 17.7 months for men and 11.6 months for women. Men serve, on average, 52% of their prison sentence; women serve 46%. The average length of time that men spend in a prison cell each day is 14.1 hours, but that figure is 11.5 hours for women. The list is endless. I have spoken about domestic violence and have an additional fact on that subject: 3,750 male sentenced prisoners were victims of domestic violence, compared with 1,323 female prisoners.

There has been a rise in publicity surrounding female paedophiles. In a few high-profile cases recently, the sentences given to women were much more lenient than those that would be given to men. Just the other week, a babysitter who had sex with an 11-year-old boy escaped jail. There is no way on this planet that a male who had sex with an 11-year-old girl would have avoided prison—a point that the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children made about the case. There is no chance of that happening at all, and yet that was the sentence handed down.

The facts and figures that I have set out show that there are certainly questions to be answered about how men are treated in the justice system, compared with women. It seems that there is clear discrimination against men. If outcomes are all-important, what do people have to say about that? What will be done to deal with that balance? Well, the Under-Secretary of State for Women, Equalities and Family Justice has made an announcement. She has said that she wants fewer women in prison—not fewer people or fewer men. Yes, hon. Members heard me right: just fewer women. The Conservative manifesto read:

“We will improve the treatment of women offenders, exploring how new technology may enable more women…to serve their sentence in the community.”

Now, I am not somebody who supports prisoners, but where on earth is the equality in that? How does that fit in with the Equality Act 2010?

Criminal Justice and Courts Bill

Debate between Andrew Percy and Philip Davies

Monday 12th May 2014 Commons Chamber

[Philip Davies]

I absolutely accept that the current Lord Chancellor, with the help of my hon. Friend the Minister, is doing his very best to try to undo lots of the mistakes made by his predecessors; I am the first to acknowledge that. My contention is that the Government are not going anywhere near far enough in meeting the needs and expectations of the general public. Yes, of course they are making small steps in the right direction, but they are far too small and I would like them to go further.

[Andrew Percy (Brigg and Goole) (Con)]

May I reassure my hon. Friend about the views of the public? I spend my weekends out on the doorsteps talking to people in Brigg and Goole, and the one thing they tell me about law and order is that they expect that people who go to prison should serve their full term. The idea that somebody can breach their licence and then in effect have a 28-day all-inclusive holiday is completely and utterly outrageous. I entirely concur with what he is saying, and so do the people of Brigg and Goole.

[Philip Davies]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend, and, of course, to the people of Brigg and Goole who are so ably represented by him in Parliament. He is absolutely right. Most people think that when somebody is sent to prison for whatever length of time the court hands down, they should be there for that period of time. It beggars belief that even when they are released from prison and commit another offence, they do not go back for the original sentence that was handed down.

There is no licence period for offenders serving less than one year in prison, and that covers about 60% of the prison population at any one time. Many of the remaining prisoners will be released on licence halfway through their sentence. Fixed-term recalls were introduced in 2008 to reduce the pressure on prison places. It was not done because it was the right thing to do, but because the previous Government got completely overwhelmed on the matter of prison places. Unfortunately, not much appears to be known by the public, nor—dare I say it?—by many colleagues in this House about how the system of fixed-term recalls works. A fixed-term recall occurs where the offender breaches their licence and is returned to prison for a mere 28 days, as my hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Goole (Andrew Percy) said—not for the rest of the prison term they were originally given, not even for most of it, but for just 28 days.

When fixed-term recalls were introduced, they excluded certain offenders. However, in his bid to reduce the prison population still further, the former Lord Chancellor, my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe, relaxed the eligibility criteria by way of a change in the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012. I always had my doubts about the fact that the punishment of offenders was mentioned in the title of that Act, because it seemed to do anything but punish offenders, and I was right to be concerned. As of 3 December 2012, fixed-term recalls were made available to previously denied prisoners. These were offenders serving a sentence for certain violent or sexual offences, those subject to a home detention curfew—that is, serving some of their prison sentence at home—and, most shockingly, those who had previously been given a fixed-term recall for breaching their licence within the same original prison sentence. I suspect that not many people realise that, and they certainly will not like it when they do.

One unbelievable thing that I recently found out is that in the nine months from January to September last year, 785 of the prisoners serving sentences of one year or more who had been released on licence before the end of their sentence were not only recalled to serve just 28 days for breaching their licence once, and then released, but subsequently recalled to serve another 28-day spell and then released again before the end of their original prison sentence. In nine months, 785 of the most serious offenders in our prisons were released from prison having breached their licence, returned to prison for 28 days, released again, and then, for a further breach of their licence, returned to prison for just 28 days and then released again. You couldn’t make it up, Madam Deputy Speaker. This is a complete failure of policy that is completely indefensible and unjustifiable. I am not easily shocked when it comes to any matters relating to justice, but this has to be one of the most unbelievable policy decisions of all time, and I doubt there is much support for it among the general public. I would love to hear the Howard League for Penal Reform, otherwise known as the prisoner’s friend, and other do-gooding organisations justify this kind of approach.

