Oral Answers to Questions

Philip Davies Excerpts

Tuesday 24th March 2015 Commons Chamber

[The Deputy Prime Minister]

I am not entirely sure which specific instances the hon. Gentleman alludes to, but everybody remembers the explosion in quangocracy under the Labour Government when legions of placemen and women were dotted around the country by the Labour party. In fact, many of them are still in post.

[Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)]

The Government have devolved an awful lot of funding down to Labour-controlled west Yorkshire councils for their transport priorities. What can be done to make sure that we get some true devolution, so that the money can flow down to places such as Shipley for the much-need Shipley eastern bypass, and so that the money is not just kept by these Labour councils for pet projects in Labour heartlands?

[The Deputy Prime Minister]

The hon. Gentleman makes a fair point. Every time we enter into local growth deals, particularly those that are centred on big metropolitan authorities and big urban areas, there is legitimate concern—which was reflected in his question—about the possibility that some outlying or linked rural communities will not get a slice of the pie. Growth deals should be constructed in a way that allows both rural and urban areas to be included at every stage.

House of Lords (Expulsion and Suspension) Bill

Philip Davies Excerpts

Friday 6th March 2015 Commons Chamber

[Sir George Young]

I do not think that the amendment is necessary. Some of the concerns expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch do not arise. He was worried that the code of conduct could be changed and then find someone guilty, but that cannot happen under the existing code. Moreover, when we went around this course before, the Standing Orders were changed soon afterwards. The key thing, however, is that peers already know what is right and what is wrong under the code of conduct. We are not changing the code of conduct; all we are changing is the penalties. I do not see how the scenario my hon. Friend outlined could arise, because the question of conduct is wholly unchanged by the Bill and, indeed, by his amendment. We are just giving the other House some additional sanctions, which it wants in order to deal with conduct and extend the period of suspension beyond the lifetime of a Parliament. My hon. Friend conceded that that was logical. We are also giving it the ultimate power of expulsion for behaviour that is beyond the pale. Again, that cannot be applied retrospectively under clause 4.

[Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)]

My right hon. Friend seems to be glossing over the retrospective nature of the punishments, which is also covered by this group of amendments. If somebody committed murder and we brought back the death penalty, I am sure my right hon. Friend would agree that they should not face the death penalty because at the time they committed the murder the death penalty was not in place. His Bill, however, seeks retrospectively to change the punishments for breaching the code of conduct and he appears to be glossing over that.

[Sir George Young]

Clause 1(4) states:

“A resolution passed by virtue of subsection (1) must state that, in the opinion of the House of Lords, the conduct giving rise to the resolution…occurred after the coming into force of this Act, or…occurred before the coming into force of this Act and was not public knowledge before that time.”

The Bill does not allow for double jeopardy. Any previous investigation into an alleged breach would, of course, have resulted in the behaviour becoming public knowledge, as it would have been reported by the committee at the time of the original investigation. Given those assurances, I hope my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch will agree that his amendments are not necessary.

--- Later in debate ---

Amendments 7, 8 and 10 to 12 address the potential retrospective provision of the Bill. The Bill allows the House of Lords to expel or suspend a Member for misconduct that took place before the Bill was passed if it was not public knowledge until after the Bill was passed. That means that the House of Lords will not be able to revisit misconduct that has already been dealt with. The Bill therefore does not allow for double jeopardy, as my right hon. Friend the Member for North West Hampshire made clear a minute ago.

[Philip Davies]

One issue that has not been resolved is what constitutes “public knowledge”. Is it something that is known widely and has perhaps appeared in the mainstream media, so people have had a good opportunity to know it? Alternatively, could it be something that is hidden away in a blog somewhere, which in theory is in the public domain, but which nobody has much of an opportunity to know about? What “public knowledge” means is a bit woolly because these days, with the internet, most things are out there somewhere.

[Joseph Johnson]

The application of the power is wisely, in the Government’s opinion, left to the judgment and discretion of the House of Lords. Amendments 13 and 15 would require “public knowledge” to be further defined. The Government consider that that would be likely to lead to more difficulties than leaving it in broad terms. The Bill allows for

“the opinion of the House of Lords”

to be given so that each case may be taken on its own merits, rather than attempting to fix the phrase “public knowledge” as a legal concept.

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

Philip Davies Excerpts

Friday 27th February 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mr Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)]

I thank my right hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Sir Tony Baldry) for introducing his new clauses and emphasising the importance of natural justice.

New clause 3 and amendment 18 link in with the theme already established in our discussion of new clauses 1 and 2. The Bill essentially concerns the conduct of Members in the other place—the noble Lady Baroness Hayman on Report called it a disciplinary Bill—and it was in that context that I tabled my new clause and amendment. At the moment, there is a lacuna in the drafting: there is no linkage between the provisions in clause 1 on conduct and the House of Lords’ code of conduct. Subsection (1) reads:

“Standing Orders of the House…may make provision”

to

“expel…or…suspend a member…for the period specified in the resolution”.

