Prisons and Courts Bill

Debate between Bob Stewart and Philip Davies

2nd reading: House of Commons
Monday 20th March 2017 Commons Chamber

[Philip Davies]

I do not have time to give way to my hon. Friend again.

The Bill contains provisions to toughen up the current position on the use of mobile phones. I am sick to death of seeing pictures of smiling criminals from within prison cells, surrounded by all kinds of creature comforts and ill-gotten gains courtesy of the use of mobile phones in prison. More concerning is the use of phones to intimidate or threaten victims, or to ensure the continuation of crimes, so I welcome the steps the Government are taking to deal with that scourge.

I have some concerns about extending the use of video links in certain cases, and I am certainly not comfortable with people using video equipment in all kinds of venues that are not courts. I shall listen to the points made by those promoting such technology, but sometimes, in the interests of justice, saving a few pennies should not be the overriding factor. We need to be very careful that, in trying to protect victims, we do not affect the scales of justice and end up with a situation where it is difficult for defendants to have a fair trial. Having a fair trial should be paramount, just as it is essential to deal appropriately with those found guilty. I am not overly keen on the sound of the online conviction process, so I will be listening with interest to the types of offences it might cover. The Magistrates Association also has concerns about this, and I hope they are considered carefully.

I am concerned about the abolition of the local justice areas, which organise magistrates and their work within geographical locations. I understand that some work can be done in different areas, but there is something to be said for the argument that justice should be dispensed locally. I hope we do not end up with a situation whereby all kinds of cases are being heard randomly all over the country for no good reason.

I have a bit of concern about judicial appointments and the drive for diversity. Surely we should just be interested in recruiting the best people. It should be irrelevant whether they are men or women, black or white, Christian or Muslim, gay or straight. Who cares about any of those things? We want the best person for the job, irrespective of their gender or race. Surely that is what equality means in this day and age—not just giving somebody a job out of tokenism because they happen to tick a particular quota box. Let us stick to appointing people on merit alone, and ignore every other irrelevant factor about them.

In my brief contribution, I want to focus on what is missing from the Bill, which is more important than what is in it. I would like the whole sentence given by the courts to be served. People should certainly should not be automatically released halfway through their prison sentence, as is the case at the moment. That was a scandal when it was introduced. The Conservative party was apoplectic when the last Labour Government introduced it, but we now seem to think that it is wonderful to release people automatically halfway through their sentence, irrespective of how badly they behave in prison. I will certainly table an amendment at a later stage in the passage of the Bill to ensure that any prisoner who assaults a prison officer cannot be released automatically halfway through their prison sentence. We must have some proper punishments for assaulting prison officers. The least that prison officers deserve is that kind of support.

One reason for the breakdown of order in prisons is that prisoners know that no matter how badly they behave, they will be released halfway through their sentence. All that is given for assaults on prison officers is extra days. As I indicated in my intervention on the hon. Member for Halifax (Holly Lynch), who has done a great job and should be commended greatly for all her work on defending prison officers and police officers, the average number of extra days given to a prisoner for assaulting a prison officer was 20 days in 2010 and 16 days last year. That is completely and utterly unacceptable. I am sure that the Prison Officers Association would welcome the Government saying that if a prisoner assaults a prison officer, their opportunity for automatic early release halfway through their sentence will end, and that their position will be judged on whether they are safe to be released out into the public.

[Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)]

I presume that the sentences should, at the very least, be the equivalent of the sentence for someone who does that outside prison.

[Philip Davies]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for what I consider to be his support for my amendment. I only need the support of the Opposition and about eight more on our side and we should be in business. I will put my hon. Friend’s name down as a likely supporter.

The Library briefing paper confirms:

“There were 6,430 assaults on prison staff, 761 of which were serious. This was an 82% rise on the number of assaults on prison staff in 2006 and was a 40% increase from 2015.”

Prison officers have a very hard and, at times, dangerous job. I am sick of hearing about the pathetic additions to sentences for prisoners who assault them. I hope the Government will deal with that in the remaining stages of the Bill.

I would also like to see an amendment to limit the use of fixed-term recalls. When prisoners are released early, they do not even go back to serve the remainder of their sentence when they are convicted of a further crime. They just go back into prison for 28 days, for what I would consider a mini-break. They can usually keep an eye on their criminal activities knowing that they will be back in prison for only 28 days. I hope the Government will deal with that.

