Finance Bill

Philip Davies Excerpts

Tuesday 12th September 2017 Commons Chamber

[Mel Stride]

As usual, my right hon. Friend makes some very insightful observations. I have no news, I am afraid, as to where the shadow Chancellor is. Perhaps he has his nose deep in the little red book, but my advice to him is to read my speech and to learn, because there is much to learn from what I have already said and what I am about to share with the House.

[Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)]

It might well be that the shadow Chancellor is trying to cause insurrection outside the Chamber, to try to cause misery to the general public, but does my right hon. Friend agree that he does not seem to be doing much of a job of causing insurrection with his own party in this House, because none of them can be bothered to turn up to this debate?

[Mel Stride]

That is a fair observation—[Interruption.] That is a fair comment from my hon. Friend—[Interruption.]

--- Later in debate ---

[Philip Davies]

Will the Minister give way again?

[Mel Stride]

I will give way again to my hon. Friend—why not?

[Philip Davies]

Does my right hon. Friend agree that we have actually received more income since cutting corporation tax and the highest rates of tax, meaning more money to spend on public services? If we had followed the advice of the Labour party and increased taxes, we would have received less tax revenue and therefore would have had less money to invest in our public services.

[Mel Stride]

My hon. Friend is entirely right. The amount of onshore corporation tax that we took in the last financial year is close to £50 billion—50% more than in 2010. As we have brought taxes down, the tax revenue take has increased. We can draw only one corollary from all this: if the Labour party gets its way and starts to put those rates up again, some of that tax take might be damaged.

--- Later in debate ---

[Peter Dowd]

I saw a few tumbleweeds on the Government Benches last week. If there is a shiver looking for a spine to run up, it need not bother looking on the Government Benches. After last night’s vote, there were none to be found. The national interest is not synonymous with the interest of the Tory party, as most Conservative Members would like to think, although the word “arrogance” is.

[Philip Davies]

The shadow Minister says last night was an outrage. Does he agree with his friends and acolytes in Momentum who said on Twitter that the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr Skinner) is a “scab” for voting with the Government last night on the EU (Withdrawal) Bill? Does he agree or disagree?

[Peter Dowd]

My hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr Skinner) is a hero.

--- Later in debate ---

[Peter Dowd]

Thank you, once again, Madam Deputy Speaker.

In the Financial Secretary’s enthusiasm to explicate the Government’s record on the economy, he made no mention of a number of important elements that the 72 clauses in this Bill do nothing to deal with.

[Philip Davies]

The hon. Gentleman has been asked twice whether or not it is still the Labour party’s policy to clear all student debt—a policy on which the party garnered a great deal of votes at the last election—but I did not hear an answer. Will he tell us, in clear Yorkshire terms of yes or no: is that still Labour party policy? Many people want to know these things. Just a yes or no will do.

[Peter Dowd]

I refer the hon. Gentleman to the answer I gave earlier.

--- Later in debate ---

[John Redwood]

Let us move on. Let me summarise the situation by saying that what we have learned today is that the Opposition have no intention of honouring what we thought was a pledge and what they say was not a pledge. Labour does not want to retire the student debt. It does not have a clue how to do it, and it even admits that £100 billion is too big a sum to raise in this Finance Bill to honour that pledge.

[Philip Davies]

My right hon. Friend is being a bit unkind to the Labour Opposition, because they have given us some indication of how they would go about raising the money that they need for their fantasy policies. They have told us that they would adopt the policies that were used in Venezuela. Was my right hon. Friend as surprised as I was when the shadow Minister mentioned how appalled he was at the rate of inflation, given that he wants to adopt the policies of Venezuela? Perhaps my right hon. Friend can tell us what those policies led to in Venezuela.

[John Redwood]

I have written and spoken about that in other contexts. I fear that I might be straying a bit far from the strict words of the Finance Bill, but my hon. Friend tempts me. I do remember that the leadership of the Labour party was full of praise for the two last leaders of Venezuela, but we now know that that very expensive experiment has ended in terrible tears with a lot of civil dispute, an inability to buy simple foods in shops, complete chaos in getting in basic supplies, a country near bankruptcy, having run out of foreign exchange, and a country that cannot even run its own oil resources properly because it does not know how to invest, to balance its budget and to run finance prudently. It is very sad that the Labour party backed this particular wrong horse. It is even more bizarre that it will not now distance itself from it and admit that the experiment failed badly. However, it does tell us something very interesting.

