Children and Families Bill

Debate between David Winnick and Philip Davies

Monday 10th February 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Winnick]

rose—

[Philip Davies]

I have said I am not going to give way. The hon. Gentleman can listen for once.

Moreover, this is totally and utterly unenforceable. What on earth are we doing saying to the police, whose resources are already stretched, that all of a sudden this should be a new priority for them to undertake? Have they got nothing better to do than go up as close as they can to a moving car to see whether there happens to be a small child in the back seat? Of course, this is not just about small children but all children. How on earth does the driver prove that the person in the back of the car is over 18 rather than under 18? What happens when the driver throws the cigarette away and the police have to try to prove whether they were smoking when they were pulled over? The whole thing is completely unenforceable. It is gesture politics of the worst kind, with Ministers and shadow Ministers trying to flex their health zealotry at all these health organisations and saying, “We’re tougher on these matters than the others.”

Standardised packaging—it is not plain packaging, as some people say—is also nonsense. In many cases, the standardised packaging is more colourful than the existing packaging, so this measure will not do anything for the people who say that all the colourful packaging encourages people to smoke. It is already the case that cigarettes cannot be displayed in large shops. What on earth is the point of having plain packaging for products that are already behind a counter and cannot even be seen? Again, the whole thing is complete nonsense.

All these arguments are arguments for banning smoking altogether. If people had the courage of their convictions and said, “We should ban smoking altogether”, I would at least have some respect for them, but they dare not say that that is what they want to do, even though we know it is their real agenda. While cigarettes are a legal product, brands should be free to use their own branding on the packs. Standardised packaging would simply be a triumph of the nanny state that would presumably soon be followed by plain packaging for alcohol, sweets, crisps, and all the foods that supposedly lead to obesity. Once we have gone down this road for one thing, why would we not have plain packaging for everything? We know, particularly given the current Ministers and shadow Ministers, that that is what it would quickly lead to.

I have tabled three amendments to Lords amendment 124 to try to make it more sensible. The Lords amendment states that the Secretary of State can make regulations if he believes that they

“may contribute at any time to reducing the risk of harm to…the health or welfare of”

children—I repeat, “may” contribute. This gives the Secretary of State the authority to make a decision on a whim just because he happens to think that it might make a difference. My first amendment would change “may” to “will” so that he would need to have some evidence for making a change rather than just doing it on a whim.

The second amendment relates to regulations. Under Lords amendment 124, the Government are saying that they can make lots of provisions and as long as some of them are capable of having a positive effect, that is fine. They can propose 10 ridiculous things and two sensible ones, and the regulations allow them to do it as long as some of them are sensible. My amendment says that “each” provision that they want to bring in should be capable of making a difference, not just the odd one or two in a whole series.

The Minister said that it would be a constraint on the Minister’s power to accept my amendments. Well, I make no apology for trying to constrain the Minister’s power. That is what the House of Commons is all about—trying to make sure that sensible decisions are taken based on evidence, not just on the latest whim of the nanny state brigade whom she has listened to. We are supposedly here to try to defend the freedoms of people in this country. This Government want to trample over every single one of those freedoms. It makes me wonder what is the difference between having Labour or this Government in charge. I expect no better from Labour, but I did expect an awful lot better from a supposedly Conservative-led Government.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Winnick]

There is the notion that this amendment on the safety of children in cars is an attack on freedom, but as my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Wavertree (Luciana Berger) rightly said, a model society will always need to put various restrictions on what individuals can and cannot do.

Reference has been made to seat belts, and it so happens that I was in the Chamber during the debates on that. I imagine that if the hon. Member for Shipley (Philip Davies) had been present at the time, he would have argued strongly against compulsory seat belts in cars—of course he would have because when I was listening to him today, I heard the authentic voice of primitive Toryism.

[Philip Davies]

Thank you!

[Mr Winnick]

I do not necessarily work on the assumption that whatever the hon. Member for Shipley opposes I should support, Mr Deputy Speaker, but nevertheless that is usually the case.

I was also around when we debated banning smoking in most places, which it was argued at the time was a grave restriction on freedom. Who in the House of Commons today, in 2014, would argue that, apart from the hon. Member for Shipley and a few others? The ban, which was so controversial at the time, has been widely accepted in the country. People said that it would not be accepted and that the law would be broken, but has it been? Where is the evidence that the law on smoking passed in the previous Parliament has been broken?

I accept entirely that it may be difficult to implement the measures that have been suggested on smoking in cars, and I do not underestimate the difficulties. I do, however, say simply that it is worth a try. Every organisation that has been mentioned and is concerned with public health has argued that the amendment should be put into law, as I believe it should be. It provides an opportunity to protect children in the way it describes, and it is likely, however difficult it may be to police, that people will accept that the law has been passed by Parliament, and that there will be a greater desire to ensure that it is observed. This measure is worth a try, and anything that can protect children from the dangers of smoking should certainly be supported tonight.

Scrap Metal Dealers Bill

Debate between David Winnick and Philip Davies

Friday 13th July 2012 Commons Chamber

[Philip Davies]

I absolutely take my hon. Friend’s point, which he makes characteristically well. The issue is whether we will end up with a level playing field. I do not doubt that we will end up with a level playing field for all legitimate scrap metal dealers—that is clearly the case—but, according to the British Metals Recycling Association, much of the problem is not with the legal dealers, but with the illegal ones, so we do not have a level playing field and all the Bill would do is further uneven it by making it even harder for legitimate sites to compete with illegal ones.

The key point—this is where we might come to some agreement—is that this could work, as the British Metals Recycling Association has stated, only if there were

“effective enforcement against unregulated operators”.

My concern is that we would have an awful lot of enforcement against regulated operators, which is what the Bill would do. It is about targeting those who are already regulated and piling more regulation on them, but that will not help to tackle the unregulated ones.

[Mr Winnick]

The hon. Gentleman certainly represents the most progressive part of the 18th century, but will he accept that if the organisations involved with this problem—the British Transport police, the British Metals Recycling Association, the Association of Train Operating Companies, the police generally and local authorities—believe that this is necessary and support the measure, should we not take on board what they say?

[Philip Davies]

I am rather wrapped up in wondering whether the hon. Gentleman’s first comment was a compliment or an insult; I will go away and think about it, but perhaps he will make it clear. I was rather startled by his second point, because I think it was the first time in all the years I have been listening to him in this House that he has seemed to have made the point that if the police think something is a good idea this House should deliver what they want. I remember when he sat on the Government Benches in the last Parliament and talked about anti-terrorist legislation, for example. He was a great champion of the view that, “Well of course the police want all these powers, but it is our job to resist giving them to them.” As someone who is generally a big fan of supporting the police, I welcome his conversion to a more authoritarian approach to crime and law and order, but it is rather uncharacteristic.

[Mr Winnick]

rose—

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

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

[Philip Davies]

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

[Mr Winnick]

I was not aware that I was off track last time. If it were simply the police who were saying that these measures were necessary, the hon. Gentleman, whom I would not dream of insulting, could say that the argument would not necessarily be valid, but they are one of a number of bodies that want this. What I am saying is that those who have to try to deal with the problem—I mentioned local authorities and the local police in the Walsall borough—all seem to be of the same view that it is necessary to strengthen the law.

[Philip Davies]

I am sure that the police are reassured to know that the hon. Gentleman is not wholeheartedly behind them, but I am sure that they still welcome his move in their direction on this issue. As I made clear just before you arrived in the Chair, Mr Deputy Speaker, I must press on as I have to go to an engagement in Yorkshire, which will be a huge relief to all Members in the Chamber.