India-UK Trade Negotiations

Debate between Philip Davies and Bob Blackman

Tuesday 22nd February 2022 Westminster Hall

[Philip Davies (in the Chair)]

Before we begin, I remind Members of the House of Commons Commission’s guidance to observe social distancing and wear masks when not speaking.

[Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered India and UK trade negotiations.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Davies, I think for the first time. I thank the Backbench Business Committee, on which I sit, and Madam Deputy Speaker for allowing us to have this very important debate. I declare my interest as co-chairman of the Indo-British all-party parliamentary group—the other co-chairman, the hon. Member for Ealing, Southall (Mr Sharma), is also present. This is an important time: trade talks between the UK and India have already begun. There is a tremendous opportunity, which I will go into in some detail.

Of course, we have the opportunity to negotiate a trade deal with India—our friends—because we have left the European Union; we now trade and negotiate as a free trading nation. We must embrace the opportunities that that gives us. Colleagues from across the House will, no doubt, also go into the detail of those opportunities, including in services, particularly for the City of London, legal services—India, after all, has the same basic legal system as we have—manufacturing, and Scotch whiskies and Irish whiskeys, which face huge tariff barriers in India at the moment. Those must form part of our successful negotiations.

We have this opportunity because we have a long-term friendship with India. The European Union has been trying to do a deal with India since 1997, but without success. The United States of America has been trying to do a deal with India, but without success. We should therefore not underestimate the difficulties that we may face. Over the weekend we had the good news that our potential membership of the comprehensive and progressive agreement for trans-Pacific partnership, which is worth trillions of pounds, is moving forward. The trade opportunities with India are enormous, and clearly a free trade agreement will support the Government’s strategy of developing the status of the United Kingdom—global Britain—as an independent trading nation.

We are seeking trade and investment opportunities. We champion free trade—I am sure that my hon. Friend the Minister will allude to that particular issue in his speech. We have already negotiated a long-term arrangement with India—co-operation has been taking place over the last year—but now, free trade is the key to our success.

India is a dynamic, fast-growing economy at the heart of the Indo-Pacific region. Our bilateral trading relationship is already quite significant, and we should not underestimate that—£23.3 billion in 2019. A free trade agreement could strengthen that, and could potentially increase exports by £16.7 billion by 2035. That is a goal that we must secure. We can also enhance the already existing trading relationships, which are considerable, and give the UK access to a market with long and short-term benefits. A free trade agreement has to work not only for the United Kingdom but, obviously, for India.

Equitable Life

Debate between Philip Davies and Bob Blackman

Thursday 31st January 2019 Commons Chamber

[Bob Blackman]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. This is a debt of honour, and we owe it to those victims who did the right thing. They saved for their old age and now they suffer consequences.

[Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that if the Treasury was owed money by other people its attitude would be very different? It is amazing what the Government can find money for when it needs to. As my hon. Friend said, this is a pledge that this party has made over many years, and I support him in the campaign he has superbly led over many years. Does he agree that the Treasury should now do the right thing, as they promised to do all those years ago, as he has pointed out?

[Bob Blackman]

I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. I am not a Treasury Minister, so unfortunately I am not in a position to honour that pledge, but I look forward to my hon. Friend the Economic Secretary giving us some good news this afternoon.

Homelessness Reduction Bill

Debate between Philip Davies and Bob Blackman

2nd reading: House of Commons
Friday 28th October 2016 Commons Chamber

[Bob Blackman]

I am coming on to that particular issue in a few moments.

The Bill will also ensure that local connection requirements are working in a way that prevents people from moving from one city to another or one part of London to another. People demanding housing in London, for example, would obviously put undue pressure on the system.

The Bill also makes sure that everyone takes an aspect of personal responsibility, so that people will be rewarded with good outcomes for co-operation and engagement with the process. It will bring about a culture change in councils—away from a crisis response towards prevention strategies and a more compassionate approach to helping people who are in that desperate crisis.

[Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)]

My hon. Friend will be delighted to know that I support his Bill, and it is good to see that MPs can turn up on a Friday when a Bill is genuinely popular and important to Members of Parliament. Will he confirm that the Bill will stop some of the perverse incentives that I saw when I volunteered for St George’s Crypt in Leeds, where local authorities were turning away people who did not have a drug or alcohol addiction because people with those addictions were seen as a priority? The people who were turned away felt that they were effectively being told that if they wanted to be housed, they had to develop a drug or alcohol addiction. Will his Bill stop those perverse incentives?

