Prisons

Ruth Cadbury Excerpts

Tuesday 24th October 2023 Commons Chamber

[Ruth Cadbury (Brentford and Isleworth) (Lab)]

I thank the Minister for his speech, and for a valiant attempt to defend 13 years of failure, not just within our prisons but across the wider criminal justice system. The Opposition will be supporting this order—the change to the timing of release for foreign national offenders—because the Government have got themselves into a mess and, once again, it is the job of the Opposition to help them get out of that mess. We will be supporting this change because we are a responsible party, and because we know that the crisis in our prisons needs to be addressed. The order is a necessary measure to tackle the overcrowding crisis in our prison estate. However, I want to make it clear that it is a half-baked measure, cooked up in a panic in the Department. It is a change that has neither been consulted on nor planned, one that comes as part of a quick rush to address the overcrowding crisis—a crisis that has been long coming, but I will get on to that later.

Mr Deputy Speaker, we are both old enough to know that this is a theme under Conservative Governments. I recall that, back in the 1990s, prisons were so poor that prisoners were escaping with ease—the Conservatives are in such dire straits that they have begun recycling their scandals. It is no wonder that the public, having been through this, know what failure looks like. That is what we are confronted with today: a failure to protect the public, a failure to protect victims, and a failure by the Government to ensure that our prisons have enough space.

I will cover three areas in my remarks: the lack of planning around our prison population, the implementation of this new programme, and the wider issues around victims. Let us first look at the lack of planning. The overcrowding crisis in our prisons has been looming for years, with the National Audit Office, the Justice Select Committee and the Chief Inspector of Prisons all having warned the Government about it. In 2020, the Government were told specifically by the National Audit Office that they were unlikely to be able to build the 20,000 prison places they promised by the mid-2020s on time, yet the Government ignored that warning. I guess those 20,000 prison places are in the same place in the sky as the 40 new hospitals and 50,000 new nurses.

Back in 2016, the then Conservative Prime Minister said of the Prison Service that

“the failure of our system today is scandalous”.

If it was scandalous in 2016, I am not sure what word we would need to use now—perhaps something rather unparliamentary. When asked about this failure, the Government and the Ministry of Justice will point to the new prison places they promised, yet only around 25% of those places have been delivered. Plans for new prisons have been delayed and I understand from a report in The Guardian that one MOJ official said that badgers—yes, badgers—were to blame for a delay in building a new prison. The crisis has got so bad that the Government have been forced to use police cells as alternatives to prison places.

We should also remember that this is not the first time that the Government have made promises about the removal of foreign national offenders. Back in 2015, the then Prime Minister, the former Member for Witney, spent £25 million to help Jamaica build a new prison—of course, like a lot of the promises he made, it fell through. Successive Conservative Governments have made promise after promise on foreign national prisoners, and those promises have fallen through every time. This is not even the first time that this policy has been looked at: we saw changes regarding foreign nationals in recent legislation, and the Government considered changes to the early removal scheme last year.

[Paul Holmes]

The shadow Minister has mentioned overcrowding in our prisons, which is a problem. As the Minister outlined, there are 10,000 foreign national offenders in our prison estate. I welcome the fact that the shadow Minister will vote for the motion today, but can she explain to this House why at every stage, her party has voted against legislative measures to ensure that those people are removed, which would remove the problem that she is castigating us for?

[Ruth Cadbury]

I am new to this brief, but I do not believe that is the case.

If the Government considered this change in the past, why did they not introduce it back then? Did they think it was better to wait for a crisis? We should remember that this prison crisis—which has been looming for years—is having an impact every day on prison staff, inmates and the victims of crime. We still have prisoners having to use a bucket as a toilet in their cell. We have prisoners locked up for 22 hours a day, and prisons so understaffed that prison officers cannot even take prisoners to the library or to classrooms for education. Education is so essential to those prisoners’ rehabilitation, and for many of them, it is a condition of their eventual release. It is no wonder that the latest figures show that the reoffending rate has risen: it now stands at 25% for male former prisoners. That cycle of crime creates more victims.

I now turn to the detail of the order and its implementation. The policy will require significant input from the Home Office, along with the MOJ. As one prison governor has said,

“I expect it will require significant numbers of new Home Office staff for this initiative to be effective.”

