House of Lords (Expulsion and Suspension) Bill [Lords]

Debate between Lindsay Hoyle and Philip Davies

Friday 27th February 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. I think that is a job for me.

[Philip Davies]

Looking at the clock, I have been speaking for 21 minutes, which, as a regular attender on a Friday, Mr Deputy Speaker, you will agree is brief—to be honest, I contend that that is more than brief, but we all have our own standards. I will not say too many nice things about the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Steve Rotheram) as it might not go down well in Liverpool—

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

I think I can help. We need to get back to the amendment, not discuss the time as that is not a worry. I want to hear more about the amendment.

[Philip Davies]

As ever you are right, Mr Deputy Speaker, and I am sorry that I was led astray by the hon. Gentleman. It will not happen again.

The amendments deliver what we all want the Bill to do—that is how I view them—and I think they are useful in ensuring that we stick to what we think the Bill delivers, rather than go beyond that. I therefore hope that my right hon. Friend the Member for North West Hampshire will agree to them. The amendments are good, and should the opportunity arise I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch will consider dividing the House on amendment 1. I would support him in that.

Local Government (Religious etc. Observances) Bill

Debate between Lindsay Hoyle and Philip Davies

Friday 16th January 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. I might be able to help a little bit. We are not discussing the Prayers of the Chamber. I recognise the benefits and there is an analogy between the two, but the debate is about local government prayers. I have allowed a lot of leeway, but I am sure we will hear the connection made shortly.

[Philip Davies]

I am grateful for your indulgence, Mr Deputy Speaker.

Politicians, whether in the national Parliament or in local government, should always be mindful of these things when they start their proceedings. I am not aware that anybody, whether they have no faith, a Christian faith or some other faith, objects to our starting our proceedings in that way or finds it offensive. For people who do not want to participate in prayers, there is no obligation on them to do so; they can sit them out, as some do, and I fully respect them for that. It should not be compulsory for individuals to have to engage in prayer, but I do not see the objection to people in politics—people serving the public—starting with a reminder of their duty to the people they are elected to serve. That is why I tabled my amendment.

I would go slightly further than my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough. I think it is important that we start with Christian prayers. We are a Christian country and that is our heritage; we should never be ashamed of it. I do not think that people of other faiths are offended by the fact that we are a Christian country either. We still have an established Church of England, and I do not see the problem with that, whether or not we all support it personally. That is our heritage in this country; it is what our values are based on. We should not be ashamed of that; we should be proud of it. It should not cause any offence if everybody started their proceedings in this way.

This is a probing amendment and I do not intend to press it to a Division. I just wanted to stimulate a debate and make people think about why this is not such a bad thing.

Tenancies (Reform) Bill

Debate between Lindsay Hoyle and Philip Davies

Friday 28th November 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

I do not think we have to worry about that.

[Philip Davies]

I was merely pointing out that others had said there was a problem with supply and demand—that there was too much demand—and therefore that landlords had too much of a whip hand. I was merely pointing out that there were better ways of dealing with the supply-and-demand issue than through this Bill, so my point was very pertinent to the Bill. The hon. Member for Ealing North (Stephen Pound) seems to be slower on the uptake than normal, so I shall repeat that point: there are better ways of dealing with the supply-and-demand issues than by passing the Bill, which makes my remarks very pertinent to whether we need to pass the Bill.

As I was trying to say before I was rudely and repeatedly interrupted, the private rented sector has been a topical issue for many years, and there have always been arguments for greater regulation of the industry. The historical context of assured shorthold tenancies and section 21 notices, which are the subject of the Bill, can be easily traced. The 1987 Conservative manifesto recognised that there was a problem with the shortage of rented properties available, and to help increase the supply of rented dwellings, it pledged to make renting easier for landlords. I will not read out the whole section of the manifesto, under the “Better Housing for All” heading, but the relevant bits read, under the sub-heading, “A Right to Rent”:

“Most problems in housing now arise in the rented sector. Controls, although well-meant, have dramatically reduced the private rented accommodation to a mere 8 per cent of the housing market. This restricts housing choice and hinders the economy. People looking for work cannot easily move to a different area to do so. Those who find work may not be able to find rented accommodation nearby. Those who would prefer to rent rather than buy are forced to become reluctant owner-occupiers or to swell the queue for council houses. Some may even become temporarily homeless. And it is not only these people and their families who suffer from the shortage of homes for rent. The economy as a whole is damaged when workers cannot move to fill jobs because there are no homes to rent in the neighbourhood.”

Many might say we face similar challenges today. It went on:

“The next Conservative Government, having already implemented the right to buy, will increase practical opportunities to rent. We must attract new private investment into rented housing… First, to encourage more investment by institutions, we will extend the system of assured tenancies. This will permit new lettings in which rents and the period of lease will be freely agreed between tenants and landlords. The tenant will have security of tenure and will renegotiate the rent at the end of the lease, with provision for arbitration if necessary. Second, to encourage new lettings by smaller landlords, we will develop the system of shorthold. The rents of landlords will be limited to a reasonable rate of return, and the tenant's security of tenure will be limited to the term of the lease, which would be not less than 6 months. This will bring back into use many of the 550,000 private dwellings which now stand empty because of controls, as well as making the provision of new rented housing a more attractive investment.”

That touches on the point made by the hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn). The reason for the system used today was to bring into use lots of properties that were out of use, because unfortunately the system then was not conducive to encouraging people to rent out their properties.

The figure of 550,000—the number of private dwellings to be brought back into the rental market—is staggering and shows starkly the dangers of too much regulatory interference. The fewer properties on the market, the worse is the supply-and-demand issue, so if people think there is a problem with supply and demand now, I must point out that it can only get worse if we introduce too much regulation into the sector.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

We are going to hear quite a speech. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will be heading that way, but he is actually in order.

[Philip Davies]

Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. If the hon. Gentleman would let me get on with it, we might get to a conclusion, instead of having him delaying proceedings all the time.

It is interesting to note in that Select Committee report the clear reference to the deregulation of the private rented sector and changes to tenancies in the late 1980s as being reasons for the increase in rented accommodation. That was exactly the point made in the 1987 Conservative manifesto, which I mentioned earlier. The exact figures are interesting, too. The number of private rentals nearly doubled from 1999 to 2012. In 1999 there were 2 million; in 2011-12 there were 3.8 million; whereas the social rented sector declined from 4 million to 3.8 million, but just below the number of the private rentals.

When it comes to understanding the procedure in relation to a section 21 notice for an assured shorthold tenancy, let me tell the hon. Member for Islington North that that is what the Bill is about. I do not know whether he has read the Bill, but that is what it is about. I am sorry to have surprised him by telling him that the Bill is about section 21 notices for an assured shorthold tenancy.

The Department for Communities and Local Government has guidance called, “Gaining possession of a privately rented property let on an assured shorthold tenancy”. It is dated 14 November 2012, but is the current online guidance on the DCLG’s webspace. It says:

“You cannot use Section 21 to gain possession of your property during the fixed term. You can serve a Section 21 notice on your tenant during that time, providing the date you state you require possession is not before the end of the fixed term. If your tenant paid a deposit, you cannot use Section 21 unless the deposit has been protected in accordance with the tenancy deposit schemes.”

This idea that landlords can go along willy-nilly using section 21 at any time a tenant decides to complain about the condition of their property is just for the birds. It is just not accurate. The guidance on the Department’s website is perfectly clear about that.

The tenancy deposit scheme is another regulatory burden on landlords, and it is relevant to the Bill because it is a crucial element of the qualifying criteria for a landlord to issue a section 21 notice. However, that is the only respect in which it is relevant, so I do not think that I need to dwell on it any further, which will please the hon. Member for Islington North.

The guidance on the Department’s website goes on to say:

“You must give at least 2 months notice in writing. If the fixed term has expired the notice will end on the last day of the rental period and you must explain that you are giving notice by virtue of Section 21 of the Housing Act 1988. You will need to give more than 2 months’ notice if the fixed term has expired and the gap between the dates that the rent falls due is more than 2 months (e.g, a quarterly rent).”

Serving the notice is only part of the story, however. Giving notice under section 21 is merely that; it does not constitute a guarantee that the tenants will actually leave. The Department gives a helpful explanation on its website, and I shall set out some quotations from it:

“What do I do if my tenant refuses to leave on the date specified in the notice?

You will need to apply to the courts for a ‘possession order’.”

“What do I do if my tenant refuses to leave by the date given in the court order?

You must apply to the courts for a warrant of possession and the court will arrange for a bailiff to evict the tenant. You will need to use the ‘Request for Warrant of possession of Land (N325)…form.”

“How can I speed up the process?

You can use the possession claim online service if you are seeking possession of the property together with any rent arrears. The service allows you to access court forms online”.

“Where possession is sought under Section 21, an accelerated procedure can be used which is a straightforward and inexpensive procedure for getting possession of your property without a court hearing.

In most cases using this procedure the court will make its decision on the papers, and can order possession to be given up within 14 days unless exceptional hardship would be caused, in which case the maximum time that can be allowed is 42 days.

You can only use this procedure if you have a written tenancy agreement and you have given the tenant the required notice in writing that you are seeking possession. You cannot use this procedure if you are also claiming rent arrears.”

The landlord therefore still has plenty of hoops to jump through, even after serving notice, unlike the tenant, who will have no problems at all if he or she wants simply to leave.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

That is not a point of order, but we have heard the hon. Gentleman’s view and his opinion. My opinion is that the hon. Member for Shipley (Philip Davies) is in order. However, I agree with the hon. Member for Ealing North (Stephen Pound) on one point: we do not want to be given too many more examples.

[Philip Davies]

I am grateful to you, Mr Deputy Speaker.

