Assisted Suicide

Anne Main Excerpts

Tuesday 27th March 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr David Amess (Southend West) (Con)]

The House has certainly been at its best today, with some remarkable speeches being made. I enjoyed the contributions by my hon. Friend the Member for Congleton (Fiona Bruce) and the Solicitor-General. I found their speeches and arguments compelling. I also enjoyed the speech by the right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr Field), who decided to take the gloves off.

The subjects of death and dying are taboo in the House and for most people. We tend to shy away from mentioning them. Like many of us, I have been to far more funerals than I care to remember, and I have visited too many sick and dying loved ones. I am not seen as a Mother Teresa figure in Southend. I am told that when I go visiting the sick at Southend hospital, the call goes up along the wards, “Look out, Amess is about. Pretend you’re dead.”

Many past Members have now died. Lord Newton died yesterday, and Lord St John of Fawsley died last week. Also, tragically, a number of our colleagues have committed suicide since I have been here. One only wishes that one had said something to try and talk them out of their decision. As has been said, however, it is right that Parliament talks about this subject and that we take a view on it. I am content with the DPP guidance as it stands, and I agree with Keir Starmer, who has said that we have a law with a stern face but an understanding heart. That says it all as far as I am concerned.

I acknowledge the DPP’s report setting out the guidance. Since it was produced in 2010, I understand that 31 cases have been referred to the DPP but there have been no prosecutions. In every sense, it has worked very well indeed. It is interesting that the debate has been centred on that report as opposed to the findings of the Falconer commission, which was badly flawed because every one of its members had a particular view. That seemed unfortunate to me.

Let us be clear that this issue impacts on the most vulnerable people in society who, despite their undoubted dignity and bravery, are in most need of our help. That is why the law is there to protect them, and in its current format, that is what it does. However, any changes would undoubtedly put the vulnerable at risk. Any proposed safeguards against abuse of assisted suicide would not work and would be a dangerous path to travel on.

[Mrs Anne Main (St Albans) (Con)]

Not only does the law protect the vulnerable who might be dying or at the end of their lives, it also protects their loved ones, who may feel pressured into helping them do something that they are deeply unhappy about. There is therefore a double protection in the law as it stands.

[Mr Amess]

I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend, who I know cared for her husband, and therefore has a real feel for this issue, which she might have time to share with the House.

When I was the Member for Basildon, we did not have a hospice—we had very little money, because we are true working-class people in Basildon. We built a hospice from nothing—I laid the foundation stone—and Princess Diana and the Duchess of Norfolk came along to open it. Today, the demand for that hospice is greater than ever. I now represent Southend West, which is a little more well-heeled. We already have a successfully financed hospice, Fair Havens, and we also have Little Havens, which supports a wide area of Essex. The life of Dame Cicely Saunders should be an inspiration to every one of us, because as she made clear, people do not go to a hospice to die; they go to a hospice to live. I agree with every hon. Member who says that we as a House should do everything we can to support the hospice movement and ensure that everyone who needs access to that care has it.

I do not want to dwell on Harold Shipman, but I recall that I was on the Select Committee on Health at the time. When we think of all the things that were in place then, it is absolutely extraordinary that that doctor was responsible for finishing the lives of 214 people. We should never, never forget that.

I end inspired by the words of Dame Cicely Saunders:

“You matter because you are you, and you matter to the last moment of your life.”

Kevin Williams

Anne Main Excerpts

Wednesday 22nd February 2012 Westminster Hall

[Stephen Mosley (City of Chester) (Con)]

This debate is on behalf of my constituent, Mrs Anne Williams, to help seek the truth about what happened to her 15-year-old son, Kevin, at the 1989 Hillsborough disaster. All that Mrs Williams asks for is the truth, and I hope that that message is given loud and clear to my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General over the next 90 minutes.