We understand that the Home Office already faces huge problems with staffing, and I am sure I speak for many Members across the House when I say that I do not have complete faith—or even much faith at all—in the Home Office after the mess we have seen them make over the past year. Nor can I say I have much faith in the Home Secretary, the right hon. and learned Member for Fareham (Suella Braverman), who always seems to be auditioning for the role of the next Leader of the Opposition.

We also know that this Government have talked a lot about foreign national offenders, but after 13 years of Conservative rule, the number of removals of FNOs has dropped by 40%. The Government will point to the impact of covid, but in 2022, the Government were removing around half the number of foreign national offenders that they were pre-covid. What are the Government doing differently this time? Whether they are removing foreign nationals with 12 or 18 months left of their sentence, the point remains that the Government still need to be able to remove offenders from the UK.

I am sure the Minister will have prepared lines about the Opposition and our approach, so I will give him advance notice that we do have a plan. Labour would create a returns unit to triage and fast-track the removal of those who have no right to be in the UK, including foreign national offenders. We will recruit an additional 1,000 Home Office caseworkers to tackle the drop in removals that we have seen since the Conservatives entered office in 2010.

Having looked at both the Government’s statement last week and the memorandum attached to this statutory instrument, I could not see any information about the estimated cost or the additional resources needed, including for any legal costs or challenges to deportation. The Government need to set out exactly how many more caseworkers are needed and how much this plan will cost the taxpayer. The prisons crisis is already costing taxpayers; for example, over £20 million is spent on using police cells for prisoners, and I suspect that number will rise. A running theme from last week’s announcement is the large hole in funding. In particular, the grossly overstretched probation service will be expected to pick up a lot of the pieces from the Government’s latest crisis.

I want to finish by speaking about victims, in the context of both this statutory instrument and the wider criminal justice system. As a party, we have been clear that we want a justice system that works for victims, protects them from crime and supports them. I have one question for the Minister: could foreign offenders who commit violent or sexual offences be freed to their home country up to 18 months early because of this change? Will he take this opportunity to reassure victims that that will not be allowed to happen? Victims of crime will be worried that perpetrators will be released early. Over the past month, I have heard from prison staff, probation officers, inspectors, non-governmental organisations and so many across the criminal justice system about just how much of a mess our prisons and wider justice system are in, and that is because of 13 years of Conservative misrule and mismanagement.

Draft Courts (Prescribed Recordings) Order 2023

Ruth Cadbury Excerpts

Monday 18th September 2023 General Committees

[Ruth Cadbury (Brentford and Isleworth) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dame Angela.

I thank the Minister for outlining the provisions contained in the order and the reasons behind them. As he explained, the SI disapplies section 41 of the Criminal Justice Act 1925, which prohibits filming in court, and section 9 of the Contempt of Court Act 1981, which prohibits audio recording for some specific purposes. The Opposition are pleased to support the instrument.

We completely recognise the need for CCTV in court precincts to ensure the safety and security of all those who work in and attend our courts. Indeed, when this order was being debated in the other place, my noble Friend Lord Ponsonby shared an anecdote of a case that came before him as a magistrate in which a tribunal judge had been assaulted, and explained how vital the CCTV evidence from the precinct outside the courtroom had been in securing a conviction. I also once had a constituent who was assaulted at his workplace in a court building, and I believe that, had this order been in place and body-worn cameras been permitted, he might have been better served. We wholly support the continued presence of the CCTV; although as such CCTV recording is already considered lawful, I am not sure what is gained by including it in the SI—but if it is helpful to put the matter utterly beyond doubt, then so be it.

The matter of body-worn video by operational court staff is less settled currently, so we strongly welcome the clarification of the lawfulness of wearing body-worn video in court precincts. Body-worn video evidence can be hugely helpful in building cases, and we agree that it will assist in keeping all those working and attending court safe and secure. However, I do appreciate that the scope for the use of body-worn video is limited to when there has been a security alert or escape. There is good reason why we limit recordings in our courts—in part to protect the privacy of court users—so I welcome proportionate limits being placed on such filming.

The Opposition wholly welcome the provision relating to adoption cases. It is right that those who wish to commemorate such a happy occasion with a photo alongside the judge or magistrates—should that judge or magistrate be prepared to do so—in court will now be free to do so.

The final provision, which corrects the omission in the Crown Court (Recording and Broadcasting) Order 2020 on sentencing remarks, is straightforward, and of course we support it.