I would recommend giving consideration to making judges accountable for their decisions, particularly when they do not hand down custodial sentences that are perfectly justifiable and possibly even expected, and particularly when the offender goes on to reoffend. I do not need to say now what the consequences of collecting such information should be, but it should be clear to many that where a judge consistently allows offenders to avoid prison, and those offenders go on to make others suffer as a result of their continuing crime spree, there should be accountability and consequences for that judge.

I would like to table an amendment to allow magistrates to sentence people to prison for up to 12 months for one offence, instead of the current six-month limit. We already have the law in place to do that, and it just needs a commencement date. That is something the Government have been promising for years, but they still have not got round to doing anything about it. When the Minister winds up, perhaps he can tell us when he intends to activate this part of Government policy.

I would like to recommend increasing the age limit for magistrates and judges to 75, and I will table an amendment to that effect. As of 1 December 2016, the Government increased the age limit for jurors to 75, and I cannot really see any difference between being a juror and determining someone’s guilt or innocence in a serious criminal trial, and, for example, sitting as a member of a bench of magistrates. Surely, the same rationale applies to both.

I am not a fan of release on temporary licence, unlike my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Dorset and North Poole. If prisoners serve only half their sentence, the least they can do is actually serve that half in prison, rather than being released in advance of the half for which they are automatically released. It is ludicrous to count time out of prison as time in prison, and I am considering tabling amendments to cover some instances of release on temporary licence.

Awards for Valour (Protection) Bill

Debate between Bob Stewart and Philip Davies

Friday 25th November 2016 Commons Chamber

[Philip Davies]

I have no doubt of that, but this is a Second Reading debate. There is no reason why we should not discuss the definition at length on Second Reading as well as in Committee, which is what I am doing.

The Defence Committee states in its report:

“A number of our witnesses emphasised the importance of ensuring that relatives of deceased or incapacitated medal recipients can continue to wear their relations’ medals at commemoration events without risk of prosecution.”

[Bob Stewart]

May we be absolutely precise about this so that there is no lack of clarity? Everyone who is given the Elizabeth Cross, which is awarded to widows and close family members who have lost someone, is entitled to wear it wherever they like on their body.

[Philip Davies]

My hon. Friend, who is an expert in these matters, is absolutely right, but we are talking about all the medals covered by the Bill and the definition of a family member. As far as I can see, we do not have such a definition. People who think they are entitled to wear the medals should be told whether they can wear them or whether they would be breaking the law if they did. As things currently stand, people do not have such certainty. We could have the rather ridiculous situation in which someone who should be able to wear a medal does not because of the chilling effect of not being sure about whether they would be breaking the law. Again, that would surely be a terrible unintended consequence of the Bill.

Crucially, the Defence Committee report goes on:

“The term ‘family member’ must however be defined in terms of the proximity of the relations that it is seeking to include in the defence. It is not a legal term of art with a single definition. Acts of Parliament which use the term commonly carry a definition of ‘family’ within them to be used for the purposes of that Act. Mr Johnson suggested in oral evidence that he was minded that this defence should be quite narrow, so that for example a nephew deceitfully wearing medals could not rely on the defence by claiming that they were his uncle’s awards.”

Do we really want to criminalise a nephew who wears his uncle’s medals? Do we want to send him to prison? Clearly, the promoter of the Bill thinks we should. I contend that we should not.

The Defence Committee report goes on to say:

“The inclusion of a defence to ensure that family members representing deceased or incapacitated relations who are recipients of medals is vital, but ‘family member’ must be properly defined to ensure that there is no room for uncertainty or abuse. We suggest that the Bill include a definition of ‘family member’ in order to provide certainty over who will be covered by this category.”

The exemptions cover the reconstruction of historical events and productions. Does that exempt people in fancy dress? If my hon. Friend the Member for Dartford would make the point that they do not intend to deceive, why are there specific exemptions for reconstructions and productions, as there is clearly no intent to deceive in those cases, but no exemption for people in fancy dress?

In one unfortunate scenario, someone could start off wearing a medal legitimately, but it could turn into an offence by accident. Imagine that an actor goes to the pub for a drink after whatever it is they are acting in and someone mistakenly assumes that they are entitled to wear the medal they forgot to remove when they came off set. Unless the actor corrected them—perhaps the more drinks the actor had consumed, the less likely that would be—they would be committing a criminal offence. Although they had not intended to deceive anyone when they went to work that day, the intent to deceive could come later, almost by accident.

I said that I would come back to sentencing. The Bill says:

“Any person guilty of an offence under this section shall be liable, on summary conviction, to a period of imprisonment not exceeding 3 months, or a fine.”

