Oral Answers to Questions

Philip Davies Excerpts

Tuesday 3rd February 2015 Commons Chamber

[Chris Grayling]

There are two parts to that equation. Although there has been considerable success over the years in tackling the problem of conventional drugs in prisons, the problem now is the arrival of new psychoactive substances that are not detected through the normal means. That has posed an additional challenge to our prison system, and is a significant reason behind the increase in the amount of violence—serious violence—in prisons in the past 12 months. We are taking additional measures to try to tackle that, including tougher security measures and tougher penalties within prisons, and the training of dogs to sniff out that new generation of substances.

Of course, alongside that, proper work must be done to try to tackle addiction. With the through-the-gate system we have created and are creating, it is important that we see a flow-through from work done in our prisons to work done after prison. I remember being told by prison staff how frustrated they were that they had no guarantee that the rehab being done in prisons would continue when prisoners left. That will now change.

[Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)]

The cycle of reoffending is not helped by the number of people who are released on bail rather than remanded in custody. As the Daily Mail reports today, two rapes a week and one unlawful killing are committed by people on bail. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Slough (Fiona Mactaggart) does not seem to care about the number of rapes committed by people on bail and is laughing about it. A previous parliamentary question I asked revealed that 20% of all burglaries are committed by people out on bail. What is the Secretary of State doing to ensure that more persistent offenders are remanded in custody and fewer persistent offenders are out on bail to commit more crimes?

[Chris Grayling]

Decisions on individual bail cases lie with the courts, which are independent of Government, but I never want the courts to be in a position where they do not have a place to send those whom they wish to put behind bars. I hope our courts will exercise extreme care in deciding whether to put somebody behind bars or to let them out on bail. As we go into the election in May, there are 3,000 more adult male prison places than there were in 2010.

Asylum (Time Limit) Bill

Philip Davies Excerpts

Friday 16th January 2015 Commons Chamber

If somebody comes to this country because they are seeking asylum—they want refuge because they come from a country where it has become impossible for them to continue to live—they should, at a reasonably early opportunity, perhaps as soon as they arrive, say, “I’m here and I wish to claim asylum.” Then they make their claim. What is happening at the moment is that people can stay here for months or years and then suddenly the authorities catch up with them and they say, “Oh, I forgot that I really wanted to claim asylum.” If someone wants to claim asylum and to fall upon the mercy and good will of the United Kingdom, they should do so in a timely fashion.

[Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)]

I very much agree with my hon. Friend. I just wondered where the three-month time limit came from. I am pretty sure that many constituents would say, “Why should it be three months?” Three days is more than enough. Surely it should be on the day that they arrive. Why should we be so tolerant as to give people three months to decide that they are fleeing persecution? Surely they must know that the moment they arrive in the United Kingdom.

[Mr Chope]

I am very sympathetic to my hon. Friend’s point, but I am trying to propose a Bill that will get the support of the Government and I thought that nobody could argue that three months was not a more than reasonable time. His point is that three months is a more than reasonable time in which to decide to apply for asylum, which is why I hope that he can accept the Bill.

Once the Bill is on the statute book, the limits could be tightened further but in the first instance we must alert all those people who are already in the country and who are here illegally—we know that there could be between 500,000 and 1 million of those people at least—that if they wish to claim asylum they have three months in which to do so. That would be a reasonable time during which the word could spread on the street that if they were going to make an asylum application, they would have to get it in before the given date. Having decided that we would give a reasonable period of time to people who are already here, it seemed to me that to fit in with that I should say that the same three-month limit should apply to people who arrived after the Bill became law. That was my thinking, but I am prepared to accept the implied criticism from my hon. Friend that I have been far too reasonable and understanding on this point.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Hanson]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend; I was going to come to that point.

[Philip Davies]

rose—

[Mr Hanson]

Before I do, I will give way to the hon. Gentleman.

[Philip Davies]

Does the right hon. Gentleman recognise the scenario, painted by my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Mr Chope), of people coming in as economic migrants, being rumbled by the authorities and then, in effect, playing the asylum system to delay an inevitable removal from the country, often using human rights laws as well to effect further delay? If he does recognise it—and I think many around the country do—what is his solution?

[Mr Hanson]

The asylum system needs to have integrity. There are mechanisms, which I am sure the Minister will strongly outline, that show real integrity and that if an individual falsely claims asylum they will be removed in due course. It is important to recognise that robust systems are in place and that we try to enforce them. We must not let people play the system, but we must recognise that genuine asylum claims can be made later than the proposed three-month limit.

I turn to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Brent North (Barry Gardiner). It will not have escaped your notice, Madam Deputy Speaker, that we have been dealing with the Modern Slavery Bill in this House and another place, where it currently resides. That Bill tries to ensure that we deal with the slavery and trafficking that my hon. Friend mentioned. Individuals may have believed, because of language or cultural difficulties, that they came to this country for work or other reasons, but found themselves trafficked, imprisoned or abused. The Government have recognised the issue by introducing the Modern Slavery Bill, and we have supported them on that.

Under the Asylum (Time Limit) Bill, victims of such horrendous crimes—who may have been forced to come to the UK, who may have lived the life of slaves for many months or years but have been resident in the UK—would have no means of claiming asylum because they had been brought here by traffickers. Those are important circumstances that the Bill misses because of its cut-off date of three months.