In conclusion, the changes in this SI are all relatively narrow and straightforward and we are happy to support them.

Question put and agreed to.

Oral Answers to Questions

Ruth Cadbury Excerpts

Tuesday 12th September 2023 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

Let me welcome the shadow Minister to her post.

[Ruth Cadbury (Brentford and Isleworth) (Lab)]

Thank you, Mr Speaker.

In July, His Majesty’s Inspectorate of Probation reported that it had found that far too many potential victims of domestic violence are at risk from those on probation due to wide-ranging systemic failures in the service. Furthermore, the chief inspector of the probation service said that things have deteriorated since the 2018 report into the probation service. Is the Minister not concerned that, once again, after 13 years of Conservative rule, things are continuing to get worse for victims of domestic violence?

[Damian Hinds]

First, may I join you, Mr Speaker, in welcoming the hon. Lady to her place? I look forward to working constructively with her. She raises an important point about the protection of people from domestic abuse from those who are on probation. I can reassure her that we have put in place further measures and, indeed, invested additional money—£1.5 million a year—to support those extra checks into addresses of where offenders may be going, to make sure that there is not that domestic abuse risk.

Assisted Dying

Ruth Cadbury Excerpts

Monday 4th July 2022 Westminster Hall

[Ian Paisley]

I am not for one moment saying, and I do not think that I can be accused of saying, that those who look at assisted dying do not care about palliative care. I do not think anyone is—are we really that heartless?—but I think we have to give hope to people. We need to turn this debate around into a debate about palliative care and helping people when they are at their lowest.

It is a fact that our health service is struggling; it is a fact that our cancer waiting lists are the worst in western Europe; and it is a fact that we need to do much more when it comes to giving care and carrying out research into rare and unique diseases, so that people can find a way out.

It is also very important that the statistics are not with this blasé view that says, “This is where Britain stands. They want to see a law change.” First of all, in the Republic of Ireland the assisted dying law was rejected overwhelmingly by Dáil Éireann, because it did not believe that it was a way that could bring satisfaction.

The threat to the disabled and the vulnerable has been raised by Disability Rights UK, Scope and the United Kingdom’s Disabled People’s Council, all of which say that this debate on assisted dying causes them great concerns. The British Medical Association, the Royal College of General Practitioners, the Royal College of Surgeons and the Royal College of Physicians do not support moves towards assisted dying.

I think there has been some—

[Ruth Cadbury (Brentford and Isleworth) (Lab)]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Ian Paisley]

No, I do not have injury time.

The hon. Member for Bristol South (Karin Smyth) touched upon the issue of Oregon. It is not a debate that is widely discussed and we should say that within 10 years we could see times fifteen—I repeat: times fifteen—the number of people wanting to explore and use assisted suicide. There is something seriously wrong when that is where this debate takes people.

We need to focus on things that will give people hope and the opportunity to find a better way. When we walked into this Chamber today, we walked under a portrait of Moses. That portrait carried with it a biblical and, indeed, faith inspiration that we can make good laws. We can make the best laws. Changing the law on this would be the wrong choice, and if it ever comes to a debate on the Floor of the House, I will vote against it.

--- Later in debate ---

[Ruth Cadbury (Brentford and Isleworth) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr McCabe. I support a change in the law—a change that will impact only a few of those who are terminally ill. It is not normalising assisted dying: it is giving choice and some element of control to those of sound mind. Many terminally ill people will not make that choice, but I and 200 of my constituents who signed the petition support a law change with a full set of safeguards. On the issue of palliative care or assisted dying, a useful statistic is that 86% of people in California and 82% of people in Victoria who had assisted deaths—two jurisdictions that have changed their law—were already enrolled in hospice and palliative care.

As many speakers have said, some people with terminal illnesses across the UK are currently being forced to make awful decisions about the end of their life—decisions that also have an impact on their loved ones. Some people may think our current, outdated laws stop those appalling issues from arising, but they do not. People with funds are forced to travel to Switzerland, often before they would need to if they did not have to travel. Those people often travel alone, as they risk their loved ones being arrested. My hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield Central (Paul Blomfield) described how too many people are not only making the choice to die alone, but have to plan their death alone, in secret. His speech brought home to me the fact that those people and their loved ones could not say goodbye to each other. The ban on assisted dying is causing those traumas. This is an issue of personal choice, and we as legislators must ensure that the law reflects the need for that choice.