The Defence Committee report states:

“Mr Johnson indicated that he considered that the appropriate maximum penalty was six months imprisonment or a fine of up to £5,000 at level 5 on the standard scale. The rationale behind drafting the penalty in this way was to address three concerns:

First, the potential for a custodial sentence would ensure that there is no need for a separate power of arrest in the Bill. We note here that, since the removal of the concept of an ‘arrestable offence’ by the Serious Organised Crime and Police Act 2005, the need for a separate power of arrest would be unnecessary in any event;

Second, that a level 5 fine on the standard scale would be at a maximum of £5,000. We note here that this upper limit was removed in 2012. Magistrates now have power to issue a fine of any amount for offences where £5,000 was previously the maximum; and,

Third, that this formulation would ensure that it could be dealt with only in a Magistrates Court. A certain way of doing this would be to have this explicitly stated in the Bill—“This offence is triable only summarily”…

The appropriate level of penalty has clearly been considered in some detail by the Bill sponsor. We are broadly satisfied that the boundaries of penalties proposed—a period of imprisonment not exceeding six months or a fine—are appropriate.”

The length of imprisonment has been changed from six months to three months, but it is still too long in my opinion.

I am not sure what sentencing guidelines my hon. Friend the Member for Dartford envisages for the offence. Would the type of medal being worn—or not worn, as the case may be—be a factor? Would the type of incident be a factor: the more people deceived, the more severe the offence? Would it depend on the duration of the deception or the place? Would it be worse at a Remembrance Day parade? All those factors need to be considered when we pass legislation in this House, and none of them appear to have been considered for the purposes of the Bill.

I do not think that this offence should be created in the first place, but if it were, would not the confiscation of the medal be sufficient? I cannot support the criminalisation and imprisonment of Walter Mitty types. We have plenty of eccentrics in this country and some, I dare say, in this House. To criminalise someone for this type of behaviour would be very concerning indeed.

I should say, in passing, that all of us in this House know about the Liberal Democrats claiming credit erroneously for other people’s work. Are we really going to get to the point where we send them to prison for doing so?

National Minimum Wage (Workplace Internships) Bill

Debate between Bob Stewart and Philip Davies

Friday 4th November 2016 Commons Chamber

[Philip Davies]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend, but in making that helpful clarification he highlights one of the flaws in his Bill, because it does not make the exception that he has offered up with regard to who should be exempted from the terms of paid work experience. If he is saying that he wishes at a later date to add to his Bill another list of people who should not be part of it, then I welcome that. It is also the case that the Department of Work and Pensions introduced work experience as part of the youth contract, and that was probably one of the most popular parts of it.

I took on board my hon. Friend’s point—he made it very well—about some employers who might use internships for a purpose that some of us would not. I was struck by his example of Vivienne Westwood. However, we would be in danger of throwing the baby out with the bathwater if we went down the route in this Bill.

[Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)]

Clearly, an employer who wishes to pay an intern could and should do so, if they have the money, but if they have to pay for internships, that comes off the bottom line and is a cost to the business, so undoubtedly there will then be fewer internships.

[Philip Davies]

That is absolutely right. This is the flaw in my hon. Friend the Member for Elmet and Rothwell’s logic. He says that he wants to even up the playing field to make sure that poorer people get the same opportunities that richer people get and take for granted. That is a laudable aim, and nobody disagrees with it. My fear is that he will succeed in evening up the playing field, but by making sure that nobody gets the chance to do work experience and internships. That is not my idea of success.

--- Later in debate ---

[Philip Davies]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend. He is being typically constructive, which goes to show that his dedication is not to a piece of legislation but to getting the best possible outcome for the people he wants to help. We all recognise his passion for this, and I am happy to work with him to help deliver it.

Let us take someone who wants to work in the fashion industry or the music industry, for example. The fashion industry was mentioned earlier, so let us say the music industry. It may be that doing a degree would not help them get a foot on the ladder in the music industry; it may or may not—I do not know the industry particularly well. It may well be, however, that spending six months at a record label in London after leaving school would represent a massive head start in getting a career in the industry. It would be good if the Government offered some kind of loan to enable someone to get that opportunity. They could then pay it back when they got a decent job in the industry. That would be a way to extend opportunities to more people, whereas the Bill would restrict opportunities.

[Bob Stewart]

That is a tremendous idea, to which I am hugely attracted. Small and medium-sized enterprises might also be hugely attracted to using such people in their companies.

[Philip Davies]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend. It is a red-letter day when my hon. Friend supports me.

[Bob Stewart]

Red rose.

[Philip Davies]

Certainly not a red rose. A red letter is far better than a red rose any day of the week.