[Bob Blackman]

I thank my hon. Friend for his support for the Bill. Yes, we have to stop these perverse incentives that are encouraging people to go down such routes. The reality is that the vast majority of people become homeless through no fault of their own; they just want help and advice from the local authority. The Bill will make sure that they get that help and advice at the time when they need it—not just on the basis of priority need.

Equitable Life

Debate between Philip Davies and Bob Blackman

Thursday 26th February 2015 Commons Chamber

[Bob Blackman]

It is fair to say that the all-party group and EMAG have been on the backs of the Treasury Ministers responsible. The current Minister is in her place. Her predecessor, my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromsgrove (Sajid Javid), was very helpful in making sure that the scheme was speeded up and that people got the compensation due to them. Most importantly, he decided that he would not close the scheme, which could have been done under the legislation, until we had traced every one of the policyholders due for compensation.

[Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)]

May I commend my hon. Friend on all his work on this issue over several years? Is not the crucial point in the motion that, with the public finances improving, the compensation already paid should not be considered the last word on the matter, and there should be more room to give proper compensation to people who need it? As I am sitting next to my right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr Mitchell), may I ask whether my hon. Friend understands the frustration of many people that the Government seem to have plenty of money to spray on things such as overseas aid and aid to India, which might be better spent on such compensation to people in this country?

[Bob Blackman]

The clear issue is that when the assessment was made of the amount of compensation due to policyholders—this point is crucial—it was decided that £4.3 billion should be paid in compensation. Clearly, £1.5 billion has been allocated, although it has not all been spent, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr Mitchell) mentioned, meaning that a compensation bill of £2.8 billion is still outstanding.

The Prime Minister quite rightly said at the Conservative party conference that as the economy recovers and we fix this country’s problems, tax rates will come down, but I would say that there is a still a bill to be paid to the people who saved for their retirement. Therefore, as the economy recovers and the public purse allows, we should compensate policyholders who have suffered a relative loss, as we committed to do at the last general election.

London Local Authorities and Transport for London (No. 2) Bill [Lords]

Debate between Philip Davies and Bob Blackman

Wednesday 11th September 2013 Commons Chamber

[Philip Davies]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend. When I am on the opposite side of an argument from that of my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch, I wonder whether I am on the wrong side of the argument. Having the robust support of my hon. Friend the Member for Bury North (Mr Nuttall) will reinforce my confidence that I am on the right side.

The desire of my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch to use the amendment to force the privatisation of car parks may have merit. If he were back in charge of a local authority, he might decide that that was the best way to go. I am not convinced that other local authorities would take that view, so the provision would end up being an unnecessary burden on the taxpayer. The amendment is therefore not worthy of support, despite his best efforts to rescue support for what might otherwise be thought of as a poor amendment.

I turn back to amendment 24. In effect, preventing local authorities from allowing the private sector to run charging apparatus on their behalf would be a retrograde step. If we are to embark on this project, the merits of the amendments are not necessarily relevant. We have to presume that we are going down this route. If we are, I would like the private sector to be involved; it would have an awful lot to offer and could probably show local authorities how to operate the points better, more efficiently and more cheaply. To prevent the private sector from being involved, as my hon. Friend envisages with amendment 24, is not sensible. I cannot support the amendment.

Amendment 25 is a consequential amendment to amendment 24 that also reinforces it, so if I cannot support amendment 24 I certainly cannot support amendment 25. On that basis—my hon. Friend will correct me if I am wrong—I do not think I can support amendment 26 either. I think that for the first time in my short time in the House I have found that I cannot support the first six amendments tabled by my hon. Friend. I hope that that will never be repeated in future.

On amendment 27, my hon. Friend is back on normal form again, because he is absolutely right about subsection (7). I am not a legal expert, as he is, but it seems to me that in the normal way of things people are responsible for their equipment. The subsection implies that everybody in the whole country, apart from London local authorities, is responsible for any accidents, damage or incidents that happen as a result of their equipment. I am sure that the Government’s view and Parliament’s view is that people should be responsible for their own stuff. It is utterly unacceptable to say that we are going to exempt London local authorities willy-nilly from the normal course of the law. Why on earth we should think that the state should be exempt from all the normal things that apply to everybody else is beyond me. I hope that the promoters of the Bill will reflect on this, because it drives a coach and horses through what we would expect in this country. I certainly encourage my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch to pursue amendment 27.