To provide some history about legislation, the ban on abortions until the 1960s did not stop abortions; it simply banned safe abortions. That ban sent women to the trusted aunt, the neighbour, or the doctor running a backstreet clinic—too often in unsafe and dangerous conditions, too often while terrified or alone. Similar feelings have been expressed today. We cannot prevent assisted dying from happening, but we can condemn decisions and actions to take place in darkness, alone; to involve journeys abroad while in pain; or to risk criminalising loving family members or friends. We place those issues out of mind and pretend they do not happen here, but they do.

Only by reforming the law and introducing safeguards to address the concerns that hon. Members have raised can we address this situation, which is about personal freedom and morality. Only by doing so can we step out of the darkness, and only Parliament can make that change. The significant majority of British people support a change in the law on assisted dying. Our history of law change on issues of personal conscience or moral issues shows that Parliament is too often behind the curve of public opinion. The laws on divorce, on blasphemy and obscenity, and on homosexuality and same-sex marriage are just some of the examples that occur to me. We are beholden to the people to respond to that change in public opinion, and change the law to give people who are terminally ill a choice about whether they end their life—if they want that choice—and control over when, where and how they do so. Seven years ago, I voted to change that law. I hope we get another opportunity to do so before too long, but after thorough consideration, including that of the Health and Social Care Committee.

Tackling Violence Against Women and Girls

Ruth Cadbury Excerpts

Wednesday 2nd March 2022 Commons Chamber

[Ruth Cadbury (Brentford and Isleworth) (Lab)]

Next Tuesday is International Women’s Day, when we could be celebrating the progress and achievements that we have made not just in recent years, but over decades to protect women and girls. I sadly feel, however, that we have gone backwards in so many areas, especially violence against women and girls.

Some 40 years ago, us young women marched the streets chanting, “Whatever we wear, wherever we go, yes means yes and no means no!”. Just over 30 years ago, as a young councillor, I led on a local strategy to bring the council, police and voluntary sector together to ensure that we had proper support for rape victims and a police suite that was staffed by women who had been raped. Gradually, particularly in London over the ’80s and ’90s, improvements were made and funding was made available. We saw improvements in schools, in the curriculum, in the police force and in local councils, and we saw the establishment and growth of many community-based organisations that built expertise and served the needs of victims of different forms of violence against women and girls. They had proper funding.

Today it feels as though we have not progressed much in 30 years—in fact, we have gone backwards. There are still not enough women officers to properly support raped women; police officers are sharing obscene comments and propositioning victims; and those specialist sensitive support services—the rape and serious sexual offences units and the community organisations—are closing.

There is a pattern in the experience of constituents who have come to me recently—victims of all ages, women experiencing domestic violence, stalking and serious sexual violence targeted by men—which is that they have been let down when they have done the right thing and reported their cases. Some 30 years after the strategy I worked on, the police, the probation service, the courts and others are frankly not working together. When one does act and raise an issue, it is not being taken up across the others. In the Minister’s opening speech, she mentioned the new stalking protection orders, but it is pointless having them in place if they are not enforced, if police officers cannot pull up the relevant data when a victim asks for immediate help or if a victim has to repeat the same information in the order again and again.

Breaches of those orders are not being acted on by the police. The police are not aware when a dangerous stalker or domestic abuser is released from custody, and police forces are not sharing information with each other. Of course, such crimes do not all happen with the victim and perpetrator within a particular police force area, and in London each basic command unit is the size of many police forces across the rest of England and Wales. Stalking protection orders—a piece of paper—are not an adequate shield for victims of violent, obsessive men.

The Opposition have called for multi-agency public protection arrangements to include serial domestic abusers and stalkers. We cannot continue with a piecemeal approach and with different agencies not talking to each other. The Government should heed our call and make street harassment a crime, as in France. They can also require police forces to record misogyny as a hate crime. We do not just need RASSOs to be established in every police force, but what about the four forces that have closed theirs? It is not surprising that 40% of victims are dropping out of the criminal justice process before their cases even get to a charge.

There should never be any question that a raped women should be seen by women officers who are properly trained in the care and support of rape victims. As I say, 30 years after we first established that in our London police stations, it is still not the norm.