As for Members of Parliament, an FOI request of IPSA asked about the number of interns and paid interns working for MPs over the past three years. It seems that about one in four MPs took on a paid intern, but I am pretty sure that virtually every MP takes on people to do work experience of some sort or another and that everybody who does so gets something out of it. Given the number of people we take on to give that opportunity to them, if we had to pay them all the minimum wage, that would take up a sizeable part of our budget. It would mean either that we could not afford to take them on or that we would have to give our existing staff a pay cut. Neither of those would be a palatable option, but they would be the only options available to us.

Strangely, the Bill does not seem to recognise that people have short-term and long-term internships. My hon. Friend the Member for Elmet and Rothwell mentioned that issue, so I will not go into it further as he would wish to look at it. I have spent longer than I expected speaking to the Bill—[Interruption]—because of the number of interventions I have taken. In concluding, I just wish to mention a couple of people who have spent time with me. Before I go into that, I should just say that the Bill will mean we will probably end up with more people on zero-hours contracts. I know that quite a lot of Labour MPs employ people on those contracts, even though they are against them politically. [Interruption.] Does that mean zero-hours contracts are a good thing?

Access to Medical Treatments (Innovation) Bill

Debate between Bob Stewart and Philip Davies

Friday 16th October 2015 Commons Chamber

[Philip Davies]

My hon. Friend has made a very fair point.

I now want to say something about the medical innovation database provision, which is one of the main differences between the Medical Innovation Bill and the Bill that we are discussing. Clause 2 provides for the Secretary of State to make regulations enabling the Health and Social Care Information Centre to establish a database containing information about innovative medical treatments and their outcomes. As a layman, I consider that to be a significant and fundamental part of the Bill. A central database recording all innovative treatments strikes me as a useful tool from which doctors can learn when tailoring medical treatments for their patients. Again, I speak as a layman, but I think that the creation of a system to enable that knowledge to be shared is a logical step towards medical innovation.

Having said that, I should add that the proposal is not without its worrying aspects. I wanted to raise them earlier, but the interventions from my hon. Friend the Member for Totnes delayed me. One of the main criticisms of clause 2 comes from the Royal College of Surgeons of Edinburgh, which states:

“The proposed database could only be effective if it is compulsory, regulated, has robust quality assurance and be journal-led, ethically framed and rigorously peer reviewed. It will also require an honest culture in which participants are just as likely to register failures as successes”.

The clause provides for the Health and Social Care Information Centre to specify what information should be recorded and how it should be assessed. More experienced people than me will be able to note what standards and specifics need to be recorded to make the database useful and usable. It is certainly not for me to make any suggestions. The database will also be designed in consultation with professional bodies and organisations.

The clause contains the important provision that the database will cover all individual patient innovations, not only those in respect of which doctors have chosen to rely on the steps in the Bill to demonstrate that they have acted responsibly. It is a significant inclusion, as it means that the database will include and cover all treatments and their outcomes—both positive and negative —that take place in England. That is my understanding of the clause, but if my hon. Friend the Member for Daventry wants to correct any misunderstandings, he is welcome to do so. Therefore, this national database not only spreads the knowledge of successful innovations, but also has the benefit of ensuring that innovative treatments that do not work, or perhaps have harmed patients, are not repeated by other clinicians. That should go some way towards reassuring those with concerns. It will also, therefore, create a standard practice that all innovative medical treatment should be recorded in this database, which can be a useful tool for other doctors to draw information from when they are doing their own innovation.

[Bob Stewart]

I came here to listen to my very good friend my hon. Friend the Member for Daventry (Chris Heaton-Harris) and to listen carefully to the debate. It seems to me that if Lord Saatchi’s Bill went into the sand and if this Bill does not make it into Committee and disappears, the one good thing that will come out of it is that the whole subject will be illuminated, and perhaps something good will come out of that. Therefore, the efforts of Lord Saatchi and my good friend the Member for Daventry will not be in vain. I hope very much that the medical authorities will look at this and think of it in that light.

--- Later in debate ---

[Philip Davies]

I take on board my hon. Friend’s point. It seems to me that he was subtly saying he had come to listen to the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Daventry rather than mine. I had hoped he had come to listen to my speech, but I am clearly mistaken.

[Bob Stewart]

I must intervene. I always come to listen to my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Philip Davies). I listen to him outside this hallowed hall and also inside it, and he is always well worth listening to.

[Philip Davies]

My hon. Friend is very kind, although it would have been rather better if he had not had to be prompted to say that. Nevertheless, I will take those comments in the spirit in which I know my good friend intended.