On amendment 28, my hon. Friend is again on to a very good point. In seeking to strike out subsection (8), he focuses on the part where it says that

“it shall be presumed that the person in charge of the relevant vehicle at the relevant time had responsibility for and control of the cable.”

The person in charge at the time may well have control of the cable—it is probably self-evident that if they are using it they have control of it—but to say that they have responsibility for that piece of equipment is a step too far. As my hon. Friend said, we would not expect somebody filling up at a petrol station to take full responsibility for the pumps they were filling up from. I cannot believe that anybody in this House would think that. If people should not take full responsibility for the pumps when they are filling up their car with petrol, why on earth should they take responsibility for the cables when they are charging their car? The same rules should apply. It might be a different form of fuel, but the same principles should apply across the board. Leaving aside control of the cable, it is unacceptable to impose responsibility for it. For that reason alone, I support my hon. Friend in wanting to strike out subsection (8). Of course, if it did not include the words “responsibility for”, I might take a different view, but as it stands it is unacceptable. Subsection (9) relates to the previous subsection, so we do not need to waste much time on that.

I was puzzled by the Bill’s sponsor, my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow East, saying that he was willing to accept amendment 30, because it seems to fly in the face of what my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch was trying to achieve with his previous amendments. I understand now, however, that my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch is throwing in the towel—I certainly hope he is—with regard to amendments 21, 22 and 23. Amendment 30 seems to pre-empt that throwing in of the towel, because it suggests a much more sensible state of affairs whereby my hon. Friend accepts that the private sector could be involved and that the wires it provides should also be covered. For that reason, amendment 30 is sensible and I am pleased that my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow East accepts it.

We do not need to waste time on amendment 31. Amendment 32 takes us back to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch about the authorised person. As I said earlier, I am for having authorised people other than the local authority, so for that reason amendments 32, 33 and 34 should be discarded.

[Bob Blackman]

And amendments 35 and 36.

[Philip Davies]

My hon. Friend, the sponsor of the Bill, is getting ahead of me. He is clearly a much faster reader than I am. He is ahead of the game and is absolutely right that amendments 35 and 36 are also relevant.

My hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch is on to a good thing with amendment 37. It seems ridiculous that the only duty in clause 18(1) is to consult. The title of the clause is: “Duties to consult or obtain consent”. Somebody taking a fleeting look at the Bill would think that obtaining consent was an important part of it, but my hon. Friend is right that subsection (1) mentions only consultation, which is not good enough. Consent must be obtained; otherwise it is a potential affront to local democracy. What on earth is the point of consulting if no regard is to be given to the views of the consultation? That would be a pointless exercise. If an authority has decided that it is going ahead with something and then simply goes through the motions, that would be a waste of time.

--- Later in debate ---

[Bob Blackman]

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Mr Chope) for his amendments, his speech and his comprehensive description of the amendments. I also thank my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Philip Davies) for explaining his position on them.

In commencing my response, it is important to note that we are talking about the future of the motor industry in this country. I take the view that within the next couple of years the private vehicle of choice will be the electric car. It is therefore essential that electric charging points are placed around London in appropriate places for people to charge their vehicles—there is currently limited capacity—so that we can encourage people to take up this new form of transport.

Before I respond to the amendments, it is important to note that there are two sets of provisions: one for car parks, which may be operated by the local authority, Transport for London, London Underground and other bodies; and the other for the public highway, where the provision is likely to be, although not exclusively, where meters and so on are currently provided. They will operate in tandem. The point at which the vehicle can be connected to the charging point will be provided, and the issue is then the cable connection between the charging point and the vehicle. Motor manufacturers may come up with different arrangements for that connection and we cannot pre-judge that. My hon. Friend the Member for Shipley pointed out that the Mayor of London’s key strategic vision, which I support wholeheartedly, is for the roll-out of electric charging points across London in a big way. I trust that where London leads the rest of the country will follow.