I thank my right hon. and learned Friend for considering the issue. I understand that he has written recently to Mrs Williams to say that, upon application for a new inquest, he will consider all the evidence put before him and not restrict an application to new, unheard evidence. That is extremely welcome news, for which Mrs Williams, who is watching the debate from the Public Gallery, and I are grateful. Of course, I also thank the 118,000 people who signed Mrs Williams’s e-petition calling upon the Attorney-General to order a fresh inquest into Kevin’s death. Mrs Williams would like to thank everyone who has made the debate possible.

The focus of today’s debate is tightly drawn around the circumstances of Kevin’s death at Hillsborough, and my opening remarks are similarly narrowly focused, but it is important to recognise that the debate encompasses all those who so tragically lost their lives in the Hillsborough disaster. Both directly and indirectly, the evidence that I will present about Kevin’s death is significant for all whose lives were irreversibly changed that day.

From the outset, I make it clear that, contrary to the conclusions of the initial inquest into Kevin’s death, Kevin was alive long after 3.15 pm on Saturday 15 April 1989, and he did not die of traumatic asphyxia. The evidence is unequivocal. The testimonies are unmistakable. The original inquest into Kevin’s death was wrong.

All Members present today are familiar with the tragic events at Hillsborough on 15 April 1989. It is not my intention to recall in great detail the many accounts of what happened that day, nor do I intend to talk about the many failings that led to the disaster. This debate is not about pointing the finger of blame, it is about the truth of what happened to a 15-year-old boy.

Kevin arrived at Hillsborough football stadium early on 15 April, entering the ground at around 1.30 pm. Spotting some friends in pen 3, he and his friend Andrew left pen 4 at about quarter to 2. As the pens became more congested, Kevin, like many others, was forced to the ground. Kick-off came and, shortly after, the game was abandoned. According to coroner Dr Stefan Popper and, consequently, to the inquest into his death, Kevin was already dead at or before 3.15 pm. Yet video evidence shows Kevin being lifted out of pen 3 at 3.28 pm and being resuscitated on the pitch by Police Constable Michael Craighill.

PC Craighill then helped carry Kevin across the pitch on a makeshift stretcher, with off-duty fireman Mr Tony O’Keefe and other Liverpool fans including Mr Stevie Hart. Both Mr O’Keefe and Mr Hart are here with Mrs Williams today. The off-duty fire officer, Mr Tony O’Keefe, is on record as saying that Kevin was still alive at 3.31 when he was being carried across the pitch. Mr O’Keefe said:

“In my opinion, he was still alive. Taking this kid and many others across that pitch, you see signs of life in someone and think I’m going to get him to the right end of the ground and give him to someone else. I didn’t have any doubt that he would be dealt with when we put him down. We carried him on a piece of hoarding to the other end of the ground and I looked down, saw people taking over and I thought, yeah, he’s going to be okay.”

At 3.37 pm, Kevin was being resuscitated by off-duty police officer PC Derek Bruder, aided by Liverpool fan Johnny Prescott and a member of St John Ambulance; they found a pulse in Kevin. PC Bruder had seen Kevin moving his head and being sick, so he went over to help. He saw an ambulance enter the ground and tried to stop it so that Kevin could receive medical attention. The ambulance, however, did not stop. PC Bruder provided an official statement shortly after the disaster, along with a second statement four months later in which he identified himself on photographs taken at Hillsborough.

PC Bruder was visited at his home on 3 May 1990 by Detective Inspector Sawyers of the West Midlands police, to take a further statement to clarify certain medical issues made in PC Bruder’s first statement. During the visit, DI Sawyers rang the coroner’s office and handed the phone to PC Bruder. On the phone was the pathologist, Dr Slater, who explained that during the throes of death a body builds up gases that can cause it to wriggle slightly. So while PC Bruder understood that the purpose of the visit was to clarify certain medical details, what transpired was that the pathologist responsible for Kevin’s autopsy was in fact dictating to PC Bruder what he had seen.