I am surprised that the hon. Member for Ealing North has led with his chin by drawing attention to the fact that he has absolutely no idea what the Bill is about. The Bill is about retaliatory evictions. That is the whole purpose of it, and that is what the campaign that resulted in the Bill was about. The moment I mentioned the Select Committee’s report that considered retaliatory evictions, the hon. Gentleman stood up to say that that was irrelevant to the Bill. Either the hon. Gentleman is wasting time himself, or he has not the first idea what he is talking about. I have no idea why he is sitting on the Opposition Front Bench masquerading as some sort of expert on the subject.

[Philip Davies]

My hon. Friend is right. I know that this is very inconvenient, but the whole point of Select Committees is to look at and scrutinise issues in detail and to take evidence, with the Committee then making recommendations on the basis of its expertise. It is a sad day in this House when Members seem not to want to know what that Select Committee, under its Labour Chairman, said about the issue we are debating. Free speech is a long way away from the Labour party. The detailed Select Committee report is a hefty 79 pages long.

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

Order. I am not sure that I was referring to a Select Committee report, but we are dealing with a Bill. The two must presumably link, but I am not sure how, as I do not have the Select Committee report before me. I know that the hon. Gentleman wants to discuss the Bill and I presume that that is what we are going to do.

Zero Hours Contracts Bill

Debate between Lindsay Hoyle and Philip Davies

Friday 21st November 2014 Commons Chamber

[Philip Davies]

I will in a second. We can all understand why they do not want to draw attention to the fact.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. The hon. Gentleman will give way when he is ready. The hon. Member for Bolton South East (Yasmin Qureshi) does not have to remain standing. I do not want her knees to give way while she is waiting, because it could be a long time.

[Philip Davies]

I would be perfectly happy for us to have some way of admitting whether we employ our staff on zero-hours contracts. I do not, and I have no intention of doing so, but perhaps there might be something that we all sign.

Deregulation Bill

Debate between Lindsay Hoyle and Philip Davies

Monday 23rd June 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

We have six speakers and 17 minutes left.

[Philip Davies]

I will be brief and do not intend to put any of my new clauses to the vote. My new clauses 10 to 14 deal with Sunday trading. They would completely liberalise the Sunday trading laws—that is what I would prefer—extend the current arrangements or put them on a more temporary basis. This country’s Sunday trading laws are out of date and absurd—they are completely unjustifiable. People talk about defending small shops, as the shadow Minister did, and say, “This measure helps small shops.” He has to realise that the world has moved on. The small convenience shops that are open on a Sunday are not Mr Miggins’s pie shop or Mrs Miggins’s greengrocers; the small convenience stores being protected by the current Sunday trading laws are Tesco Express, Sainsbury’s Local and Morrison’s Local.

Companies such as Tesco are probably quite pleased with the current arrangements, because they do not have to open their bigger stores, which sell goods at much lower prices. They can close the big stores and force everyone to go along to their small shops, where everyone has to pay a hugely inflated price for their shopping. Companies such as Asda cannot compete. The Labour party keeps saying, “We are concerned about the cost of living.” There is a cost of living crisis in this country, and what does it do? It opposes the measure that would have a massive effect on reducing the prices in the shops for people who shop on a Sunday. People are forced to go to higher priced shops such as Tesco Express rather than shop at a bigger store. It is absurd.

Housing Benefit

Debate between Lindsay Hoyle and Philip Davies

Tuesday 12th November 2013 Commons Chamber

[Philip Davies]

Does the Minister agree that the spare room subsidy is one reason why we do not have the right mix of housing? Social housing providers could build houses as big as they wanted, knowing that the Government would cover the full bill irrespectively. In that respect, does he deplore the social housing provider in my area, of which a Labour MP is a director? It complains on the one hand that it has too many three-bedroom houses—

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. Just to help hon. Members, we need shorter interventions. Many hon. Members wish to speak and the matter is important to all our constituencies, so we need short interventions.

Gambling (Licensing and Advertising) Bill

Debate between Lindsay Hoyle and Philip Davies

Tuesday 5th November 2013 Commons Chamber

[Philip Davies]

My hon. Friend makes a very good point.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. May I suggest to the hon. Gentleman that it is not Friday today and that, although I know he is very keen on this subject, a few more Members want to get in?

[Philip Davies]

You are absolutely right, Mr Deputy Speaker: it is not Friday.

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

My worry is that you think it is a Friday, when you usually speak for hours—that’s what’s bothering me!

[Philip Davies]

For once, Mr Deputy Speaker, you are quite wrong. I have been racing through my comments, which I suppose is just like a Friday, when I do the same. I am trying to go through them as quickly as possible and I do not intend to speak for hours. I was just looking at the clock, actually, thinking that I should draw my speech to a close as soon as possible.

The final point on which I want to concentrate relates to taxation and what people may wrongly associate with this Bill. There is too much focus on the big gambling companies, such as William Hill, Ladbrokes and Coral. To be perfectly honest, I do not worry too much about the effect the Bill will have on them. They are big, successful and innovative companies and I am sure they have the wherewithal to cope with the Bill’s taxation regime. I am sure it will create some pain for them, but I do not have a problem with that. The reason why I support the Bill is that there is an awful lot to be said for companies offshore having to pay taxation in the same way as small, independent betting shops in this country. I do not worry about those big companies.

What I am worried about—I hope the Minister will consider this carefully—is the Bill’s likely impact on much smaller internet companies in the gambling industry, such as innovative start-up companies. If we look at the history of the gambling industry, we see that it is often the smaller companies that have driven much of the innovation and change that have been part of improving standards in a number of areas. My concern about the Bill’s new licensing system and the Treasury’s proposed taxation rates is that those companies will be priced out of the market before they can even reach a scale that would allow them to flourish. In effect, they will be strangled at birth and that would wipe out lots of innovation in the gambling sector.

That could easily be avoided, without altering the principles behind the Bill, through the introduction of thresholds or a tiered taxation system when the tax rates are announced. Both those alternatives would mirror the current income tax system, which has tiered rates depending on the size of a person’s income, a tax-exempt threshold at the lower end and graded percentage rates. The Government should look closely at introducing a tax regime that does not involve a simple, across-the-board 15% rate, but that takes into consideration the size of the companies concerned, their ability to pay and innovate, and the investment needed for that innovation, because lots of jobs—an underestimated number—are dependent on these small technology companies in the UK.

People might say, “They’re based offshore. It doesn’t matter.” The companies are based offshore for gambling purposes, but they also employ lots of people in the UK who do their marketing and advertising and who create their TV adverts. We would lose lots of jobs in the UK if we priced such businesses out of the market.

Apprenticeships and Skills (Public Procurement Contracts) Bill

Debate between Lindsay Hoyle and Philip Davies

Friday 1st November 2013 Commons Chamber

[Philip Davies]

Perhaps I have been speaking in Swahili.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will be speaking only in English today.

[Philip Davies]

That is a relief to me, Mr Deputy Speaker. Perhaps my Yorkshire accent is causing the confusion; I am not entirely sure. I have tried to set out why I am not convinced that the Bill will achieve what people want. I made it abundantly clear that I agreed with virtually everything that the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish said in his opening speech, but I am not sure that the Bill matches the speech.

--- Later in debate ---

[Philip Davies]

The hon. Gentleman seems to be arguing that procurement policy will solve every ill in the country. I do not see that. He will be telling me next that public procurement contracts could eliminate illegal immigration. It just does not work like that. Let us focus on how we can make effective progress on individual areas.

As I have said, I think that the Government are doing a very good job at increasing the number of apprenticeships and at making sure that they are proper apprenticeships and that they lead to worthwhile jobs. The Government are already making good progress. We should encourage, celebrate and enhance that work.

The problem with procurement is that public bodies often do not get the best value for money for the taxpayer, so that is what we should focus on. Once we have done that and local authorities and public bodies have iron discipline in getting the best deal for the taxpayer, perhaps then we could look at how they could use procurement to advance some of the public policy areas mentioned by the hon. Gentleman. My point is that we—particularly Bradford council—are a long way from that. Let us get back to basics to start with and start negotiating some good deals for the taxpayer.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. I am a little bit worried about Bradford council. I know, as you have pointed out, that you are not too keen on it, but I think we ought to move beyond Bradford council. Let us keep to the point of procurement generally and apprenticeships and skills.

[Philip Davies]

Of course, Mr Deputy Speaker. My lack of enthusiasm for Bradford council was clearly getting the better of me.

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

It’s showing!

[Philip Davies]

In many cases, public bodies are already co-operating with businesses, and further intervention could have a negative effect. The Minister for cities, the Minister of State, Cabinet Office, my right hon. Friend the Member for Tunbridge Wells (Greg Clark), has confirmed a second wave of city deals, and that strategy goes a long way towards achieving what the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish wants. I am, therefore, not entirely sure that the Bill is needed in that respect.

My right hon. Friend has issued a written statement about the Greater Ipswich city deal, which is about addressing youth unemployment, increasing the skills level of the local work force and making sure that local businesses, local authorities, colleges and the Government co-operate in order to provide opportunities, ensure that

“dedicated support is available to match young people with jobs through a youth jobs centre…Expand the number of jobs and apprenticeships in local businesses”,

and increase

“local investment in skills training”.—[Official Report, 30 October 2013; Vol. 569, c. 49WS.]

It is not that anyone disagrees with the agenda of the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish, but the Government, through their city deals, are already doing an awful lot to address it. They should be allowed to flourish and continue their work, and I hope they will be successful. The Bill will not necessarily help; it may get in the way of, or even repeat, that work.