When the Venezuela experiment began, it was great. The Government gave more money to the poor, which was extremely popular. In the first instance, the policy just about worked—people had a bit more money to spend—but shortly the Government ran out of other people’s money to spend and they ran out of borrowing capability. Instead of helping the poor, they crushed the poor. Instead of making a prosperous economy, they bombed the economy and they are now all much worse off as a result of their policy of generosity.

I am grateful that the Government understand that we need to have a prosperous and growing economy and to run our finances sensibly in order to pay for the attractive programmes for better public services and to create less inequality of income by giving more money to those who, through misfortune or for other reasons, cannot earn as much as others.

Draft Horserace Betting Levy Regulations 2017

Philip Davies Excerpts

Monday 27th March 2017 General Committees

[Mr Stephen Hepburn (Jarrow) (Lab)]

I feel your frustration, Sir Alan; your knowledge and insight into the horse-racing game is sadly missed by the Opposition today. I welcome you to the Chair. I was not disappointed when our spokesperson did not turn up on time today. The hon. Member for Hexham (Guy Opperman) and I hatched a plot: I would have made my name in her position today if she had not arrived. It was not to be.

I congratulate the Minister. Some 20 years ago, when I was a new MP and she was a novice researcher, we used to have a pint in Bellamy’s club, which is sadly not there anymore. We never discussed horse-racing, so I am surprised and pleased that she has achieved something that so many people before her have tried to do and not succeeded. I congratulate her on that.

I have just a few brief questions. First, the Minister mentioned that she was confident about state aid rules not being contravened. On what basis does she have that confidence? Secondly, she says that everybody is on board, so far as the bookmakers are concerned. Is everybody on board, or has she any concerns that there is a particular area that still holds concerns and may, at the end of the day, challenge her?

Thirdly, may I ask her about the distribution, so far as geography and the allocation of the money are concerned? I do not know whether she has any say in that. On geography, will all areas of the country get a share—a fair share—of the money? On allocation, let us hope it is not like the Premier League and that the money does go down to the bottom—to the smaller people at the real grassroots of horse racing, who miss out so often and who struggle to keep our great sport alive.

[Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)]

rose—

[Mr Laurence Robertson (Tewkesbury) (Con)]

rose—

--- Later in debate ---

[Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)]

I am grateful to you, Sir Alan, for allowing me to speak in this debate. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship. Unlike the hon. Member for Jarrow, my pleasure is only tempered by the fact that we do not have the benefit of your expertise as a successful owner and breeder on the Committee today.

Like my hon. Friend the Member for Tewkesbury, I refer people to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. Like him, I am an occasional visitor to racecourses for the benefit of bookmakers and people in the racing industry. I am grateful to both for their occasional invitations to race meetings. For many years, I have been the modest owner of racehorses, or I should probably say the owner of modest racehorses. That would be a better way to describe it.

There are two issues I want to explore. The first is whether the Government are in order in making this change in the way that they are. When I first inquired of the Clerks about the mechanism for changing the rules, the Clerk of Bills in the Public Bill Office said:

“I can say with reasonable confidence that changes to the levy itself and its scope would need primary legislation, probably contained within the next Finance Bill after the Budget in March.”

As we can see, however, this is not primary legislation. Why do we not have primary legislation when that was the advice of the Clerk, in particular given that the Minister described this in her opening remarks as a “material change” to the levy? I would like her to consider that point.

I am grateful to Lord Lipsey, who is an expert on such matters in another place, for some advice he got from Olswang’s lawyers. Their point was that it is of course in order to impose the levy on foreign betting operators who do not pay it—because

“the 2014 act specifically says so”—

but

“this order goes ‘well beyond’ that. It mandates a fixed levy of 10% for all bookmakers, in place of the present process of annual levy fixed by the levy board. It mandates the extension of the levy to the Tote’s on-course operation”,

which was not the case before, and all on-course bookmakers will have to pay the levy, subject to the exemption set out by the Minister. Those lawyers, too, feel that there is some doubt as to whether that is how the situation should be handled.