Time is short, so I cannot cover everything, but I will mention one other aspect of violence against women and girls, which is so-called honour-based violence and abuse. Such crimes have not stopped, but the specialist support that those victims need has all but disappeared.

Over the last year, we have talked more in this place about violence against women and girls than in the past, which of course I welcome, but we need to go beyond talking and we need to see action. I wish we were building on the achievements of the past, not reinventing the wheel. We need action from the police, the probation service and the Government and we need proper support for victims.

There is no point having strategies and pilots, which the Minister mentioned in such detail, without support services for victims, proper criminal investigations and convictions for perpetrators. Nothing changes—the feeling of being beholden to somebody for a lift or of walking with our keys clutched between knuckles; the ever-growing fear that somebody is walking behind us at night; and the day-to-day acts of harassment that still plague the lives of many women. We deserve better, and we deserve change.

IOPC Report on Metropolitan Police Officers' Conduct: Charing Cross Police Station

Ruth Cadbury Excerpts

Wednesday 2nd February 2022 Commons Chamber

[Kit Malthouse]

I recognise that media coverage has the tendency to compress time. It is worth pointing out that the issue came to light in 2017 and the unit was disbanded in 2018. Charing Cross police station was merged into a wider borough operational command under new leadership, which is committed to driving out this kind of appalling behaviour. Whether that culture persists, and the vigour with which the Met is pursuing it, will be revealed, we hope, by both the Angiolini inquiry and the work of Dame Louise Casey. I urge the hon. Lady to wait for those conclusions.

[Ruth Cadbury (Brentford and Isleworth) (Lab)]

This cultural problem does not just apply to Charing Cross, or even, as my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon Central (Sarah Jones) said, to the Met. It also does not just apply to middle-ranking and junior officers. As a councillor and now a Member of this House, I worked with Chief Superintendent Paul Martin and Chief Inspector Ricky Kandohla, who were both found guilty last week of gross misconduct and dismissed without notice for a series of offences. The chief superintendent led the three-borough basic command unit and was found to have committed bullying and discriminatory conduct towards a female police officer, misuse of a bank card, and impropriety over a promotion. Will the Minister assure the House that any reviews will address the cultures within our police forces right to the top of senior levels?

[Kit Malthouse]

That is our intention.

Afghan Citizens Resettlement Scheme

Ruth Cadbury Excerpts

Thursday 6th January 2022 Commons Chamber

[Victoria Atkins]

I thank my hon. Friend, and Westminster City Council and the City of London, who have done an amazing job in looking after so many people so well. I will refer her very good suggestion to the Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Sussex (Mims Davies), who is responsible for employment. The DWP is working up plans and we are very keen to get people who are able to into jobs as quickly as possible.

[Ruth Cadbury (Brentford and Isleworth) (Lab)]

Having had long experience of the delays and injustice meted out by the Home Office to my constituents seeking leave to remain or naturalisation, what is the Minister doing, in her cross-departmental role, to ensure that similar delays and injustice are not repeated for Afghan citizens applying for these schemes?

[Victoria Atkins]

The first families have already been granted indefinite leave to remain. The caseworking exercise continues and many thousands of people are being worked through at pace. But we are clear that anyone who is in this country under the ARAP or ACRS schemes will be eligible for indefinite leave to remain.

Protecting the Public and Justice for Victims

Ruth Cadbury Excerpts

Wednesday 9th June 2021 Commons Chamber

[Ruth Cadbury (Brentford and Isleworth) (Lab)]

Thank you for calling me, Madam Deputy Speaker. Not being a lawyer, I will try and stick to your time limit; it should be a bit easier for me. It has been interesting to follow the Justice Secretary, but a pleasure to hear the speech of my right hon. Friend the Member for Tottenham (Mr Lammy). It was an honour to be on the shadow Justice and Attorney General’s team until a few weeks ago.

The Conservative party traditionally prided itself on being tough on crime, but its record of delay in tackling crime is nothing to be proud of. The central theme of our criminal justice and courts system has now become delay, delay, delay. A backlog of over 54,000 Crown court cases means a four-year wait for justice, and justice delayed is justice denied. That impacts not only on the victims of crime and their families, who often cannot move on with their lives, their work and often their mental health. A delayed and failing justice system also fails the accused and those eventually convicted and sentenced. We cannot hope to address the causes of crime without giving those caught up a realistic timescale for a court hearing and a decision, and for those convicted, a quick start on work to cut future reoffending. A slow justice system costs us all—failed trial dates or the financial and human cost of remand in custody and, for our communities, a lack of faith in the whole criminal justice system.