I think we would all agree that the Federation of Small Businesses is a leading business organisation of small businesses and the self-employed. It was formed in 1974 and has about 200,000 members, so we should listen to what it has to say. The Federation of Small Businesses is very supportive of apprenticeships:

“We believe apprenticeships can transform a young person’s life and give them access to bespoke training and often a highly skilled job as a result. Apprenticeships should be recognised as vital introductions to careers that can take individuals all the way to the top in the business. We need to see reforms continue to strengthen and protect the image of apprenticeships which, over the years, has been damaged by constant change.”

The Federation of Small Businesses shares the opinion with me and the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish that apprenticeships are valuable, but that they must be high quality. I agree with the FSB that that has not always been the case., but it also welcomes the Government’s “commitment to quality apprenticeships”.

The FSB supports the

“intention behind the Bill, which is to drive up apprenticeship numbers.”

As I have said, it would be difficult to oppose the sentiment behind the Bill. However, it also says that it is concerned that the Bill

“might hamper the progress being made and unintentionally harm the image of apprenticeships by reinforcing the perception that apprenticeships are a government driven work scheme of limited value. It is for this reason that we oppose the use of procurement to boost apprenticeship numbers.”

--- Later in debate ---

[Philip Davies]

My hon. Friend is right. It is not clear whether or not apprentices in subcontracts count. Is there a requirement on a subcontractor bidding for a proportion of a contract? If the subcontract is for more than £1 million—

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. The hon. Gentleman has mentioned that he is coming to the end of his speech. Other hon. Members want to speak and I am worried about getting them in. It might be helpful to him if I say that, if you bid for one contract, the subcontract is within the main contract, so it does not apply.

[Philip Davies]

I am grateful to you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I am not entirely sure what part of the Bill states that, but you are far more wise in these matters than I am, and I happily accept your judgment. However, when the hon. Gentleman sums up the debate, he might wish to address those points, so hon. Members can be clear on what we are voting on.

To go back to my initial point, I agree with what the hon. Gentleman wants to achieve. I admire his passion for improving the lot of young people, developing their skills and fulfilling their potential. My fear is that the Bill will not clear up the confusion he has identified, but add to the confusion of local authorities and public bodies. In addition, it could damage small businesses that want to bid for contracts and devalue current apprenticeships. I am sure that he wants none of those things, but that is my concern with the Bill. Until he can answer those questions and deal with those concerns, I am not sure that I can support his Bill, even though I absolutely agree with his thoughts on apprenticeships and what he would like to achieve.

London Local Authorities and Transport for London (No. 2) Bill [Lords]

Debate between Lindsay Hoyle and Philip Davies

Wednesday 11th September 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Chope]

Thank you for that ruling, Mr Deputy Speaker. Obviously it means that when the Minister responds, he should address his remarks to the issue of charging points for electric vehicles in London, without straying into whether there should be charging points for electric vehicles beyond London. I am glad that you have effectively given him that warning in advance of him making his contribution, and I am sorry if I was going to lead him down the wrong path.

[Philip Davies]

The Government have set out their position in “Driving the Future Today”, as published by the Office for Low Emission Vehicles, which has been given money to provide such points. My concern is that if my hon. Friend’s amendments are accepted, that could lead to the national budget for this issue being used up.

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

Order. I know that you wanted to make a short intervention, Mr Davies, and I know that you may wish to speak later, in which case I would not want you to use your speech up now, but instead to recognise that we need to continue with the amendments before us, rather than causing further distractions.

London Local Authorities and Transport for London (No. 2) Bill [Lords]

Debate between Lindsay Hoyle and Philip Davies

Wednesday 10th July 2013 Commons Chamber

[Philip Davies]

rose—

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

What a choice! I call Mr Nuttall.

Remploy

Debate between Lindsay Hoyle and Philip Davies

Thursday 4th July 2013 Commons Chamber

[Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)]

What did you do when you closed Remploy factories—

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order.

City of London (Various Powers) Bill [Lords]

Debate between Lindsay Hoyle and Philip Davies

Tuesday 26th February 2013 Commons Chamber

[Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)]

rose—

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. If the hon. Gentleman is trying to catch my eye, would I be correct in saying that he was not here at the beginning for the opening speeches?

--- Later in debate ---

[Philip Davies]

I was in the House. As I had been on such a long haul in the previous debate, I popped out for a quick drink.

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

It must have been quite a long drink. As the hon. Gentleman knows, it is not quite the normal thing and I am sure that he would like to apologise before I call him to speak.

[Philip Davies]

I am very grateful, Mr Deputy Speaker. I do apologise for the discourtesy to you and to my hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mark Field). As I said, I popped out for a drink after the previous debate, where I had been on duty for quite some time.

--- Later in debate ---

[Philip Davies]

My hon. Friend made that point very well during his speech and I do not want to reiterate his point, but he is absolutely right.

Remaining on the subject of the return of seized items, I have some minor worries about this section. Proposed new section 16B(8)(a) refers to circumstances in which:

“if no proceedings have been instituted before the expiry of 28 days beginning with the date of seizure”.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Bury North (Mr Nuttall) made clear, 28 days can be an awfully long time to go without goods if one’s livelihood depends on them. It would be a bit of a kick in the teeth if one were not allowed to have one’s goods when no offence had been committed or was being pursued, and it could have a big impact on one’s livelihood for that month.

Proposed new section 16B(8) goes on to state that an article shall be returned:

“unless it has not proved possible, after diligent enquiry, to identify that person or ascertain the person’s address.”

I am not entirely sure what the definition of a “diligent enquiry” is, or how diligent a “diligent enquiry” needs to be. I fear that some of the provisions will be used to give an excuse for not returning goods to their proper lawful owner. We should be minimising the opportunities for that.

Although my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch did not mention this point, it is worth noting that proposed new section 16C(4) states that the court may order forfeiture of goods even if the value exceeds the maximum penalty for the offence that has been committed. We are in the strange situation where we are levying a maximum penalty, but if the goods exceed that maximum penalty they can still be forfeited. I am not sure on what basis that can be either right or fair. If there is a maximum penalty, surely that should be the maximum penalty. The provision flies in the face of natural justice, and it would be interesting to have some clarification on it.

My hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch made the point that proposed new section 16D(1)(b)(ii) states that people might have to wait six months before compensation, which is a lengthy period of time. The court will only be able to make an order for compensation if it is satisfied that the seizure was lawful under proposed new section 16A. I hope my hon. Friend will come back to section 16A and whether we can strengthen

“reasonable grounds for suspecting that a person has committed an offence”.

Otherwise, the corporation would never have to pay compensation, irrespective of how it acted, but that cannot be the intention of my hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster. Surely, it should be forced to pay compensation if it has acted in a way that is not becoming. We would all like to see that, I am sure, yet we are in danger of giving it a get-out-of-jail card and letting it get out of paying compensation.

I agree with the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch about perishable items. I thought he made them very well, so I will not repeat them—[Interruption.]—despite the encouragement from Opposition Members to extol the virtues of his argument a bit more. Perhaps I will, under their provocation, Mr Deputy Speaker—

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Or perhaps you won’t.

[Philip Davies]

But for now I shall resist the temptation.

Instead of repeating my hon. Friend’s points, I will try to pick out those that he might have missed out. Safe to say, subsection (5) to proposed new subsection 16E provides that

“the Corporation shall have a duty to secure the best possible price”

for these perishable goods. How on earth will it go about obtaining the best possible price for these perishable goods? Will it be setting up its own market stall? I do not think so. I wonder why that provision is in the Bill, given that it obviously is not going to happen.

Subsection (4) provides that the goods will be disposed of, if the person from whom it was seized

“fails to collect it within 48 hours of the seizure”,

but just because something is perishable, it does not mean it will go off in 48 hours. It might have a much longer date. I am not sure, therefore, why we have only got 48 hours for all perishable goods, irrespective of how long they could be used for. It seems that we are just presuming that everything being sold will go off within 48 hours, but that clearly does not apply to all perishable goods. I hope that some thought will be given to whether that provision is appropriate, too draconian or just totally inflexible. As we all know, perishable goods go off at various different times.

On the seizure of motor vehicles—or ice cream vans, as my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch pointed out—I wonder how this is going to work. As far as I can see—I could be wrong, and I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster can help me—the Bill does not make it clear who would pay for the seizure, transportation, storage and return of the vehicle concerned. When the police seize or confiscate a vehicle—for example, when people are driving around without any insurance—they bring in a transport company to take it away and lock it up, and people must pay a release charge to get the car back again. Presumably, the corporation would have to go through the same kind of operation. It would not just leave the vehicle where it was, because presumably that is the whole point—it was causing an obstruction or should not have been there, and so the corporation would want to move it.

If the corporation uses the provisions to bring in a garage to tow away and store a vehicle, a cost will be incurred, but it is not clear from the Bill who would be liable for meeting the cost. Would the cost fall on the trader or the corporation? If the cost was incurred by the trader, but it was later shown that no offence had been committed, would the corporation reimburse the trader? As far as I can see—I stand to be corrected—the Bill does not make any of those things clear. It would be particularly helpful, therefore, if we could have some clarity. It is bad enough someone having their vehicle seized, if no offence has been committed, but if they then have to pay to have it returned and cannot claim back the money, it would be a further kick in the teeth. I hope that my hon. Friend will consider those points, on which I am seeking clarification. Clause 9, as my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch said, seems a sensible provision. It will allow businesses more freedom to trade outside their own premises, and I heartily endorse it.

I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster will accept the spirit in which the scrutiny of the Bill has been carried out today. It is our intention to improve it, and I do not think there has been any attempt to wreck it or to stop it. We in this House take seriously our job of protecting people’s freedoms, and of protecting people from unnecessary or over-zealous regulation and legislation. The Minister of State, Department for Business, Innovation and Skills, my right hon. Friend the Member for Sevenoaks (Michael Fallon), who is in his place, has a good track record of trying to stop unnecessary regulation, legislation and bureaucracy.