Subsection (4) reads:

“A resolution passed by virtue of subsection (1) must state that, in the opinion of the House of Lords, the conduct giving rise to the resolution…occurred after the coming into force of this Act, or…occurred before the coming into force of this Act and was not public knowledge before that time.”

The clause does not, however, spell out what that conduct should amount to, and that is why new clause 3 would link the provision to breaches of the code of conduct of the other place:

“Standing Orders of the House of Lords may provide for the adoption of a code of conduct… A resolution passed by virtue of section 1(4) must include a reference to the relevant provision of any code of conduct which the House of Lords may have adopted and which has not been superseded by a subsequent decision of the House.”

Amendment 18 would insert at the end of line 6, page 1, clause 1, the words

“on the ground of that member’s conduct as set out in the resolution”.

Under my proposals, it would not be possible to use the extensive powers in the Bill other than in respect of breaches of the code of conduct in the other place.

It is important to put that safeguard in the Bill, given comments bandied around by Members of the other House. On Report, when discussing clause 2, the noble Lord Wallace of Saltaire—

[Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)]

A constituent of mine.

[Mr Chope]

I am delighted to hear that he is one of my hon. Friend’s constituents. I am sure it is just as well he does not have the chance to vote for my hon. Friend.

The noble Lord Wallace of Saltaire said:

“I read the latest Code of Conduct again this morning, thinking that we need to be sure what we are on about”—

I think that is always wise advice. He continued:

“One of the issues that perhaps we need to discuss informally off the Floor is how far this measure is intended to refer only to conduct that is mentioned in the Code of Conduct or to egregious conduct of other sorts conducted by Members of this House. However, that is a question that we need not have in the Bill itself, but it is certainly a question that the Committee for Privileges and Conduct and others will need to consider at a later stage”.

I think this issue should be considered in the Bill. If we are to enable expulsion or suspension from the other place on the basis of breaches of conduct, we need to know whether the conduct needs to be linked in with the code of conduct under the Standing Orders or whether the provisions apply, as the noble Lord put it, to

“egregious conduct of other sorts conducted by Members of this House”.—[Official Report, House of Lords, 21 November 2015; Vol. 757, c. 650-51.]

In discussing these issues, people sometimes bandy about expressions such as “bringing the House of Lords or Parliament into disrepute”. Judgments about areas of conduct or behaviour can be extremely subjective. I hope that the promoter and indeed the Government, who have hitherto been slightly underwhelmed by the contents of the Bill, will accept that the wording needs to be much more precise than it is at present.

When the ill-fated 2012 legislation came before this House, it was withdrawn by the Government because of the threat of it being properly considered; they did not want it to be properly considered, so they decided that rather than have it considered without a guillotine, they would not have it considered at all. That Bill was withdrawn, but it made reference to suspension and expulsion on grounds of conduct, and it was linked with breaches of the House of Lords code of conduct. However, in this Bill, that has been dropped.

My hon. Friend the Member for Bury North (Mr Nuttall) inquired earlier why the provisions of this Bill were not included in the private Member’s Bill proposed by our hon. Friend the Member for North Warwickshire (Dan Byles). The answer is—it was given by our hon. Friend—that he did not want these provisions in his Bill because he thought they were far too controversial, and he wanted to get his Bill on the statute book, which he succeeded in achieving, before he retires from this House after one term in our Parliament. Rather than venture into an area of controversy, he decided to stick to the principles contained in his Bill, which enable expulsion on the ground that a person has been convicted and sentenced to a period of imprisonment in excess of one year, rather than go into this linkage with the code of conduct or conduct defined more widely, as it might be in due course by the noble Lord Wallace of Saltaire.

People are talking about bringing the House of Lords into disrepute, so in preparation for today’s debate I tried to establish how this could be viewed as analogous to the disciplinary processes in some firms where it is a disciplinary offence for an employee to bring the company for which the person works into disrepute. Case law in this area is fraught with difficulty. It is extremely difficult for an employer legally to control the actions of an employee outside their employment, and there is often little reason why an employer would wish to do so. However, the notion of an employee bringing the company into disrepute following actions in their personal life is one situation in which the parallel might occur.

--- Later in debate ---

In this particular case, Lord Rennard resigned his party Whip amid claims that he had made unwanted sexual advances to several women and touched them inappropriately. An internal inquiry into what was alleged to have happened concluded that there was broadly credible evidence dating back several years of behaviour that violated the personal space and autonomy of the complainants. When the noble Lord Wallace talks about “egregious conduct” being the subject of the sanctions contained in the Bill, does he have that sort of conduct in mind? Before this Bill makes any more progress, I think we need to be clearer in our own minds about the scope and extent of these provisions.

[Philip Davies]

My hon. Friend makes a very good point. Would tax avoidance also be relevant? It has been a topical issue of late, and it could be that Members in the other place engage in activities that are within the law, but which a majority of their lordships might find distasteful. Does my hon. Friend think that someone who was abiding by the law could fall foul of the Bill’s provisions? We could end up in a very difficult situation, with people not being sure what they are or are not allowed to do.