The conversation at PC Bruder’s home continued, with DI Sawyers explaining how all the video footage of the tragedy had been studied by the inquiry team and how the ambulance to which PC Bruder referred in his first statement could not have been in the ground at that time because there was no supporting evidence. DI Sawyers then went on to ask whether PC Bruder could have been mistaken about the ambulance. PC Bruder responded to those statements at the Stuart-Smith scrutiny:

“This really annoyed me and I told him that I was not mistaken, nor did I imagine the ambulance, and I insisted that he made reference to it in the statement. I told the inspector that I would be available to give evidence at the inquest should I be required. I expected to give evidence at the inquest in order to clarify my position on the obvious grey areas which emerged. To my surprise, I was never called to give evidence in the case of Kevin Williams.”

Those words are the sworn testimony of a registered police constable, yet they have been categorically dismissed.

Following the visit, DI Sawyers said at Kevin’s inquest that PC Bruder was mistaken about the ambulance and that he must have seen the ambulance that is on record as exiting the ground at 3.20 pm. DI Sawyers said that PC Bruder was also mistaken about finding Kevin’s pulse and about seeing him be sick. The coroner concluded that if PC Bruder was mistaken about the ambulance, he must also have been mistaken about Kevin’s condition. However, contrary to DI Sawyers’s comments, video and photographic evidence has subsequently emerged, along with a statement from Mr Tony Edwards, the assistant driver of the ambulance, that confirms PC Bruder’s testimony that an ambulance did pass them at that point, at 3.37 pm. There are serious concerns about PC Bruder being persuaded on the phone by pathologist Dr Slater of what he actually saw that day, but the underlying fact is that PC Bruder was not mistaken about the ambulance, and that there was therefore no legitimate reason for his testimony to be dismissed.

At 3.40 pm, following PC Bruder’s intervention, Special Woman Police Constable Debra Martin found Kevin’s pulse and helped take him into the gym. Miss Martin was told to stay with Kevin and to carry out resuscitation, which she did. After conducting heart massage and resuscitation, Kevin’s ribs began to move and he stirred from unconsciousness. Thinking that she had revived Kevin, Miss Martin picked him up in her arms. Kevin opened his eyes and spoke the word “Mum” before he slumped back and died just before 4 pm. This, again, is the sworn statement of a registered special WPC, yet the events that I will now describe are quite unbelievable.

Miss Martin’s original statement, made within weeks of the disaster, described the events that I have just described. However, a few months after the disaster, Miss Martin was visited at her home by Detective Constable Appleton of the West Midlands police. The purpose of the visit was to seek her signature on a second, contradictory statement. Considerable pressure was put on Miss Martin to ratify the amended statement. In the end, she succumbed to the pressure, and signed the second statement without reading it. In the second statement, anything that referred to signs of life in Kevin was gone. There was no reference to a pulse, or to him saying, “Mum.” In total, Miss Martin was visited on four separate occasions by senior police officers whose aim was to convince her that her original statement was mistaken, and that Kevin was not alive when she treated him. Miss Martin has stated on numerous occasions that she stands by what was in her first statement, and that she was bullied by senior police officers to sign the second statement, which was wholly inaccurate.

This is what happened to Kevin at Hillsborough. At 3.28, he was pulled from pen 3, and resuscitated by a police constable. At 3.31, he was carried across the pitch by, among others, an off-duty fire officer, who swears that Kevin was still alive. At 3.37, he was resuscitated by an off-duty police officer, who testifies that Kevin was still alive. His statement was dismissed due to lack of evidence relating to the whereabouts of an ambulance. That has subsequently been proven to be an accurate account. Finally, at a few minutes before 4 pm, a special WPC found Kevin’s pulse, picked him up in her arms, and watched and listened as he opened his eyes and spoke the word “Mum”. Those are the facts of that day, plain and simple. Kevin was alive well after 3.15 pm on 15 April 1989.