The Bill is flawed and unworkable. There is a robust system in place. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s comments, which I am sure will reflect the fact that such a system exists. I would welcome the hon. Member for Christchurch reflecting on the fact that situations change outside the UK, affecting people who may have been here for more than three months, and that through no fault of their own they may need to apply for asylum after that date. As a stark example, if a German Jew were at university in the UK in March 1938 and suddenly realised that they could not return to Germany because of potential difficulties with the fascist regime there, and if they had been here for longer than three months and the hon. Gentleman’s Bill was in place, they would have to be sent back to Germany and ultimately to their death. I am sure the hon. Gentleman would not wish such a situation to affect future asylum claims. He should also reflect on the security provided by the Modern Slavery Bill. Whatever the Minister says, I hope the hon. Member for Christchurch will think carefully about these matters and agree to withdraw his Bill.

Oral Answers to Questions

Philip Davies Excerpts

Tuesday 16th December 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mike Penning]

It is important that victims and witnesses have the confidence to go to court and give evidence in a way that they feel comfortable doing. We must amend the way that the court process works, and we must use video much more, particularly with young and vulnerable children. That is the sort of thing we are going to do as we go forward, and I would have thought that that had cross-party support.

[Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)]

Does the Minister agree that before a prisoner is downgraded to being suitable for an open prison, the victim of the crime should be consulted on whether that is appropriate? Can my hon. Friend guarantee that in all cases that will start to happen?

[Mike Penning]

It is important that victims are informed at each stage of the pathway, from when they report the crime to when the offender is released from prison. They should not have a veto, but they should be consulted.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Grayling]

First, the hon. Gentleman has a track record of addressing these issues to compare with anyone in the House. I commend him for the work that he has done. I share his view on sex crimes against children. That is one reason why the Criminal Justice and Courts Bill contains a provision to end automatic early release for those who commit such horrendous crimes. He has expressed an interesting thought today. We cannot have too long a conversation about it across the Dispatch Box, but my colleagues and I would be happy to hear his views.

[Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)]

T8. The Minister is aware of my request that the former Keighley magistrates court in Bingley be sold off as soon as possible. The failure to do so is wasting taxpayers’ money and preventing an important town centre building in Bingley from being regenerated and brought into use. There seems to have been a lot of faffing about between the Ministry of Justice and West Yorkshire police. I urge the Minister to get on with it and get the building up for sale to allow this regeneration to take place in Bingley and to save the taxpayer some money.

[Mr Vara]

My hon. Friend is as forthright as ever. He is well aware that I wrote to him last week. We are doing all that we can to ensure that the court is sold and that the proceeds are put into the Exchequer.

Immigration Statistics

Philip Davies Excerpts

Friday 28th November 2014 Commons Chamber

[Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con) (Urgent Question)]

To ask the Minister for Policing, Criminal Justice and Victims to make a statement on the latest immigration figures.

[The Minister for Policing, Criminal Justice and Victims (Mike Penning)]

I apologise on behalf of the Minister for Security and Immigration, who is in Rome on ministerial business, and of the Home Secretary, who is in her constituency with the Queen. I am afraid, Madam Deputy Speaker, that you have the oily rag and not the mechanic.

Yesterday the Office for National Statistics published the latest quarterly figures on net migration. Uncontrolled mass immigration such as that we saw under the previous Labour Government makes it difficult—

--- Later in debate ---

[Mike Penning]

By making comments from a sedentary position, Labour Members are showing their selective memory loss about the mess they left this country in. Perhaps they would like to ask me in a moment about the mess they left us in and how we will try to resolve that.

Net migration from outside the EU is down and this morning the Prime Minister has outlined his plans to deal with the high levels of migration from within the EU. We intend to do that and to ensure that this country is a safe place to come for migrants when they need to come here but that it is not a soft touch.

[Philip Davies]

I am grateful to the Minister for that reply. These latest figures are not just disappointing, they are catastrophic. I do not doubt that when the Government and the Prime Minister pledged to reduce net immigration figures to the tens of thousands they hoped and intended that that would be the case. I also accept that nobody could have predicted that the UK would create more jobs in the year than the rest of the EU put together, acting as a massive pull factor when that pledge was made. However, is not the simple problem that the Government made a pledge that they were in no position to be able to guarantee while we are in the EU and while there is free movement of people within the EU?

Is it not time that the main political parties were honest with the British public and simply admitted to them what they already know—that is, that we cannot control immigration while we remain a member of the European Union. Why is it so difficult for the Government to say what is merely a statement of the bleeding obvious?

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Dawn Primarolo)]

Order.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

Thank you, Mr Pound. I know I can always rely on you for sound advice.

Mr Davies, I think that you need to rephrase that sentence. Using the word bleeding on the Floor of the House is not acceptable.

[Philip Davies]

I apologise, Madam Deputy Speaker. I meant the blinding obvious.

We know that the EU is not going to budge on the principle of the free movement of people and therefore we need to leave. Will the Minister explain why the part of the immigration figures that the Government can control—non-EU immigration—also went up in the past year and what the Government are doing to bear down on that?