[Mr Chope]

My hon. Friend makes a very good point. I fear that the sort of conduct to which he refers could be regarded as conduct that brought the House of Lords into disrepute and that the person accused of such conduct could be sanctioned under the terms of the Bill. The Bill refers to the Standing Orders of the other place—it does not even cover the code of conduct—and we know that their lordships are understandably jealous of their reputation and want to maintain it in the eyes of right-thinking members of the public. I suspect that a number of them would regard the sort of tax avoidance to which my hon. Friend referred as behaviour that redounded to the detriment of other Members of that place.



However, we are not talking about a firm of accountants. We are talking about a part of the legislature of our great nation, and if we are going to restrict people’s ability to participate in it, we need to do so on a clearly defined basis rather than resorting to the ad hoc pandering to public opinion of which I am afraid we have seen a great deal recently.

For example, a number of political parties—I shall not mention any cases that may have arisen quite recently—now take the view that the best thing for them to do is distance themselves from any Member who is accused of a certain type of conduct and whose membership of his party is taken away from him, because, although it may not have been established that that conduct is in any way illegal, it might be regarded as potentially embarrassing that the accusation has been made. Such Members are suspended, or the whip is withdrawn, which is exactly what happened to Lord Rennard.

It is clear that we are increasingly moving away from a system whereby we rely on the rule of law to a system whereby the dictates of public opinion determine the outcomes of cases. That is why I think that we need to be extremely careful before we introduce legislation that would give the other place significant scope to introduce its own house rules, which could deny those Members who have been appointed or are in the other House as a result of their election as hereditary peers the opportunity to participate in the legislative process and other proceedings of the other House.

[Philip Davies]

Would not Members of the other place be making decisions about who could or could not sit there while having no democratic legitimacy and, perhaps, having some dubious motives for making those decisions?

[Mr Chope]

My hon. Friend has made another good point. When we look beyond the immediate subject of the debate, we see that there is pressure to reduce the numbers in the other place because the Government have been increasing the number of appointments to such an extent that I have complained. Indeed, my House of Lords (Maximum Membership) Bill is on the Order Paper today, although it is, of course, being blocked by the Government. It would restrict the Government’s ability to increase inexorably the membership of the other place.

At present, because of the pressure of numbers, the House of Lords is creating what is almost a culture, aided and abetted by the current Lord Speaker, who has said that she will retire at a particular time in an attempt to set an example to others. The implication is that when they reach a particular age, they too should choose to retire. That is entirely outwith our constitution. However, if the Bill were passed, any Standing Orders passed by their lordships requiring Members not to stay on beyond the age of, for instance, 70 or 75, could mean that a Member who refused to give up their seat would be the subject of the sanctions specified in the Bill, namely expulsion or suspension.

--- Later in debate ---

We need to be clear from when the provisions run, so that there is no ambiguity. The principal purpose of the legislation is to enhance public confidence. To achieve that, there needs to be clarity about the provisions and about the sort of conduct that will result in suspension. Comments made on Second Reading in the House of Lords suggested that some conduct outside the House of Lords might give rise to suspension, but I do not believe that is what the Bill intends. I would be grateful if my right hon. Friend the Member for North West Hampshire (Sir George Young), who is the Member in charge of the Bill, and the Minister could address these points and the amendments, so that we are clear about when the clock starts to run in relation to conduct meriting suspension or expulsion under the terms of the Bill.

[Philip Davies]

I shall be characteristically brief in my comments on this group of amendments. There is a great deal of merit in the amendments tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Mr Chope) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Sir Tony Baldry) in this group and they deserve closer scrutiny.

My hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch proposed amendment 1, and I have a great deal of sympathy for the points he made about expulsion. His amendment is made even more persuasive by the fact that his new clause 3 was defeated in the Division earlier. If the new clause had been accepted in the previous group of amendments, amendment 1 may not have been necessary. In the circumstances, I think it is necessary.

My hon. Friend has said that the punishment is draconian, which, of course, it is; it does not get much more draconian than expulsion from a House. I share his concern that the definitions of conduct that will lead to expulsion are not sufficiently tightly drawn. This is about whether we think that expulsion is an appropriate sanction and about the democratic accountability and legitimacy of Members of the House of Lords to make such decisions. My right hon. Friend the Member for Banbury touched on that issue when he moved new clause 1 and it is also addressed by amendment 1.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch has rightly said, the decisions about who is made a life peer are not made by Members of the House of Lords, because life peers are appointed. Given the circumstances, it should not necessarily be for the House of Lords to determine whether someone should continue to be a life peer. There may be some merit in asking the person who appointed them in the first place whether they would have appointed them had they known everything they know now and whether the appointment was justified at the time. I am not entirely sure that the House of Lords is the appropriate body to second-guess what the person who appointed them had in mind when making the appointment in the first place.

I fear that people who are appointed for good reason may find themselves on the wrong end of a decision, not because the person who appointed them or Members of this House, who have democratic legitimacy, think they should be expelled, but simply because their actions did not meet the taste of Members of the House of Lords at a particular moment in time.