As a result of the ruling of the coroner, Dr Stefan Popper, that all the victims were either dead, or brain dead by 3.5 pm, the inquest into Kevin’s death was dealt with as such. I have dealt with key parts of the evidence that show that Kevin was unquestionably alive after 3.15 pm, and I turn my attention to the cause of Kevin’s death, which is as contentious as the timing. At the inquest, Dr. Slater, the pathologist who conducted Kevin’s autopsy, concluded that he had died of traumatic asphyxia. Mrs Williams told me recently that although the 3.15 cut-off point has caused great anger and distress to her and many other families who seek justice for their loved ones, her main reason for wanting a new inquest is that Kevin did not die of traumatic asphyxia. Since the inquest, Mrs Williams has obtained several expert evaluations of Kevin’s autopsy report. Without exception, they all disagreed with Dr Slater’s findings.

The first evaluation was courtesy of Dr James Burns, forensic scientist at the Royal Liverpool hospital. Dr Burns spent a considerable time with Mrs Williams re-evaluating the autopsy report with the evidence obtained from PC Bruder and Special WPC Martin. Dr Burns concluded that the fractures that Kevin had suffered in his neck would have caused swelling around the windpipe. The swelling would have resulted in the gradual closing of his airway, which would have taken at least three quarters of an hour to happen. Dr Burns produced a report for Mrs Williams, which contradicted much of what Dr Slater had reported. Of further interest was his letter to Mrs Williams, in relation to the evidence of WPC Debra Martin. He wrote:

“It strikes me that Special WPC. Martin has been the victim of unjustifiable adverse criticism amounting almost to ridicule. I am amazed that the evidence of Miss Martin, a dental nurse, by training, and a special police constable of five years standing, is treated with such incredulity, amounting almost to hostility. I see no reason to doubt the evidence of Miss Martin when she states that she picked Kevin up in her arms, that Kevin opened his eyes, moved his mouth and said “Mom”.

The second noteworthy evaluation was that conducted by the late Dr Iain West, a former consultant forensic pathologist at London’s Guy’s Hospital. Following assessment of Kevin’s autopsy photographs, Dr West stated:

“They do not indicate the classic signs of Traumatic Asphyxia.”

Like Dr Burns, Dr West fundamentally disagreed with the official autopsy report, believing that Kevin’s injuries would not have led to unconsciousness within a few seconds, and that if medically trained professionals had been present, an emergency tracheotomy or cricothyroidotomy would have relieved Kevin from suffering the fatal asphyxia that led to his death.

Some hon. Members may not be aware that traumatic asphyxia usually results from an individual being crushed or pinned under a large weight or force. The cause of death resulting from traumatic asphyxia is related not just to the impairment of respiration but, importantly, to physical interference with the return of blood from the upper part of the body to the heart. That results in swelling and haemorrhaging in the upper part of the body, most notably the face. Dr West did not believe that Kevin’s body displayed such symptoms, and concluded in his report:

“This mechanism, (of death by traumatic asphyxia) leads to quite unmistakable pathological findings which differ from those seen in Kevin Williams’ body.”

Dr West explained to Mrs Williams that if Kevin had died of traumatic asphyxia, and had Kevin looked the way that Dr Slater described at the inquest, she would not have been able to recognise him, but she was able to do so.

I should stress that Dr West was an extremely distinguished and respected pathologist. His cases included the shooting of WPC Yvonne Fletcher, the Brighton bombing of the Conservative party conference, the second autopsy on Robert Maxwell, and the death of Joy Gardner, the deportee who died in a police struggle. Very simply, Dr West concluded that Kevin did not have any of the injuries to his chest that would have been a necessity if he had died from traumatic asphyxia. The only injuries that he sustained were to his neck.

In 2006, Mrs Williams sought the expertise of Dr Nathaniel Carey, a similarly distinguished pathologist and successor to Dr West as consultant forensic pathologist at London’s Guy’s Hospital. Dr Carey concurred with Dr West’s examination, concluding that the simple administration of oxygen through the insertion of a rubber tube down the windpipe would have saved Kevin. Had medical personnel been present, that would have been a routine procedure.