I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster will accept that my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch and I are simply trying to prevent any unintended consequences that the legislation might have so that it will achieve what he wants it to achieve and does not do what my hon. Friend and I fear it might well do if it goes through unchecked.

Violence against Women and Girls

Debate between Lindsay Hoyle and Philip Davies

Thursday 14th February 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. There are too many private conversations and it is difficult to hear Mr Davies. I am sure we all want to hear what he has to say—[Interruption.] Perhaps not, but at least he can enjoy it.

[Philip Davies]

That is part of the problem, Mr Deputy Speaker. They do not want to hear anyone who does not agree with them. One could be forgiven for thinking that the perpetrators of all these crimes were men and not often women, but again, that is not true. There are many female perpetrators of violence against both women and men, and according to official Ministry of Justice figures, the most common offence group for which both males and females were arrested during a five-year period was violence against the person—34% of females and 31% of males arrested in 2010-11 were arrested for violence against the person. Again, that is not restricted to women but applies also to girls. In 2010-11, violence against the person was the most common offence group for which juvenile females were arrested.

I am afraid that time does not allow me to go through those figures in more detail, which I would like to do.

Canterbury City Council Bill

Debate between Lindsay Hoyle and Philip Davies

Wednesday 6th February 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

Order. Perhaps I can help the hon. Gentleman. He had just said:

“I do not need to speak any longer on this group of amendments”.—[Official Report, 31 January 2013; Vol. 557, c. 1120.]

I hope that remains the case.

[Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)]

He’s got a second wind.

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

I can assure him he hasn’t.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. It might help if I say that the Minister will come in when Mr Davies sits down. If he wants to give way now, there will be no more, but I would sooner hear a little more.

[Philip Davies]

I am very grateful, Mr Deputy Speaker. That is the first time any hon. Member in my seven or eight years in the House has ever said or indicated that they want to hear a little more from me. It certainly has been a red letter day for me, too. I am flattered, Mr Deputy Speaker.

My hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch makes a good point. It would be helpful to hear from the Minister exactly what is in the Government’s mind. Perhaps she will explain why the amendment should be supported and why the wording should apply to the Canterbury City Council Bill but not to the Reading Borough Council Bill.

Perhaps the Minister will also tell us what the Government’s view is of the principle of touting tickets and so on. The Select Committee on Culture, Media and Sport published a report on ticket touting in 2008. I am lucky enough to serve on that Committee, so it is a subject close to my heart. People will have spotted that what is striking about that report is the date—it came out in the middle of the discussions on the Bill. I do not know whether their lordships were influenced in any way by the recommendations of the Committee—I very much hope they were; it was an excellent report, so that may well be the case—or whether they were influenced by the Bill’s principles, but hon. Members may wish to bear in mind the fact that this is a very strange clause in the sense that it is called “Touting”, and that is what is referred to throughout the clause.

The first recommendation of the Select Committee’s report—of course, I will not go through all the recommendations, but it is wise to highlight some of the pertinent ones—states:

“It is important to bear in mind that the term ‘touting’ has very different meanings to different people”.

When we have a Bill that refers to “touting” as if we all know what touting is, hon. Members should bear in mind that comment by the Committee.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. I do not think that we need to go down that path; I do not think it would be illegal anywhere.

[Philip Davies]

I am grateful for that guidance. It has saved me from having to deal with that particular intervention

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

I can assure the hon. Member for Shipley (Philip Davies) that there is no need to reply to that either.

[Philip Davies]

I am very grateful for your protection, Mr Deputy Speaker, because I fear I am being troubled by questions that I am unable to answer.

[Jacob Rees-Mogg]

In the interests of impartiality, may I inquire about the Liberal Democrats?

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

Just to show that I am impartial, absolutely not.

[Philip Davies]

I am grateful to you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I am sure you want me to get back to the matter in hand.

--- Later in debate ---

[Philip Davies]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right.

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

Order. I want us to deal with the amendments, not worry about London or Brick lane.

[Philip Davies]

I am grateful, Mr Deputy Speaker.

My hon. Friend the Member for Ipswich makes a good point, however, in that the amendment, which would delete the clause on touting from the Canterbury Bill, raises the question: what is so special about Canterbury? If the House agrees to the amendment, we will remove the restrictions on touting from the Bill. It might well be that people want controls on touting in Canterbury because of its particular circumstances. We ought to listen to the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury during an earlier stage of the Bill. Notwithstanding the offer he eventually made, he made it clear, at that point, that the restriction on touting was an essential part of the Canterbury Bill. He said that Canterbury suffered from huge problems, with which I am not familiar, of people touting for business in certain—perhaps historic—parts of the city. Perhaps people felt that touting took something away from the city.

[Stephen Pound (Ealing North) (Lab)]

The hon. Gentleman will be aware that there are people in the House who speak Middle English as if it were their first tongue. We all know that the word “tout” comes from the Middle English word “tuten”, meaning “to look out for”, but may I warn him that in Northern Ireland the word has a very specific and very dangerous meaning? It will frequently be found written on gable ends. I appreciate that Northern Ireland is not Reading, and it is certainly not Canterbury, but it is a word we ought to be careful with.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. I have given hon. Members a bit of leeway, but I am worried that we are now getting into retail matters that have absolutely nothing to do with the Bill, as we all know. I hope that we can now stick to the matters in hand, and have fewer interventions; otherwise, we are going to drift into areas where I do not need to be.

[Philip Davies]

I am grateful to you, Mr Deputy Speaker, and I shall try not to be sidetracked by people trying to lead me astray. The hon. Member for Ealing North (Stephen Pound) is always trying to do that, but I shall resist the temptation.

[Philip Davies]

rose—

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. The good news is that we are dealing only with Canterbury. I am not worried about Reading, and neither is Mr Davies.

[Philip Davies]

I am grateful, Mr Deputy Speaker, and you are right that I am not worried about Reading—except in the sense of trying to find some guidance about why their lordships decided that this particular clause should be deleted from the Canterbury City Council Bill but not deleted from the Reading Borough Council Bill when they are virtually the same. All we can do is consider how the detail in this particular clause is different from the other one.

--- Later in debate ---

[Philip Davies]

rose—

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. We are certainly not opening that issue. I am sure the Whip has better things to do at this stage.

[Philip Davies]

I am very grateful, Mr Deputy Speaker, but if I may be allowed—I do not want that comment to be left hanging on the record—I would like to say quickly that the touts have already bought the tickets, so the artist already has their income. It makes no difference to their income whether it is resold at a different price. I do not wish to pursue that line of argument any further; I just wanted to put that on the record in passing.

I hope that when people are considering whether to support the Lords in their amendment, they will not object to it on the principle that they do not like ticket touting, as I think that would be very unfortunate. It would fly in the face of all the evidence received by the Select Committee and reflected in its conclusions. We were unanimous in thinking that the secondary market was a perfectly legitimate one, and the Office of Fair Trading believes that it works in the best interests of consumers, too.

It seems to me therefore that, given what their lordships have done, this was not a question of principle. If it were a question of principle, I presume that the provision would have been removed from the Reading Bill as well. It can only be, then, a matter of practicality. That brings us back to the detail in clause 11 of the Canterbury Bill, which is about the location in which people can sell their tickets. That is the only bit that is different. Only subsection (1)(b) is different, and it relates to where people can sell.

Here I think my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch is right, in that it would be helpful if Members had some explanation of the local circumstances in Canterbury. I have been to Canterbury once. Unfortunately, it was not to visit the charms of the city and its history, but to visit the Asda store when I worked for Asda. I am not particularly au fait with the city centre, although I am sure it is a fine place.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. I do not think that we need worry about Members’ mail boxes while we are dealing with clause 11. I am sure that the hon. Member for Shipley (Philip Davies) is desperate to stick to the point, and he certainly need not worry about other Members’ mail boxes.

[Philip Davies]

Of course I accept your wise counsel, Mr Deputy Speaker. I will say, however, that their lordships do not appear to have focused too much on the niceties.

When we began our debate on the Bill, we were told that clause 11 was crucial. When my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch and I tried to have it removed, our attempts were resisted, and it is because their lordships had to intervene that we are debating it now. The promoters, who were originally adamant about the inclusion of the clause, are now satisfied that it can be removed as their lordships wish. Earlier, I commended the way in which my hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury had listened to the arguments. What I do not understand is why the amendment could not have been dealt with earlier.

I urge Members to reject any views on the principle of touting, and to consider the practicalities. My hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury will know much more about this than I do, but it seems to me that there is not a great deal of difference between a provision relating to streets and one that also includes parades and promenades.

Commercial Lobbyists (Registration and Code of Conduct) Bill

Debate between Lindsay Hoyle and Philip Davies

Friday 1st February 2013 Commons Chamber

[Philip Davies]

I appreciate the shadow Minister’s view, but I simply do not agree with it. I do not see where the lack of transparency is. I have no problem telling anyone who asks me about which organisations I have met. If my constituents want to know who I have met—what lobbying firms and organisations—I would have no problem telling them, and I would like to think that that would be the attitude of most of my colleagues on both sides of the House. I do not see where the secretiveness is. If anybody is in an organisation relating to culture, media and sport, whichever side of the argument they are on, I am happy, time allowing, to meet them. As far as I can see, that is perfectly transparent. So I do not see the problem the Bill seeks to solve.

Like my hon. Friend the Member for Bury North, I oppose the Bill in principle. It will be a dog’s dinner, to be honest, and will not deal with any of the perceived problems we have heard about. In fact, the Bill is probably the worst of all dog’s dinners.