Amendment 21 would require a local authority to provide the charging apparatus in every car park it operates. In London, there are car parks with space for 10 vehicles and some with space for hundreds of vehicles. It should not be the duty of a London authority to have to provide electric charging points at every car park. London authorities are clear that they want to do this—they do not need to be told that they must do so. I therefore urge my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch to withdraw the amendment. How would the proposal work? How many points would have to be provided, and over what time scale? There is an incentive for local authorities to provide charging points in car parks, but to oblige them to do so would lead to the questions: when would it be a requirement to do so, for how many, and who would enforce it?

[Philip Davies]

I think I am with my hon. Friend, broadly. He said he was a big supporter of the Mayor of London’s document, “An Electric Vehicle Delivery Plan for London”. How can he guarantee that its ambitious targets will be hit? The Bill as currently drafted contains no requirement for local authorities to do this; there is only the hope that they will.

[Bob Blackman]

London local authorities are ambitious and keen to get on with the job. They do not need to be told that they have to do it. Some of the other amendments would make it harder for local authorities to introduce charging points.

--- Later in debate ---

[Bob Blackman]

The thrust of the amendments is to require public authorities to provide charging points; the thrust of the Bill is to allow them to provide charging points if they so wish. That is why I am urging my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch not to press his amendments.

Amendment 24 is particularly pernicious, because it would remove the power of local authorities to get the market—either electricity companies or other third party providers—to install charging points in car parks or on the highway, when that is something we should encourage wholeheartedly. Amendments 25, 26, 32 to 36, 38 and 39 are consequential on amendment 24, so I would urge my hon. Friend to withdraw them en bloc.

Amendment 27 is about local authorities’ liability. If a local authority grants permission to a third party, be it an electricity company or someone in the private sector, it should be the people who have installed the charging point and operated it who take the liability. The effect of the amendment would be to place the liability on to the authority, rather than on to the people who implemented the service. I would urge my hon. Friend not to press that amendment, as the liability should fall on the third party, if that is who is chosen. The other issue is that if a local authority is negligent, it cannot discharge that liability. However, the key point is about the damage and injury caused by the presence of charging apparatus, which would probably be an issue for either the third party or the individual who misused the charging point.

[Philip Davies]

My hon. Friend is making a valiant attempt to justify his argument, but this is a local authority Bill and of course local authorities are going to want legislation to be passed which states that they are not liable for anything. Surely it is the duty of this House to say that that is unacceptable and that if local authorities want to indulge in this kind of activity, they will have to accept that same kind of liability that applies to other people. Parliament cannot allow local authorities to write their own laws, willy-nilly, to exempt themselves from any liabilities.

[Bob Blackman]

I accept the principle behind my hon. Friend’s point, but if a local authority is negligent, it cannot discharge that liability. Let us remember that the charging points will be on the public highway and in public car parks. If someone abuses a charging point, that must be their responsibility rather than that of the local authority. Clearly, if something had been incorrectly connected or was dangerous, that would be the responsibility of the local authority, or of the third party operating the facility on its behalf, to fix it, but only if the problem had been caused by the authority’s negligence.

Let us move on to amendment 28. If someone has used their own connecting cable to plug their vehicle into a charging point on a public highway or in a public car park, the local authority should not have to accept any liability. The responsibility should lie with the individual who has plugged in their vehicle. It is an accepted provision for various electrical devices that it is up to the user to accept responsibility for the cable that they are using. I urge my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch not to press the amendment. Amendment 29 is consequential on the outcome of amendment 28.

--- Later in debate ---

[Bob Blackman]

In some car parks, a local authority might wish to control the process. I do not envisage cables being littered all along the public highway, but local authorities could provide cables in car parks, particularly when there is someone present to ensure that the process is operated properly. It is important to be clear about whose responsibility this would be. Indeed, there could be an issue in civil court proceedings in that regard. Amendment 31 would remove the definition of a connecting cable, which could be dangerous. The term “connecting cable” is clearly defined in the Bill and the amendment is not helpful. I urge my hon. Friend not to press it.

Amendment 37 relates to the way in which permission is given and the consultation that should take place. We are talking about potentially 25,000 of these charging points, to which my hon. Friend has alluded, right across London—and possibly more. The amendment would require planning permission to be given for each of those charging points, at a time when I would suggest that the Government are trying to move away from the whole process of granting planning permission. We are talking about two aspects: one is the public highway; the other is council-operated car parks. Clearly, the only people who would have any concerns about council-operated car parks would be the council and the potential users of the car park. The users will not be consulted—they may use the car park, but would not have any rights over what happens in it—so only the planning authority would be consulted. Under those circumstances, the requirement to obtain planning permission seems like overkill.