Do the Government agree that these levels of immigration are completely unsustainable? Does the Minister accept that we cannot cope culturally with immigration at these levels? Does he agree that the NHS cannot cope with immigration levels of this magnitude? Does he accept that we cannot provide the school places fast enough and that we cannot build the houses needed for this level of immigration? We would have to build an entire Bradford district every two years to keep up and it is ridiculous to think that that is possible in any way. Does the Minister accept that?

The British public want immigration to be controlled, but more than that they want politicians to be honest and the honest truth is that we can control immigration only if we leave the EU. Does the Minister at least accept that?

Oral Answers to Questions

Philip Davies Excerpts

Tuesday 11th November 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mike Penning]

Being stalked must be an horrendous experience for anybody, and it is important that we look carefully at the legislation and keep the issue under review. In 2013-14, 743 prosecutions were commenced under the new legislation. We agree across the House that stalking is an abhorrent offence, and we should do everything we can to prevent it and prosecute those who perpetrate it.

[Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)]

10. What proportion of recalls to prison were fixed-term recalls in the latest period for which figures are available.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Andrew Selous)]

Between 1 April and 30 June 2014—the latest period for which data are available—there were a total of 4,216 licence recalls. Of those, 42% were fixed-term recalls.

[Philip Davies]

Most people around the country believe and expect that when a criminal is released from prison early, if they commit another offence before the end of their original sentence they will be sent back to prison for at least the full duration of that original sentence. As the Minister has confirmed, however, 42% of recalls are just 28-day fixed-term recalls. In the first nine months of last year, 1,260 burglars were given 28-day fixed-term recalls, instead of serving the full length of their original sentence. Will the Minister revisit that scandal, which alarms many of our constituents and puts them at unnecessary risk of becoming victims of crime?

[Andrew Selous]

My hon. Friend has taken a long-standing and serious interest in this issue. Fixed-term recalls can be used only when the offender does not pose a risk of serious harm to the public. When recall prisoners are assessed to pose a risk of serious harm to the public, they are given standard recalls to serve the remainder of their sentence in prison, and will be released earlier only if it is safe to do so. Under the Criminal Justice and Courts Bill, offenders who do not comply with their licence and are highly likely to commit further breaches if released are deemed unsuitable for fixed-term recall. We therefore have measures either in place or in the pipeline to exclude high-risk and prolific offenders from fixed-term recalls.

--- Later in debate ---

[Simon Hughes]

I have not been sat on and I work collaboratively with all my colleagues in the Department. We are committed not only to talking about these things but to doing things. Last month, we introduced a whole set of new provisions that give support to people in the family courts. We have added legal aid for people going to mediation and now for the first mediation. We are reviewing what further steps we can take, and there will be further announcements in due course.

[Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)]

Is the Secretary of State aware of the expert legal opinion published by the Freedom Association, stating that signing up to the European arrest warrant would render worthless and completely redundant the Government’s opposition to a European Public Prosecutor’s Office? While he is at it, will he tell us when we can have a vote on the European arrest warrant, in place of the farce and shambles we saw yesterday?

[Chris Grayling]

I am afraid I have not seen that legal advice because both the European Public Prosecutor and the European arrest warrant are Home Office matters rather than Justice matters. That legal advice would not naturally come to me.

Social Action, Responsibility and Heroism Bill

Philip Davies Excerpts

Monday 20th October 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Slaughter]

Indeed. The Minister must be picking up, if not from this debate, but from the Bill’s previous stages, that at best there is weariness with more soundbite legislation and littering the statute books—[Interruption.] I believe that the Minister of State, Ministry of Justice, the right hon. Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark (Simon Hughes) has the brief within the Justice team to stop unnecessary legislation across government. He has taken his eye off the ball, because he cannot stop unnecessary legislation in his own Department.

The Under-Secretary must appreciate that criticisms are not coming just from Opposition Members. Although I do not expect him at this stage to abandon the Bill in its entirety, although he might as well put it out of its misery, he could at least take on board some of these sensible and constructive points. I appreciate that they are coming from me and so he might not want to do that, but other Members on both sides of the House have made the point about the wording of

“person’s own safety or other interests”

and about the poor drafting of clause 3.

[Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)]

I totally agree with the hon. Gentleman on amendment 6, and I would happily vote with him if he put that to a Division. There is support from Government Members, although I fear that as it is coming from me it may fall on the same deaf ears.

[Mr Slaughter]

I assure the hon. Gentleman that I listen carefully to everything he says and give it exactly the due weight it should be given. I am very tempted by the thought that we might push our numbers up by one, but I hope that the Minister may give way on this measure and by the time it emerges from the other place the Bill will be improved at least to that extent.

Clause 3 is quite a dangerous provision. We have not voted against the Bill as a whole, because the Bill on the whole does nothing. Clause 3 will be ineffective if it is passed, but its intention is malevolent. It is harmful to good industrial relations and harmful to health and safety in the workplace, and it is a piece of prejudice that this Government and this Minister should know better than to pursue.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Vara]

As I said in Committee, where we debated this at length, clause 3 does make a change, for the reasons that I just gave. The purpose of the Bill is twofold. First and foremost, it directs the court to take into account certain factors that, at present, it has discretion to take into account under the Compensation Act 2006. Secondly, it sends the powerful message to members of the public who otherwise may not act in certain circumstances that the law is on their side.