Let me turn to clause 1, which deals with the registration of lobbyists, and to the fact that there would be a register and the fees that would be charged. My hon. Friend the Member for Bury North had an interesting exchange with the promoter of the Bill, the hon. Member for Dunfermline and West Fife, about fees. The promoter not only intended to be helpful but actually was helpful in setting out the fees that he thought would be charged. However, I share my hon. Friend’s cynicism about fees, in the sense that we all know where they start off but there is no telling where they will end up, particularly when a bureaucracy has an audience that has no choice over whether to join. People will have to join because it will be the law of the land for them to join, so the bureaucracy can end up charging what it likes.

Let me therefore say to the promoter of the Bill—I hope the Minister will hear this too, because if she and the Government are so misguided as to go down this path, we may as well try to make it as good as we can—that it would be helpful to have a cap in the Bill on the fees that could be charged. Just to make a suggestion, perhaps the fees would be no more than the £200 to £300 that the hon. Member for Dunfermline and West Fife seemed to think would be suitable. That would at least remove the issue of people thinking that the fees would go up and up, in a never-ending spiral, to try to satisfy a never-ending bureaucracy that would grow up as a result of this Bill.

We all see how these things work. My hon. Friend the Member for Bury North talked about how such bodies start off being self-funded but end up having to be funded by the state. I think he is probably right. It is not an exact comparison, but we are seeing the start of something similar with the Press Complaints Commission. It is a self-funded body, but it is seen as being too close to the industry it is supposed to be looking after, so people are asking whether that is good enough and whether we need to do something else or get the state more involved. We can see how these things develop, and there is no reason why the same would not happen under this Bill.

I am sure that people will correct me, but it seems to me that clause 2 would introduce the offence of non-registration of one’s organisation. Then there is another criminal offence under clause 3 for breaching the code of conduct—the Labour party created lots of new criminal offences when it was in government and it appears to be continuing the same theme in this Bill. The promoter of the Bill said that we should not worry because everything would be subject to parliamentary scrutiny and approval, and that that was fine—let me say in passing that he has more confidence in parliamentary scrutiny than I do—but as far as I can see the Bill makes no great provision for parliamentary scrutiny. Parliamentary scrutiny is what we are doing now, by discussing the merits of the Bill. It is the council set up under this Bill that would prepare the code of conduct with which, under clause 3,

“those included on the register shall comply”.

It will not be Parliament that draws up the code of conduct, so there will be no parliamentary control there. Once we had passed this Bill, the council would be free to establish the code of conduct as it saw fit and that would be that.

Clause 3 then says, in subsection (2):

“The Secretary of State shall give statutory effect to the code and any revised code by order.”

There is no great parliamentary scrutiny there either. We are basically giving the Secretary of State huge powers to act on his or her own terms and whatever he or she happens to think is the right thing to do. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Bury North, I have a great deal of time for the Minister, but she will know, as we all do, that she will not be the Minister for ever, and we might not get as good a Minister in future. Indeed, we might be left with one who is not as talented and sensible. We might—if we want to be very depressing—end up with the Labour party in government. Who knows what we might end up with at that point? [Interruption.]

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. What I do know is that we are going to get straight back to the Bill and not get into speculation about the next election.

[Philip Davies]

As ever, Mr Deputy Speaker, you are quite right. I was getting carried away with myself—the hon. Member for Dunfermline and West Fife did not help when he invited me to consider the prospect of a Lib Dem Government, which does not even bear thinking about. I will move on, for the sake of my own sanity more than anything else.

The idea that there will be a great deal of parliamentary scrutiny of the terms of the register and the code of conduct is not one that I recognise from my reading of the Bill. Also, I asked earlier who would enforce the criminal offences that the Bill creates. There will no doubt be all sorts of vexatious complaints from people who do not like a particular industry, from people who have been lobbying someone about something, and counter-organisations that do not like a particular industry will put in vexatious complaints here and there. People will be contacting their local police and crime commissioner, their local chief superintendent and their chief constable, and putting pressure on them to investigate this or that case. The police’s resources are stretched enough as it is. I have been opposed to the reductions to the police budget that have taken place over the past few years. Surely at a time when the police budget is going down, the last thing they need is more of these kinds of offences to investigate, when there is much more bread-and-butter crime to be dealt with.

Then we have to consider the Crown Prosecution Service. What will be the chances of getting a conviction for such offences? We all know what the CPS is like. It is very reluctant to take a case to court unless there is a cast-iron guaranteed certainty of a conviction. There will be all sorts of complaints relating to whether the code of conduct has been breached, for example, and it is hard to imagine the CPS taking anyone to court, no matter how much time the police have spent investigating a case.

The whole thing is a complete dog’s breakfast, and that is before we even come to the definition of lobbying in clause 4. Clauses 1 to 3 were bad enough, but clause 4 is the worst clause of all. We have had an interesting debate on the definition of lobbying. There is so much to say on that, and so little time in which to say it. I do not intend to speak at length. As you will know better than anyone, Mr Deputy Speaker, I am always anxious to proceed at a pace on a Friday so that we can get on to the next piece of legislation, and I do not intend to do anything different today. I will make a few remarks about the definition of lobbying, but I just want to say to the hon. Member for Dunfermline and West Fife that I hope his second Bill, which I trust we will get on to in the not-too-distant future, is better than his first one. The first one has not been a good start.

Clause 4 gives the definition of lobbying as

“any activity carried out in the course of a business or employment which are undertaken for financial gain and are designed to influence the Government of the United Kingdom, Parliament, any local authority in England or any member or employee of any of those bodies in formulating its official policy.”

We could spend hours talking about clause 4, because it contains all sorts of loopholes, flaws and omissions. The whole point of anybody approaching a Member of Parliament, on any basis, is to lobby them. It might be to lobby them because the person believes strongly in something, perhaps in their local community, or to lobby them for financial gain. It tends to be one or the other. Someone might come to see me because they want to reduce the amount that they owe to the Child Support Agency, for example. That is a perfectly legitimate thing to come and see an MP about. I cannot always sort such things out, but I will always do my best for my constituents. They are lobbying me for financial gain, of course they are—it is a perfectly legitimate, respectable thing to do.

The hon. Member for Dunfermline and West Fife seems to be trying to distinguish between different types of financial gain. From his definition in the Bill, he seems to be saying that some kinds of lobbying for financial gain are fine, while other kinds are not so fine and need to have something done about them.

Offshore Gambling Bill

Debate between Lindsay Hoyle and Philip Davies

Friday 25th January 2013 Commons Chamber

[Philip Davies]

My hon. Friend is right. Such measures have been established in other parts of the European Union, and there is no problem with having point of consumption in principle. I have no problem with that, and if I remember rightly my hon. Friend quoted the conclusions of the Culture, Media and Sport Committee on which I serve. She was absolutely right; it was a unanimous report in every regard. There was no minority report or any divisions on the recommendations, and the Committee agreed the report in full. I certainly stand by the recommendations highlighted by my hon. Friend.

This is not about the principle of point of consumption, but the Government may run into problems when considering the purpose for which such a measure is being introduced. If they can satisfy the European Union that they are introducing it to regulate better the gambling sector, they will be on strong ground, and I suspect that test was satisfied in other parts of the EU where such measures have been introduced. In those cases, however, people may have been starting from scratch and deciding to start their regulation of the gambling industry on that basis. That would not apply in the United Kingdom where we already operate on a different basis that we would need to change, thereby introducing a complication that might not have applied elsewhere.

The Government want this debate to focus on why a point of consumption tax, this Bill and the Government’s version of it are so necessary. This is not about increasing funding to the racing industry by increasing levy payments, because that would introduce a complication, and the Bill’s main purpose is not one of increasing revenues to the Treasury—the Government do not want to go down that route because they will run into different legal problems. The Government want to concentrate on the fact that the Bill is necessary only to regulate the gambling industry better. That it may also increase revenues to the Treasury, or that my hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton may use it to increase revenues for the racing industry, is merely a useful coincidence, and, as I understand, certainly not what the Government would like us to believe the Bill is about.

As the Minister knows, I have an awful lot of respect for him—he is a great man and we are very lucky that he holds that position. I suspect, however, that he has been passed what might in rugby terms be described as a hospital pass with this Bill, and it will take all his considerable abilities, charm and finesse to extract himself and the Government from this situation. His position was not helped—he will certainly not want to agree with me on this, although he is entitled to feel it—by our right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer who signposted the proposed legislation in his Budget speech.

Perhaps I may remind hon. Members of what the Chancellor said:

“One area where I am today making substantial changes is gambling duties…The current duty regime for remote gambling introduced by the last Government was levied on a ‘place of supply’ basis. This allowed overseas operators largely to avoid it, and much of the industry has, as a result, moved offshore. Ninety per cent of online gambling consumed by our citizens is now supplied from outside the UK, and the remaining UK operations are under pressure to leave. This is clearly not fair—and not a sensible way to support jobs in Britain. So we intend to introduce a tax regime based on the place of consumption—where the customer is based, not the company—and, from this April, we will also introduce double taxation relief for remote gambling. These changes will create a more level playing field, and protect jobs here.”—[Official Report, 21 March 2012; Vol. 542, c. 803.]

The genesis of the legislation is therefore clear—the Chancellor’s Budget. It will be no great surprise that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Skills, whom all hon. Members regard highly, was and remains a close friend and ally of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I suspect it will not be difficult for people to put two and two together and think, “Well, hold on a minute. The Chancellor said what he said in the Budget, and we have the Offshore Gambling Bill. Hey presto! That is how the Government will introduce the legislation.”

