International Men’s Day

Debate between Philip Davies and Jo Swinson

Tuesday 14th November 2017 Westminster Hall

[Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Austin. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Jeremy Lefroy) on securing the debate, and other hon. Members on participating in it. Like the hon. Member for East Dunbartonshire (Jo Swinson), I too hope that next year we will see the debate restored to its rightful place in the main Chamber, where there is more time to cover some of these important issues.

It is fair to say that I am often pilloried for arguing that men and women should be treated equally. I do not see that there is anything particularly controversial in that, but it never ceases to amaze me how often I am accused of being a misogynist, sexist, or some other term of abuse, merely for saying that men and women should be treated equally before the law. That is a principle I was brought up with as a child and maintain today. What seems to have happened is that in many cases, militant feminists have tried to close down any talk about men and women being treated equally. To try to close down the debate, they hurl abuse at the people who raise these issues, in the hope that people will not listen any more to what they say, that they will stop saying those things and that other people will be deterred from standing up and saying those things.

The people who do that to me clearly to not know me, because I am certainly not going to be bullied or intimidated in that way. I am delighted that other people are finding the courage to raise issues that affect men too. I do not think that anything I have ever said should be seen as controversial in a normal world, but somehow saying that men and women should be treated equally seems to be controversial.

We have had some successes. A few years ago, I said that men were being treated more harshly in the criminal justice system than women were. It is worth reiterating that at the time, the exact opposite was being said in this Chamber. In a Westminster Hall debate that I held once, it was asserted that it was the other way round, and even Ministers claimed that. I am delighted to say that that is one battle that has been won, and now people accept that men are treated more harshly in the criminal justice system than women. Even the research carried out in the course of the Lammy review concluded:

“Males were independently associated with approximately 83% higher odds of being sentenced to imprisonment, compared to females.”

We can have victories for common sense; we just need some more. Men are increasingly getting a bad press, and it needs to be challenged. It seems bizarre to me that those who apparently fight discrimination, injustices and stereotypes are often quite happy to perpetuate all those things against men.

In thinking about International Men’s Day, let us remind ourselves that there are men who are victims of unequal pay, discrimination and harassment. We would not think so when we see all the headlines about equal pay gaps, which only mention women. They do not mention male part-time workers who are paid less than their female counterparts. For various reasons, in my view, the overall pay gap is not a result of widespread discrimination, but if they say it is, surely they should be equally outraged about the pay gap in part-time pay, where men are the losers. Surely the logic is that those men must be the victims of discrimination too, although that is unlikely to happen, because it seems that in the eyes of some people only men can be sexist.

There are also certainly men who are victims of domestic violence. Men are far more likely to be victims of violence generally. Men are victims of sexual assaults and rapes. Men are victims of stalking and controlling behaviour. Men are victims of so-called honour-based violence too; yet we would not necessarily think it if we were to pick up a paper, see the news, or hear about strategies for only tackling violence against women and girls. Every single victim of a crime is important, and preventing those crimes against anyone, male or female, should be a priority. The focus solely on women and girls is serious. To give one example of how dangerous it can be, a serious case review led to Bradford Council and the police apologising for letting down a 14-year-old boy who was groomed by dozens of men. Phil Mitchell of the BLAST Project in Bradford said:

“I think the fact he was a boy was an issue. If the police had got a call that a girl was planning to sleep with an older man then I think officers would have responded with more urgency.”

People, not least the leader of the Women’s Equality party, have said that I am a proponent of the idea that we achieve equality by treating everyone the same. If that is supposed to be a criticism, I am stumped, and I will certainly plead guilty to it.

[Jo Swinson]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Philip Davies]

I will not, because other people want to speak and I know that time is at a premium. I am coming to a close.