In answer to one of my recent parliamentary questions about the Bill, my hon. Friend the Minister said:

“Fixed term recalls will continue to be used in low-risk cases where a short period back in custody is sufficient to deal with the breach and the offender can then safely be re-released to continue with their rehabilitation under licensed supervision in the community.”—[Official Report, 3 March 2014; Vol. 576, c. 641W.]

My new clause would remove those who have committed serious offences from eligibility for the 28-day recall, as well as those who have already been given a chance on a 28-day recall and gone on to breach their licence conditions again. If what the Minister says is really the case, surely he and the Lord Chancellor, who is, I believe, much more in tune with public opinion and more on the side of the victim than the criminal—certainly compared with his predecessor—will do something to rectify this appalling state of affairs and support my new clause. Unless he can offer some sensible measures to address these points, I intend to press it to a vote.

New clause 31 proposes that time spent on tagged curfew would not count as time on remand. The Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008 amended the Criminal Justice Act 2003 to allow periods of time spent on tagged curfew, on bail, to count as credit towards any eventual custodial sentence. As I said on Second Reading of this Bill, I want an end to the ridiculous position whereby time spent on tagged curfew is credited as though it were time spent on remand in prison. The new clause would remove that entitlement. Currently, when someone is on bail on an electronically tagged curfew from, say, 11 pm until 8 am, and they then receive a custodial sentence, the amount of time they have to serve in custody is reduced by half a day for each nine hours or more spent on the curfew beforehand. I have never understood the maths of it. If nine hours is spent on a curfew, how does that equate to half a day in prison, even if the two things were comparable, which, in my view, they are not? I appreciate that some people will have had curfews longer than nine hours, but some of those who had nine-hour curfews will still be getting the benefit of this credit. The credit also inevitably means that some people avoid prison altogether. If they have been on a curfew for a certain period of time and then receive a custodial sentence of a certain length, they will never see the inside of a prison cell despite the court having deemed that only a custodial sentence was appropriate for the crime they committed.

I can do no better than repeat what my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Harborough (Sir Edward Garnier) said as shadow Minister in 2008 when this proposal was first being made by the previous Labour Government:

“One of the greatest concerns of the public is that the current system leads to dishonesty in sentencing. People do not seem to understand that when a person is sentenced to two years in prison, that actually means that he will be in custody only for one year. It provides yet another example of how the Government, in order to overcome the difficulties of prison overcrowding, are guilty of promoting an untruth.”

He went on to say that a curfew

“cannot be considered the equivalent of having spent time in prison awaiting sentence, but the new clause directs the court to take all that time—described as ‘the credit period’—into account in reducing the custodial sentence. I am afraid that the public will find that rather difficult to understand.”

He went on to say, as I quoted on Second Reading:

“If someone has committed an offence that crosses the custody threshold—an offence that is serious enough to warrant a custodial sentence—it will cause a great deal of scepticism, undermine public confidence in the justice system and make the Government look increasingly ridiculous if the court is then required to say, ‘By the way, all the time that you have spent at home in bed is time that can be taken away from your custodial sentence.’”—[Official Report, 9 January 2008; Vol. 470, c. 369.]

As it happens, back in 2008 the Conservative party voted against the then Government introducing this particular measure. Indeed, the Minister voted against it when in opposition. Has he changed his mind about this ridiculous system—if that is the case, he can tell us why—or does he still think it is ridiculous even though he does not accept my new clause? I would be extremely grateful if he could tell us why he intends to defend in this Parliament something that he thought was wrong and voted against in the last Parliament. We can only conclude that he has somehow changed his mind, but I am not entirely sure what caused that to happen.

My other new clauses, 37 to 42, all relate to open prisons and can be taken together. I am sure it will not have escaped anybody’s notice that open prisons have been a hot topic in the past week or two, with the absconding of the “skull cracker” from an open prison. The prison authorities might have thought there was a clue in his name before they decided to release him, but it appears that that was beyond them. This is a multiple armed robber who was serving 13 life sentences and had absconded from prison before—twice, I believe—but who somehow, unbelievably, found himself in an open prison and being released on temporary licence.