The fault of those delays does not lie with our courts or those working in them. I know, from visiting Isleworth Crown court, how tirelessly they are working to ensure that the courts run smoothly. No, despite the Secretary of State’s explanation, he cannot get away from the fact that the Government brought a sledgehammer down on our legal system, and have done since 2010. By 2026, half of all our courts will have closed. There are 27,000 fewer sitting days now than in 2016, there has been a 15% cut in the Courts and Tribunals Service, and, despite agency recruitment, a shortfall of 1,400 staff still remains. We have had cuts to legal aid, to policing, to specialist support, to the Director of Public Prosecutions and others.

The Government may say that court delays are due to the coronavirus, and that the Government are moving heaven and earth to fix them, but it is not, and the Government are not. At the start of 2020 there was already a backlog of 39,000 Crown court cases, with a backlog now of over 53,000. The Government need to be honest about the cause of the delays and then start to address the backlog. Labour is proposing a guaranteed 33,000 extra sitting days and more Nightingale courts.

As my right hon. Friend the Member for Tottenham said, the Conservatives are failing to protect women and girls in the criminal justice system, with record low conviction rates for perpetrators of sexual violence and an epidemic of misogyny that makes women and girls feel unsafe. Victims are losing faith that the justice system will be there for them. The Government’s rape review was announced over two years ago and we are still waiting. Meanwhile, rape prosecutions have fallen to the lowest level on record and domestic abuse prosecutions have fallen by nearly 20%. My hon. Friend the Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Catherine West) pointed out that for every victim there is a cost. These are not statistics, and that is why Labour has put gender-based violence at the top of our agenda, and why we published a green paper on ending the epidemic of violence against women and girls.

Finally, I want to address the issue of how the justice system can better serve those killed and injured on our roads. The issue concerns Members across this House and is an issue for the all-party parliamentary group for cycling and walking, which I co-chair. So I ask, will the Government consider using the opportunity of the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill to address some of these issues, including the lack of clarity over the distinction between careless and dangerous driving offences and the inadequate sentences for fatal hit-and-run offences, as well as for serious hit-and-run and car-dooring offences—and, finally, end the courts’ routine acceptance of exceptional hardship pleas from offending drivers who are seeking to avoid driving bans?

I look forward to hearing from the Government on the issues of road safety justice, on the backlog of court cases, on their victims’ Bill, and on their rape strategy, and I hope that they will vote for the Opposition motion today.

Feltham A Young Offenders Institution

Ruth Cadbury Excerpts

Wednesday 24th July 2019 Commons Chamber

[Edward Argar]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right to highlight the importance of mental health, and healthcare more broadly, for offenders and particularly young people. The levels of self-harm are deeply concerning, and we need to do more to drive them down. More broadly, we are seeking to have better liaison and diversion services, which divert those who genuinely have a mental health need and, where that can be better treated in the community, to have that option. We are also working on our health and justice plan, which is about improving the mental health and physical healthcare pathways for all those who enter custody.

[Ruth Cadbury (Brentford and Isleworth) (Lab)]

I thank my fellow Hounslow MP my hon. Friend the Member for Feltham and Heston (Seema Malhotra) for asking this question today. I visited Feltham as the Hounslow lead member for children’s services in around 2003, not long after another murder there. The Howard League has today re-released its July 2018 report on Feltham. For 30 years, there have been critical inspections of the regime at Feltham and nothing has got any better over those 30 years. Does the Minister not agree that to lock up in a prison environment 15, 16 and 17-year-olds, who are children, is fundamentally wrong? We are the only equivalent country that does this. Yes, some of them have committed terrible crimes, but they are children with mental health problems or addiction problems, or they may be neurodiverse or have learning disabilities. Should we not learn from other countries and provide a better therapeutic regime to support these children to turn their lives around?