[Philip Davies]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[Bob Blackman]

Let me explain the other issue—about the public highway—first. If we ended up having to grant planning permission for all the different boxes that are going to placed alongside parking meters on the public highway, it would again lead to complete overkill. What the promoters suggest—and planning authorities in London, by the way, have given their consent to it—is that they are happy to be consulted without having to go through giving full planning permission for this to operate. They are content in that this is London local authorities dealing with London planning authorities—funnily enough, they are the same thing—so in those circumstances, it again seems like overkill.

[Philip Davies]

It is not the local authorities, but local residents, that I care about. My hon. Friend makes great play of how the Bill will be used in practice, but a full planning meeting will not have to be convened for every one of these requests. Rather, this is a safeguard. Most of the consents can be given in a flash by the planning authority—we do not need to go through a full planning meeting for a planning authority to give consent—but ensuring that consent has to be given provides an essential safeguard for the one or two cases that might be contentious in the local community, even though my hon. Friend might not be able to envisage them.

London Local Authorities and Transport for London (No. 2) Bill [Lords]

Debate between Philip Davies and Bob Blackman

Wednesday 10th July 2013 Commons Chamber

[Bob Blackman]

I thank the Minister for that helpful intervention. Amendment 4 would mean that local authorities could not put up lamps and signs in a conservation area without consent. The problem is that councils already have the power to do that, although they must obtain the consent of the owner of the building. This is a decluttering measure; the idea behind these provisions is to remove the clutter of road signs and signage that appears all over London, which most of us Londoners recognise as disastrous. The amendment would restrict the ability of local authorities to declutter conservation areas and put up appropriate signs, although that ability is what most people want to see. Finally, the provisions in question, including those on conservation areas, were proposed by English Heritage. I bow to its expertise in wishing to pursue them.

Amendment 5 deals with notices. My hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch made several points about people who appear to be residents or are employed on the land in question. The point is that notices would be served on such people if the local authority had been unable to ascertain the name or address of the owner of the premises. The provision in the Bill retains flexibility and is exactly the same as that in section 53 of the Crossrail Act 2008 and many other pieces of Government legislation. It is entirely consistent with previous legislation, so I strongly resist removing it.

[Philip Davies]

My hon. Friend is doing a good job of explaining the position. However, if I heard him correctly, he said that handing over a notice would be a last resort. Will he at least accept that the Bill does not actually say that?

[Bob Blackman]

It is clearly incumbent on the local authority to make every effort to establish the name and owner of a building, and it would be sensible for it to do that. However, in London in particular, there is often a freeholder, a leaseholder and maybe a sub-leaseholder, and the ownership and responsibility may be confused. The provision is about giving a notice setting out what is going to be done to the outside of a building. That is not particularly draconian, but it is clearly required. A local authority frequently goes through a set of procedures to make such things happen. It would be draconian to frustrate its ability to provide signage or lamps that are wholly consistent with the general requirements of TfL or London local authorities.

Amendment 6 would remove the provision allowing local authorities to use any other existing general powers to serve notice. Councils have a power to do so under section 233 of the Local Government Act 1972, and that power is enshrined in the Bill. The effect of the amendment would be to remove that capability under the 1972 Act. My hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch may have difficulties with that Act, but this is not the right place to express them.

--- Later in debate ---

[Bob Blackman]

No, it wouldn’t. It says that the local authority “shall” step in and do the work, irrespective. That wording is incorrect and is why I shall resist amendment 7, as well as amendments 8 and 9, which are all consequential amendments.

On amendment 20, London has many gates placed across roads to prevent the flow of traffic through residential communities. The roads are normally accessible by the emergency services—the fire brigade, ambulance service and police—and other appropriate authorities, but sometimes there is a severe problem. At the moment, if someone damages a gate, they can be held liable for criminal damage, but if they merely open the gate for their own convenience—to access the road or bypass a congested road—it defeats the purpose of that gate, which is to prevent large parts of London from being used as rat runs. The promoters therefore seek an enforcement option. If, on being directed by the emergency services, someone opened a gate, clearly they would not be guilty of an offence, but if they opened a gate for their own convenience—or for other people’s convenience, for joyriding or whatever—they would be guilty of an offence, and it would be up to the local authorities to enforce those actions.