I had been looking at this issue for some time before the “skull cracker” case, and the more I learn about it, the more I despair. The actual facts regarding open prisons and the sorts of people being let out on day or night release are shocking. People say that open prisons are an essential part of people’s rehabilitation and that, just before they are released and have gone through all their rehabilitation, it means they can gradually work their way back into the local community. We know that that is clearly not true, because of the police’s reaction when the “skull cracker” escaped from prison. If all of this guff about rehabilitation of people in open prisons were true, when the “skull cracker” escaped from prison the police would have told the public, “Don’t worry about it, because this man was rehabilitated. He was going to be released from prison very soon anyway, so he is of no danger to the public.” Of course, the police did not say that; they said, “This man is immensely dangerous and must not be approached at any price.”

Therefore, we know for a fact that the argument that people in open prisons who are coming to the end of their sentence are being rehabilitated is a load of old nonsense dreamt up by the do-gooders. I can see from the facial expressions of the hon. Member for Cambridge (Dr Huppert) that the do-gooders are ably represented, as usual. He, along with the Howard League for Penal Reform, is the criminal and prisoner’s friend.

--- Later in debate ---

[Philip Davies]

I suggest the hon. Gentleman goes to speak to the people at the building society who were the victims of the armed robbery by the “skull cracker.” The hon. Gentleman seems to take comfort from people in a Westminster bubble—people who need to get out more—agreeing with him. I am concerned not about whether he agrees with me, but about what the general public think and whether they have confidence in the criminal justice system. He is, of course, a typical arrogant type who thinks that he knows better than the general public about everything. All I can suggest is that he knocks on a few doors in his constituency and asks people what they actually think about the criminal justice system. He may be shocked. It would be better for him not to stick to the people in the ivory towers in his constituency; he should try to speak to people on estates and those who buy their own homes. He might be surprised by what he finds out.

My new clauses 37 states:

“No prisoner serving a sentence for which he is liable for deportation can be moved to a Category D prison.”

New clause 38 states:

“No prisoner serving a sentence for which he is liable for deportation can be eligible for resettlement licence.”

[Andrew Percy]

I thank my hon. Friend for giving way again. On deportation, surely the debate about whether an open prison is key to rehabilitation is completely irrelevant, because these people will not be released back into society in the United Kingdom. He should, therefore, enjoy the support even of those who argue that open prisons are part of rehabilitation, because the people affected will leave the United Kingdom. The argument is completely baseless.

[Philip Davies]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. I am sure we are all excited at the prospect of hearing what the hon. Member for Cambridge will have to say about these particular two new clauses and whether he thinks it is suitable for people who are about to be deported to be moved into open prisons and released on temporary licence so that they can walk out willy-nilly. Knowing him as I do, I am sure he thinks it is quite right for them to be moved to open prisons and released on temporary licence. We await his comments with baited breath. If he were to agree with me, there is no doubt whatsoever that it would be a red letter day. At that point, I think I would be able to claim that my new clause had the support of the House.

The clue to my new clauses is in the title: if someone is liable for deportation following an offence, I do not understand what grounds there can possibly be for releasing them on resettlement licence. The whole justification for resettlement day and night release is that it is supposed to help prisoners reintegrate into the area by re-establishing links with family and the local community. To be honest, I am not a fan of that at the best of times—given that many offenders spend so little of their sentence in prison anyway, I cannot believe that so many of them are not in prison when we think they are—but giving a resettlement licence to someone liable to be deported is utter madness. I cannot for one second understand the logic of it and I would be amazed if anybody could find any support for the idea from any quarter.

New clause 38 would make those liable for deportation ineligible for resettlement licence, and new clause 37 would ensure they were not allowed to be moved to open prisons. I cannot believe that I even needed to table these new clauses—I would have thought they were basic common sense—but I believe this change is essential to remove the much greater risk of these offenders absconding, knowing that they are likely to be deported at the end of their sentence in any event.

New clause 39 states:

“No prisoner serving a sentence for murder can be moved to a Category D prison.”

New clause 40 states:

“No prisoner serving a sentence for murder can be eligible for resettlement licence.”

There is nothing much more serious than dealing with the case of someone who has been murdered. The individuals who have committed such crimes have shown that they are capable of ending someone’s life, and there has to be a risk that they will do it again. It is all well and good saying that these people should be rehabilitated, but the risk is obviously at the highest possible end of the scale.

According to replies to further parliamentary questions, I was told that two murderers are still on the run, having absconded from open prison a few years ago, and that 106 offenders serving sentences for murder have absconded in less than 10 years. Those are not small numbers. As far as I am concerned, any murderer who absconds from our prison estate is one too many. It is absolutely disgraceful that 106 murderers have absconded from our prisons in 10 years. New clauses 39 and 40 would help to protect the public, who should not be put at risk in this way.