Why should male and female murderers not be treated the same? What possible justification could there be for treating them differently just because of their sex? Those who think the sexes should be treated differently in the eyes of the law are the ones who are truly sexist. They are the ones with the problem. Men and women are different, but that is perfectly compatible with their rightly being treated the same in the eyes of the law. Some people have said that every day is men’s day, but if anyone looks at the facts, that is certainly not the case. I would rather, as I have said before, that there was no need for an International Women’s Day or an International Men’s Day, and that men and women happily co-existed without tension or people stirring up issues with their own agendas. I hope that this year International Men’s Day provides an opportunity to focus on the negative stereotypical portrayal of men and the unjustifiable attacks on those who do not support the politically correct, militant feminist approach to things. I hope men and women can agree that that is not right, and join forces to ensure that the minority trying to do such damage do not succeed.

Consumer Rights Bill

Debate between Philip Davies and Jo Swinson

Monday 9th March 2015 Commons Chamber

[Jo Swinson]

It is a veritable alphabet soup of amendments, Mr Speaker.

On 24 February in the other place, the Government agreed with amendments tabled by Lord Moynihan to introduce light-touch regulation of the online secondary ticketing market, alongside a statutory review of the market. The Bill has therefore returned to us for further consideration. It sets out a simple, modern framework of consumer rights that will promote growth through confident consumers driving innovation and more competitive markets. Consumers, knowing their rights are protected if things go wrong, will have greater confidence to take up new products and switch suppliers, which will help to create a competitive and thriving economy.

The Bill contains important new protections for consumers alongside measures to lower regulatory burdens for business. All this together will make markets work better, which is good for consumers, good for business and therefore good for growth. It will have an impact across all sectors of the economy and address many of the concerns we hear daily in our own constituencies.

Chapter 1 gives consumers a new right to a refund on faulty goods within 30 days. Chapter 2 protects consumers in law for the first time when they buy digital content, while schedule 5 means business will get more notice of routine inspections by trading standards. These represent an important package of reforms that businesses and consumer groups have been waiting for and preparing for. Once the Bill receives Royal Assent, we will alert business to the forthcoming changes well ahead of the Act coming into force.

Since December, there has been one outstanding issue to resolve before the Bill can be sent for Royal Assent—how to address issues in the online secondary ticketing market. This is the market where fans sell tickets they can no longer use to fans who missed out on tickets the first time round. It is a much safer and more convenient environment for fans to buy and sell tickets than dealing with shady individuals in the backstreets around venues.

There are some concerns, however, about how this relatively young market is working, as I explained when we last considered this issue in January. I know that many hon. Members have been following this area very closely, and I appreciate the keen interest in this issue. I know that several members of the all-party parliamentary group and of the Select Committee on Culture, Media and Sport are in their places today, and I pay tribute to their extensive work on this issue over a number of years.

The Competition and Markets Authority has also been active in this area. I warmly welcome its announcement last week that it has secured further protection for consumers. This work makes an important contribution to our parliamentary debates. To deal with them, there has been general agreement across the House on two central points: we agree on the importance of a safe and secure environment for fans to buy and sell tickets; and we agree on the need for event organisers, the marketplaces themselves and enforcers to play their part in combating fraudulent practices in the resale market.

We were not, however, able to support an amendment made by the House of Lords in November. While that amendment aimed to increase transparency in the market, we were concerned about privacy and unintended consequences for the secondary market. We did not think that that amendment would allow the secondary market to continue to thrive or to be a proportionate and appropriate response to concerns that had been raised. Since December, we have been working intensively with all the relevant stakeholders to see if a compromise could be reached—a compromise that allows fans to resell tickets they cannot use, but one that also tackles some of the known issues in the market.

[Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)]

The Minister in the House of Lords said that the Government were accepting these amendments on the basis that people would still be able to sell on their tickets at any price they could command, and that the sports bodies concerned could not blacklist anybody who decided to do that. Will the Minister confirm that that is the Government’s position and the basis on which they are accepting the amendments?

[Jo Swinson]

I am certainly happy to confirm that position. There is already protection in the unfair trading regulations, and any unfair terms can be challenged in law, so they should not be included. There would be many circumstances in which the terms surrounding the cancellation of ticket reselling would be deemed to be unfair. My only caveat would be that, in some circumstances, such terms might be appropriate. If, for example, a particular category of ticket aimed at a particular sector such as a youth audience were sold at a discount and it was important to increase access to such events for a particular group, some restrictions on resale could be justified and the terms deemed to be fair. I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Philip Davies) will reassured by what I have said.