[Edward Argar]

The hon. Lady takes a keen interest in this issue, not just as a local MP but from formerly serving on the Justice Committee, and she highlights the important point that a large number of the young people—female offenders and others—who end up in custody are victims as well as perpetrators of crime and that, as well as justice taking its course, we must make sure that the help they need is available to them, whether mental health help or a range of other interventions, to tackle the underlying trauma. We have seen in the past 10 years roughly a 70% reduction in the number of under-18s being sentenced to custody—the figure is down to about 700 at the moment—so liaison and diversion work. However, it is right that the courts still have the option of sentencing to custody, especially for very serious assaults, violent offences and sexual offences, but the current Government’s approach to this policy is to move towards secure schools: moving away from essentially a prison with some education to an environment that is a school with a degree of security, which is necessary given the nature of some of the sentences and some of the crimes committed. So we are seeking to address this with a cultural change in how we approach dealing with young people who commit these crimes.

Assisted Dying

Ruth Cadbury Excerpts

Thursday 4th July 2019 Commons Chamber

[Ruth Cadbury (Brentford and Isleworth) (Lab)]

I thank the Backbench Business Committee; the hon. Member for Grantham and Stamford (Nick Boles) and the right hon. Member for North Norfolk (Norman Lamb), who brought forward this debate; and those Members who have described in moving terms their personal experiences. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Heywood and Middleton (Liz McInnes), who has just spoken in moving terms about the importance of good quality palliative care, because she is absolutely right. As far as I am concerned, this is a “both”: we need better quality, better informed palliative care and we need to change the law on assisted dying.

On Monday morning, I listened to Ann Whaley’s moving account on Radio 4 of the decision her husband Geoff took to die at Dignitas. Last night, I read Annabel Dixon’s blog in which she described, in such loving terms, her sister Jemima’s life and also her death at Dignitas. Both Geoff and Jemima decided, with their different but in both cases degenerative conditions, that the only way to have a good death—in control, a simple act, taking the medicines oneself, with their loved ones around them—and to get around UK legal restrictions was to die in suburban Zurich.

What struck me about both Ann’s account and Annabel’s account was the difficulty of having to go to Zurich, with the logistics of the journey and the pain of travelling as someone who is very sick, as well as the fear of prosecution, and then there is the cost of fees, travel and accommodation for everyone so that loved ones could be with them at their end. Geoff Whaley and Jemima Dixon, and others who have taken the journey to Zurich, had the capacity and the funds to make the arrangements. As others have said, the cost of going to Zurich is beyond the means of most people.

However, we have heard today of other deaths that were not happy—that were not with loved ones present, and where people could not, because of fear of prosecution, discuss their plans with their loved ones—and particularly the account of my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield Central (Paul Blomfield).

Clinicians often feel that they have to take control, and they cannot discuss what they do with anyone else. Very often that is about upping the dose of morphine until the person slips away or, as in the much more tragic story mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Gower (Tonia Antoniazzi), about removing the drugs that were keeping a loved one pain-free and alive. Those actions also removed the possibility of that person and their family discussing their end, which was going to be soon but needed to be pain-free and calm.

Many constituents have written to me supporting a change in the law, and in 2015 I voted to support that change. I assure hon. Members who are concerned about such a change that this debate is not about disabled people, those with life-limiting conditions, or those considering suicide due to depression. It is not about frail elderly people who are worried about being a burden, and it is not about vulnerable people who are at risk of being exploited on their death.

Reading Anna Dixon’s blog gave me an understanding of the level of assessment and scrutiny that was required over several stages before the assisted death in Zurich was permitted. The change to the law under debate today is relevant only to people of sound mind with a terminal illness—those who can predict the rough timing, but also the nature of their own natural death, which will be undignified, painful, and traumatic if they cannot take control. It is relevant to those who want to choose when to end the suffering that they know they and their loved ones will experience.

As we have heard, public opinion is moving behind a change. People of faith are also changing their views. Yesterday I spoke to a colleague whose faith background would generally oppose assisted dying, but who is now minded to support a change in the law. The medical profession is also coming round to support a change, or at least move to a position of neutrality

I understand the concerns and worries raised by hon. Members today, but we can learn lessons from other jurisdictions that have already implemented the right to an assisted death, and ensure that those concerns are addressed as the law is drafted. We can learn from 20 years of experience in Oregon to ensure that people’s fears are addressed. The UK can, and must, learn from the experience of those states.

I support the proposal to task the Law Commission with looking at this issue. We have to change the law. We owe it to those who know what their final months hold without assisted dying, and who wish to choose the time and place of their passing, and who is with them at their end. We must remove the grey areas for those people and their families.