There are real-life, tragic examples of the risk these murderers pose. One of those terrible cases happened when Ian McLoughlin was on day release following a murder conviction, which in turn followed a conviction for manslaughter. He murdered Graham Buck, who had gone to help his neighbour. The offence was apparently committed on his first day on day release from prison after 21 years in custody. One day is all it takes. I believe that putting murderers in open prisons and giving them day release is playing with fire unnecessarily and creating unnecessary additional victims of crime. Such tragic cases should never have happened, and we need to make sure that they never happen again. I therefore hope that colleagues will support the new clauses.

New clause 41 would deny a prisoner serving a sentence for an indictable only offence from being moved to a category D open prison. According to an answer on 1 May to one of my parliamentary questions, there were more than 4,000 offenders in open prisons at the end of last year, including 1,227 who were in for violence against the person offences, 215 for sexual offences, 505 for robbery, 202 for burglary and 1,115 for drug offences. According to other answers, there are 643 life-sentence prisoners in open prisons, as well as 599 other prisoners serving indeterminate sentences for public protection. These are not the type of offenders I was expecting to find in open prisons. I believe that most of the public think that open prisons are for people like Lester Piggott, not people serving 13 life sentences.

Not only are such people in open prisons, but they are allowed to go out by being released on temporary licence. Some 611 prisoners serving life sentences were granted release on temporary licence in the last year for which figures are available, and 1,043 serving indeterminate sentences for public protection were granted release on temporary licence. If people serving indeterminate sentences for public protection were fit to be released from prison, they would have been released. That is the whole point of indeterminate sentences. The fact that they are still in prison means that, by definition, they are not fit to be released. I am at a loss to understand how those who have committed the most serious offences—those which justify a so-called life sentence—are allowed to move to open prisons in such numbers.

I also struggle with the basic concept that someone deemed too dangerous for release, in serving a sentence for public protection, is actually released on temporary licence. New clause 41 would ensure that no one serving the most serious sentences—for murder, attempted murder, manslaughter, section 18 wounding, conspiracy, robbery, rape, aggravated burglary, kidnapping, riot, blackmail and arson—could be moved to an open prison or released on temporary licence.

Finally, new clause 42 would mean that no prisoner

“serving a life sentence can be moved to a Category D prison before the views of the victim or the victim’s family have been sought and considered by the Secretary of State for Justice.”

Victims’ rights should be at the heart of our criminal justice system. A victim can be the person directly involved or the affected family. It is one thing to be a victim of a serious crime and it is another to hear the often far too low sentence handed down to the perpetrator, but it is an absolute outrage for the victim and their family to learn that the person has been released early, or is seen to have an easy life in an open prison or by being released on temporary licence.

One of the most stark examples is that of offenders who are transferred to open prisons, which must be very upsetting and concerning for victims in many cases. It is absolutely right that before considering any application for people to be moved to an open prison, particularly for those who have committed the most serious offence, victims and their families should have a formal input into, and their objections or comments should be heard as part of, the process of deciding whether or not that person should be moved.

I hear Members talking time and again about how they think that victims should be at the heart of the criminal justice system, that their rights should be paramount and that their views should be more carefully considered by the criminal justice system and the courts. This is an opportunity for them not just to come here and spout about the rights of victims and their families, but to do something about it by allowing victims and their families to play a formal part in the decision-making process. New clause 42 would ensure that victims’ voices are heard, with decisions taking into account what the victim has to say as well as the offender’s impact on them and their family.

I genuinely do not understand—I really do not—why anybody would object to this particular new clause. I hope that the Minister will say that he will support it and that the shadow Minister will also do so, so that we can send out a message from this House, on a cross-party basis, that we do not just say that we want victims to be at the heart of the criminal justice system, but have actually delivered something meaningful that will make an awful lot of difference to how victims feel about the criminal justice system.

I look forward to hearing other hon. Members’ views. I have no doubt that my new clauses command the widespread support of members of the public, and I would like to think that they also command an awful lot of support in this House.

Humber Bridge Bill

Debate between Andrew Percy and Philip Davies

Tuesday 26th February 2013 Commons Chamber

[Andrew Percy (Brigg and Goole) (Con)]

I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.

I move the Second Reading on behalf of other Members from the region who are in the Chamber, including the right hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle (Alan Johnson), the hon. Members for Kingston upon Hull North (Diana Johnson) and for Scunthorpe (Nic Dakin), my hon. Friend the Member for Cleethorpes (Martin Vickers) and my right hon. Friend the Member for East Yorkshire (Mr Knight). We have been united on this Bill, which seems to have attracted some interest from other parts of the country. We welcome that, and thanks to my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Mr Chope) highlighting the existence of the Bill, we look forward to hordes of visitors to our region from his area and elsewhere.