On Second Reading, the hon. Member for Plymouth, Moor View (Alison Seabeck) gave the example of a time when she stepped off a bus and saw someone lying on the ground, and was told by people who were standing by that they were worried that they might be sued, and so did not want to do anything, or words to that effect. My hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Goole (Andrew Percy) also gave an example: when he, as a first responder, went to places to give people medical attention, others were standing by, saying that they were afraid of legal consequences and were therefore not taking any risks. The legislation sends out a powerful message to the public that the law will be on their side.

We have deliberately drafted the clause broadly so that it focuses on whether the defendant demonstrated a generally responsible approach towards protecting the safety or other interests of others. This ensures that it will be relevant in a wide range of situations and will enable the courts to take account of all relevant circumstances and apply the provisions as flexibly as possible to achieve a just outcome. The clause is not restricted to personal injury claims and could in principle be applicable in relation to other instances of negligence, such as damage to property or economic loss, where issues of safety may not necessarily be relevant. That is why a broad definition has been used.

Narrowing the clause, as the amendment would, would mean that many bodies such as voluntary organisations, religious groups or social clubs which demonstrate a generally responsible approach towards protecting the safety or other interests of their clients or members would not be able to benefit from its provisions. That cannot be right.

Amendment 6 would remove part of the wording in clause 4 which clarifies what is meant by “acting heroically”. Specifically, it would remove the final words of the clause, which refer to acting

“without regard to the person’s own safety or other interests.”

I am grateful to hon. Members for tabling the amendment, as we have been considering the issue carefully in the light of similar representations made by St John Ambulance and the Fire Brigades Union during the Committee stage. St John Ambulance indicated that the wording conflicted with first aid practice that discourages first aiders from putting themselves at risk, and the Fire Brigades Union warned that the clause more generally might conflict with advice to the public not to intervene.

After giving this matter further thought, we remain of the view that the courts will interpret the words

“without regard to the person’s own safety”

in accordance with our intended meaning—that a person acts heroically by intervening to assist someone in danger, regardless of the fact that doing so might risk his or her own safety. The example I used in Committee was of a person who sees somebody struggling to stay afloat in a fast-moving current. That person might jump in to help on the spur of the moment, without first deliberating whether he might be putting his own life at risk.

[Philip Davies]

I do not have an objection on the same grounds as St John Ambulance or the Fire Brigades Union. My objection to the wording that the amendment deals with is that it contains an unnecessary additional hurdle. The clause does not state “or without regard”. It states “and without regard”, which introduces an unnecessary extra hurdle. Even if somebody acts heroically, they may well still have some regard for their own safety, but they may go on to ignore that. However, to say that they must have had no regard for their own safety renders the clause, in my view, unworkable.

[Mr Vara]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving me the opportunity to clarify the point, and I regret that I clearly have not been able to do so thus far. I refer to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham (Bob Stewart) when he spoke of someone acting spontaneously. If somebody were to witness a situation which required their assistance—for example, if somebody was drowning and it was necessary to jump in and save them—and they were able to do so, I am minded to say that that person would not say, “Well, I need to take account of the law here. If I were to jump in, is account going to be taken of whether I considered this dangerous or not?” If somebody is capable of saving that drowning person, they will jump in and save them. The courts will take account of all the facts of the case and I am confident that the present wording is necessary, the courts will take account of everything, and it will not be held against anybody that they may temporarily have considered danger.

[Philip Davies]

Will my hon. Friend indulge me one more time?

[Mr Vara]

Certainly.

[Philip Davies]

I appear to be speaking in a different language. I clearly cannot get through to the Minister so I will try to phrase my objection in a different way. Can he give us an example of something that would not be covered that should be covered if the wording ended after the word “danger”? What scenario that he wants included would not be included if the wording stopped at “danger”?

[Mr Vara]

My hon. Friend will appreciate that hypothetical examples are somewhat redundant, given that I mentioned earlier the independence of the judiciary, and that it is for the courts to decide on the facts of each case. I cannot stand at the Dispatch Box and predict specific circumstances. It is for the court to take account of the specific facts in a specific case.

We do not consider that the clause will be misinterpreted by the courts or the public as somehow excluding people who did in fact have regard to their own safety or other interests, perhaps in the split second before they dived in, but decided to intervene anyway. Nor do we think that it would be interpreted as sending a signal that members of the public should recklessly expose themselves to danger. We think that the wording and intention of the clauses are clear, and, on balance, we do not think that the amendment is necessary. I hope that on the basis of my explanation, the hon. Member for Hammersmith will be persuaded to withdraw the amendment. In the event that he wishes to press amendment 5, which would delete clause 3, I would urge the House to reject it.

Oral Answers to Questions

Philip Davies Excerpts

Tuesday 9th September 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

Mr Graham Allen. Not here.

[Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)]

3. What assessment he has made of the availability of books to prisoners.

[The Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice (Chris Grayling)]

Prisoners have essentially the same access to books as they did under the Labour Government. Prison libraries offer the full service offered to all of us by our local public libraries. There has been no specific policy change about books under this Government.