I accept completely that there is an issue of interpretation around the reason for opening the gate, and there is always the potential for somebody to receive a penalty for incorrectly opening one, but it is entirely fair and proper to make it clear that people should not open one unless they have authority or good reason to believe that life or limb are in danger.

[Philip Davies]

I am not entirely sure that the matter is as clear-cut as my hon. Friend says. As I understand it, if someone is at a red traffic light, an emergency vehicle wishes to get through and that person moves through the red light to allow it through, they still can be, and in some cases have been, prosecuted for going through a red light. I fear that, under the clause, if somebody for a good, common sense, although perhaps not lawful reason, opened a gate to allow an emergency vehicle to get to the scene of an accident, they could still find themselves prosecuted, which surely cannot be anybody’s intention.

[Bob Blackman]

Clearly, this is a matter of interpretation. The purpose of placing barriers across a traffic highway is to prevent the incursion of normal vehicles, but I cannot envisage someone ever being prosecuted for opening a gate that is normally locked in order to give access to an ambulance, the police or the fire brigade. However, the promoters are keen to ensure that people understand that if they interfere with a locked gate that is there for the purpose of preventing traffic from passing through, that will be an offence and they can be prosecuted.

[Bob Blackman]

Having made something of a study of such gates in London over the years, I can say that they are almost all locked with padlocks—except where someone has stolen the padlock, in which chase the gate will often flip open and shut. Young people—in general it is young people—have a habit of occasionally using such gates as a form of entertainment. We need to make it clear that such gates are there for a purpose. This issue is a matter of interpretation. We are talking about gates being interfered with—that is, opened to allow the incursion of traffic.

[Philip Davies]

My earlier intervention fell on stony ground, so I will try from a different angle. My hon. Friend thinks that somebody in the scenario that I painted would not be prosecuted, but how about this scenario? What would happen if somebody refused to open the gate for an emergency vehicle in a desperate situation because they feared being prosecuted for contravening the law as it stands? Would that not be a shocking consequence of the proposal we are discussing?

[Bob Blackman]

It would be shocking; indeed, it would be shocking if the emergency services did not have the keys to access such a gate when they arrived at the scene, which in my experience they always do. To my knowledge—I will bow to anyone else’s superior knowledge—there has never been a situation where the emergency services required access to such a gate but were prevented because they were not carrying the keys.

--- Later in debate ---

[Bob Blackman]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for clarifying the issue.

In summary, let me say on behalf of the promoters that we accept amendment 11 and oppose the rest of the amendments in this group. Part 3 of the Bill deals with appropriate action to make London streets safer when people put skips on the public highway, by ensuring appropriate fines and enforcement action when people break or flout the rules. We will accept amendment 11, but I invite my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch not to press the other amendments.

[Philip Davies]

I seek to fulfil the same role in this debate as I did in the debate on the previous group of amendments, by speaking briefly and highlighting for my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Mr Chope) where I think he is on to a winner and also where he has not necessarily persuaded me of the merits of his case.

I am rather puzzled by the whole debate on amendment 10. My hon. Friend made a good case for saying that we should ask people to supply information about the owner of a builder’s skip only

“where that information is not clearly and indelibly marked under the provisions of section 9,”

as his amendment sets out. If I understood my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman) correctly—I am sure he will correct me if I am wrong, which I may well be—he was saying that because skips change ownership quite often, having just a name, telephone number, address or whatever it might be on the skip would not necessarily be a good enough indicator of the actual owner, because the skip might have changed hands a couple of times since those markings were applied. That might well be true, but the problem is that it flies in the face of clause 9, which states that the owner would have to ensure—I might add that anyone who did not do this would have to pay a fine—that

“the skip is clearly and indelibly marked with the owner’s name and with his telephone number or address”.

The promoters of the Bill cannot have it both ways. They cannot say that such information is required for the purposes of clause 9, but that it would be unfair to require it in clause 8. I would advise my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow East to have another think, because my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch is simply proposing a modest, common-sense amendment that goes with the flow of the Bill, not against it.