Let me explain in a few words why across the Humber and across the political parties we jointly believe the Bill to be necessary. We ran a long cross-party and cross-estuary campaign to get action taken on the very high tolls on the Humber bridge. As we know, this was successful when we received a grant from the Chancellor of £150 million to enable the tolls to be halved. That has had a huge impact on the numbers crossing the bridge, which was absolutely necessary given the challenges in the region, with two of the poorest boroughs in the country.

While the Minister is in his place on the Front Bench—and I see that the former Secretary of State for Transport, my right hon. Friend the Member for Putney (Justine Greening) has joined us—I would like to pay tribute on behalf of myself and colleagues for the work they did to make this happen. We are indebted to them for their efforts and hard work. Without their personal involvement, I am not so sure that we would have got the results that we have seen.

I want to refer in a little detail to some of the changes introduced by the Bill and to explain their necessity. Somebody once said to me that the bridge was built on the back of a 1950s Bill, constructed in the 1970s and opened in the 1980s. Indeed, I was three years old when it opened, and we have worked out that my hon. Friend the Member for Cleethorpes was nine when the original Bill for the construction of the bridge was introduced back in 1959. The bridge board building has been constructed for some considerable time, and those who have visited it will appreciate that; it is almost in a time warp and is like stepping back in time.

There used to be 22 members from the various local authorities serving on the bridge board, and I declare an interest as a former member of that board. I was not one of the 22 members, but one of the 22 reserve members—in total, we had 44 potential members of the Humber bridge board representing the four local authorities in the region. It has to be said that the local authorities were different at that time. It was an unwieldy institution, and the Bill will formally reduce membership to four and add two members from the private sector, which we all believe is necessary to give the bridge a new look and a new drive. Those two additional members will be drawn from the business community, and there is provision to allow for their reasonable expenses. This might have been a cause of concern to some people, but I assure Members that the four members of the local authorities will continue to draw their expenses for attending the bridge board from the local authority remuneration scheme, and there is no intention at all to draw any salaries or additional expenses from the Humber bridge board. This provision is necessary just for the out-of-pocket expenses of the two private sector members, so that they can reclaim their travel expenses, which they cannot do at the moment. There is no intention of creating director salaries for the local authority members.

[Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)]

According to clause 5,

“The Board may pay to each director of the Board such allowances and expenses as the Board may from time to time determine.”

I am not entirely convinced that the Bill imposes a great deal of restraint on the directors. Perhaps my hon. Friend can help me out.

[Andrew Percy]

Obviously, all members of the board will be created equal. It is essential for private sector members to be able to claim out-of-pocket expenses, but local authority members will continue to be remunerated by their authorities through local government schemes. Given that they are elected representatives, if they made any attempt to draw salaries they could expect a backlash at the ballot box.

It could be argued that the bridge is more advantageous to people living on the south bank of the Humber, but at present 98% of liability for the burden of debt lies with the city of Hull because of the way in which it was constructed. Protracted negotiations took place involving one authority in particular, but the objections of that authority were overcome. It was agreed that the bridge was of equal importance to all four, and that the burden should therefore be shared equally between them.

I hesitate to say this, given the political beliefs of some of my colleagues who are in the Chamber, but no traffic enforcement is currently possible on the Humber bridge. I was told recently that it was possible to drive through the tolls at 100 mph naked on a motorbike without committing any traffic offences. Not many people do that, of course, but we cannot allow such safety issues not to be addressed. Those who do not pay the toll cannot currently be pursued, and the current speed limit is not enforceable. Allowing the board to deal with that is simply a practical measure.

[Andrew Percy]

I will not be drawn down that path. I understand that the person who apparently holds the speed record on the bridge may be well known publicly, but I will not name that person. It is certainly no one in the House.

At present, the board is allowed no flexibility in regard to dispensation from tolls. For those of us who represent the south bank, that is an important issue. Health and other services have increasingly been concentrated on the north bank over the past decade or so. Certain cancer and heart treatments are offered in Hull, but it is not currently possible for any toll dispensations to be given to the cancer and cardiac patients who must travel to the north bank regularly for their treatment.

It causes outrage locally that, while the Home Office will pay the tolls of the families who visit prisoners on the north bank and jobseekers can claim support through Jobcentre Plus, health patients receive no such support. It will now be up to the bridge board to decide whether it wishes to exercise such a discretion, and it has indicated that it is sympathetic to the requirements of certain types of patients who require regular treatment on the other side of the river.

As I said at the outset, there has been a cross-party campaign to modernise the bridge. We feel that the current structure is too rigid, that it does not give the board the commercial freedoms that it requires, and that consequently this change is essential.

[Philip Davies]

It appears that the Bill does not allow the board to increase the maximum toll, although it can vary tolls. Will it be able to increase them in future, and what will be the implications for people more widely?