[Philip Davies]

I am grateful for that answer. The answer to a recent parliamentary question confirmed that £106 per prisoner is spent on libraries in prison, and from a recent freedom of information request I learned that in Leeds prison there are 10.5 books per prisoner, and in Wakefield prison 16.9. In contrast, in the libraries in my constituency for the general public, there is only about one book per person. On that basis, does the Secretary of State agree that, rather than prisoners being denied reading material, they are in fact far better served than the general public?

[Chris Grayling]

My hon. Friend makes an important point. Those who have visited prison libraries will know that they are well stocked and well supported by high-quality staff. In most prison libraries one will find local projects helping prisoners to read, and I pay tribute to the work done by our prison librarians in tackling literacy problems in our prisons. My hon. Friend is absolutely right: the fuss made about this issue has been wholly disproportionate and detached from the reality.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Speaker]

Mr David Davis. Not here.

[Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)]

T4. The Secretary of State has long argued that we should increase magistrates’ sentencing powers to 12 months for one offence. I hope that he can now clear up some confusion on the issue, because that provision was a manifesto commitment which was then abolished under the Secretary of State’s disastrous predecessor. My amendment proposing the introduction of the new sentencing power was rejected by the Government as recently as June, but the Prime Minister has now told the Magistrates Association at a reception that it will happen before the next election. Can we clear up the question of where we actually are, and can we crack on with doing something that would save money and would also be incredibly popular?

[The Minister for Policing, Criminal Justice and Victims (Mike Penning)]

I love doing things that are enormously popular and I also like doing things that are right. Magistrates’ sentencing powers are being reviewed and I will be able to come back to the House at its very early convenience, I hope, with some ideas.

Oral Answers to Questions

Philip Davies Excerpts

Tuesday 1st July 2014 Commons Chamber

[Jeremy Wright]

We always try to provide the right number of prison officers at any given moment, and we are going through a process of what is called benchmarking to ensure that we have the right number to deliver the regime we need. It is true, of course, that there is a short-term problem following an increase in the prison population that nobody saw coming, including the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues. We are dealing with that problem by seeking to recruit prison officers who have recently left the service. That is the responsible thing to do, and we will carry on doing the responsible thing.

[Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)]

Can the Minister tell us how many people are currently at large, having escaped or absconded from our prisons, and how many are currently sunbathing on the roofs of our prisons? On that point, will he give us an assurance that the next time prisoners escape on to the roofs, prison officers will not hand out sun lotion as they did last week?

[Jeremy Wright]

I will deal with my hon. Friend’s second point first. The answer is yes; that will not happen again. We have looked very carefully at that incident to ensure that there are no so-called health and safety policies that encourage such behaviour. As he knows, I made my views about it quite clear last week. On his first point, every incident of absconding is troubling and we need to crack down on it. That is why we are increasing the penalties for those who abscond and ensuring that only the right people find themselves in open conditions in the first place. He might be reassured to know that the level of absconding is 80% lower than it was under the previous Labour Government.

Criminal Justice and Courts Bill

Philip Davies Excerpts

Tuesday 17th June 2014 Commons Chamber

[Nick de Bois]

In fairness, the strongest representations have come from our coalition partners, as my right hon. Friend may be aware. However, I have also met representatives of many organisations and groups who have quite simply emerged from the street; they have either lived near, been involved in or had their lives touched by knife crime. My right hon. Friend might be interested in what I have to say about that later.

[Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)]

On the point made by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Harborough (Sir Edward Garnier), I should say that I did do some analysis of court sentences in city centres and more provincial courts. For offences such as this, sentences are likely to be much tougher in provincial courts than in city centre courts. Does my hon. Friend agree that that is probably because the offences are much less likely to come up in provincial courts and are therefore more shocking, and because judges in city centres become immune to the importance of the offences because they happen so often?

--- Later in debate ---

It is perhaps surprising that, as a criminal defence solicitor, I am advocating this measure, because it goes against the interests of many of my previous clients, and that I am advocating wholeheartedly toughening up the way we deal with knife crime. It has been recognised that dealing with knife crime is not just about sentencing. In fact, when an offender gets to court, it is probably already too late. We need to recognise the importance of early intervention, which is key. We need to provide appropriate boundaries and positive role models to raise the aspirations of young people beyond the need to carry a knife and to the need for training, qualifications and a job. In many ways, all that goes without saying. We are, across the House, all wholeheartedly supportive of that. Reference has been made to important Home Affairs Committee inquiries over the years on the need for those other measures, but we are here today to deal with sentencing.

[Philip Davies]

My hon. Friend refers to being a defence barrister. I am sure he was very distinguished. Reference was made earlier to prison being seen as the soft option, and that community sentences are much tougher. When he was a defence barrister or solicitor representing his clients, how many times did he ask for his clients to be sent to prison because it was considered to be the softer option and he wanted to avoid a community sentence at all costs?

[Mr Burrowes]

I can actually think of occasions when I looked at a magistrate and knew my client was inevitably going to get a custodial sentence, and I had to try to convince him of an alternative. One client would not come out of his cell and spent his time doing headstands. He could take any sentence doing it on his head. There were the odd occasions when one had to be counter-intuitive, particularly with magistrates, but my hon. Friend makes an important point.