Mrs Williams has had three previous requests for a new inquest into her son’s death refused by the Attorney-General’s office, and she has been refused an inquest by the European Court of Human Rights due to timing technicalities. In light of the compelling evidence, it is simply remarkable that her requests have been refused. Why is it that what clearly happened after 3.15 that day has not been fully investigated? Why were two police officers pressured into changing their witness statements? Why has the opinion of three expert pathologists been collectively ignored? Why has Mrs Williams never been granted a new inquest into Kevin’s death when the evidence is so compelling?

An inquest into a death is a fact-finding inquiry to establish reliable answers to four important factual questions. The first relates to the identity of the deceased, the second to the place of death, the third to the time of death, and the fourth to how the deceased came by their death. Those are statutory requirements, yet the inquest into Kevin’s death has clearly failed factually and reliably to answer two of those four statutory questions. I hope that I have made that clear to my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General. Kevin was not dead by 3.15 pm on Saturday 15 April 1989, and he did not die of traumatic asphyxia.

It has been suggested that one key consideration for not previously granting Mrs Williams a new inquest is the wider interests of all concerned, notably that witnesses would be required to cast their minds back to events that many have tried to put behind them. However, I can confirm to my right hon. and learned Friend that, of the individual witnesses mentioned in my remarks, Miss Debra Martin, Mr Derek Bruder, Mr Johnny Prescott, Mr Stevie Hart and Mr Tony O’Keefe have all said very recently that they would be happy to give evidence should a new inquest be granted. I thought it appropriate to put that firmly on the record.

As Members of Parliament, it is our duty to represent our constituents, and to fight for what is fair, just and true. I stand here today because Mrs Williams has not been treated fairly. Justice, thus far, has not been served. The truth that Mrs Williams has campaigned so tirelessly to discover has yet to be officially recorded. Following publication of documents by the Hillsborough independent panel this summer, Mrs Williams will again submit to the Attorney-General a request for the original inquest into Kevin’s death to be quashed, and for a new inquest to take place. For the sake of justice, I beg the Attorney-General to grant Mrs Williams the inquest that she, and Kevin, so rightly deserve.

[Mrs Anne Main (in the Chair)]

Nine hon. Members have indicated that they wish to speak, and there are approximately 50 minutes remaining for the debate. I hope that hon. Members will bear that in mind when making their contributions.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mrs Anne Main (in the Chair)]

Order. Some Members have spoken for considerably longer than others, and I am minded to try to include all Members. I will call Mr Tom Brake, but I hope Members will be generous to others in making use of their time allocation.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr George Howarth (Knowsley) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to take part in this debate under your chairmanship, Mrs Main. I congratulate the hon. Member for City of Chester (Stephen Mosley) on the clarity that he has brought to the case. It is difficult to bring all these facts together and make them comprehensible, and he did that very well. I also pay tribute to the dignity and tenacity of Anne Williams and all those who supported her in taking this case so far and for drawing it to the attention of Members of Parliament and the Attorney-General.

In our culture, we are not equipped as parents to deal with the loss of a child. That lack of preparedness is even greater when the circumstances in which the death occurs have never been properly explained or officially put on the face of a verdict from a coroner’s court. We need to recognise that there is a huge burden of honour involved in what we are doing today in relation to what happened to Kevin Williams in the coroner’s court.

I wanted to take part in this debate because I attended one day of the inquests that took place. At the time, I was with two constituents, Mr and Mrs Joynes. I was appalled at the way in which the proceedings were conducted, and I have two points to make. The first one, which has been mentioned repeatedly this afternoon and on many other occasions, is that the decision to make a cut-off point at 3.15 had the effect of insulating everybody who was responsible for everything that happened after 3.15 from any criticism or any action. People talk about the 3.15 cut-off because it is important. Things happened and people were still alive after that, but the presumption of the inquest was that nothing happened after that, or that anything that did happen was not relevant to the conduct of the inquest. In the Coroners Act 2008, I tried to move an amendment about that in the event of future incidents, but, unfortunately, I was unsuccessful.