[Andrew Percy]

The situation in respect of the tolls is that they could be raised and returned to £3 overnight under the order currently in place, without any consultation with the public.

This is what happens at present. A toll inquiry is held—at great cost to the board—at regular intervals, to which local MPs, including myself and many other Members present, trot up and argue passionately against any rise in the tolls, often on social or economic grounds. The bridge board’s primary responsibility and function, however, is, and will remain, repaying the debt, so those arguments are completely irrelevant.

Huge sums of money are spent whenever an inquiry is demanded and is granted by the Secretary of State, and at the end of that process the inspector’s recommendation has always been that the tolls must be raised. The Bill will allow the bridge board to raise the tolls in line with the retail prices index, should it wish to do so—although I hasten to add that the bridge board has recently said it expects to hold the tolls at £1.50, so there would be a real-terms cut year on year for the next three or four years at the very least.

The charade of a process that has gone on until now in respect of toll rises did not give the public any real say. There was a lot of debate and a lot of hot air was generated, but at the end of the day the situation fundamentally came down to the bridge board’s finances and therefore every toll rise was always consented to, with the exception of one, when a Minister intervened in the run-up to an election.

--- Later in debate ---

[Philip Davies]

My hon. Friend makes a good point. We wish to represent the best interests of our constituents too, so we need to be cautious about that.

[Andrew Percy]

I have enormous respect for my hon. Friend, and I understand his argument, but I think that he is failing to understand that the primary purpose of the board is to service the bridge’s debt. That is what it is there to do and that is what the tolls are necessary for, so the idea that it is suddenly going to shove them up to five quid overnight is wrong—it is not going to happen, to be polite about it. We must remember that the primary purpose of the board is to service the debt, and that is done either through the tolls or through a levy on the local authorities.

[Philip Davies]

I take my hon. Friend’s point and his reassurance. However, he must accept that although we have seen a change in strategy this evening, as my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch has noted, some people will believe politically that the best way to raise money to service the debt is to increase taxes or, in this case, charges. The people on the board may not accept the idea of my hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Goole that the best way to increase the revenue stream is to reduce the price—they may take the view that the best way to service the debt is to increase prices—so there is no guarantee that what he suggests will always prevail. I will not go on for too much longer because I do not want inadvertently to talk out his Bill, but there is a concern about what might happen, and it is worth putting that on the record and asking him to think a little more about whether a provision should be inserted in the Bill to prevent any potential problem further down the line.

I have two final points. The first is about the people whom my hon. Friend the Member for Cleethorpes wants to be given a full or partial relief from the toll, perhaps because of medical conditions. He said that when one makes a list one might inadvertently miss something off and cause a problem, and I understand that. However, an intention to give certain people a relief is only that—an intention. Nothing in the Bill would force it to happen or guarantee it. People could have their hopes raised and then see them dashed. It would be unfortunate if the board had a change of heart, or its personnel changed, and it no longer felt that a relief was appropriate or affordable because, as my hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Goole says, their primary responsibility is to service the debt.

It might therefore be worth inserting a provision—it does not have be as specific as my hon. Friend the Member for Cleethorpes perhaps inferred from my intervention—to make it clear that there should be some form of relief for people with, for example, serious medical conditions. It need not specify anything in particular but would make sure that what he intended happened in reality. One of the many unfortunate things in politics is people’s hopes being raised and then dashed when other people have made promises that they cannot keep. It would be good if we could demonstrate in the Bill that this provision would be an inevitable consequence of its being passed, whereas at the moment it is just an aspiration and a hope that cannot be guaranteed.

My final point is about clause 5, on allowances and expenses, about which I made an intervention earlier. I took the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Goole about out-of-pocket expenses. I do not think that anybody will reasonably object to people being able to recover their out-of-pocket expenses, but that is not exactly what the clause says. It says:

“The Board may pay to each director of the Board such allowances and expenses as the Board may from time to time determine.”

With the best will in the world, whatever the intention and whatever expectations people may have, that gives an awful lot of scope under the Bill for people to be paid allowances and expenses that local residents may consider at some time to be excessive. This kind of thing can often build up resentment if it does not come with the support of the local public. If the intention is for people to have their out-of-pocket expenses repaid—I would not object to that and I am certain that the vast majority of local residents would not, either—perhaps the Bill should make it clear that that is what it means, rather than say

“such allowances and expenses as the Board may determine from time to time,”

which would give people scope to vote for considerable amounts of money that others would find unacceptable or offensive.