The reality that I saw as a defence solicitor—not as a barrister, I have to say—was that all too often there were occasions when prison was avoided. A good plea of mitigation from an advocate—that the young person had the knife for his own protection, or was led up the wrong path by other people and so on—has led to individuals avoiding custodial sentences. Some may say that that should come within the exceptional circumstances category and that there is full discretion for magistrates. The new clause will make it resoundingly clear that there is a minimum mandatory sentence, and that it should only be in exceptional circumstances—coercion and other serious cases that do arise, but which are an exception—that magistrates can quite properly use their discretion. The new clause would ensure that it was very clear to victims, the public and offenders themselves that those who carry knives will go to prison. That has applied for some years to repeat drug offenders, repeat domestic burglars and repeat firearm carriers, and I understand that it is having an effect in relation to firearms offences in particular.

--- Later in debate ---

[Stuart Andrew (Pudsey) (Con)]

I confess that I had intended to make only a short intervention today. However, having listened to the debate, I feel that it is better to make a longer contribution—although it will still be short, if that makes sense.

I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield North (Nick de Bois) for the work that he has done. I fully back the new clauses that he has tabled.

During the general election campaign, I was contacted by a constituent, a lady called Lorraine Fraser, with whom I have worked over the past four years. Her story is really quite harrowing. She had a 16-year-old son called Tyrone. One day, she was alerted to a problem outside the house. Sadly, she discovered that her son was being attacked by a gang of 30 youths. One of them was carrying a knife and stabbed him fatally. At the age of 16, he lost his life. In Lorraine’s own words, Tyrone was not always the best of boys, but he was always a considerate young man. It is really sad that he lost his life on that tragic day.

What has struck me is that, in the face of such a horrific experience, Tyrone’s mother has gone on to campaign tirelessly to do something about knife crime so that there is not another case like Tyrone’s somewhere else in the country. One thing that she has always asked of me and of Parliament is that we get a bit tougher in our rhetoric and our work on knife crime. I believe that new clause 6 is badly needed. I have seen some of Lorraine’s campaigning work, and I have been with her in schools when she talks to young people, telling them about the dangers of carrying a knife. Sometimes the answers she gets back from those young people are shocking.

I stand here today not in support of a newspaper or as a knee-jerk reaction, but because some of those young people will say that they want to carry a knife to defend themselves, and they know there will be no consequence of that because too often people get away with it. Lorraine is constantly battling the system, and I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Minister who has worked tirelessly with her. She is extremely grateful for the support he has given.

It was recently 10 years since Tyrone was killed, and Lorraine held a service in a church in the centre of Leeds. People from across the city—certain areas in particular—came along to remember members of their families who have lost their lives. To sit in that church and listen to people talk about their fathers, sons, brothers and nephews was a difficult experience. One young boy spoke about his father. He did not really know him because he had been murdered thanks to gang crime. The boy pleaded with the Government to do something. He said that people in their community were doing their bit to try to get across the message about the dangers of carrying a knife, working with young people and engaging with them in the schools, but he wanted the Government to do something about knife crime. I am grateful that my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield North is providing us with an opportunity to do that.

Even today on the news I saw a former gang member saying that for too long the Government have been too soft on this issue, and we need to come up with some serious consequences to stop the temptation to carry knives. I do not believe that people do not listen to the messages that come from this place; I think they get the message that the consequences are too soft, and we must send a much clearer message. Carrying a knife can totally destroy not only the life of the person who carries it, but the life of a young person such as Tyrone, and the lives of family members, as I have seen with Lorraine. For her sake, and for the sake of others around the country, I will be supporting the new clause.

[Philip Davies]

I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield North (Nick de Bois) and commend him on his new clause, which I will be supporting enthusiastically.

I will concentrate my remarks on the three new clauses that I have tabled in this group, and I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Bury North (Mr Nuttall) for adding his name to them. I was disappointed that the shadow Minister, who usually has plenty to say about lots of things, had nothing to say about any of my new clauses. The Labour party having nothing to say on the economy appears to have transferred to justice, as they have nothing to say on these matters either.

[Mr Slaughter]

rose—

[Philip Davies]

I will give way to the hon. Gentleman if he now has something to say.

[Mr Slaughter]

It was not that I forgot; it is simply that I did not think the new clauses were worth commenting on.

[Philip Davies]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that. We have commented on whether people take notice of what Members say, but when I come to discuss the three new clauses, I think he may regret that he thought they were not worthy of any debate. Lots of people up and down the country, such as victims’ groups and owners of commercial properties, will be very interested to know that.

[Mr Slaughter]

rose—

[Philip Davies]

It is no good the hon. Gentleman coming back; he does not care about any of these issues, and lots of people will be grateful to him for letting that cat out of the bag.