London Local Authorities Bill [Lords]

Debate between Philip Davies and Bob Blackman

Wednesday 25th January 2012 Commons Chamber

[Philip Davies]

It was important for my hon. Friend to make that point, because otherwise she might have been in trouble tonight, and her endless supply of free Mars bars could have been at risk.

[Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)]

My hon. Friend is making a powerful speech about who is responsible for litter and its collection. Taking the principle that the polluter should pay, I trust that he will support the principle that the measures taken must punish those who drop litter in the first place.

[Philip Davies]

I do not want to get sidetracked—as I am sure you do not, Madam Deputy Speaker—but the whole thrust of my argument is that the legislation already in place is perfectly sufficient to allow that to happen. My hon. Friend says that the polluter should pay. That is all very well, but local authorities come to the Government, and to council tax payers, saying that they need all this money to do this and that, and to ensure that the streets are kept clean, and all that kind of business, but on the other hand they are surreptitiously trying to say that they will take all the money from the Government and from the council tax payer for fulfilling this obligation, but then, quietly on the side, they will then try to pass the responsibility on to someone else. If those local authorities want the funding for keeping the streets clean, they also have to take on the obligation to keep them clean. They cannot have one without the other.

--- Later in debate ---

[Philip Davies]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. If the problems that the Bill seeks to address exist, they cannot possibly be unique to London—they must apply equally around the country. I would go so far as to say that it is an abuse of private legislation for someone to try to tackle something that applies equally across the country by passing a piece of legislation that will apply to only their part of the world. The whole point of private business is to deal with problems that are unique to the place to which it applies.

[Bob Blackman]

Does not that fly in the face of my hon. Friend’s argument given that we, as a Government, are pursuing the agenda of localism? Localism is all about local choices and local decisions, and the people of London—London councils across the board—have taken the view that this is a power that they want. In addition, does he believe that it is right for local authorities to collect money through charges for the use of public toilets?

[Philip Davies]

I do not want to get sidetracked by charges in toilets, Madam Deputy Speaker, because I am sure that if I went down that route you would soon pick me up and tell me to keep on the straight and narrow. I am tempted by my hon. Friend’s deliberate attempt to get me into trouble by leading me out of order, but I will resist.

My hon. Friend appears to have given up on his former valiant defence of the reason for this measure and has now played what he believes to be the trump card of localism. Perhaps he thinks, “If all else fails, bring out the localism card.” I have two points to make about that. First, the purpose of Parliament is that we are here to defend the freedoms of people right across the country, and wherever we see those freedoms being infringed, it is our duty to try to do something about it.

Secondly, one could just about use the localism principle to sustain an argument that in Shipley, to pick a place at random, the local authority should be able to do what it wants with its public toilets because even though we have on our doorstep Saltaire, which is a world heritage site and a fine place that I advise all hon. Members to visit, the centre of Shipley does not have a great number of tourists. That is regrettable. If people wandered down from Saltaire, which is only a mile or two away, they could soon be a tourist in Shipley, but it does not tend to happen. In London, however, the exact reverse is the case. These regulations will not only apply to Londoners because London has the distinction of having a large number of visitors from every part of the country. When my constituents, who know that local authorities cannot put turnstiles in toilets in their local area, come and visit London for a weekend break or a week’s holiday, they should be able to expect that the law of the land that applies in their part of the world applies in London too. It would be completely bizarre if all those people travelling down to London for a weekend were caught unawares by such draconian legislation. How on earth could they be expected to know that London has a completely different regime on all these matters of basic freedoms from that which applies in other parts of the country?

--- Later in debate ---

[Philip Davies]

If you will allow me, Mr Deputy Speaker, I shall conclude on the issue of toilets by saying simply that the Guild of Registered Tourist Guides formed an inconvenience committee, which produced a report—[Interruption.] This is the final thing I want to say on toilets. The committee described what it considered to be the perfect public toilet. It said that the perfect public toilet should be “free”—that is perhaps not much to ask in a world-class city—

“with sufficient cubicles for men and women so that large groups can use them without lengthy queues…clean and well maintained…safe and well lit…appropriate access aids such as hand rails on stairs, plus separate facility Cot wheel chair users…hot and cold water and soap for hand washing…Hand drying with paper towels as well as the hot air machines…Attendant on duty…Litter bins for disposal of hand towels…Nappy changing room…Feminine hygiene provision…Information and health education…Early morning and evening opening hours…sitting area for people to wait…and…Machines offering various necessities”.

