International Men’s Day

Debate between Philip Davies and Jeremy Lefroy

Tuesday 14th November 2017 Westminster Hall

[Jeremy Lefroy]

I absolutely agree. I will read all six of the Samaritans’ recommendations, because they are so important. The first is to recognise and take on gender and socioeconomic inequalities in suicide risk—to follow the evidence, not the preconceptions. The second is to ensure that suicide prevention policy and practice takes account of men’s beliefs and concerns, and the context of what it is to be a man. The third is to recognise that loneliness is, for men in mid-life, a significant cause of their high risk of suicide, and to enable them to strengthen their social relationships—frankly, women are usually better at doing that than men. The fourth is to ensure explicit links between alcohol reduction and suicide prevention strategies, because often the two are taken apart when they should be much more closely linked. The fifth is to support GPs to recognise the signs of distress in men and ensure that those from deprived backgrounds receive a range of support, not just medication—it seems that men from poorer backgrounds are often given much more medication than counselling and other support. Finally, and very importantly, the sixth recommendation is to provide leadership and accountability at local level, and I congratulate councils who are taking this seriously up and down the country.

I would like to hear from my right hon. Friend the Minister on how he believes we can all work together to tackle suicide in all people, and particularly the tragically high rate of male suicide. I have not gone into great detail on some of the excellent initiatives, whether sports initiatives or peer communicators, which perhaps others or the Minister will refer to, but it would be good to hear more about that.

I turn to the access rights of fathers and children. One of the saddest things I have to confront, on an almost weekly basis, in my surgeries, as I am sure all colleagues have, is the fallout from partnerships and marriages that have gone wrong. The problem is almost inevitably one of two: either a father is neglecting his responsibilities to contribute to the maintenance of his children, or father and children are denied access to each other. The causes are complex, especially in cases of the latter, and I am no expert. However, I have no doubt that, in some I have seen, there has been a deliberate attempt to use all means possible to prevent the father from seeing a child or children, just as I have seen cases in which fathers have used all means possible to avoid their responsibilities to contribute to child maintenance.

[Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)]

My hon. Friend is touching on an important issue. Is he aware of the growing number of examples of parental alienation, in which one parent deliberately turns children against the other parent in order to stop access, even when people are contributing to their children’s upbringing?

[Jeremy Lefroy]

Sadly, yes. I have seen that on several occasions, and I remember one in particular in a surgery a few years ago that was just devastating; a father had lost access to all four of his children. It was very sad indeed. As I say, we need to be balanced in the debate, because there are many cases of fathers who have totally neglected their responsibilities. Both issues have to be addressed.

We must be more determined to stop people ignoring or playing around with agreements or court rulings. Such actions deny parents and children the financial support they need or the access to each other that is so critical to the development of both parents and children. I know this is a difficult area. When families have to resort to law, there is already great sadness, but when they do so, the law needs to uphold the rights and demand the responsibilities of all involved. I understand that a Green Paper on family justice will be published in the coming months and I hope that that will tackle these issues.

I turn briefly to education, on which I am sure others will speak. There is so much more for boys and men to achieve in education. In 2017, the average attainment 8 score for boys in state-funded schools was 43.4, compared with 48.7 for girls—the equivalent of about half a grade lower per subject. Only 39% of boys achieved the highest grades in both English and Maths—grades 9 to 5 in the new system—compared with 45% of girls. When it comes to higher education, the Higher Education Policy Institute published a report that identified higher drop-out rates and lower degree performance for males. However, there were other indicators where males were doing better, so the picture in higher education is not clear cut.

There are no straightforward answers to the discrepancies, as I am sure the Minister, who probably has more experience in this area than anyone in the Chamber, will appreciate. The best answer is to seek to improve attainment for all children—all students, whether male or female—but we cannot ignore the discrepancy. I would like to hear the Minister’s analysis and his proposals to address it. Technical education and investment in that area is incredibly important. It is lacking at the moment, and we need to do more in that area. There is no doubt that technical education is often more attractive to boys than some of the education that they are given and expected to complete. I know that the Government are looking at that area, but we need to take it much more seriously.

We also need to encourage more men into the teaching profession, just as we need to encourage more women into engineering. In England, 26.2% of teachers are male: 15.2% in primary and 37.6% in secondary. I spoke earlier about role models, and teaching is just about the best profession in which to be a role model. What is being done to ensure that the fine profession of teaching is introduced as a great career option to all students?

There are so many other areas we could touch on, such as rough sleepers, of whom 88% were men in 2016, and domestic abuse, which is particularly horrible for women, but can affect men as well, which is sometimes forgotten.

We have just concluded the poignant remembrance season, which brings me to a cause for great thankfulness. On Sunday, in Stafford I saw the hundreds of names of men and boys on the war memorial as I stood waiting to lay a wreath. That is not happening to our men and boys at the moment. Later, I joined the Penkridge Anglo-German Remembrance Day Association for its service at the main German military cemetery in my constituency, in a beautiful wooded vale on Cannock Chase. More than 5,000 German men—basically boys as well—lie in peace there. Finally, I went to Colwich parish church, where the names of all the men—and, again, boys, as some of them were boys—from that village and Great and Little Haywood who died in the wars of the 20th century were read out by the lychgate; sometimes two from the same family.