--- Later in debate ---

[Philip Davies]

That may well be that body’s conclusion as it stands, but my point is, as I have tried to make clear, that given that it can see there are potential benefits to the Bill, which I have expressed, in dealing with poor practice in the private sector, there is an argument for getting it into Committee to see whether we can make it a Bill that it wholeheartedly supports. That may or may not be possible, but it is certainly worth having a go, given that it has said clearly that the Bill has potential benefits.

Some medical organisations and groups have expressed their concern that the Bill will have an impact on the use of research clinical trials, but that should not be a sufficient reason to stop doctors using innovative treatments on an individual level. This should not be about one or the other—as I said, we should try to do both.

I was contacted, as I am sure many other Members were, by a concerned mother who is desperate for this Bill to pass so that it can benefit her young daughter, who suffers from a rare condition. As has been pointed out, the difficulty with rare diseases and conditions is that because they are so specific, research and clinical trials are not only costly, but very time-consuming. Many people suffering from these diseases do not have this time in finding a cure. The mother who contacted me explains that her daughter, Grace, is already awaiting the commencement of two clinical trials that may, in the long run, be able to help to treat her condition. Although she is appreciative of these movements, the mother explains that if, after the six-month or 12-month clinical trial, the drug is proven to be effective, her daughter will still not be able to have access to it for several years because of the lengthy approval system used by the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. We should not forget that in a hurry. Although I do not doubt that the trial times and approval systems that new treatment methods must go through to be considered standard medical care are necessary in order to make sure they are safe, they are far too long for many people, given their particular illness.

[Bob Stewart]

Too late.

[Philip Davies]

Absolutely, this is too late for them. Therefore, patients may be willing to use innovative treatments, or even treatments that may be used elsewhere in the world but have not been approved in the UK, because in many cases they have nothing to lose. If that is the case, doctors should be allowed, and encouraged in many respects, to make informed choices on behalf of their patients.

During my research, I contacted NICE to ask for its opinion on the Bill, but it did not really have much of one. It responded by saying:

“NICE’S Chief Executive has met with Chris Heaton-Harris to discuss the Bill and will respond constructively to any further approaches for advice and comment”.

That was NICE’s comment on the Bill, so I am not sure whether NICE supports it or opposes it—I could not get anything further out of NICE. I hope it means that NICE will be happy to work with my hon. Friend the Member for Daventry to try to make the Bill a success, although it does not say that.

Why is this Bill necessary? As we have heard, one main criticism of the Bill has been that it is unnecessary: the status quo does not currently prevent or discourage doctors from innovating, and therefore this change will not encourage further responsible innovation. The Royal College of Surgeons of Edinburgh stated:

“As existing Clinical trial regulations provide a safe and patient centred framework for innovation, there is no evidence that doctors are being deterred from testing new drugs and treatments. None of the medical Royal Colleges, patient groups or research charities have evidence that litigation, or the fear of litigation, is preventing new treatments or hampering doctors from innovating. The overwhelming experiences of our members and fellows leads us to believe that an additional, parallel structure for innovation is unnecessary”.

I hope my hon. Friend the Member for Totnes is happy with my quoting from that passage and does not claim that it is a selective quote. I am trying to be even-handed in respect of the points that people are making.

That point made by the RCSEd is echoed by other medical groups, and these points are clearly valid, but my hon. Friend, too, should be even-handed in accepting that for every organisation suggesting there is no need for these changes, probably just as many organisations and doctors support the Bill. Let us take just one. Dr Max Pemberton was reported in The Daily Telegraph in 2012 as supporting the Medical Innovation Bill and writing:

“It is a tragic indictment of modern medicine that innovation is too often jettisoned in favour of the status quo—not because it is in the patient’s best interest, but because of the fear of being sued. This defensive medicine is at the heart of so much clinical practice now.”

Furthermore, in its consultation response to the Medical Innovation Bill, the NHS Health Research Authority stated:

“We recognise that the fear of litigation may influence behaviours of clinicians”.

That shows not that every doctor who does not use innovative methods takes that approach because of a fear of litigation, but instead that it may be a possible cause for some doctors. I am not advocating that every doctor in the NHS is concerned about the fear of litigation, because to do so would be absurd, but although litigation may not be a huge barrier to some innovative treatments within the NHS, to totally disregard it as a problem, as many critics have done, is not justifiable. There is clearly sufficient concern about litigation for it to need addressing.