The problem is that the Chancellor made no reference in his Budget to the need to introduce the measure to improve player protection or better regulate the gambling industry. He made no reference to that being a problem that needed solving. We are beginning to understand what motivated the Government to introduce the Bill. I do not criticise the Chancellor: what he said was perfectly reasonable and fair, and many hon. Members on both sides of he House agree with his analysis, but I suspect that it has been unhelpful. He may not have been aware of the legal minefield he was in at the time, but people have become aware of it, and the Government have backtracked to change the nature of the debate. The debate must now be based, therefore, on player protection and the regulation of gambling rather than on—we can probably guess this is the real motive for the measure—getting money into the Treasury, which is no bad thing, and levelling the playing field for companies such as bet365 so that they do not go abroad, which no hon. Member wants.

I believe the Chancellor was also hinting that, if we get the measure right, we may even be able to reverse the trend. It would be fantastic if we were not just trying to stop bet365 leaving the country, but putting a regime in place that encouraged companies that have left the UK to come back. Not only would we retrieve lost revenue; we would also get jobs back. Lots of people in the UK would love the jobs that have been exported to places such as Gibraltar because of the current situation to come back to this country. With the best will in the world, neither the Offshore Gambling Bill nor the Government’s alternative Bill will make any difference in that respect.

There is no prospect whatever of any of those organisations relocating to the UK, whatever rate of tax the Government introduce. I think that would be a missed opportunity. My hon. Friend the Member for Rochford and Southend East (James Duddridge) mentioned a rate of 5%. If we had that rate and the Government asked the gambling industry whether it would agree to come back in return for that rate, there might well be scope for negotiation, but VAT will scupper such a plan, because gambling industries in the UK cannot reclaim their VAT. The money they spend on advertising is not reclaimable, but it is reclaimable overseas.

The House would support a regime that levelled the playing field, and that means companies paying more in taxation than they currently pay—no one would argue with that. The House would support a regime that gave companies an incentive to bring their operations back to the UK and the jobs that would come back with them. Surely that is a great prize to aim for, and I urge the Minister to lobby the Chancellor. All that is required is for the Chancellor to help with taxation—not just point of consumption taxation for the online industry, but VAT relief. Those two things combined could get those jobs and companies back. That is what we should be aiming to do. It is a strange state of affairs when we are spending lots of time trying to stop one company leaving—it is a negative thing to try to achieve—when much bigger prizes are at stake.

In many respects, the main thrust of what my hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton said concerned the levy. I should thank my hon. Friend, because from what she and my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Norfolk (George Freeman) were saying, it seems that, in essence, the Bill is designed to help me. As we discussed earlier, I am a very modest owner of racehorses. I am an owner of very modest race horses, too, to be perfectly honest. Contributing to the odd shares and legs and other parts of the anatomy—I am sure that it does not make a great impact on the considerable wealth of Mr Michael Easterby, in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton—provides me with a great deal of pleasure. I seem to be the kind of owner that my hon. Friend says she wants to help. I regret to inform the House that I am also a very small-scale breeder of racehorses, too. The saying goes in racing circles that the only thing worse than having one broodmare is having two. There is no better way of leaking money as quickly as possible than breeding horses. The only thing that can compete is owning horses. Whichever one chooses, the only possible outcome is that one will be considerably poorer at the end of it than at the start. I think that somebody once said that the best way to gain a small fortune out of owning and breeding racehorses is to start with a large fortune—there is a considerable amount of truth in that. I should therefore be grateful to my hon. Friend for having me in mind to try to boost the modest returns I get from my horses. It is a rare pleasure when any of them trouble the scorers.

In passing, my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Norfolk encouraged us all—I think I am right in saying this; we can all check Hansard later—to back a horse called Wind for Power in the 1 pm at Lingfield today. I am sure that that was partly directed at the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas), who was waiting to debate her Bill. I am sure she would have been encouraged to back a horse with that particular name, and I am delighted to announce that the horse won. If anybody took my hon. Friend’s advice, they are now considerably richer than they were when this debate started.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. I loved the hon. Gentleman’s description of his horses, whether he has a leg and which horse is going to win. I am sure that it is very relevant to offshore gambling, but we seem to have lost that for a little while—I think we got lost in the leg somewhere. I am sure he is going to bring it back into line for me.

[Philip Davies]

I am very grateful, Mr Deputy Speaker. You are, as ever, absolutely right. I was getting carried away with my hon. Friend’s tipping prowess and I promise not to return to it. I will take your chastisement as an indication that you are keen to acquire a leg or two of your own, and I will certainly be happy to negotiate a deal for you.

Even though the horse racing levy is supposed to benefit people like me, I am not entirely convinced by the argument given by my hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton. Clause 4 is well meaning and I do not want to decry that, but I do not think that it will have the impact she thinks it would. I spoke about this briefly in an intervention. The levy is determined, hopefully, by agreement—it has been recently, which is to be welcomed—between the betting industry and racing industry through the auspices of the levy board, and we should all thank it for its work. When they come to an agreement about how much money should be handed over from the betting industry to the horse racing industry, rather than concentrating on the mechanism of how that money is raised, people are really thinking about how much it will raise. People think, “Well, what we need is a certain amount of money from the betting industry to make the racing industry viable which is reasonable to ask the gambling industry to provide based on the money it makes from the horse racing product.” A figure is therefore arrived at that seems reasonable.

I cannot remember, but I have a feeling—the Minister will be able to help out on this—that the last time the Secretary of State determined what the Government thought was a reasonable price for the betting industry to pay the racing industry, the figure arrived at was somewhere around £75 million. The Government then introduced a mechanism in the levy, making slight amendments to try to deliver £75 million—or whatever figure they thought was a fair amount for the gambling industry to pay—and that was that. The mechanism was arrived at to deliver the figure.

My hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton seems to presume that everyone will continue with the same mechanism, which will simply deliver more money to the racing industry, but I suspect it would not really work like that. I suspect that the levy board would still go through the same deliberations and work out what was reasonable to expect the gambling industry to provide, and that a mechanism would be worked out to deliver around £75 million. Therefore, the 10.75% of gross horse racing profits that go to the levy would probably be reduced to hit that target. As a consequence, the Bill —clause 4 in particular—would generate no more money for the racing industry. Rather, it would simply mean that the money came from a different mechanism.

Antarctic Bill

Debate between Lindsay Hoyle and Philip Davies

Friday 2nd November 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. An intervention is meant to be very short. The hon. Lady had a good go, and I tried to give her a nudge, but she wanted to carry on. I am sure that Mr Davies, with his ability, has got the message. If needs be, the hon. Lady can intervene again shortly.

[Philip Davies]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for her intervention. It is a shame that my hon. Friend the Member for North East Somerset is not here, as he could add the Science and Technology Committee’s report to the reading material on seals with which I will supply him. I am sure that piece of work will trump anything I can produce, and that my hon. Friend will be particularly interested in it.

My right hon. Friend the Member for Mid Sussex has been pressing the Government on the British Antarctic Survey, and in particular its cost to the public purse over the past few years. Given the financial situation we are in, it is understandable that expenditure has been considerably reduced over the past five years or so. Does the Minister have any thoughts on what an optimum amount of money would be to ensure that BAS’s work continues? Total resource and capital expenditure has fallen from £56 million to £46 million over the past six years.

I welcome you to the Chair, Mr Evans. I am sure that your predecessor, Mr Hoyle, was sad to leave during such an exciting part of the debate. Clause 14 amends the Antarctic Act 1994 to enable the UK to grant permits to non-British nationals on British expeditions, and it concerns an important point that my hon. Friend the Member for North East Somerset raised earlier. The legislation will enable foreign scientists working in the UK to apply to the UK for authorisation, rather than to their national Governments. As I understand, non-UK nationals are not currently eligible for a UK permit, even if their activity is to take place on an expedition organised by a British scientific institution. The Bill’s explanatory notes highlight that that has previously “caused inconvenience” to some UK institutions that employ non-UK nationals, and could even prevent a national of a state not party to the protocol from being issued a permit. That anomaly clearly needs to be resolved, and this Bill is a useful mechanism for dealing with it.

Part 2 of the Bill also implements agreed revisions to annex 2 of the environmental protocol on the conservation of Antarctic fauna and flora. It tidies up the implementation of the original treaty, which was signed in 1959 and came into force in 1961, and subsequent agreements. The Bill proposes to

“give marine plants and invertebrates protection for the first time”—

I am sure my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud is proud to do that—

“introduce measures to conserve British Historical Sites and Monuments in Antarctica better”,

which I am sure all hon. Members support, and

“update the Antarctic Act 1994 to facilitate better regulation of British activities in Antarctica, including to respond to the increasing internationalisation of Antarctic expeditions.”

Other matters tend to be fairly straightforward. I am anxious about time and to hear what the Minister has to say, and I am sure that all hon. Members wish to see other important business progress. In conclusion, I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud on his Bill, which has the support of the whole House. I would like to think that my contribution has been helpful—people do not always say that my contributions to Friday debates are helpful, but on this occasion I hope it has been useful in raising issues that we may wish to consider further in Committee. We must ensure that we end up with a Bill that gives the best possible protection to an important part of British overseas territories, which is what we all want.

Scrap Metal Dealers Bill

Debate between Lindsay Hoyle and Philip Davies

Friday 13th July 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. I think we are getting away from licensing. Mr Davies, I think you are desperate to get back to where you were and I am sure that you do not want to be distracted.

[Philip Davies]

As ever, Mr Deputy Speaker, you read me like a book. I was just thinking about how I did not want to be distracted by the hon. Gentleman, but I have every confidence that his next intervention will put us back on track.

Welfare Reform Bill

Debate between Lindsay Hoyle and Philip Davies

Wednesday 1st February 2012 Commons Chamber

[Ian Lavery]

Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker.