Before I come to the three new clauses, in fairness I should also refer to the Minister. On new clause 34 he trotted out the normal sort of Sir Humphrey guff about how it is an important area and we will keep it under review and all that kind of jazz, but I am not entirely sure—I shall have to look through the Sir Humphrey handbook later to find a translation. It may be that the Minister agrees with what I am saying but cannot be seen to be agreeing with that troublemaker Davies on the Back Benches, or perhaps he does not agree, but knows it is popular and does not want to be seen to disagree. Whichever way it is, we deserve a bit more clarity. He says that he will start to look at the issue: he is the Minister, for goodness’ sake. What has he been doing? He should be looking at these things. I know that he must spend a lot of time arranging for murderers and other dangerous criminals to walk out of our prisons, but in the time that he is not doing that perhaps he might want to look at some of the issues that I am talking about.

I am grateful for the support of my hon. Friend’s predecessor, my hon. Friend the Member for Reigate (Crispin Blunt), on these matters. If the current Minister wants to go even more left wing than his predecessor, we are in big trouble on this side of the House on criminal justice matters.

New clause 34, to which the Minister gave his Sir Humphrey blurb, is actually about squatting. This activity was criminalised in residential buildings in the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012—it was one of the rare triumphs of that Act—and my new clause would extend the criminalisation from residential buildings to non-residential buildings and land. I was delighted to support the criminalisation of squatting, but because it applies only to residential properties, the problem has simply moved on to commercial property, by which I mean any property that is non-residential, including pubs, shops, restaurants and even schools—although the shadow Minister thinks that that is not important.

The now established principle that it is a criminal act to break into someone’s property and take it over without permission should apply whatever the property. It should make no difference whether it is a flat or a community centre. No one should have the right to enter someone else’s property without permission and stay there until evicted. At the time of the criminalisation of squatting in residential property, my hon. Friend the Member for Reigate said:

“For too long squatters have had the justice system on the run and have caused homeowners untold misery in eviction, repair and clean-up costs. Not any more. Hard working homeowners need and deserve a justice system where their rights come first— this new offence will ensure the police and other agencies can take quick and decisive action to deal with the misery of squatting.”

I believe that should apply to everyone, not just home owners.

Squatters are using the fact that the law does not apply to commercial premises to take over pubs, for example. The door may have been slammed shut for squatters in residential properties, but it is wide open for non-residential premises and land. One example was the Duchy Arms in Kennington. Squatters realised that it had not been trading for a while and swooped in. They took over last summer and that small, friendly local pub was turned into the London Queer Social Centre overnight. It was overrun by those who cared nothing for what they damaged or how much upset and inconvenience they caused to others. They locked all the doors and put a sign on the front, delighting in the fact that the new law did not apply to them or the pub. It also said that if anyone entered the pub without their permission, they would be the ones guilty of a criminal offence. You really could not make it up. As they had not committed the offence of squatting in a residential building, they were not arrested by the police immediately and the pub was occupied for some time by people who had no regard for anyone or anything around them. When they were eventually evicted, the police had to go in and the premises were guarded for months by dogs to ensure there was no invasion by squatters. The clean-up costs for the owners will have been considerable and could have been avoided had the police been able to arrest the squatters on day one.

Another example that has come to my attention involves an office building owned by Kewal Investments Ltd. Having forced their way into the property, the squatters initially invited the director to agree to them staying there, saying that they would provide free security. The squatters were there from before Christmas until their eventual eviction, with bailiffs and police in attendance, months later. During their occupation, the squatters sought to try to gain entry to adjacent buildings owned by the same firm and the business had to spend money to protect its other properties as well as to seek an order of eviction through the courts.

When the business owners eventually gained entry, the property was in a state with waste everywhere. The squatters had used the back window as a rubbish chute and toilet, left graffiti all over the walls, put paint in a fire extinguisher and blocked the toilet. Those entering could barely get into the basement because of the smell. The director, who often used to give money to the homeless, has now been totally put off the idea. He feels let down by the system and has incurred substantial costs to gain access to his own building. On top of the considerable legal costs, he faces the cost and waste of time of simply restoring the building to its original state and ensuring that the squatters do not take it over again. I would have hoped that the Government—a party that should believe in people who own property—would want to do something about this instead of the Sir Humphrey words of the Minister. I suppose that that is better than the shadow Minister saying that he does not even care about the issue at all.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jeremy Wright]

I do not doubt for a moment the sincerity of the hon. Gentleman’s objectives. He may well have a very good point on the deficiencies in joint enterprise law. But the point I was trying to make to him earlier—perhaps in too Sir Humphrey-ish a way—was that what he would actually achieve with new clause 35 is almost the direct opposite of what he wants. The problem he will face, if this were to become the law, is that people who can be prosecuted now under the Act will not be able to be prosecuted because he is replacing a requirement that someone knew what was going on but did not need to be there with a requirement that they were there at the time. That is the problem.

[Philip Davies]

If the Minister had listened when I explained the case of Donald Banfield, he would know that it was pretty obvious that the mother and daughter were there. Everybody accepts that, yet those women are still walking free, and it seems that the Minister is not prepared to do anything about it.