I have always been a strong supporter of the House of Lords, as shown by my votes in this House. I have always shown myself to be a strong supporter of the status quo; as a Conservative, I rather like the status quo and enjoy voting for it. I have to accept that I shall never be subject to any of the decisions under discussion—there is no self-interest at play here. I am surrounded by people who are much more likely than me to be affected by future decisions in the House of Lords. However, my support for the House of Lords, and the good sense I always thought it previously exercised, has been tested somewhat by some of its recent decisions. I no longer have the same faith that Members of the other place will continue to make wise decisions.

One reason for that is that, instead of being composed of people of great experience and expertise, the other place seems to have become a haven for failed parliamentary candidates who could not get elected and have therefore been shoved into the other place. That has undermined not only its legitimacy but my confidence in its being able to make sensible decisions about the basis on which peers should be suspended or expelled. Therefore, it would be sensible to have as much rigour as possible so that peers cannot make decisions that we would find completely unacceptable. The Bill as drafted does not make the case that the House of Lords should have the power to expel a peer who was appointed by somebody else and without allowing anybody else to have any input into the decision. That is a dangerous game to play and I do not think that the House of Lords has the democratic legitimacy to be entrusted with that decision. That is why I think that amendment 1 is very sensible.

Largely for reasons of time, I do not intend to speak to all the amendments in this group, because that would be time-consuming, but I want briefly to touch on a few that have a great deal of merit. They are amendments 8, 14 and 15, tabled by my right hon. Friend the Member for Banbury, who spoke in some detail about whether the behaviour that may lead to expulsion or suspension happened before or after the person involved became a Member of the House of Lords.

Clause 1(4)(b) introduces retrospective legislation—we should always be wary of doing so, although it may well be justified—and that demands at least that there should be a debate and that somebody should make the case for it. The clause states that people can be expelled or suspended if the action in question

“occurred before the coming into force of this Act and was not public knowledge before that time.”

I know, or I think I know, what my right hon. Friend has in mind. I guess that some people would call it the Jimmy Savile issue, although he was obviously not a Member of the House of Lords. He has in mind actions committed by someone before they got a title and that were not known at the time; once that person has a title and those actions become public knowledge, they are deemed so outrageous that the only possible course of action is for the person to be expelled. I suspect that that is what my right hon. Friend has in mind, and many people in the country would support that on the basis of such an extreme example.

My concern is that the provision is not limited simply to such extreme actions. There are shades of grey in all such areas, and I fear that its retrospective nature may come back to penalise people who did something that was not unlawful at the time. Clearly, the actions of Jimmy Savile were not only completely unacceptable but unlawful, but my concern is that the provision may be used against people who have done something that was not unlawful and may not even have been unacceptable at the time, but has become unacceptable with the passage of time. We all know that what the public will tolerate moves on over time: things that were seen as perfectly reasonable 100 years ago are now quite rightly seen as completely unacceptable. As things move on with time, it may well be that people get caught out by actions that were once seen as reasonable but are no longer seen as such.

Allowing the House of Lords to expel people on that basis is very dangerous territory to enter. In effect, it would lead not to the rule of law, which my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch quite rightly advocated, but to the law of the lynch mob. The Bill might give rise to the application of the law of the lynch mob in such circumstances.

My right hon. Friend the Member for Banbury is quite right to seek to leave out any reference to conduct that happened before the Act comes into force and was not public knowledge before that time in relation to expulsion: people could not be expelled for such actions, although they could be suspended for them. That is probably a very happy compromise. My hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch said that it would be draconian to expel somebody. I think it would be draconian to do so on the basis of actions that are no longer acceptable but were acceptable when they took place.

[Mr Chope]

We have yet to hear my right hon. Friend the Member for North West Hampshire (Sir George Young) respond to the debate, but my amendment 20 provides that

“nothing in this section shall authorise the expulsion or suspension of members of the House of Lords on the grounds of age, health or length of service”.

Does my hon. Friend agree that that safeguard should be the bare minimum?

[Philip Davies]

My hon. Friend is right. He anticipates my remarks, because amendment 20 is one I want to comment on, but I have not quite got to it yet. If he will show his customary patience, I will comment on it, but he is absolutely right.

I commend my right hon. Friend the Member for Banbury for amendment 15, which seeks to remove some of the uncertainty that will be introduced by the Bill. He is forensic when he looks through Bills and he has hit upon a good point. What constitutes public knowledge in relation to the Bill? All sorts of things are out there in the public domain somewhere, particularly in this day and age, with the internet and all the things one can find on Google. However, what is out there on some obscure blog or website might not be widespread knowledge.

When does something become public knowledge? Is it when it is out there somewhere and someone can point to a blog that was published somewhere or other? Could somebody use that as a defence and say, “Well, actually, it was public knowledge. It was on an obscure blog, which barely anybody reads, 25 years ago”? Alternatively, does it become public knowledge when it is much more widespread than that—perhaps when it is in the mainstream media? How can anybody be expected to know everything about everybody that may be out there in the public domain? Amendment 15 would be helpful because it would remove some of that uncertainty.