One in three of us suffers from cancer at any one time. I am very unfortunate, as my parents and my wife’s parents all died at a relatively young age.

[Philip Davies]

On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. Is it in order for an hon. Gentleman to make an accusation that five national newspapers apologised for making? Is it in order for him to make the same accusation and then not give way to allow me to correct him? Those five newspapers at least had the courtesy to acknowledge that they had made a mistake.

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

That is not a point of order for the Chair, but you have put the point on the record which I think is what you wished to do.

London Local Authorities Bill [Lords]

Debate between Lindsay Hoyle and Philip Davies

Wednesday 25th January 2012 Commons Chamber

[Philip Davies]

Despite the fact that my hon. Friend also probably goes to far better quality restaurants than I do, I am pleased that she agrees with me. However, I do not want to get sidetracked. I was in danger of that—my hon. Friends were leading me astray—but I must return to the matter in hand.

Swindon borough council conducted a report on environment and leisure in 2007. A councillor stated:

“We have been surprised by the strength of feeling in relation to this issue”—

that is, toilets. He went on:

“Our toilets are a matter of significant inconvenience in terms of location, accessibility and condition, which impacts upon public health, the image of the town and limits the quality of life for many people.”

It is important that we focus on the importance of such matters to local residents and to visitors. Given that London is such a centre for tourism, we ignore that at our peril.

The Department for Communities and Local Government report reiterated the need for easy access to toilet facilities for older members of the public. A 2005 survey by Changing Lives, nVision and Future Foundation showed that

“people aged over 55 and families with children are most inclined to take holidays and short breaks in this country. At the same time, these groups are more likely to place a higher value on being able to access a toilet.”

Given that most of those people who take a short break in this country are more than likely at some point to go to London, it would be perverse to allow the clause to apply to London alone.

The Department for Communities and Local Government report concluded:

“Being able to access a toilet is a fundamental need for any visitor. Tourists need more local information, more signposts. They cannot simply go home, into work, or their local pub to use the toilet. Tourists choose their destinations carefully, drawing on their previous impressions, talking to friends and family, looking up feedback on the internet. Sense of destination—the extent to which it has met a visitor’s needs and made a strong and positive impression—is therefore vital to secure repeat trade and sustainable economic development.”

Would it not be a shame if people’s experience of visiting London, which should be fantastic, was ruined by the simple problem of being unable to get into a toilet when they needed one because turnstiles had been erected?

We should also bear in mind that we have the Olympics this year in London, which has led to other sporting events, such as the world athletics championships. We are told that they are the great opportunity to showcase London and to boost the tourism industry in this country. We are told how important public toilets and their accessibility are to tourism, tourists and visitors. Would it not be bizarre, when we are spending all that money to attract more tourism to London, to do something that would adversely affect it?

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. The hon. Gentleman is obviously well briefed—he has certainly flushed out a lot of the subject that he wanted to flush out—but I am worried that he is beginning to pad out the debate on this measure. He may wish to speak to other measures, and it might help his good self to move on a little. I am sure that we have heard about turnstiles and the toilet break quite thoroughly, and a lot of hon. Members have managed to intervene.

[Philip Davies]

If you will allow me, Mr Deputy Speaker, I shall conclude on the issue of toilets by saying simply that the Guild of Registered Tourist Guides formed an inconvenience committee, which produced a report—[Interruption.] This is the final thing I want to say on toilets. The committee described what it considered to be the perfect public toilet. It said that the perfect public toilet should be “free”—that is perhaps not much to ask in a world-class city—

“with sufficient cubicles for men and women so that large groups can use them without lengthy queues…clean and well maintained…safe and well lit…appropriate access aids such as hand rails on stairs, plus separate facility Cot wheel chair users…hot and cold water and soap for hand washing…Hand drying with paper towels as well as the hot air machines…Attendant on duty…Litter bins for disposal of hand towels…Nappy changing room…Feminine hygiene provision…Information and health education…Early morning and evening opening hours…sitting area for people to wait…and…Machines offering various necessities”.

That is it. You will have heard, Mr Deputy Speaker, no mention of turnstiles in that description of the perfect British toilet. I therefore do not know why on earth we would want to introduce them.

Equality and Diversity (Reform) Bill

Debate between Lindsay Hoyle and Philip Davies

Friday 21st October 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. I remind Members that, although they are allowed to use iPads, they have to make a speech without continuously reading from them. I am sure Mr Nuttall will take that on board.

[Philip Davies]

I am very grateful for your guidance, Mr Deputy Speaker, particularly as someone who voted against allowing these wretched things to be used in debates. If anyone was ever going to convince me that I made the wrong decision in that vote, however, it is my hon. Friend, who has gone to an excellent website, and I certainly commend him for doing so.

The second part of my Bill tackles the Sex Discrimination (Election Candidates) Act 2002. I was not a Member when the Sex Discrimination (Election Candidates) Bill was debated, but it will come as no surprise to you, Mr Deputy Speaker, to know that had I been I would have definitely opposed it. I have a great deal of time for many of my female Conservative colleagues, we have some extremely able MPs and, for the record, I have excellent female staff. Indeed, I would go so far as to say that the greatest Prime Minister this country has ever had was, indeed, a woman, but I do not particularly care if the House is made up of 10% women or 90%. For me, that will never be an issue, so the fundamental premise of the 2002 Act will always be totally flawed.

The most important thing for me is not how many men or women are in Parliament, but how many Conservatives there are in Parliament, and I challenge anybody who is obsessed with the idea that the most important end in itself is that we have more women in Parliament. If, for example, a Conservative male fought a marginal seat against a Labour female, would any of my hon. Friends campaign for her on the basis that it was so important to get more women into Parliament, or would they campaign for him? I venture that they would campaign for him, because I am sure that for all Government Members, apart from of course the Liberal Democrats, it is far more important to have more Conservatives in Parliament than to be worried about how many MPs there are of a particular gender.

During the Bill’s Second Reading on 24 October 2001, almost 10 years ago to the day, my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May), now the Home Secretary, said:

“I shall be honest with the House. There was a time when I never thought that I would stand up in the Chamber and support such a Bill.”—[Official Report, 24 October 2001; Vol. 373, c. 334.]

I wish she had stuck to her earlier opinion, as it would have been the more Conservative thing to do.

While my right hon. Friend supported the Bill, the former Member for Maidstone and the Weald, Ann Widdecombe, did not. In the debate, she said:

“The Bill is fundamentally wrong. I must ask this question; are all the men in this place sound asleep? Do they realise what the Bill means for them? Have they thought that positive discrimination for women can entail negative discrimination for men?”

The irony is that, as those in the House at the time were already Members, they did not need to worry about candidates, so the Bill was effectively about kicking away the ladder of opportunity from men who had not yet reached the House. I wonder how those Members would have felt if they had been told, “Sorry, I know you would make an excellent MP, but we’re going to stop you applying for the seat that you’ve lived in all your life, because you happen to be a man.” How would any men present today have felt if such a rule had applied to them?

Ann Widdecombe also hit the nail on the head, when during the debate she asked:

“What would that mean for a man in that constituency who had given to his local council the same lifelong service that the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Helen Jackson)—

at the time—

gave to hers”?

Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Bill

Debate between Lindsay Hoyle and Philip Davies

Wednesday 29th June 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. May I ask for shorter interventions, because many Members wish to speak and I want to try to get everyone in?

[Philip Davies]

My hon. Friend is right that people are released only when it is safe to release them. My constituents think that it is rather a good thing that people are released from prison only when it is safe to let the out. I am all for that, unlike the Lord Chancellor.

The reason why the Lord Chancellor is not bothered about reoffending and indeterminate sentences is that he is not interested in reoffending at all. What then is his priority? It is the same as it has always been: simply reducing the number of criminals in prison. That is highlighted in the Bill’s explanatory notes, which state:

“The overall impact of the sentencing proposals will result in annual savings of approximately £80m in 2014/15, due to a reduction in the demand for prison places of 2,650”.

I invite all my hon. Friends to look back at what they promised their constituents at the general election in their personal manifestos and at what they said against their opponents at the hustings. Which of those who will vote for the Bill tonight said at the hustings that they were standing on a platform of reducing the number of criminals sent to prison by 2,650? I suspect that none of us said that, and I invite my hon. Friends to consider that when they decide how to vote tonight.

I am also concerned about the widely reported mandatory six-month sentence for thugs who use knives to threaten people. As I have already shown, this is a solution looking for a problem, because the sentencing guidelines already insist that such cases are sent to Crown court for a first offence because it is deemed that magistrates do not have sufficient sentencing powers.

It gets worse. On threatening with knives, clause 113 states:

“It is a defence for a person charged with an offence under this section to prove good reason or lawful authority for having the article with him or her in the place…concerned.”

That is a reasonable defence for possession of a knife, but how is it a reasonable defence for using a knife threateningly just to be able to explain why one has the knife in the first place? Either that is a drafting error or it is complete nonsense. Perhaps the Minister will enlighten us in his reply.

The provision is not mandatory anyway, because it is later stated that people do not have to be sent to prison if there are particular circumstances that relate to the offence or the offender that would make it unjust to send them there. So much for it being mandatory. It is a joke.

Clauses 56 and 57 are further examples of the Lord Chancellor’s aim of sending fewer people to prison. Clause 56(2)(a) removes the duty of the court to impose more onerous conditions once someone breaches a community order, or to resentence them to custody. It says that the court “may” do so instead of saying that it “must”, as currently applies.

Clause 56(2)(b) allows the court to impose a fine as a punishment for breaching a community order. That provision did not exist before. Clause 57 increases the length of sentence that can be suspended from a maximum of 51 weeks to two years and removes the need to attach any community requirements at all. If a criminal has committed an offence that deserves a custodial sentence of up to two years in prison, that is what they should get: a two-year sentence in prison. Furthermore, if someone is given a suspended sentence with no requirements, they will effectively not be punished at all.