My second conclusion after spending a day at the inquest was that the whole thing was set up on a preconceived presumption, which was that those who were killed may have, in some way, been partly responsible for their deaths. It was significant that on the day that I was there—from what I can gather, it happened on all prior and subsequent occasions—one of the issues that was relentlessly pursued was the alcohol content in the blood of the deceased. Obviously, in some cases, that may have been relevant, but the issue was pursued on a presumption. It was as if they were saying, “We know about football fans. We know how they behave and we know that they may have been responsible.” That was the feeling that I left with, and I was outraged at the time and remain so today.

The whole process of conducting mini inquests—from recollection there were eight on the day that I attended—is unacceptable. Again, that makes a presumption about what happened. What we have heard subsequently, and what the inquiry that is being conducted into the paperwork by the Bishop of Liverpool will show, is that every individual’s case was different. What happened to each and every one was different. What caused the events is known, but how individuals were treated and dealt with was specific. As those inquests were so truncated, they could not explore all that in every case.

I welcome the fact that the Attorney-General has made a positive statement about what may happen in the near future. For all the reasons that the hon. Member for City of Chester and others have given, the verdict in the case of Kevin Williams is invalid. Moreover, because of the 3.15 cut-off point, all the verdicts are potentially—I stress “potentially”—invalid. It is possible in a lot of other cases that something could have happened to prevent the death of someone who was still alive beyond 3.15. I have no hard and fast suggestion about how to deal with that, but the Attorney-General, as a very competent lawyer, will recognise the point that I am making. This case may not necessarily be a precedent, but it may well be a model that applies in other cases where people think it is appropriate. I am sure that the Attorney-General will give a great deal of thought to the important points that have been made during the debate.

[Mrs Anne Main (in the Chair)]

I plan to call the shadow Minister at 3.42 and the Attorney-General at 3.50.

Voting by Prisoners

Anne Main Excerpts

Thursday 10th February 2011 Commons Chamber

[The Attorney-General]

That is a very good argument, and it might be helpful to me if I ever have to stand up in front of the European Court of Human Rights to explain the reasoning of the United Kingdom Parliament.

I have pointed out that matters were made more difficult following the judgment in Frodl v. Austria, in which it was held that the disfranchisement of a person sentenced to more than one year in prison was a violation of article 3, and in the Greens and M.T. case, although the Court clearly stated at that time that judicial discretion was not a requirement. From that point of view, it is clearly open to the United Kingdom Government to put in place a system that would not involve judicial discretion. I have some hesitation, in any event, about whether the judiciary would wish to have that discretion inflicted on them. As hon. Members might be aware, however, the Government have made it plain that, even on minimal sentences, the power to remove the right to vote—in cases involving electoral fraud, for example—ought to be retained by the judges in any event.

It is for the House to provide a response today. I hope that that response will be useful to the Government in representing the House’s views in what I anticipate will be a rather drawn-out dialogue between ourselves and the Court.

[Mrs Anne Main (St Albans) (Con)]

I concur that we have already set quite a high bar for getting behind bars in this country. Given that, why is it any more reasonable to pick an arbitrary figure of one, two, three or four years than to set the bar at the point when people pass through the prison gates?

[The Attorney-General]

My hon. Friend makes a very reasonable point. If she looks around other European countries, she will find a great deal of variety in approach. Some countries do not allow any convicted prisoners to vote, although they might well be in serious difficulty as a result of the Hirst judgment. The Irish Government, for example, changed the law and gave their prisoners the vote. Others lay down differential criteria, and it seems clear that the Court is influenced by the consideration of whether those convicted to very short terms of imprisonment should retain the right to vote and those with longer terms of imprisonment should lose it. Four years, for example, has usually been regarded in our judicial system as the benchmark that separates a long sentence from a medium or short sentence. That is one reason why such benchmarks might play a role, and used to play a role, in providing some definition.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mrs Anne Main (St Albans) (Con)]

I am pleased to be able to say that I support the motion. I am disappointed that my amendment was not selected, because several hon. Members have raised the spectre of what this step will cost, and we cannot have that elephant in the room. We cannot grandstand today or make large speeches and not accept that someone, somewhere is looking at the detail of what is said and seeing whether they can bring us to heel with threats. Hanging over us is the fact that prisoners around the country will be studying what is said and queuing up to test the strength of our resolution.