I do not know whether this is the intention of my right hon. Friend the Member for North West Hampshire (Sir George Young), but I suspect that the phrase

“was not public knowledge before that time”

might well be used by people as an escape route. The purpose might be to deal with what might be called the Jimmy Savile issue, but people like Jimmy Savile might not even be captured by the Bill, because it could be argued that accusations and revelations were out there and were public knowledge beforehand, even though they might not have been acted on. It is therefore not entirely clear whether the Bill, as currently framed, will even catch out the people it seeks to catch out.

[Mr Chope]

My hon. Friend refers to the Jimmy Savile precedent. Of course, if Jimmy Savile had been alive when the allegations came to light, he would undoubtedly have been prosecuted and sentenced to a period of imprisonment in excess of one year. I am therefore not sure that thinking about Jimmy Savile is as appropriate as thinking about people who, historically, have committed much less serious forms of what might be regarded as bad behaviour.

[Philip Davies]

My hon. Friend is right. He shows why the Bill is unnecessary and perhaps dangerous. He returns me to my initial fear, which is that people will be expelled for doing things that do not warrant expulsion, just because the tide of public opinion has gone in a different direction.

In an intervention, I mentioned tax avoidance. Somebody might have taken part in activities that were perfectly legal at the time and, in fact, seen as acceptable behaviour. Their actions might not have attracted any controversy at all at the time but, as public opinion changes, they might subsequently be seen as unacceptable. The person will be judged on that basis and may well be suspended or expelled from the House of Lords not because they did anything illegal or anything that was seen as unacceptable at the time, but because they did something that had become unacceptable. I worry that that is the dangerous route we are going down with the Bill. I predict that we will be in that situation at some point if the Bill is passed in its current form, so amendments 8, 14 and 15 are important safeguards that I hope my right hon. Friend the Member for North West Hampshire will consider.

I promised to touch on amendment 20, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Mr Chope), and I do not intend to break that promise. Because he was being even more brief than normal, he did not expand on it in any detail. It states that “nothing in this section”—clause 1—

“shall authorise the expulsion or suspension of members of the House of Lords on the grounds of age, health or length of service”.

I would like to think that all Members agree with my hon. Friend’s sentiment that people should not be expelled or suspended on that basis. He is right to be alert to the fact that if we do not tightly define the rules under which people can be expelled or suspended, we will open up the possibility, whether or not it is intended or likely, of people using the Bill as a Trojan horse to pursue a different agenda from the one that Members currently envisage.

My right hon. Friend the Member for North West Hampshire is a very reasonable man, and I am sure that he would not countenance anybody being expelled or suspended on the grounds of age, health or length of service. I am absolutely sure that that is nowhere near his mind. However, the point is not what is in somebody’s mind now, even the mind of the promoter of the Bill; it is how the Bill could be used at some future date if we do not define the rules tightly.

It may well be that because, as my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch said, the size of the House of Lords has become completely ridiculous, people will look for an easy way to reduce the numbers. Of course, one of the easiest ways of reducing the numbers at a stroke would be to say, “Anybody above a certain age—you’re out. We’re going to take a particular point in time, draw a line, and if you’re on the wrong side of it, you’re out. If necessary, we’ll use these powers we’ve now got to enforce that new rule, because the public mood is that the House of Lords has got too big, and we’ve got to do something about it. This is the easiest way.” I really do fear that that could well happen. I am not saying that it will happen in the short term, but I can certainly see it happening in the medium term. People may pooh-pooh my hon. Friend’s amendment at the moment, scoff and say, “It’s absolutely ridiculous—that would never happen.” Well, let’s see.

[Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)]

My hon. Friend raises an interesting point. I suppose it could also be argued that if society moved forward and thought that legislatures had to have an equal balance of men and women, there could be a cull of male peers.

[Philip Davies]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right, and he highlights potential unintended consequences of the Bill—it could be a useful vehicle for people to use in future for purposes that were never envisaged. People can scoff and pooh-pooh the points that are being made, but who knows what decisions people might want to come to in the future and how they might use the Bill as a Trojan horse to pursue that agenda?

Amendment 20, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch, is certainly worth considering, and I hope that my right hon. Friend the Member for North West Hampshire will examine it and see that there is a legitimate fear about how the Bill could be used in future. Nobody is trying to scupper the Bill; people are trying to improve it and make it what we all intend it to be. I would like to think that my right hon. Friend will see that we are trying to deliver what he envisages the Bill doing. I have not heard him disagree with any of the points that have been made; he just seems to think that the things being described will not happen. That is where we might have a slight disagreement.

[Steve Rotheram (Liverpool, Walton) (Lab)]

At the start of his contribution, the hon. Gentleman said that he would be brief. Is he now straying into the uncertain waters of misleading the House?

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. I think that is a job for me.

[Philip Davies]

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

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

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

[Philip Davies]

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

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

[Mr Wilson]

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Philip Davies) for being so brief.