I and my generation, and my children’s generation, have not had to experience the horrors of a world war. That is a huge advantage. We pay tribute to the great professionals—men and women—in our armed services, who keep us safe at great personal risk. Most of us, unlike our fathers and grandfathers, have not had to spend years of our lives fighting. That gives us an opportunity and responsibility to contribute positively to our families and communities, to work for peace, to look out for the interests and welfare of others and help to build a better world. I have pointed out many areas in which we can all work together to improve the life chances, health and wellbeing of men and boys, but we can also be thankful for how much life has improved for most of us in the past 100 years and ensure that those improvements are within the reach of all.

Health and Social Care (Safety and Quality) Bill

Debate between Philip Davies and Jeremy Lefroy

Friday 9th January 2015 Commons Chamber

[Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)]

I apologise for not being here when my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Sir William Cash) opened the batting on this new clause.

I very strongly support the sentiment behind the new clause. It should go without saying that people who are practising medicine should be able to communicate properly in English. It is a sad state of affairs when we have got to a point where we feel the need to introduce legislation in this regard. Whatever the rights and wrongs of the matter, sufficient examples have been reported around the country to indicate that we do have a problem. It may not be widespread—it may only occur in pockets—but it is perfectly clear that in some areas there is a problem that needs to be addressed. If the Government do not intend to accept the new clause, I would like to know what they intend to do about this genuine problem that people have identified.

My hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Jeremy Lefroy) made a reasonable point about the measures that were put in place, partly by the previous Government, relating to new doctors and people who are currently going through training. The problem with that, however, is that it does not deal with the people who are already practising.

[Jeremy Lefroy]

My hon. Friend makes an extremely important point. Does he accept—perhaps the Minister will comment on this as well—that the revalidation process that doctors now have to go through should include, if it does not already, as I am sure that it must, language and, indeed, communication skills?

[Philip Davies]

I take my hon. Friend’s point. I am not entirely sure, though, how robust that process is or whether the same test is applied for people who are currently practising as for those who are starting out on their training. I suspect that there may well be a slight difference in the standard that is expected. I hope that I am wrong and he is right; it will be interesting to hear what the Minister says. I would be interested to know how many people have been struck off because they are unable to communicate effectively—if it is hardly any, or none, that would indicate that the current regime is not working effectively—and how often the measures that my hon. Friend mentions have been invoked.

As ever, my hon. Friend the Member for North East Somerset (Jacob Rees-Mogg) made an interesting point about the European Union. I do not intend to get bogged down in that today, but it would be interesting to know what the Minister’s understanding of this is. If he will not accept the new clause, is my hon. Friend’s point a factor in that, or is it his position, and that of the Government, that nothing in EU law would prevent such a provision from being introduced?

Although I agree with the sentiment behind the new clause, I wonder whether its wording is deficient and could lead to some unintended consequences. My hon. Friend the Member for Stone made great play of the need for people to be able to communicate effectively in English, and he is absolutely right, but unfortunately there is no mention of English in his new clause. That seems to be a rather glaring omission that could lead to unintended consequences at a later date. The new clause merely says that people who practise medicine should

“have appropriate language skills to communicate effectively with their colleagues and patients.”

I think what he is really trying to say is that they should have appropriate English language skills to communicate effectively with their colleagues and patients. As drafted, the new clause would place an onus on people practising medicine to have appropriate language skills in general to communicate effectively with their patients. In the case of a patient who speaks no English whatsoever and speaks Urdu, for example, would the new clause insist, in effect, that their doctor must be able to communicate effectively with them in the only language that they are capable of speaking? That would seem to be a possibility, because the crucial word that has been omitted is “English”.

International Development (Official Development Assistance Target) Bill

Debate between Philip Davies and Jeremy Lefroy

Friday 12th September 2014 Commons Chamber

[Philip Davies]

No, I will not.

I can mention two organisations in my constituency in that regard: Mpika Relief Fund does a fantastic amount of work helping people in Africa, and there is one in Burley-in-Wharfedale that does a similar job. They raise money for very worthwhile causes. I very much support what they do; I have even made donations to them in the past. What they spend their money on is much more worthwhile than these grandiose schemes that the Government come up with, where Ministers like to go out and say how wonderful they are because they are indulging their largesse everywhere. I prefer the smaller schemes that are run bottom-up from organisations like the ones in my constituency.

It might even be a good idea for the Government to offer tax relief for people who want to go out to other countries to help with particular projects. I would welcome that.

[Jeremy Lefroy]

It might help my hon. Friend to know that, actually, the gift aid from those kinds of donations is included within the 0.7% we are talking about, so that is happening at the moment.

[Philip Davies]

My hon. Friend is missing my point. I am not talking about gift aid on donations. I am talking about tax relief to help assist people who want to go out and do something practical themselves—who want to give up their job for a while to do something worthwhile. That would be a much more valuable and worthwhile thing for the Government to do than simply flex their muscles on how much they spend.

Because I am feeling in a generous mood, Madam Deputy Speaker, I will give way to the hon. Member for Wirral South (Alison McGovern), seeing as she is so excitable about intervening.