On 24 February, the other place agreed to add provisions to the Bill to protect consumers in the secondary ticket market. Those addressed the concerns I raised during our last debate and, importantly, they achieved cross-party welcome and support. The provisions cover four main issues. First, they put on a statutory basis the review that I announced here on 12 January. They also give more details on what the review will cover and how it will be conducted. It will be a full review of consumer protection measures in the secondary ticketing market.

As I explained during our last debate, this will be an independent review and it will be presented to Parliament. The review will start this summer and be presented to Parliament within a year of the duty coming into force. The review will look at the current law, including any new provisions, and assess how best to protect consumers. It will be an invaluable opportunity to gather evidence on how the market works and how consumers can best be protected when operating within it.

Secondly, there is a requirement that online ticketing marketplaces report criminal activity on their sites. Where they are aware of such activity—for example, fraud—they must report it to the police and the event organiser. This new requirement addresses an issue many hon. Members raised during the Bill’s passage. There is criminal activity and fraud in this market, as there can be in any market, and we should be concerned about that.

[Philip Davies]

The Minister is being typically kind in giving way. What measures exist to prevent people from setting up online sites offshore, and how would the law apply to an offshore internet site that was selling on tickets in a secondary market?

[Jo Swinson]

The hon. Gentleman has identified challenges that exist in regulation of all kinds that applies to the internet and to foreign sites and companies. I do not think that those challenges can be the basis for an argument against trying to make the market fairer. We have built a consensus with the key players in the industry, and have arrived at proposals that they believe to be workable. We have a secondary ticketing market that works very successfully for many consumers in this country, and because there are existing, established providers, it is unlikely that there will be a sudden exodus of tickets to sites abroad. Consumers will also be aware of the protections from which they benefit when using sites in the United Kingdom. The legislation will cover sites with which they are already familiar.

There is no benefit in making crimes “doubly” illegal, but it is important for us to improve reporting and enforcement, and the new requirement to report fraud will help in that regard.

The final two changes that we are making address the issues of transparency and consumer protection directly. To improve transparency, those who sell tickets online must give buyers some basic information. That information, when applicable, consists of the face value of the ticket, the seat number, and any restrictions relating to the person who can use the ticket. When those in the secondary market, event organisers or certain other connected persons are selling the tickets themselves, they must make that clear. The provision is complementary to, and supplements, existing law. It ensures that buyers will be given some of the most important information that they will need in order to make an informed choice.

Crucially, the list of information that must be provided does not include the name of the individual seller, so individual consumers will not have to give their names when they sell online. As was pointed out when we considered the earlier amendments in January, that is an important way of protecting sellers from identity theft. We are providing a finite list of the most important pieces of information that a consumer will need to make an informed purchasing decision, thus ensuring that there is compliance with relevant EU law.

I know that some Members—including the hon. Member for Shipley (Philip Davies)—fear that the new information will allow event organisers to cancel tickets or blacklist sellers. That might, of course, be unfair on fans, and give those event organisers unfair control of the market. We share those Members’ concern, which is why our provisions build in consumer safeguards. An event organiser will not be able to cancel a ticket or blacklist a seller merely because the ticket is resold or offered for resale, unless there is a term in the original sales contract that allows for that, and, perhaps more important, the term itself is fair. Terms that prohibit resale are not always fair, and those that are not fair do not bind the consumer. Similarly, terms that seek to prohibit resale at or above a particular price are not always fair, and not always binding on the consumer.

The combination of transparency and consumer safeguards will allow the secondary market to flourish. It will ensure that no one, including event organisers, has a monopoly on resales, or an unfettered ability to set prices in the secondary market. The new system of light-touch regulation will make buyers and sellers confident about using the market. It will make the market more dynamic, and will benefit consumers further by creating competition in relation to price and quality of service. The review that I mentioned earlier will ensure that that outcome materialises in practice. If other issues arise, or if the new legislation has any unintended consequences, the review will pick that up.