The Government oppose the amendments, but I will speak briefly because I want to give my right hon. Friend the Member for North West Hampshire (Sir George Young) the opportunity to push the Bill through today. Amendments 1 to 5 and 16 remove all references to expulsion in the Bill, thereby removing from the entire Bill the power to expel a peer. The Government do not support removing the power to expel. That power would allow peers to deal with particularly serious misconduct and would bring the disciplinary powers of the House of Lords more in line with those of the House of Commons.

We expect the House of Lords to need to use such powers rarely, as has been the case in the House of Commons, which has not exercised its powers to expel since 1954. Nevertheless, we think it appropriate for both Houses to have such a power in order to deal effectively with those who bring the House into disrepute.

Growth Deals

Philip Davies Excerpts

Thursday 29th January 2015 Commons Chamber

[Greg Clark]

All the agreements are in the public domain. They are published and on the websites of all the local enterprise partnerships. There is a framework that tracks the implementation of each component of the deal. We have signing ceremonies that commit the local leaders as well as central Government to do what is laid out. But the difference between the growth deals and previous programmes is that the growth deals are in the hands of the local leaders. It is the local businesses that make estimates of the jobs that they are going to create, so it is an estimate not by the Government but by the local business leaders.

[Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)]

The Minister has said that the West Yorkshire combined authority will use the new single appraisal framework to inform a formal review of transport funding priorities by 2015 to include the Shipley eastern bypass, which is something that I very much welcome. Does that mean that the Government have been persuaded by the persistent case I have made of the need for that bypass? Will he confirm that the funding is now available to progress the scheme, and whether the onus is now on Bradford council and the West Yorkshire combined authority to prioritise schemes that benefit the whole of west Yorkshire, and not just its Labour heartlands?

[Greg Clark]

I agree with my hon. Friend that he is a persistent advocate for Shipley, which is quite right as he is the local MP. The transport funds have been devolved to the West Yorkshire combined authority. In fact, £1 billion is available. Of course it is right that, in prioritising the transport schemes, the authority should cover the whole area. That is clearly understood and is set out in the agreement. I know that my hon. Friend will make his cause locally with the same vigour and passion that he does here in Westminster.

Government Contracts (SMEs)

Philip Davies Excerpts

Wednesday 28th January 2015 Westminster Hall

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Philip Davies (in the Chair)]

Order. Before we move to the next speaker, I should say that I intend to call the shadow Minister no later than 3.40 pm. I am sure that DUP colleagues can allocate the remaining 24 minutes between them fairly.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Rob Wilson]

I will continue for a little bit longer, if I may, because I have to get through a lot of questions to which I know the hon. Gentleman and others want answers.

To identify poor procurement practice, we have introduced a mystery shopper service. If a supplier encounters poor practice, such as an over-bureaucratic pre-qualification requirement or unreasonable selection criteria, they can blow the whistle and refer that to our mystery shopper service, which will raise it on their behalf with the contracting authority. We regularly publish the outcomes of mystery shopper investigations on the gov.uk website. We have now received nearly 800 mystery shopper cases, with four out of five investigations resulting in a positive outcome.

In addition, the mystery shopper service has started proactively spot checking procurements by examining procurement documents online. We have instigated nearly 500 spot checks to look at a range of aspects of procurement, and have found issues in around 20% of the checks that we have conducted, including burdensome pre-qualification questionnaires.

Some 45 of those spot checks tested compliance with the Public Services (Social Value) Act 2012 and involved asking contracting authorities to set out how they considered the requirements of the Act in the pre-procurement stage of service contracts. The sort of evidence that we look for includes whether any consultation took place with the market, and with current and potential service users, and how the conclusions drawn from such consultation were used to shape the requirement. In total, 20% of the authorities examined were unable to provide sufficient evidence of compliance, so we have advised them to ensure they consider the Act in future.

We are particularly conscious of the burden of pre-qualification questionnaires, which are used to select suppliers to be invited to tender, and the pressure that they can place on SMEs. To address that situation, we have eliminated the use of PQQs in 15 out of 17 Departments for all central Government procurement under the EU threshold of approximately £100,000. The two Departments still using PQQs—the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and the Ministry of Defence—are doing so only for security reasons. For those procurements that still require a PQQ, we have introduced a much simpler standard set of questions, which reduces the burden on suppliers and levels the playing field in terms of financial risk and evidence of experience.

We recognise that being paid promptly is vital to enable SMEs to manage their cash flows and to reduce the amount of time wasted on chasing invoices. We are determined to help businesses to manage their cash flows and to transform the culture of late payment. In 2010, to respond to the point made by the hon. Member for Wigan (Lisa Nandy), the Government reiterated our policy of paying 80% of undisputed invoices within five days and ensuring that the prime contractors pay tier 2 suppliers within 30 days as a condition of contracting with Departments. We expect our suppliers to follow our example on prompt payment and to pay their subcontractors within the 30-day limit. When this does not happen, we encourage suppliers to report late payment to the mystery shopper service.