My final evidence is from 2013, when we had a private Member’s Bill to extend the levy to foreign operators. Responding to a point someone had made in the debate, the Minister at the time, Hugh Robertson, said about the levy:

“The best thing I can do is read to her the legal advice that I have been given by the Government Law Officers, which says that although a levy is permitted in its current form, since it originates from before 1972 and therefore pre-dates state aid rules, the European Commission is likely to consider that the collection of contributions from overseas operators would substantially alter the levy, such that it was no longer compliant with state aid. I am afraid that, regardless of how many high-priced opinions are obtained elsewhere, once the Government Law Officers have opined that the Bill is therefore defective in that respect, the Government cannot accept it.”—[Official Report, 25 January 2013; Vol. 557, c. 638.]

[Interruption.] There is a Division—should we break here?

[The Chair]

How much longer will you need?

[Philip Davies]

I will probably need another five minutes or so.

--- Later in debate ---

[Philip Davies]

I was presenting as evidence the remarks of a previous Minister; if the Minister would explain why the Department’s legal advice has changed so radically, that would be welcome. Perhaps, when she does, she will explain what will happen if the original legal advice, rather than the latest, proves accurate, and the European Court of Justice comes down on a different side of the fence from the one anticipated.

My second point is about the merits of the levy in the first place. I am astonished at the Labour party and Scottish National party support for it, because we all know that it is taking money from poor punters and giving it to rich owners; it is redistribution of wealth in reverse, so I am intrigued by their support. On the Conservative Benches we are, you will notice, Sir Alan, against subsidies for any industry unless it is farming or horse-racing. People may draw their own conclusions as to why Conservatives are all in favour of subsidies for those two industries but not for others.

The levy figures are clear. Something like 75% of the prize money in the UK goes to about the top 10 owners in the country, so it is a great benefit to Sheikh Mohammed, the Qatari royal family and Coolmore Stud—I am sure they are not really on their uppers. The question is whether we should be subsidising their sport and interests.

I have two more points to make. First, it seems to me that the Government have made changes to the scheme to satisfy the European Commission by extending the levy to the Tote and on-course bookmakers, which were not in the original proposals put out to consultation. Why do not the Government, given that they are now pursuing a policy that they do not support—it was not their original proposal—wait until after we have left the European Union, when they can introduce whatever policy they want without having to refer any of it to the European Commission and risk its going through the European Court of Justice?

Finally, we talk about the amount of money that goes from bookmakers to racing. When the levy started, it was a mechanism to do that. The Government have always been against the levy; they have tried to abolish it, because they think it is a bad system. However, it was a useful mechanism for transferring money from bookmakers to racing when there was no other mechanism for doing so.

I asked the Minister some questions not too long ago about how much money bookmakers give to the racing industry. Racing always wanted about £100 million out of the levy; that was the figure it wanted to achieve—a perfectly reasonable figure. However, let us take 2012 as an example. The levy has gone down since then but media payments have gone up, so the figure is probably still about right.

In 2012, the bookmakers handed over, in levy payments, £74 million. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Newbury said, that has gone down since—I accept that. In the same year, they also gave £153 million in media rights to show the racing in their shops and online, £88 million of which went to racecourses. That figure has gone up considerably since 2012. They also gave £12 million in sponsorship. The total going directly to racecourses from the betting industry was £174 million. However, it cost bookmakers even more than that, given the money taken out with respect to picture rights.

In that year, total prize money in racing, in the UK, was £97 million. If people were asked what proportion of prize money bookmakers in the UK should contribute to UK horseracing, I suspect that some might say half. Some zealots might say all of it. I suspect very few people would think that bookmakers should give virtually double the total UK prize money levels to the racing industry, yet that is what they do every single year. That, to me, seems excessive. The Government seem to be doing nothing to find a way to make sure that the horse-racing industry passes the money down from racecourses to owners and trainers.