Armed Forces (Prevention of Discrimination) Bill

Debate between Bob Stewart and Philip Davies

Friday 24th January 2014 Commons Chamber

[Philip Davies]

We seem to be going round in circles, and I am trying to resist doing that, because I am sure we all want to hear from the Minister.

I have not yet heard anyone—including my hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border—deny that people may well, on occasion, feel that they have been discriminated against or abused simply because of their membership of the armed forces. I have heard no one disagree with that premise as yet. The fact is, however—and this is what the hon. Gentleman does not seem to accept—that the same thing happens to plenty of other people simply as a consequence of their jobs. Staff in jobcentres, people who work in accident and emergency departments, and other public sector workers who do a fantastic job for the country should not suffer assaults and abuse either, and yet they do.

I do not want to start trying to decide which jobs are more important than others, because I do not think that would be particularly healthy. They are all crucial jobs. We all rely on the people who do those jobs, and, in my view, they all deserve equal protection before the law. For instance, I cannot think of anything that the hon. Gentleman has said that would not apply to police officers. They get terrible abuse simply for being police officers. I hear them being called all sorts of names that are totally unacceptable. The police do a fantastic job.

Where the law does apply specifically to the police is the special offence for an assault on a police constable in execution of his duty. I might be reasonably sympathetic to the hon. Gentleman’s case if he came along and said, “I think that what happens for the armed forces should mirror what happens for the police,” but he is not trying to bring in an equivalent measure. He is trying to bring in something completely different which has nothing to do with the execution of duties. It simply relates to the occupation of members of our armed forces.

My hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border touched on the point that there is a slight irony in the Bill and I want to highlight it. Clause 2, on the prohibition of discrimination, is designed to ensure that members of the armed forces are treated equally with everybody else in the country. It is a perfectly laudable aim that people should be treated equally. It is one that I agree with. However, clause 1 tries to ensure that members of the armed forces are not treated equally compared with everybody else, but that in some respects they should be treated differently from other people in the eyes of the law. I have always thought that an essential tenet of the law is that everybody is equal in the face of it. I think that should apply to victims as well as people who commit crimes. We should not be trying to separate out different categories of people. We should look at the offence committed and prosecute people based on the seriousness of the offence, and the victim should be treated equally whoever the victim happens to be, based on what happened to them. When we start trying to pick and choose and say attacks on one category of people are more serious than those on another, we are going down a dangerous road.

There are some exceptions; my hon. Friend touched on them. I particularly feel that attacks on people who have a disability are especially abhorrent for all sorts of reasons, but the main one is that they are often vulnerable people who are in no position to defend themselves. Cruelty to children can be put in a similar category. But these are all matters of individual viewpoint and down to our own values.

Beyond that, however, it becomes very difficult to decide which person is more important and which offence is more suitable simply based on the fact of who has been attacked as opposed to the nature of the offence.

[Bob Stewart]

But Members of our armed forces are different. They are treated differently. They are subject to civil law and on top of that they have to answer to military law. In that respect, they are different to everyone else.

[Philip Davies]

My hon. Friend says that, but, of course, police officers would say their terms and conditions are very different from the situation of people in everyday life; they do not have the same protections. Also, what he does not refer to in making that point is that this Bill’s reach goes way beyond people who are currently in service. It talks about people who have been in service. It also talks about relatives of people who are in service, and the Bill’s definition of a relative specifies that it “shall mean any relative.” We are not even talking about parents or siblings, therefore; we are talking about any relative no matter how distant they may be. I am not entirely sure on what basis my hon. Friend thinks they should be protected compared with everybody else. I see absolutely no justification for that, yet there it is on the face of the Bill. The hon. Gentleman has made a special case for any relative, which I think goes way beyond what even my hon. Friend believes is reasonable. It worries me that what the hon. Gentleman is doing is trying to send a signal—make a political point—rather than provide a serious basis for what the law of the land should be.

I want to make a couple of other brief points, explaining how I think the hon. Gentleman would be better served. First, offences against people in the public sector and in public service is already an aggravating factor in the law. Given the Minister’s background, she will know all about that. The sentencing guidelines on assault, for example, have as an aggravating factor an offence committed

“against those working in the public sector or providing a service to the public.”

Given that that is already in the sentencing guidelines, I am not entirely sure why we need a new law. Judges can take that into account as an aggravating factor when it comes to passing sentence. On that basis alone, the Bill is unnecessary.

There is a great irony. Although it is not like me to get party political about such matters, I have to say that the hon. Gentleman represents a party which, when it was in government, introduced a law that insisted that people who were sent to prison had to be released—not had to be eligible for release—halfway through their sentence irrespective of the crime they had committed. The shadow Minister was part of that Government and so is more culpable in that matter.