We know that we need to do more to improve performance across the public sector, however. We have made much progress in the past four years, but following recommendations by Lord Young of Graffham, we now intend to extend these reforms across the public sector to non-devolved bodies such as the NHS and local councils in England.

We intend to introduce measures in the next few weeks to ensure that 30-day payment terms flow down the public sector supply chains into all new contracts, which will ensure that smaller suppliers benefit from prompt payment. Contracts Finder will be extended to become a one-stop shop for public sector contract opportunities. We have fully redeveloped the original site to make it more user-friendly, including by creating a powerful search facility to make it easier to find and bid for work, and providing the ability to look up contracts by location and postcode. The site will function on multiple devices.

I am conscious of the time, but I want to cover as many of the questions that were asked as possible. We heard about EU procurement rules being unwieldy, and we have negotiated a new procurement directive that will improve the chances of SMEs winning public contracts. Regulations to transpose that directive will be introduced very soon.

As for the EU procurement requirement, as part of this year’s new public contract legislation, there will be more open approaches for supplier procurement and a reaching out to more suppliers, including SMEs. The documentation required from SMEs is being reduced to make it easier for them to access opportunities. The UK engaged proactively in negotiations on a new directive on SMEs and EU markets.

I was asked about aggregating demand with regard to helping SMEs. Breaking large contracts into more manageable lots is key to ensuring that SMEs can compete for aggregated deals, and the new procurement regulations will require contracting authorities actively to consider that. The new public contracts regulations will apply across the whole public sector, apart from devolved bodies, and will include Lord Young’s recommendation to abolish PQQs. Under Lord Young’s reforms, we are requiring the public sector generally to advertise contracts on Contracts Finder. This includes an option to highlight any opportunity as applying to an SME.

The hon. Member for South Antrim talked about an individual company. The Highways Agency fully supports the use of Conemaster on its road networks. It has funded its use in road trials, as well as an analysis of its economic performance, which showed that Conemaster demonstrated a positive benefit-cost ratio of 2:1.

I think that is about as far as I will get on answering hon. Members’ questions, but I would like to say finally that we—

[Philip Davies (in the Chair)]

Order.

Oral Answers to Questions

Philip Davies Excerpts

Tuesday 6th January 2015 Commons Chamber

[The Deputy Prime Minister]

As the hon. Gentleman will know, the point of the advisory council is precisely to ensure that improper influence is not secured by the employment of those who have recently held ministerial office. Of course, the rigour with which the advisory council operates should always be kept under review, and if the hon. Gentleman has suggestions about how we can make it more rigorous I am very keen to hear from him.

[Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)]

Further to the earlier exchange on Bradford, may I urge the Deputy Prime Minister not to devolve more powers to Bradford council, which has consistently shown that it does not care about Shipley in its district, but only about its central Bradford heartland? My constituents feel that decision making in Bradford is just as distant, if not more so, than decision making in Whitehall. May I urge him instead to allow my constituents in Shipley and Keighley the opportunity of a referendum to decide whether they want to break away from Bradford and form their own unitary authority, which would be the same size as Calderdale council and allow some genuine local decision making?

[The Deputy Prime Minister]

I do not want to comment on the prospects of Shipley splitism and separatism, but I hope that the hon. Gentleman’s sense of grievance about where decisions are taken—in Bradford or Shipley—will not dim his enthusiasm for something that this coalition Government have pioneered, which is the devolution of power from Whitehall to all parts of the country. I hope that these local difficulties can be resolved, such that we can devolve more power to all areas of the country.

Youth Service Provision

Philip Davies Excerpts

Wednesday 3rd December 2014 Westminster Hall

[Mr Wilson]

At a national level, the Government are going further. We are supporting leading youth organisations to develop the centre for youth impact. For the first time in this country there will be a central point for information, guidance and bespoke support, to demonstrate the value of youth services to others, particularly those who make funding decisions—something a Labour Government never did. Again, to answer another of the hon. Gentleman’s questions, the Cabinet Office did a survey of youth services in November 2013, which has informed the actions that I am talking about today.

Moving away from local youth services, I know that the hon. Gentleman has a particular interest in engaging young people in the democratic process. I share his commitment and will speak about the Government’s work in this area. Last month I had the privilege of speaking to the UK Youth Parliament and saw young people at their best: informed, articulate and passionate. They debated with eloquence and conviction about issues that matter to them, such as mental health and a living wage for all. We must make sure this same powerful voice shapes the services they use, locally and nationally. Engaging and listening is a way of ensuring our policies and services meet their actual needs. The Government are also ensuring social action opportunities exist outside school and college for young people to develop the skills and confidence they require to transition into adulthood.

Unfortunately, I am not going to make it to the end of my speech, so I will leave it there, Mr. Davies.

[Philip Davies (in the Chair)]

We come to the next debate, which is on Government strategy for the UK steel industry.