London Local Authorities Bill [Lords]

Debate between Andrew Percy and Philip Davies

Wednesday 25th January 2012 Commons Chamber

[Philip Davies]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. This is a tyranny over people who were once able to enjoy a particular way of life indoors who have been forced outside, through no fault of their own and no fault of the premises from which they have been kicked out. Most premises used to offer some kind of smoking room or a place where smokers could go. The legislation has forced them to put those people out on to the streets. It would be a rather perverse kick in the teeth for them, having been once inconvenienced, now to have to pick up the tab—excuse the pun—for a piece of Government legislation. My hon. Friend is right that it would be perverse to go down that, route based on the history of how this situation has come about.

[Andrew Percy (Brigg and Goole) (Con)]

There is clearly a problem in how that relates to public houses, but as I remember from my time as chairman of a licensing authority, it is possible to deal with some of the current problems through the licensing system, through conditions on licences. For example, councils could look at their licensing policy. If this is such a great problem, and clearly people feel that it is, is my hon. Friend aware of any local authorities that have tried to address it through their licensing regime?

--- Later in debate ---

[Philip Davies]

I do not want to get sidetracked by charges in toilets, Madam Deputy Speaker, because I am sure that if I went down that route you would soon pick me up and tell me to keep on the straight and narrow. I am tempted by my hon. Friend’s deliberate attempt to get me into trouble by leading me out of order, but I will resist.

My hon. Friend appears to have given up on his former valiant defence of the reason for this measure and has now played what he believes to be the trump card of localism. Perhaps he thinks, “If all else fails, bring out the localism card.” I have two points to make about that. First, the purpose of Parliament is that we are here to defend the freedoms of people right across the country, and wherever we see those freedoms being infringed, it is our duty to try to do something about it.

Secondly, one could just about use the localism principle to sustain an argument that in Shipley, to pick a place at random, the local authority should be able to do what it wants with its public toilets because even though we have on our doorstep Saltaire, which is a world heritage site and a fine place that I advise all hon. Members to visit, the centre of Shipley does not have a great number of tourists. That is regrettable. If people wandered down from Saltaire, which is only a mile or two away, they could soon be a tourist in Shipley, but it does not tend to happen. In London, however, the exact reverse is the case. These regulations will not only apply to Londoners because London has the distinction of having a large number of visitors from every part of the country. When my constituents, who know that local authorities cannot put turnstiles in toilets in their local area, come and visit London for a weekend break or a week’s holiday, they should be able to expect that the law of the land that applies in their part of the world applies in London too. It would be completely bizarre if all those people travelling down to London for a weekend were caught unawares by such draconian legislation. How on earth could they be expected to know that London has a completely different regime on all these matters of basic freedoms from that which applies in other parts of the country?

[Andrew Percy]

This power is not about localism unless it is provided to all local authorities in England. If we do not do that, we end up doing what a lot of my constituents think happens down here because they feel that this place is all about London—or all about Scotland, because we are hearing a lot about independence—but not about the regions. I bet my bottom dollar that we would not have much chance of getting a North Lincolnshire or an East Yorkshire local authorities Bill through this place.

[Philip Davies]

If my hon. Friend did try to introduce such a Bill, I would probably be standing here speaking against it in the same way. I put that warning shot across his bows. However, he makes a good point. If we believe in localism, we should at least give every local authority a fair crack of the whip by allowing it to have the same privileges that my hon. Friend the Member for Finchley and Golders Green is seeking for London. Whichever way one looks at it, there seems to be no justification at all for saying that London can do something that nowhere else can. That appears to be grossly unfair.

--- Later in debate ---

[Philip Davies]

That is right. My hon. Friend proposes a good solution, but however they are paid for, local businesses pay rates and expect services in return. Such facilities are important in attracting people to a location. The local authority will benefit from those just as much as local businesses.

[Andrew Percy]

It is not just businesses that pay rates and expect services; people pay their council tax to their local council for such provision. They see their council spending millions of pounds over a budget period on communications and other stuff, but they expect basic stuff such as public facilities to be provided for them to use for free. That is what most of the council tax payers my hon. Friend and I represent want.

[Philip Davies]

I suspect my hon. Friend is right. It is no good local authorities going to the Government or the council tax payer and saying, “We need ever increasing amounts of money to pay for this, that and the other, and one of those things should be toilets,” and then saying, “By the way, we’ve got all the money in from the Government and the council tax payer to provide toilets, but we do not want to provide them free of charge.”

--- Later in debate ---

[Andrew Percy]

In a previous incarnation, I was a licensing chairman. We were keen as a local authority to encourage businesses to use street furniture because we thought that it took away many of the problems that we were dealing with. It improved antisocial behaviour and saved us money on some of the problems we faced on the streets at the time. Street furniture was therefore something to be encouraged. Rather than charging businesses for it, we were keen for them to have it.