If the Government proceed with this, I hope that they do not just try to extract more and more money out of bookmakers, which are actually taking less and less on horse-racing; it is becoming a smaller and smaller proportion of their business. I hope that the Government accept that bookmakers pay a huge amount into racing—I think it excessive, in many respects—and that they find a way to ensure that racecourses pass that money on in prize money, not just to the richest racehorse owners but to those at the bottom. I look forward to hearing how the Minister will say to the racing industry that, yes, the Government will make sure that it gets the money, but that it should make sure that that money goes from the racecourses to the people it is intended to support.

[Sir Edward Garnier (Harborough) (Con)]

rose—

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Edward Garnier (Harborough) (Con)]

Sir Alan, I apologise, not only to you but to the Committee as a whole, for my slightly late arrival at the Committee. I will certainly not go on until 6.23 pm or anything like it.

I do not want to have a row with my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley because it simply would not be worth it. However, I do not want him to think that I accept that Leicester Racecourse, in my constituency of Harborough, is at the bottom end of the racing hierarchy. It may not have the cachet of Newbury, which my right hon. Friend the Member for Newbury proudly represents, and it may not be quite like Cheltenham, but it is not a bad racecourse. If this new arrangement enables more racing to be held there, and for there to be better prize money to attract higher-quality racing at the racecourse, so much the better.

I appreciate that my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley speaks with great knowledge of the bookies’ industry. I was also delighted to hear from him that one of his many horses once ran at Leicester, steered by the great Dettori. I look forward to seeing my hon. Friend riding one of his own horses.

[Philip Davies]

No chance!

[Sir Edward Garnier]

“No chance”, he says. There we are—there is a God.

While we are getting excited about what my hon. Friend may think is the unfair nature of this new arrangement on the bookmaking industry, I think it is important that we also discuss the unsung heroes of the racing world who work at and run, shall we say, the less famous racecourses throughout the country.

The last time I went to Leicester Racecourse—last summer, for one of the summer meetings—the number of people working backstage was probably just as great, proportionally, as it would have been at Cheltenham, Newbury or Aintree. However, the cash flow and the money going through that particular racecourse is not nearly as great as at some of the great festival racecourses.

HMRC Estate

Philip Davies Excerpts

Tuesday 10th January 2017 Commons Chamber

[Jane Ellison]

I think we all recognise that you are busy enough, Mr Speaker, without taking charge of HMRC’s regional transformation programme as well.

The hon. Lady has written to me about this matter, and I have said that I am happy to meet her to discuss it, perhaps allowing more time for discussion. She has cited the average figure that appears in the NAO report, but we of course accept that the move is going to be much less easy for some people, perhaps even impossible. We will support those people. With a view to providing suitable jobs in other Government Departments, the HMRC HR department is working closely with the Department for Work and Pensions. A lot of work is being done to support staff into other jobs, but we accept that not everyone will be able to move. I have written to the hon. Lady once on her specific points about Workington, but I will write to her again about what is happening in her area.

[Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)]

HMRC is planning to have a regional centre in Leeds, but it has not identified a site, and any site proposed will be incredibly expensive, crowding out private sector investment in Leeds. Just a few miles up the road in the Bradford district, a site is readily available, and it would be much cheaper for the taxpayer than it would be in Leeds, and it would help the local economy in the Bradford district as well. I urge the Minister to use this NAO report to pause, look again at these proposals and make sure that a regional centre in Yorkshire is not in Leeds, but in the Bradford district where many people in HMRC already work.

Oral Answers to Questions

Philip Davies Excerpts

Tuesday 29th November 2016 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hammond]

The Scottish Government will have a full share of infrastructure spending through the Barnett formula, and we will work with the Scottish Government and all other devolved Administrations and regional entities, as we work to raise the UK’s productivity game. That is about infrastructure investment—both public and private. It is about raising skills. It is about raising management capability, and we announced that we would fund the Charlie Mayfield initiative to disseminate best management practice across small and medium-sized enterprises. It is about doing all these things to ensure the UK is match fit to prosper in the global economy in the future.

[Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)]

May I ask the Chancellor not to blindly hand over any extra infrastructure spending in West Yorkshire to the Labour-dominated West Yorkshire Combined Authority for it just to pump money into the Labour heartlands, and instead make sure that money can be spent in other parts of West Yorkshire, including on a Shipley eastern bypass, which would benefit the local economy and the economies of my hon. Friends the Members for Pudsey (Stuart Andrew) and for Keighley (Kris Hopkins), too?

[Mr Hammond]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I did not know that Labour had any heartlands left, so that is an interesting comment. I will pass on his concerns to my right hon. Friend the Transport Secretary and ask him to take them into consideration when he makes his allocations.

Outsourcing and Tax Credits

Philip Davies Excerpts

Friday 4th November 2016 Commons Chamber

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

The danger is that the Minister is going to keep the debate going.

[Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)]

Does the Minister agree that there is a great deal of amnesia on the Opposition Benches? I well remember the misery caused to my constituents when 50% of all tax credits were paid incorrectly during the course of the last Labour Government. I welcome what my hon. Friend said about Concentrix. What financial penalties will the Government impose on Concentrix for the cock-ups it has made?

[Simon Kirby]

My hon. Friend is right to highlight amnesia. It is sometimes easy to forget how things were in the past and by how much things have improved today. There are penalties in the contract. Concentrix will be penalised for not doing the job that was intended. That is right and proper—not only for the people who have suffered through Concentrix’s mistakes, but for the taxpayer as well.

Good Parliament Report

Philip Davies Excerpts

Wednesday 2nd November 2016 Westminster Hall

[Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Moon, and to follow the hon. Member for Aberdeen North (Kirsty Blackman). We may not agree on much, but she has made a strong start to her time in Parliament and should be proud of that. She is a very good role model for other people—women, young people and whoever else—who want to enter Parliament, and she is doing an excellent job in representing her constituency, for which I have a great affinity. I think Dyce is in her constituency.

[Kirsty Blackman]

It is further north.

[Philip Davies]

Is it a bit further north? I used to spend a lot of time in Dyce when I worked for Asda. I am sorry it is not in the hon. Lady’s constituency, because it is a fine place.

When I first saw that this debate was taking place, my first question was, what is “The Good Parliament” report? After reading it, I rather wish I had not asked. It could be referred to as the “less accountable Parliament report” or the “dumbed-down Parliament report”, and it would certainly be better titled the “politically correct Parliament report”. There is not time to go into all the things that are wrong in the report, but I will pick out a few points in the limited time that I have.

The hon. Lady made the point that it is absolutely terrible that she cannot get up to her constituency on a Wednesday evening, and said that everything should be changed to allow her to do so. I checked, and in the 2015-16 Session of Parliament this House sat for 158 days out of 365. When people complain to me about Parliament, they say that none of us seems to be here when debates are taking place. I have never heard the complaint from the public that we are spending too much time here or that there are too many of us here during debates. I suggest to the hon. Lady that having 158 days to represent her constituency in Parliament is not too much to expect.

I am completely opposed to all-women shortlists and quotas. I could not care less if every single MP were a woman, if every position in Parliament were held by a woman or if everybody in the Cabinet were a woman. It is of no interest to me. As far as I am concerned, as long as they are there on merit, their gender is irrelevant. We should be gender-blind. I really think that the true sexists are the people who see everything in terms of gender. We should judge people not on the basis of their gender, but on the basis of their ability.

One thing I very much agree with the hon. Lady about is that we need more people from a working-class background in Parliament. One of the points I always made to the Conservative party when we were looking at things such as all-women shortlists—fortunately, we did not go down that route—was that replacing Rupert from Kensington and Chelsea with Jemima from Kensington and Chelsea does not do an awful lot for diversity in the House of Commons. Replacing Rupert from Kensington and Chelsea with Jim from Newcastle would do an awful lot more for diversity in the House of Commons than a tokenistic approach to diversity that sees things only in terms of simplistic diversity—gender or race.