The hon. Member for Shipley has shown great interest in the Bill, and has brought a great deal of energy to our debates.

[Philip Davies]

Is that a compliment?

[Jo Swinson]

It is indeed a compliment, and I hope that the hon. Gentleman takes it as one.

If the hon. Gentleman’s amendment were passed, chapter 3B would cease to apply two years after coming into force. The Government share his fear that regulation of the resale market could threaten the current online ticket marketplaces. That is why chapter 3B makes it clear that tickets cannot be cancelled or their sellers blacklisted merely because the tickets are offered for resale, unless certain strict conditions are met. The consumer protection that amendment 12Q seeks to introduce is already part of these provisions. Striking this down after two years would neither help nor protect consumers.

[Philip Davies]

The Government have set great store by the review they are going to carry out after the election and after the legislation has been introduced. Surely a sunset clause of two years will give that review much more power, because it will mean that by the end of the review the Government will have to make specific proposals to implement its recommendations, rather than just a review taking place and dying?

High Cost Credit Bill

Debate between Philip Davies and Jo Swinson

Friday 12th July 2013 Commons Chamber

[Jo Swinson]

I absolutely agree with the hon. Lady: that is exactly the point I was making. We have tried to work with the industry and it has produced its voluntary codes, but the Citizens Advice survey suggests that it is not sticking to them. The industry also committed at the time to monitor the compliance with those codes by this summer. Only one of the four main trade associations in the industry has said that it will do that monitoring; the others have not even agreed to comply with that. That is why we are transferring consumer credit regulation to a new independent regulator, the Financial Conduct Authority, which will have real teeth to clamp down on the problems in this market.

[Philip Davies]

rose—

[Mark Durkan]

rose—

[Jo Swinson]

I will give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley and to the hon. Member for Foyle (Mark Durkan), and then I will make a little more progress.

[Philip Davies]

I am not sure whether I am Batman or Robin in the Minister’s mind, but perhaps she can expand on that in a moment.

My understanding is that, a week or so ago, the Government and Ministers held a summit on this issue with interested parties. Will the Minister give us an update on any results of that summit?

[Jo Swinson]

Absolutely. I will mention the summit; my hon. Friend anticipates my remarks. If he has a little patience, I am sure that he will have the information that he is looking for. I will not comment on whether he is Batman or Robin. Hon. Members can make up their own minds.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jo Swinson]

I welcome the hon. Gentleman’s contribution and his constructive approach to this matter, but I would say that his Bill limits the independence of the Financial Conduct Authority. It is not helpful for us to set that out or to mandate exactly what it should do. The FCA is producing a draft rule book for September, which is only two months away—we are not talking about this going into the long grass—and it will be consulted on. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman and other hon. Members will want to contribute to that consultation. That rule book will then be finalised in advance of the transfer of consumer credit regulation, which, of course, happens in April, so it will be in place then.

Of course, the Financial Conduct Authority will have really tough new powers. The Office of Fair Trading, the current regulator, was mentioned earlier and I will come to its action shortly. We have recognised that stronger powers are needed. The FCA will have new powers to make binding rules on firms, including to ban certain products if necessary. It will have tougher sanctions—for example, the ability to impose unlimited fines and to order redress for consumers who have been ripped off. It will also be setting a higher bar for entry in the first place, so when it is granting a consumer credit licence, the applicant will have to prove that its business model is not based on ripping off consumers. We had the discussion earlier about roll-overs and whether, if some companies are making significant proportions of their profit from roll-overs, their business model in fact depends on people’s not repaying in time, and whether that is an acceptable business model. The FCA will be able to look into these issues before people get a consumer credit licence.

The FCA has made it clear that it is committed to plugging gaps in payday regulation and has outlined four specific areas that it wants to target: first, affordability checks; secondly, continuous payment authority; thirdly, advertising; and fourthly, roll-over loans—all of which hon. Members have rightly raised today as issues of deep concern, and which the FCA has said it is keen to tackle as a priority. Indeed, the chief executive of the FCA, Martin Wheatley, has written to me to outline its work on that, and I will place a copy of that letter in the Library so that Members can have a look.