Finally, new clause 36 would decriminalise insulting words and behaviour. Courtesy of the Crime and Courts Act 2013, section 5 of the Public Order Act 1986 was amended to remove the word “insulting”. As of 1 February this year, it has not been an offence to use insulting words or behaviour contained within a section 5 charge. The law change did not, however, affect sections 4 and 4A of the same Act. I was delighted that the word “insulting” was removed from section 5 of the 1986 Act, but I think it must follow that it should be removed from all sections of it. If we are to be consistent, why not? Section 4A is very similar to section 5, and I would like to see all references to “insulting” removed from the legislation. I have focused on this particular issue for the purpose of today’s debate on the amendments. The word “offensive” would remain; only the word “insulting” would be removed. As the Minister said, section 4 needs to be coupled with the threat of violence, whereas someone can be found guilty of an offence by intentionally insulting someone under section 4A and could be sent to prison for six months.

I am not alone in wanting this change. The Joint Committee on Human Rights said in its report of October 2011:

“We also support the amendment of the Public Order Act to remove all reference to offences based on insulting words and behaviour. This would enhance human rights and remove the possible incompatibility with the right to freedom of expression.”

Peter Tatchell—an unlikely ally of mine, Madam Deputy Speaker—said:

“Section 4A of the Public Order Act is sufficient to convey all the exceptional circumstances requiring prosecution (although its criminalisation of mere insults should also be repealed for the afore-mentioned reasons).”

I believe that it is totally unacceptable in a supposedly free country with alleged free speech that we should have any reference to the term “insulting” in the laws of our land. I think most people are fed up with political correctness, so abolishing any further criminalisation of insults would be a great step to restoring faith in this place, showing that Britain is a country where free speech is cherished. A ComRes poll showed that 62% of people did not believe that the state should ever criminalise insults—a viewpoint supported by Liberty and the National Secular Society.

I think these are important matters, but I do not intend to press the new clauses to a vote. I am appalled and depressed, however, that the shadow Minister thinks all of these issues that affect people’s lives are not even worthy of consideration. He should be ashamed of himself; I look forward to his apology at some future point.

[James Morris]

I rise to support new clauses 6 and 7, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield North (Nick de Bois). I would like to pay tribute to the great work that he, together with my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, Southgate (Mr Burrowes), has done on this issue—one that is not entirely confined to London.

An incident took place in my constituency when Christina Edkins was killed on her way to school on the number 9 bus travelling from Birmingham to Halesowen. Her death was a devastating blow to the community in Halesowen. I had the privilege of meeting her parents and her uncle to console them and to try to understand the devastating consequences of this incident on their lives. That led me to ask the Prime Minister in Prime Minister’s Question Time whether the Government would consider mandatory sentences for knife possession. Having discussed these matters with my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield North and others, I am pleased that appropriate measures to introduce this mandatory sentence, which I think is absolutely necessary to tackle this issue, have been tabled for today’s debate. I owe it to the family and friends of Christina Edkins to support them.

I believe that the new clause also sends a signal that is important for deterrence. It is not a straightforward issue, but I think the community listens to the signals sent from this place. Shortly after this incident in my constituency, I took part in a knife crime debate in Birmingham. I was on a panel with the police and others concerned about the spread of knife crime in and around the Birmingham area. I spoke to various members of the West Midlands police and they were absolutely convinced of the need for a mandatory sentence. From their work with the community in trying to identify individuals and communities at risk from knives, they were clear about the need for legislation to send the very important signal that carrying a knife has consequences and that that those consequences mean that people should not be carrying knives. The police were very clear on that. It is very important to send a clear signal that we do not tolerate the spread of knives under any circumstances.

On the argument that someone carries a knife for self-protection, I would ask whether the same argument would apply to carrying a gun. The distinction between carrying a gun and the intention to use it does not stand up, and we should take the same attitude towards carrying knives. I agree that this is not the only way to continue the effort to clamp down on knife crime. There is a lot of work to do to educate young people that carrying weapons is simply not acceptable and will have consequences, and that there are other things to do with one’s life instead of ending up getting involved in street violence as if it is some kind of status symbol. I hope the House will vote for the mandatory sentence, but I do not think it is a panacea. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield North that they are both sides of the same coin. We must tackle the issue on both levels.

Prison Overcrowding

Philip Davies Excerpts

Monday 16th June 2014 Commons Chamber

[Chris Grayling]

My Department and the Department of Health have jointly launched an integrated drug rehabilitation service in north-west England, which will ensure that rehab continues beyond the prison gate and is afterwards delivered by the same people. I am very much of the view that we have to tackle drug addiction, but we have to make the best use of the time in which we have people in custody, so that we ensure that they do not come back because of their addiction, that we get them off drugs, and that they do not reoffend.

[Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)]

I do not lie awake at night worrying about prisoners being in overcrowded conditions; if they did not want to be in overcrowded conditions, they should not have committed the crimes that got them sent to prison. Will the Secretary of State do more to encourage the Chancellor to find more money for prison building? If he is looking for suggestions as to where the money could be found, perhaps it could come from the £20 billion a year we give to the EU in membership fees, or from the overseas aid budget. When it comes to tackling any prison overcrowding issue, will he pledge not to do what the last Labour Government did in letting out prisoners before the end of their sentence?

[Chris Grayling]

This is what baffles me about the Opposition’s questions and challenges over this issue, because I am precisely not letting out people who should be in prison. I am simply taking sensible precautions to bring on additional capacity. I have to say that if prisoners have to share a cell, I do not regard it as a great problem. I think that the courts should be able to send people to prison if they want to, as does my hon. Friend.