Once somebody has been convicted of a crime so serious that they are jailed—not just any crime—they go to prison and their voting right is suspended. It is not removed; it is suspended until it is considered right for them to leave jail. If we pick an arbitrary figure of one, two or three years, or certain categories of prisoner, it is my absolute belief that people will test the reasonableness of that decision. That is a deeply unsettling thought. The litigation will not stop because we have decided to draw the line in the sand at that particular point just because some other countries have done so.

I absolutely concur with the hon. Member for East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow (Mr McCann): what other countries choose to do is completely up to them. They have found the level of reasonableness that is acceptable to them and to their population, and to the constituents who voted for them to make those decisions. We are here to represent our constituents. I am not a lawyer; I do not know the legalese, but it depresses me profoundly when I hear that we, a sovereign Parliament, are looking for wriggle room. Why are we looking for wriggle room? We should be able to say that this House’s view is that we do not believe that anyone who is convicted of a crime so serious that they are going to jail can then exercise the right to vote.

In case there is a question whether we should be making that decision, I would like to read a quote that appeared yesterday on the Prison Reform Trust website. Juliet Lyon advocates:

“Instead of listening to MPs…the coalition government should listen to the advice of experienced prison governors and officials, past and present bishops to prisons and chief inspectors, electoral commissioners, legal and constitutional experts and most other European governments.”

I say no. The people whom the coalition Government should listen to are the elected Members of this House, who serve thousands and thousands of law-abiding citizens, most of whom—not all, because I believe Liberal Democrats would argue to the contrary—find it repugnant that the Mr Hirsts of this world can believe, as he says, that the decision is

“going to be a great leap forward once the prisoners get the vote. They will start voicing their opinion and they’ll start getting changes that they deserve, whereas before they were getting kicked and they’re last in the queue when things were being dished out. But now they’ll be on an equal footing to everybody else because their vote counts.”

No, they are not on an equal footing. They have lost many of their liberties as a result of being in jail, and this right is something that they should also lose.

[Simon Hughes]

I have listened to my constituents for 27 years. I am quite clear that the majority would be in favour of restoring the death penalty. I do not accept that view. We do not have to accept the view of the majority. There is a perfectly reasonable view that, actually, the minority are sometimes right.

[Mrs Main]

And I respect the right hon. Gentleman for his own judgment on that matter, but we are talking today not about getting rid of someone’s life but about suspending their voting rights while they are incarcerated at Her Majesty’s pleasure, because 12 good men and true—and women—decided that their crime was sufficiently bad, and the judge agreed with them, to send them to jail. Bringing the argument about the death penalty into this debate does not help us one jot.

We should be saying, as part of the motion, that if the crime is so serious that someone is sentenced to jail, that is the benchmark. Other countries may have set a benchmark of a year, two years or three years, but our benchmark is perfectly just and reasonable.

If we leave this elephant in the room, leading to compensation, costs and judgments against us, costing our taxpayers money, we will be treading a path that most of our constituents would find incomprehensible; and if today we cannot debate that amendment because it was not selected, I propose that it be brought back as a motion before the House. I took comfort from the Attorney-General when he said he hoped there would be further debates on the subject, and I think that is a crucial debate. We should vote today in the certain knowledge that the will of House is that we do not extend voting rights to prisoners who are incarcerated, and in the next debate we must make it clear that we do not believe they should be compensated for that loss at all.