[Hannah Bardell]

On the issue of gender quotas, we sometimes need to intervene to change things for the next generation. Would the hon. Gentleman concede that, as a short-term measure, in some cases gender quotas are useful?

[Philip Davies]

No, I certainly would not concede that point.

In the Conservative party, we had a female Prime Minister, Margaret Thatcher, decades ago. She managed to get to the very top and stay there for an awful long time, and as far as I am concerned she was the best Prime Minister this country has ever had. I suspect that most people in this Chamber hate the fact that Margaret Thatcher was Prime Minister. When a woman actually got to be Prime Minister, they all hated it. Today, we have another female Prime Minister on the Conservative Benches without all this tokenistic claptrap, and she is also doing a fantastic job. It is rather patronising to say that women need all these extra things to help them get to the top; they do not. We do not need to be patronising to women. They are more than capable of rising to the top.

I find the idea that people can represent only people who are the same as them completely alien. There will be many women in my constituency who think I do a great job representing them in Parliament, and many women who think I do a terrible job. There will be many men who think I do a good job and many men who think I do a terrible job. What most people are concerned about is their representative’s views on issues: what their opinions are and the things they stand up for.

I can honestly say that, when I have been out canvassing during all my years in politics, people may have argued, agreed or disagreed with me about particular issues, but I have never yet had a person say to me that they would vote for me if I were a woman and that they would not vote for me because I am a man. Gender is irrelevant to the general public. They want their parliamentarians to stand up for the things that matter to them.

Being in Parliament is not a nine to five job. We pass laws that affect the country and we hold the Government to account. If we had nine to five days in Parliament, we would not be able to attend Select Committees if at the same time we wanted to be in the Chamber to attend debates or questions. There is lots to do as a Member of Parliament. It is very responsible work. The report is patronising and mostly full of claptrap. I want to make it clear that there is at least one dissenting voice. One day people might look back at this report and laugh, but for many of us at the moment it is not a laughing matter.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)]

Mrs Moon, I am delighted to serve under your chairmanship—chairwomanship, I should say. It is the first time I have ever done that, and you know how much I love you.

When I saw that the report is called “The Good Parliament” I thought it was a reference to the 1376 Parliament, which was when we first had a Speaker at all, and when we impeached nearly all the Government’s Ministers and imposed a new set of Ministers of our own—maybe we will do that later today. The history of our Parliament has not been very good in relation to women. Sometimes we boast about “the mother of Parliaments”—a terrible phrase, but I will not bore people with how inaccurately it is regularly used. More important, for a long time women were not even allowed to attend the debates of the House of Commons other than by sitting in the room above the Chamber that had been built in the kind of false ceiling above the ventilator. When they were finally allowed in the Gallery, they had to have a grille so that they could not be seen, in case that somehow disturbed the male MPs.

When I arrived at theological college, when I was training to be a priest at Cuddesdon, it was the first year there was more than one woman training there. I know that that was difficult, both for many of the men—including the gay men, bizarrely—but also for many of the women, because for the first time women could not be treated as honorary chaps. I think we are only just beginning to get to the point in parliamentary terms where we no longer treat women as honorary chaps in the way we do business. That is one of the things that must change.

I warmly commend the hon. Member for Aberdeen North (Kirsty Blackman) for bringing forward the debate. We probably will have to have a debate in the main Chamber at some point and I hope that the Government will enable that to happen, because I think that—notwithstanding the views of the hon. Member for Shipley (Philip Davies), who is a splendid chap but just wrong about everything—we should air the issues.

There are some things that it may be difficult to change. There might be unintended consequences of changes to where and how we vote that make things even more difficult for people post-maternity and paternity; but there are things we can do. On the question of all-women shortlists, I would point out to the hon. Gentleman that before the 2001 general election in Wales, 10 Labour MPs retired, and the Labour party, which prides itself on being a party of equality, selected 10 candidates every one of whom was a man, because we did not have all-women shortlists then. I benefited from that, in one sense, as did the people of Rhondda, no doubt—[Interruption.] Or maybe not. The point is that surely every party needs to find its own mechanism to try to make Parliament more representative, both in this House and, I would argue, in an elected House of Lords.