That is it. You will have heard, Mr Deputy Speaker, no mention of turnstiles in that description of the perfect British toilet. I therefore do not know why on earth we would want to introduce them.

[Bob Blackman]

I am almost tempted to say that people would choose to live in such a wonderful place as opposed to just using it for the purpose for which it is intended. Will my hon. Friend say who will pay for that wonderful service if it is free of charge for the general public?

[Philip Davies]

I do not want to go on further about public toilets, suffice it to say that I hope my comments have shown that such things should be the responsibility of local authorities.

Use of the Chamber (United Kingdom Youth Parliament)

Debate between Philip Davies and Bob Blackman

Tuesday 20th July 2010 Commons Chamber

[Philip Davies]

The hon. Gentleman may feel that, in which case tomorrow during Prime Minister’s questions he will presumably invite one of his constituents to sit in his place. It is not the case that by definition, any of our constituents can come and sit themselves here on these Benches. In fact, he may have noticed that usually, as he gives his constituents tours, there are signs up on the seats saying, “Please don’t sit here”. He appears to be on the verge of supporting the principle that some of his constituents can come and sit on these Benches but others cannot. There is plenty of time for the debate, so I am sure he will wish to tell us in his own words why he believes that and why some of his constituents are second-class citizens.

When a young person comes to me and asks me to talk about Parliament and politics, I always tell them that when a politician is given a problem to solve, their solution will always incorporate two ingredients. The first is that they have to be seen to be doing something, which is the bane of politicians’ lives. I long for the day when a Minister stands at the Dispatch Box and says, “Well, actually, that’s got nothing to do with me. It’s for other people to sort out for themselves.” They never want to underestimate their importance. The second ingredient is that their proposals must not offend anybody. If hon. Members have not already worked that out for themselves, I ask them to look out for what happens whenever a politician is given a problem. If a politician can find a solution that incorporates looking as though they are doing something and not offending anybody, they will jump on it at the first possible opportunity.

That appears to be what we are doing this evening. We want to engage more young people in politics, so what is being proposed is, “We have to look as though we are doing something, so we should let young people sit in the House of Commons Chamber. That does not particularly offend anybody, so let’s go for it.” However, that does not deal with why young people are so disengaged with the political process. If any Member really thinks that this sticking plaster will mean that young people will start turning out in droves at elections or engaging in the political process all of a sudden, I believe they are mistaken.

[Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way so far into his speech. As parliamentarians, we exist to inspire people to come here—I think we would all accept that. Knowing that this debate was coming up, I spoke to the representatives of my area, who were desperately looking forward to the opportunity to come here and have their say. Did he consult his representatives, and what did they have to say?

[Philip Davies]

I do not doubt that my hon. Friend had good reason to be asleep when I dealt with a similar intervention earlier—I am sure that my speech sends everybody to sleep. It might seem a long time ago, but I remind him that I said that I had spoke to the MYPs in my area, and they did not mention that they wanted to have their debate in the Chamber.

[Bob Blackman]

I rise again to ask a specific question. Knowing that this debate was coming up, did my hon. Friend consult the people who are elected to come here and have their say? The point is that young people who have fought elections for the opportunity to come here are keen to take it up, and we as parliamentarians should not stop them.

[Philip Davies]

My hon. Friend’s experience may be different, but his intervention would have been better directed at the Deputy Leader of the House—[Interruption.] If the hon. Member for East Dunbartonshire (Jo Swinson) will control herself, I can finish my point. If my hon. Friend were so desperate for every hon. Member to speak to their MYPs before the debate, he should ask the Deputy Leader of the House why the Government tabled the motion this morning without any warning. He is quick off the mark—as ever—but if he wanted all hon. Members to hold a wide consultation with their MYPs, he should suggest that his and my hon. Friends do not support the motion tonight, but allow themselves to take stock and revisit the situation at a later date. If that is his suggestion, I will not disagree with him—it would be a perfectly valid argument—but if he is worried that there has been insufficient consultation with MYPs, he should address that to the Deputy Leader of the House, because the motion was put on the Order Paper only today.