[Philip Davies]

I am sure that my hon. Friend is right. I am sure that there are lots of benefits for local authorities from businesses doing that. The point is that if having street furniture is so good for the local authority and the local residents, surely the council should be encouraging businesses to have it. However, clause 7 would only discourage businesses from putting their street furniture out on the high street, because the local authority will clobber them if they do so.

--- Later in debate ---

[Philip Davies]

I think that my hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Goole (Andrew Percy) addressed that point. His local authority actively encouraged this kind of activity because it helped to keep the streets clean and tidy. The best thing I can say about the clause, which I am seeking to delete, is that it is a solution looking for a problem. My hon. Friend made it clear that there is not a problem, and that more businesses should be encouraged to make use of street furniture.

[Andrew Percy]

Powers already exist to deal with any problems with street furniture. This can be done through the planning system or the licensing system. It can also be done using environmental or antisocial behaviour legislation. The tools already exist to deal with people who are creating a problem but, generally, businesses are just trying to make a living and to do the best for their customers and their communities. If local authorities need to tackle any problems, they can do so using existing legislation.

[Philip Davies]

I absolutely agree. Plenty of legislation is available to local authorities if they feel so strongly about these matters. Surely it should be our principle that we use existing legislation first, before introducing any more.

Sentencing

Debate between Andrew Percy and Philip Davies

Monday 23rd May 2011 Commons Chamber

[Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)]

Although I am speaking in favour of this Opposition day motion, I think it is the height of hypocrisy for the Labour party to lead the charge on crime, given that it presided over the automatic release of people halfway through their sentences, which created many unnecessary victims of crime. As we have heard from my hon. Friends today, the Labour party released 18 days early almost 80,000 prisoners who between them went on to carry out an additional 1,512 offences, including three murders, rapes and assaults, while they should have still been in prison. One convict, originally jailed for battering a woman to death, was released, only to lure a 10-year-old boy back to a flat, where he threatened to slash his throat with a craft knife before raping him. That is not what I call being tough on crime, despite what the right hon. Member for Tooting (Sadiq Khan) would like us to believe.

I would like to clarify that, no doubt contrary to popular opinion, as a Government Member I do not particularly enjoy voting in favour of Opposition day motions. However, the Justice Secretary’s recent proposals are simply unacceptable to the majority of my constituents and the British public as a whole.

[Andrew Percy (Brigg and Goole) (Con)]

I can assure my hon. Friend that they are also unacceptable to the people of Brigg and Goole. Is not the record of the previous Government which he described exactly why we entered the election promising tougher sentences, to end the early release scheme and to be more honest with the public about our plans?

[Philip Davies]

My hon. Friend is right. It is astonishing that some of our hon. Friends, who were happy to enter the election promising to send more criminals to prison, and to put in place longer sentences and honesty in sentences, are now advocating sending fewer people to prison for a shorter time. I did not tell that to my constituents when I stood in the election.

Use of the Chamber (United Kingdom Youth Parliament)

Debate between Andrew Percy and Philip Davies

Tuesday 20th July 2010 Commons Chamber

[Philip Davies]

My hon. Friend makes a very good point. A system of overkill may well be in operation here; these debates may become ten a penny to members of the Youth Parliament and they may not treat them as seriously as they did last time. That may or may not be the case—I guess time will tell.

[Andrew Percy (Brigg and Goole) (Con)]

rose—

[Philip Davies]

I will give way in a second to my hon. Friend, but I wish to finish the point I was making to the hon. Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark (Simon Hughes), who said that my position was extraordinary, given that this was such a success last time.

--- Later in debate ---

[Philip Davies]

Once again, the hon. Lady springs up like a jack-in-the-box. [Hon. Members: “Jill-in-the-box.”] Indeed. I am not entirely sure whether there is a wasp on that Bench or something else that is prompting the hon. Lady to jump up at every opportunity. If she will allow me to advance the arguments, she might learn why I think as I do. I am very proud of the fact that I spend an awful lot of time meeting people who are members of the Youth Parliament in my area. I am very proud of the fact that I went to visit Bradford council chamber, where an excellent debate took place involving the Youth Parliament in my locality, and I thoroughly enjoyed listening to those arguments and that debate. I am all for engaging with members of the UK Youth Parliament.

[Andrew Percy]

If it is fine for Bradford city council chamber to be given over to the Youth Parliament, why it is not fine for the Chamber to be given over to it?

[Philip Davies]

If Bradford council is happy for the UK Youth Parliament to use its chamber, that is a matter for it. Perhaps it had this kind of debate before it allowed it to do so; and equally, as someone who believes in democracy, if the will of the House is to allow the UK Youth Parliament to use the Chamber, I will respect that decision, just as Bradford councillors presumably respected the decision of the majority there.