The Office of Fair Trading, the current regulator, recently announced a crackdown on payday lenders and has been delivering real results. It has also referred the market to the Competition Commission, to investigate the root causes of problems with payday lending and it can, of course, use its powers to fix that. An investigation by the Competition Commission is a serious thing. It takes a bit of time, which is why we are ensuring that we take other action at the moment—it is important to do that at the same time. However, it is important that fundamental problems within the payday lending market are looked at, and the Competition Commission is well placed to do that.

The National Audit Office report into the OFT was mentioned. Of course, one of our responses to that has been to ensure that the OFT has further powers. For example, in February, we gave the OFT further powers to suspend a credit licence immediately, if it had reason to believe that that was necessary to protect consumers, rather than waiting to go through the whole process of revoking a licence. We are also transferring the regulation to the FCA, which will have more powers. It is important, in the spirit of balance, to recognise that the NAO also said in its report that it was encouraged by the action that the OFT had been taking on this issue since March. I should like to share with the House a little bit more about where that has got to, because the situation is changing every week owing to the action that is being taken.

In March, the OFT completed its review into compliance in the payday lending industry. It identified the top 50 firms, which between them make up more than 90% of the market, and did a significant investigation into the practices of each of those. Those 50 lenders were sent a detailed dossier of where their practices were not up to scratch, with a 12-week deadline to sort out the problems that they were causing or face losing their licence. That has brought real results. Those 12-week periods, which are on a rolling basis to enable the OFT to process the responses, have been coming to an end and will all be finished by the end of this month.

So far, 28 of those 50 have responded to the OFT. I am sure that hon. Members will be interested to hear that 10 of those 28—more than a third—have left the payday lending market altogether as a result of that action, either by giving up their consumer credit licence entirely or by continuing to operate in other areas of consumer credit but no longer in payday lending. In addition, a further three licences have been revoked from lenders outwith the 50 largest and one further licence has been handed in. So since March, 14 payday lenders, including 10 of the biggest 50, have left the payday lending market. That shows that the tough action is starting to work. Market exit can be a good thing in a market where there are significant concerns about unscrupulous behaviour.

To respond to my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley, last week I called the payday lending summit to take stock of the progress that we had made since March and to look ahead to the new FCA regime. We delivered a strong message to the payday industry that it must get its house in order in preparation for the transfer next April. The meeting included regulators from the OFT, the FCA and the Advertising Standards Authority, which has a role in advertising that I will come to. It also involved charities and campaign groups such as Citizens Advice, Which? and those who provide debt advice to individual consumers. It was a successful summit. It was helpful to have that kind of event as the FCA produces its rule book that is due in September. I was very encouraged by the responses from the regulators.

I will turn to the various issues that are raised in the Bill. First, advertising is something that I feel strongly about. People should not be lured into taking out a payday loan when it is not the right thing for them to do. [Interruption.] I am not sure whether the hon. Member for Harrow West (Mr Thomas) wants to intervene. I am happy to be generous if he does.

[Philip Davies]

Will the Minister give way to me as she is in such a generous mood?

[Jo Swinson]

As my hon. Friend recognises my generosity, I will give way.

[Philip Davies]

I am surprised that the Minister glossed over so quickly the summit that she held on 1 July. According to the statement from the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills, the summit included a “frank exchange of views”, which slightly flies in the face of the picture that she is trying to paint. One of the trade association representatives who attended the summit and highlighted information from a report called “Credit, debt and financial difficulty in Britain” said that those present did not appear to have read the report and were not interested in its findings. Would the Minister like to comment on that part of the summit?

[Jo Swinson]

I know exactly who my hon. Friend is referring to. I would merely point out that they were very selective in their use of statistics. For example, they ignored the fact that the payday lending market has doubled in recent years. The fact that there was a frank exchange of views in no way contradicts what I said about our delivering a clear message to the payday lenders about what they have to do to get their house in order.

My hon. Friend the Member for East Hampshire (Damian Hinds) spoke well about how adverts pretend that such loans will solve problems that they will not solve. The adverts suggest that a payday loan is the answer to problems such as not having enough money towards the end of the month. If people find themselves in that position, the answer is not to take out a payday loan, but to get some good financial and debt advice.