If the Bill is aimed at people who commit assaults and attacks on members of the armed forces, it would be far better and more productive if the hon. Gentleman were to work to scrap that law passed under the previous Labour Government, to ensure that when people are sent to prison they serve in full the sentence handed down by the courts. That would ensure that those people whom he wants to see spend longer in prison actually do spend longer in prison. If he wants to go down that line, it would be far more productive if we ensured that everybody served their sentence in full.

Everyone in the country was absolutely horrified at what happened to Drummer Lee Rigby. I am not sure whether that was what prompted the hon. Gentleman to introduce this Bill. The Government have already changed the law in relation to those who are convicted of the murder of transsexuals and people with disability. The starting point for their life sentence and the minimum sentence they should serve has gone up. If that is what he wanted to do—to make the starting point for a conviction for the murder of a member of the armed forces 30 years as it is for those other hate crimes where a murder is involved—he should have tried to ensure that we rejected the ruling of the European Court of Human Rights on life sentences and followed the line that if someone is sentenced to life in prison for murder, they serve the rest of their life in prison.

If the hon. Gentleman really wants people who are committing those particular offences to serve the time in prison that we all want them to serve, it would be far better to ensure that life means life and that prisoners serve their sentences in full. That would achieve what both he and I want, which is for serious offenders to be treated properly no matter who the victim is. That would suit the people in the armed forces who are victims of these crimes; they would see that justice had been done.

Although we can all agree with the sentiment behind the Bill—that we should support our armed forces and that we think any attack on them or discrimination against them is unjustifiable and unnecessary—I, like my hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border, think that passing a Bill to send a signal is not what this House should do. On that basis, I cannot support it. I hope that the Minister will come down on the side of my hon. Friend and me, and not think that this Bill is the right vehicle with which to proceed.

City of London (Various Powers) Bill [Lords]

Debate between Bob Stewart and Philip Davies

Tuesday 26th February 2013 Commons Chamber

[Philip Davies]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend. That point is extremely helpful and shows that he understands my concern. He will correct me if I am wrong, but I do not think that that point is made clear in the Bill. It may well be the intention and I am certain that it is his intention. However, the people who run the City of London will change over time and the new people may well take a different view about the level of training that is needed. It might be helpful if it was made clear in the Bill what level of training is required before people are given this kind of power.

I worry about giving local authority officers what are, in effect, police powers, especially as liberally as in this provision. My hon. Friend seemed to indicate that the aim of this measure was to relieve pressure on the police. The point that I made earlier stands. Although the overwhelming majority of council officers carry out their work diligently and appropriately, I am sure that we have all come across examples of the pettifogging council officer. Funnily enough, I had to deal with one myself, a traffic officer, in Bradford not long ago. I am sure that such officers are not unique to Bradford. I worry about giving such powers, willy-nilly, to too many people without any of the appropriate safeguards.

[Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)]

I think it is correct that if enforcement action is to take place, a police officer or someone in authority has to be present.

[Philip Davies]

I do not think that that is the case. That is one of the things I worry about.

I am delighted by the arrival of my hon. Friend the Member for North East Somerset (Jacob Rees-Mogg) in the Chamber, particularly as we are talking about the laws on seizure and about giving council officers the authority to seize people’s goods, because he has shown time and again that he, too, is nervous about such provisions.

My hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch was right to highlight that all the issues flow from proposed new section 16A on seizure, which is contained in clause 7. It states that there must be

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

It would be difficult for any officer to fall foul of such a loose definition. This is not a trifling matter. We are talking about somebody seizing somebody else’s goods. That is a big power. I think that a higher test should have to be met before council officers are authorised to go around seizing people’s goods.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch said, it is not just any article that is being

“offered for sale, displayed or exposed for sale”

that can be seized. Proposed new section 16A(1)(b) states that

“any other article or thing of a similar nature to that being offered or exposed for sale which is in the possession”

of the person may be seized. Even if something is not being offered for sale, the officer is still authorised to take it away from the individual. Paragraph (c) also includes

“any receptacle or equipment being used by that person.”

These are wide-ranging powers of seizure that we are in danger of giving to any employee of the corporation, notwithstanding the reassurance that my hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster gave about the level of training that will be given, just on the basis of “reasonable grounds” for suspicion. There is a great danger that, on occasion, that authority and power will be misused by people, perhaps out of frustration or for another reason, if appropriate safeguards are not put in place.