[Philip Davies]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Chris Bryant]

I am not going to, if the hon. Gentleman does not mind, because we do not have long.

There is a real difficulty for parents. It is shocking how few mums—mothers of young, or actually of adult, children—we have in Parliament. There must be reasons for that, and we need to explore them. As the hon. Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire North (Gavin Newlands) has just pointed out, it is very difficult for dads of young children as well. They must decide where their kids will be educated, and it may well end up being in London, because that is the only way they will be able to see them for most of the week. That then poses questions for them in their constituency, if that is some way away. I do not think that the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority is anywhere near helpful enough about that. I can feel hon. Members agreeing with me—I may even have the hon. Member for Shipley with me on that.

I simply think that IPSA’s role is confused: on the one hand, it is a regulator; and on the other hand, it is meant to be a support mechanism, and those two roles conflict. In this area, it is making things increasingly difficult for people with families to think of becoming Members of Parliament, in particular if they are from ordinary working-class backgrounds. I think that that means IPSA is failing, and we need to address it.

There are more pictures and statues of women around Parliament than one might think, but they are not part of the standard tour, which is all about white dead men. It would not be a bad idea—I would be happy to organise this—to create a tour of women in Parliament, which could easily be done around the building.

Another point was made about restoration and renewal. We have got to get that right—the disability access in the building is shocking. Take eyesight, for example, and being able to see in debates: this Chamber is quite good, but other rooms are shockingly bad. We need to transform that.

Finally, we can see the sexism in politics in how Hillary Clinton is treated. Let us hope she wins.

Oral Answers to Questions

Philip Davies Excerpts

Tuesday 25th October 2016 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

Michael Fabricant—not here. That is unprecedented in the history of my being in the Chair. I have never known the hon. Gentleman not to be here, but, fortunately, Mr Philip Davies is here.

[Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)]

T9. How much UK taxpayers’ money used to bail out and to loan to other EU countries by the EU has been repaid to the UK, and how much is still outstanding? What is the Chancellor doing to ensure that we get all that money back when we leave the European Union?

[The Chief Secretary to the Treasury (Mr David Gauke)]

No UK taxpayers’ money has been used in the EU’s lending to other member states. Only in the event of default would the UK be asked to pay its share.

House of Lords Reform and Size of the House of Commons

Philip Davies Excerpts

Wednesday 19th October 2016 Commons Chamber

[Pete Wishart]

The hon. Gentleman makes a reasonable suggestion, but I am not going to suggest how we conclusively deal with the issue. All I am saying to the House today is that we must deal with it. We cannot continue to increase the numbers in the House of Lords while decreasing the numbers in this place. I would respect any suggestion that came forward, as long as it deals seriously with that.

While describing the other place and all its undemocratic horrors, we still have the audacity to lecture the developing world about the quality of its democracies. We have the gall to tick developing countries off about corruption, patronage and cronyism when we have a Chamber down the corridor that is appointed by a Prime Minister. How dare we suggest that to the developing world when we have such an absurd, chaotic system?

Because the House of Lords is a stranger to democracy, because it is in the hands of a small elite and because it is an appointed, created Parliament, there will always be a temptation to delve into the outer edges of corruptibility. The only qualifying characteristic and feature that some of the appointees seem to have is the ability to give large amounts of money to one of the main UK parties. This was tested to the limit by my hon. Friend the Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar (Mr MacNeil) when he raised the question of cash for honours, one of the biggest political scandals of the past decades, where we saw a sitting Prime Minister being questioned by the police and some of his key members of staff and fundraisers actually elected. That is what we have done. We have created a Chamber that is immensely corruptible, and we should take that on board.

[Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)]

I intend to vote for the hon. Gentleman’s motion this evening because I agree with much of what he is saying. He said that money was the only qualification. Does he accept that one of the other qualifications that appears to be gaining ground is to have been rejected by the electorate? On the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Lichfield (Michael Fabricant), I was always a big supporter of the House of Lords because it was full of people who were the most eminent in society. Now it is becoming full of second-raters and people who have been rejected by the electorate. Perhaps that is why the Lib Dems are not represented in this debate—maybe they are embarrassed about their representatives down in the other place.