As I said a couple of weeks ago, breaches of suspended sentences can now result in a fine, thanks to clause 58. Anybody who breaches their existing get-out-of-jail-free suspended sentence should go to one place only: immediate custody. Is it any wonder that the British public have no faith in sentencing? The criminal justice system can be effective only if the public have confidence in it.

The Bill also fails to extend a magistrate’s power of sentencing to up to 12 months, yet that was a firm manifesto commitment. Not only are we not implementing what was already in the law, we are repealing that part of the law in this Bill. We have already heard at length how schedule 10 removes the ability of the courts to remand somebody in custody, to try to make it harder for people to be remanded in custody so that they are instead granted bail. In the previous Parliament, the last Labour Government introduced the mechanism that time spent on bail on a tag could be knocked off a prison sentence in the same way as time spent on remand is knocked off a prison sentence. We were apoplectic with rage about that, and my hon. and learned Friend the current Solicitor-General said when we were in opposition that this proposal

“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.]

I could not agree more. The only difference is that I still believe that this is wrong, whereas my Front-Bench colleagues have gone from thinking it was utterly ridiculous to formalising the policy as part of the Bill. Of course, the other measure to which we were wholly opposed in the previous Parliament was the automatic release of people halfway through their prison sentence, and that, too, is formalised in this Bill.

The British public are losing faith in the criminal justice system. One only has to look at the Populus polling carried out by Lord Ashcroft that showed that 80% of the public—80% of victims of crime, 80% of police officers—think that sentences for convicted offenders are already too lenient. When asked how they expected the new coalition Government would compare on crime with the last Labour Government, more than 50% of those polled said they expected them to be tougher. When asked their views a year after the coalition Government came to office, only 13% thought the Government had been tougher, whereas 23% thought they were less tough. That perception is a disaster for the Conservative brand, and this Bill will only further weaken our position.

All the above shows that this Bill is not the rehabilitation revolution or the reduced reoffending revolution we were promised; rather, it is a release revolution that will simply catapult more criminals out on to the streets to commit more crimes. I do not know if the Lord Chancellor is trying to break the world record for the number of manifesto pledges broken in one Bill, but if he is, he has made a good fist of it.

Employment Opportunities Bill

Debate between Lindsay Hoyle and Philip Davies

Friday 17th June 2011 Commons Chamber

[Philip Davies]

I will in a second.

Where the hon. Member for Manchester Central and I disagree is that I think that reducing taxation stimulates the economy and ends up giving more revenue to the Exchequer. I know that he has been about a long time. He will find that, in the golden age when Mrs Thatcher was Prime Minister, she proved beyond all doubt that, if we cut the rate of tax, we can increase the receipts from tax, because it stimulates the economy.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. I have looked at the Bill and I am not sure where it deals with taxation. I know that it is about the minimum wage but we are drifting into the area of taxation, to which I know the hon. Gentleman would not want to take us.

[Philip Davies]

As ever, Mr Deputy Speaker, I am grateful for your guidance. I am sure that you are right that I was in danger of being taken away from the main issue by the hon. Member for Manchester Central. I am happy to give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough (Mr Bone), unless he feels that he will also incur the wrath of the Deputy Speaker.

--- Later in debate ---

[Philip Davies]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right; many of those people already pay an excessive amount of tax through their spending, as he says. The best thing that we could do is give them some relief in the income tax that they pay. There is an easy way of ensuring that we can help to stimulate the economy without penalising anybody in the amount that they take home. If the only purpose of the minimum wage is to ensure that people take home a certain amount of money each week, I do not see what objection there could be to people taking home exactly the same amount of money.

I could talk about the provisions in the Bill on asylum seekers. I am not entirely persuaded of the case made by my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch, because I wonder whether the Bill might unintentionally encourage even more people to come here falsely claiming asylum. He did go some way to persuading me of the merits of his case, so I would not allow that to be an objection to my supporting the Bill. I would be happy to support the Bill because of the minimum wage provision that allows people to choose whether they wish to be subject to it or not, and I would perhaps try to delete the part on asylum seekers in Committee. If hon. Members support the provision to allow asylum seekers to work and to be paid, they could equally support the Bill on Second Reading and attempt in Committee or on Report to delete the part on the minimum wage that they do not like. Given that that opportunity is there for them, I hope that we will not hear any weasel words from people who will be seen to have voted against allowing asylum seekers to work and to be paid. They are voting against that just as much as they are voting against anything else in the Bill. I hope that the hon. Member for Manchester Central will not try to weasel his way out of the fact the he is in danger of voting against something that he claims that he enthusiastically supports. He could try to delete the part he does not like at a later stage.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. This has been an important debate, but we are in danger of overstepping the mark. “Weasel” is right on the edge, and I do not want the debate to deteriorate. It is a good debate and we should not insult each other.

[Philip Davies]

For the avoidance of any doubt, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I will withdraw the word “weasel”. I certainly did not mean it in any pejorative sense.

Further and Higher Education (Access) Bill

Debate between Lindsay Hoyle and Philip Davies

Friday 4th March 2011 Commons Chamber

[Philip Davies]

I do not particularly want to get sidetracked—I am sure that you will not allow it, Mr Deputy Speaker—but the Government’s position on grammar schools, which is pertinent to my point about merit, is frankly a nonsense. Basically, they are saying, “If you’re lucky enough to have grammar schools in your area, that’s fine and you can keep them, but if you poor swine in Bradford want a grammar school system, you aren’t allowed it.” The Minister’s support for grammar schools extends only so far as those areas that already have them, and those of us who would like them cannot have them. That is lukewarm support—

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. I think that the hon. Gentleman has been sidetracked. I am sure the Minister did not want that because I know that he is very interested in higher education in this debate, rather than grammar schools. I am sure that the hon. Member for Shipley (Philip Davies), as he suggested, will want to come back to the topic of the debate.

[Philip Davies]

I am grateful, Mr Deputy Speaker; I was indeed tempted by the Minister to go down a route that neither you nor I want us to go down.

I will keep my remarks brief because I am intrigued to hear what the Minister has to say. I want to hear some kind of confirmation, not only that while he lives and breathes he will support grammar schools, but that while he is the Minister and while our right hon. Friend the Member for Witney (Mr Cameron) is the Prime Minister, he will ensure that universities recruit people on merit alone and that people are not allocated places simple because of their background, the school they went to, the socio-economic environment in which they live or the wealth or otherwise of their parents. If we started going down that route, it would be a disaster for this country. The idea of positive discrimination, which lies behind such proposals, is a disaster. Positive discrimination is discrimination, and we should not advocate it, because it demeans people. Many parents make terrific sacrifices to send their kids to private schools. People who cannot ordinarily afford to do so make the most amazing sacrifices, because they understandably want their children to have the best start and opportunities in life.

My parents made terrific sacrifices to enable me to go to a boarding school that they really could not afford to send me to, and I am immensely grateful to them. I do not see why this Government, in particular, or anybody for that matter, would want to say to such parents, “Well done. You’ve made these sacrifices to help your children get the best possible start in life. What we’re going to do now is rig the rules to make sure that all your sacrifices have been in vain, because we’re going to stop your daughter or son having the opportunity to go to the university they deserve to go to, based on the hard work that they put in, as you don’t meet the criteria, you’re not from the right socio-economic background or they didn’t go to the school we would have preferred them to go to.” What an appalling message.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. We are not going to go down that line. We are going to stick to the subject in hand. As tempted as Mr Davies will be, I know he will restrain himself.

[Philip Davies]

I will follow your guidance as always, Mr Deputy Speaker. It is fair to say that you know my opinion just as much as my hon. Friend does. We can leave it there. I must say in passing that my hon. Friend is probably the best person in the House to speak about job opportunities, because of his marvellous work in his constituency helping with jobs fairs and trying to get people into work. He will have seen at first hand in his constituency the skills that people need to get jobs, and he will know that a university education is not always essential for a person to get the right job. He should be commended for what he has done, and we should listen to his advice, because he knows more about the matter than most.

I commend my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch, because he has raised an important matter, notwithstanding what I would describe as the technical opposition to the Bill offered by my hon. Friend the Member for North East Somerset. Whether or not we agree with the Bill, I think we all agree that the Government should not feel it necessary to stick their nose into university recruitment. They should allow universities to do what they have always done, which is to recruit people on merit, and merit alone, irrespective of their background, gender, race or any other factor. Those things should be irrelevant, and people’s ability alone should be decisive.

Police

Debate between Lindsay Hoyle and Philip Davies

Wednesday 9th February 2011 Commons Chamber

[Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)]

I agree that the police can save money, and they might start to do so by addressing some of the equality and diversity politically correct drivel on which they waste millions of pounds each year. If the Government were simply cutting the police budget and savings could be found, that would be fine. However, the problem with the Government’s argument is that they are doing this against the backdrop of restricting the police’s ability to use the DNA database to catch criminals and trying to restrict further the use of CCTV cameras which also help the police catch criminals, and they are releasing people from prison and having fewer criminals in prison. They cannot do all those things with fewer police.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

As I have already said, we must have much shorter interventions.

London Local Authorities Bill [Lords] (By Order)

Debate between Lindsay Hoyle and Philip Davies

Wednesday 13th October 2010 Commons Chamber

[Mr Deputy Speaker Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. Some hon. Gentlemen have just come into the Chamber, but in fairness they ought to have been here for most of the debate. I am being quite lenient, but I really do think that we ought to think about that in future.

[Philip Davies]

Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I will continue. I will have a chat outside with my hon. Friend; we can resolve our potential differences outside the Chamber.