The Bill says—I made this point in a brief intervention earlier, but I want to expand upon it—that something may be seized only

“if it may be required to be used in evidence”.

Reading the Bill for the first time, that sounds like quite a good safeguard, because people will not be able to seize things willy-nilly and they will be able to use them only in evidence. However, it states that it can be seized if it only may be required, which is essentially no safeguard at all. Anything can be seized on the basis that it may need to be used in evidence—who is to decide that?

The officers who seize goods will naturally take a precautionary position, and I would not blame them for that. They will want to seize as much as possible, because they will not want somebody further down the line to ask them, “Why did you leave them with that bit of stuff? That could have been crucial evidence to prosecute them.” I suspect that in the training that my hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster mentioned, officers will be told, “Take as much as you can, because it may be crucial. The bit that you leave behind may have been the crucial bit.” I fear that the provision is written to look like a safeguard but is no safeguard whatever.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch said, the Bill mentions receptacles, and vans, cars or any other type of vehicle could be described as receptacles for the purpose of the Bill. There are serious concerns about the people who can seize products and the definition of when it is appropriate to do so.

Uncharacteristically, my hon. Friend did not really touch on the return of seized articles, but proposed new section 16B(4) sets out what will happen when

“after 28 days any costs awarded by the court to the Corporation have not been paid”.

There are some potentially contradictory points on the matter that do not really flow on from one another. On the one hand, if that point applies, the Bill allows the City of London to dispose of products

“in any way the Corporation thinks fit”.

However, it then states that

“any sum obtained by the Corporation in excess of the costs…shall be returned to the person”.

That is highly unlikely, given that the corporation can dispose of products in any way, shape or form. However, it also states that the corporation has

“a duty to secure the best possible price which can reasonably be obtained for that article or thing.”

I cannot reconcile the corporation being able to dispose of an article in any way it sees fit with the fact that it is being asked to obtain the best possible price for it. Those seem completely contradictory statements. If we are saying that the corporation has to get the best possible price, proposed subsection (4)(a), whereby it can dispose of an article in any way it thinks fit, seems redundant.

The best possible price that can reasonably be obtained for something depends on how the corporation gets rid of it. If it sells it in a similar way to the person who was trading it and from whom it was seized, it can get the full retail price. I am not entirely sure how it will fulfil its duty to secure the best possible price for something. What will it be expected to go through to fulfil that condition? It seems to me that in the real world, it will not make any effort whatever to go out and sell something at the best possible price. It will dispose of it.

Sentencing

Debate between Bob Stewart and Philip Davies

Monday 23rd May 2011 Commons Chamber

[Philip Davies]

My hon. Friend is right. It is astonishing that some of our hon. Friends, who were happy to enter the election promising to send more criminals to prison, and to put in place longer sentences and honesty in sentences, are now advocating sending fewer people to prison for a shorter time. I did not tell that to my constituents when I stood in the election.

[Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)]

Forgive me, I am not learned or a lawyer, but we have not suggested that fewer people would go to prison, have we? We have suggested that prison sentences could be cut by up to 50%, but that it would be for the judges to decide. It would not necessarily be 50%.

[Philip Davies]

My hon. Friend is clutching at straws. The Secretary of State made it clear that as a result of the proposal fewer people would be in prison. That is the whole purpose of the measure. My hon. Friend ought to reflect on the fact that this is an arbitrary proposal, because there is absolutely no evidence suggesting that more people will plead guilty as a result. If that does not happen, will the Secretary of State return to the House in a few months suggesting a three-quarters discount for pleading guilty in order to get a few more convictions? Where will it end? Why not scrap prison sentences altogether? This is a slippery slope. It is ludicrous and not based in evidence.

Most people think that punishment is not heavy enough. It has been estimated that between 2007 and 2009, criminals on probation have been responsible for 121 murders and 44 cases of manslaughter, along with 103 rapes and 80 kidnappings. In total, they were responsible for more than 1,000 serious violent or sexual offences in the two years from April 2006, while almost 400 more suspects are awaiting trial. Most people looking at these figures would conclude that too few, not too many, people were being sent to prison, and most would conclude that people are not being sent to prison for long enough, not that they should be let out even earlier.

As we have heard, a senior judge, Lord Justice Thomas, warned that as a result of these proposals, a rapist facing five years in prison could get off with a sentence halved to just 30 months by pleading guilty earlier. However, because of what the previous Government did, which the Secretary of State appears to support, that offender would then be released after only 15 months behind bars. Fifteen months for a five-year sentence! That is what is happening under a Conservative-led Government.