Murder of Lee Rigby

Philip Davies Excerpts

Tuesday 25th November 2014 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

My hon. Friend makes a good point. There is a balance here. What we have tried to do is improve the institutions that oversee our intelligence agencies. For instance, the Intelligence and Security Committee now has more power, resources and independence, and I have just said that we are going to make the Intelligence Services Commissioner put the role of the agencies on to a statutory basis. So we have updated and upgraded what we do, and I think we have now got to a pretty good place. We should always ask ourselves whether the next step we are going to take will really add to the democratic accountability and legitimacy of what we are doing, or whether it could hold us back.

[Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)]

The Prime Minister has often said that one of the purposes of overseas aid spending is that it contributes to our security. Given that finances are tight, to say the least, and given the extreme pressure that the Prime Minister admits the intelligence and security services are under, is it not time to divert some of that overseas aid spending to our security services at home? This is the elephant in the room, and to increase spending on the security services by £130 million at a time when overseas aid spending has gone up by about £5 billion is completely unacceptable. Will he put his dogma on overseas aid spending to one side and give the security services the funding that they need to keep us safe? That is what the public expect from him.

[The Prime Minister]

First, we have not only protected but recently increased spending on the security and intelligence services. I do not think that it is an either/or. We should be doing that as well as keeping our promises to the poorest people in the world, not only because we made that promise but because when it comes to dealing with problems in other countries so that they do not come and visit us here, overseas aid has a role.

Oral Answers to Questions

Philip Davies Excerpts

Tuesday 18th November 2014 Commons Chamber

[The Deputy Prime Minister]

I reassure the hon. Gentleman that the growth deal process that was agreed was based on the needs of the entire functional economic area—namely the £55 billion economy that covers both urban and rural areas in that part of the world. The significant transport fund worth £1 billion will lead to a step change in people moving not just between city centres, which he alluded to, but to moving around all of West Yorkshire. While it might be called a city deal, it radiates out to other non-urban areas in that region.

[Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)]

What can the Deputy Prime Minister do to ensure that local MPs have a formal role in the decision making process, particularly for transport funds in the Leeds city region, and that decisions are not just carved up by five Labour councils scratching each other’s backs to fulfil their priorities, while excluding other parts of the region that have equally important needs?

[The Deputy Prime Minister]

I certainly agree it is essential that any local enterprise partnership worth the name should consult locally and regardless of party affiliation with representatives in the areas affected, including MPs from all parties.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Attorney-General]

I commend my hon. Friend not just for raising that case today, but for communicating with me about it more than once. He feels very strongly about it, and I understand why: it is clearly a very terrible case. At present, as he will know, the balance is struck between a manageable system that enables us to pass truly exceptional cases to the Court of Appeal and ensuring that people have an opportunity to raise their concerns. I can tell him, however, that I am looking at the unduly lenient sentence scheme again to ensure that its scope is appropriate and that it is coherent and sustainable, and I will take careful note of what he and others have said as I do so.

[Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)]

As the Attorney-General knows, I refer a number of cases to him for appeal against unduly lenient sentences, and I am very grateful to him and to the Solicitor-General for the way in which they consider them. The Solicitor-General has now begun to view the behaviour of offenders after their conviction to establish whether they have gone on to the straight and narrow as a factor in the decision on whether to appeal. On that basis, is it not time that we increased the period during which people can appeal against unduly lenient sentences from 28 days to perhaps double that, so that everyone has more of a clue about the path on which the offender has embarked after he has been sentenced?

[The Attorney-General]

That is certainly one of the criteria that are considered, but it is not the only one. Most consideration concerns whether the judge applied the information that was available to the sentencing judge appropriately in determining whether a sentence was unduly lenient.

The issue of the time limit for making a reference under the scheme is a vexed one, and I know that my hon. Friend has raised it before. I think it is important for there to be certainty and a fixed end point, and for defendants to understand clearly that after a fixed period they will know what sentences they will be serving. For that reason, I am not currently minded to extend the time limit, although, as I have said to my hon. Friend, I am considering other aspects of the scheme very carefully.

European Council

Philip Davies Excerpts

Monday 27th October 2014 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

Let me join the hon. Gentleman in paying tribute to Dylan Thomas and to Tom Hollander for his superb performance in the drama about the former’s life in America. The hon. Gentleman is right to say that we need to scrutinise TTIP properly, but we must do so on the basis of the truth rather than scare stories. I worry that a lot of scare stories are going around about health services, food safety or investor protection clauses, and perhaps his Bill and closer scrutiny can lay some of those to rest.

[Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)]

We already hand over the best part of £20 billion a year to be part of an inward-facing, backward-looking protection racket, propping up inefficient European businesses and French farmers. The British public do not expect the Prime Minister to hand over a bit less money or to hand it over a bit later: they expect him to tell the European Union to stick the money where the sun does not shine. What is the worst that the European Union could do if we did that? Ask us to leave? In my dreams!

[The Prime Minister]

I do sometimes wish that my hon. Friend would tell us what he really thinks, instead of this shrinking violet approach. We do not necessarily agree on the future, but we do agree that there is only one way to give the British people that choice.