--- Later in debate ---

[Philip Davies]

My hon. Friend makes the point about reducing cost by reducing the number of MPs. Will he commit to reducing the size of the Government by the same proportion as the number of MPs he is trying to cut? If he does not do that, it will give the Government more control over Parliament, which to many of us is unacceptable. Of course, if he reduced the number of Ministers, he would save a bit more money as well.

[Michael Ellis]

The appointment of Ministers is ultimately a matter for the Prime Minister and I am certainly not going to comment on that. Ministerial numbers must reflect what the Prime Minister of the day feels she or he needs for the Government to work effectively.

Article 50: Parliamentary Approval

Philip Davies Excerpts

Monday 11th July 2016 Commons Chamber

[John Penrose]

I had thought, and hoped, that the hon. Member for Sheffield, Heeley was speaking for more Labour Members and that we would be able to achieve a degree of cross-party consensus. It would be helpful to have country-wide unanimity on this issue, so I am sad that there does not seem to be such unanimity on the Opposition Benches. The Attorney General, who is sitting next to me, is convinced that the Government’s case is strongly arguable, and that is why we are taking this case to court.

[Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)]

We are in the strange situation that last week the result of the referendum was so catastrophic for Labour that its Members passed a motion of no confidence in their leader, but today that result is neither here nor there, as we can just proceed and keep ourselves in the EU because of parliamentary democracy. Perhaps Labour Members will make their minds up soon. Does not what we have heard today emphasise the point made by my right hon. Friend the Member for North Somerset (Dr Fox)—[Interruption.]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I want to hear the hon. Gentleman—[Interruption.]. Order. I do not care whether other people do; we are going to hear the hon. Gentleman. It is as simple as that. I do not care how long it takes.

[Philip Davies]

Does not what we have heard today show that what my right hon. Friend said was true and that the purpose of these devices is not to help the Government to implement the will of the public, but to ask for the right to try to prevent it from being implemented? If the Government do not implement it because Labour frustrates the process, Labour will be wiped out in the north of England in a future general election. Labour Members might be hellbent on self-destruction, but may I ask the Minister to save the Labour party and implement Brexit in full?

[John Penrose]

There are many reasons to implement Brexit in full, but that is the first time anyone has urged me to do it to save the Labour party. I am particularly delighted to hear that coming from my hon. Friend. I agree that there will be a nagging concern in some people’s minds—unworthy though it might be—that some of these proposals to delay the decision or subject it to intricate parliamentary procedures might be aimed at frustrating the democratically expressed will of the people, which of course would be democratically entirely wrong.

Oral Answers to Questions

Philip Davies Excerpts

Thursday 9th June 2016 Commons Chamber

[Mr Evennett]

I was here listening to the debate yesterday, and I commend the excellent speeches of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and my hon. Friend the Minister for Culture and the Digital Economy.

[Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)]

With the support and the help of the Minister’s Department, we had the first ever mixed ability rugby world cup in my constituency last year. Will my hon. Friend’s Department continue to help and support mixed ability rugby, and will he use his good offices to extend the mixed ability format, which has been so successfully run in my constituency, to other sports as well?

[Mr Evennett]

I have noted what my hon. Friend has said, and I know what a champion he is for his area and his constituency. We very much believe in inclusion and getting as many people involved as we possibly can. I will look at what he has to say and reflect on it.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Coffey]

I was trying to suggest that that was what Opposition Members tend to do, but I recognise what my hon. Friend has said. As a C, getting the Gs in with us has seemed—apart from the fact that I now vote in the same queue as my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House, who is a G—to increase the time it takes for us to vote. Nevertheless, we are all happy together in our Division Lobby.

[Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)]

While I am sure we are all very sorry that the hon. Member for Falkirk (John Mc Nally) had his dinner plans messed around on Monday night, may I urge my hon. Friend not to listen to those people who come here and within five minutes want to change long-established proceedings in this House that many of us value?

[Dr Thérèse Coffey]

Of course, matters of voting are ultimately for the House to decide, although I do not sense an extended appetite for the changes suggested.