When legislating on advertising, the evidence base for what should be brought in and what will work needs to be strong. The FCA will have powers to ban misleading financial promotions and to create rules on advertising payday loans. At the press Q and A after the summit, the chief executive of the FCA made it very clear that he would consider all sorts of rules that could be made with regard to advertising, including on the timing of adverts and the content that needs to be included. The FCA is very clear that it is looking at that issue.

It is important to proceed on the basis of research and evidence. BIS has commissioned Ipsos MORI to conduct qualitative research into the impact of advertising on consumer behaviour because we want to know what changes would be most effective in helping consumers. It would be easy to pull something out of the air and say, “This is what we should do on advertising,” but we want to know what works.

My hon. Friend the Member for East Hampshire talked about the wallpaper of life: the little annotations that we hear and see in adverts all the time, such as “terms and conditions apply” and “shares may go down as well as up”. Do we actually respond to all those things or would other things be more effective? The research will look at what health warnings or wealth warnings might work on such adverts, whether signposting debt advice might be more effective, and what is the best way of simply explaining the cost to people. There is a range of reasons why APR is not the most relevant figure in the context of payday and short-term credit advertising, not least of which is that many people do not understand what APR is. Is there an easier way to get that information to the consumers? That research will provide evidence to inform the FCA as it develops its rule book. We will publish the findings in the autumn.

The next issue is roll-overs. The hon. Member for West Ham (Lyn Brown), who is no longer in her place, made an interesting intervention in response to my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley. She was right to say that people are often not lending £150 at a high interest rate for just two weeks. If it was just for—[Interruption.] I do apologise. The hon. Lady is in her place but I could not quite see her behind the Table. She was right to highlight this issue. If somebody is lending money over a very short period at a high interest rate that basically covers the administration cost of setting up the loan arrangement, that is not necessarily problematic. The problem arises when that short-term loan is no longer short term, but becomes medium or long term because it is rolled over from one month to the next. That is when the APR is much more relevant, because people are taking out a much longer-term form of credit. Roll-overs are therefore problematic. In some cases, even one roll-over is too many.

Groceries Code Adjudicator Bill [Lords]

Debate between Philip Davies and Jo Swinson

Tuesday 26th February 2013 Commons Chamber

[Philip Davies]

Is the Minister saying that she is incapable of making her own decision and exercising her own judgment and that she believes that her role is simply to rubber-stamp what the Competition Commission and a Select Committee say and leave all other critical faculties at home?

[Jo Swinson]

No, but I think that it is very important to listen to Parliament, as I have outlined. Indeed, I think that was the point that some of my hon. Friend’s colleagues made earlier.

A code without an adjudicator is, to borrow an analogy from my hon. Friend the Member for St Ives (Andrew George), like a sports match with a rule book but no referee. The hon. Member for Ogmore (Huw Irranca-Davies) described the climate of fear, which can mean that suppliers are unwilling to come forward, and that is why the independent adjudicator is necessary.

New clauses 1, 2, 4 and 5, which were tabled by a combination of the hon. Members for Shipley, for Christchurch (Mr Chope) and for Bury North (Mr Nuttall), would all restrict the operation of the adjudicator so that it would be less extensive than the coverage provided by the code, either by excluding suppliers above a certain turnover or excluding supplies from outside the EU. I do not think that in principle that is a sensible approach to take. As I have said, the groceries code was put in place by the Competition Commission, after a detailed and thorough investigation, to rectify certain features of the groceries market that were causing long-term detriment to consumers. The adjudicator’s prime purpose is to enforce the code, so it is sensible and coherent that they and the code should have the same coverage.

With regard to the suggestion in new clause 2 that suppliers with a large turnover should be excluded, it is important to point out that the Competition Commission and the Select Committee explicitly considered that and concluded that excluding certain suppliers would not be appropriate. The Committee stated in its report that such an approach “would be impractical” and that because GSCOP applies to suppliers of all sizes, so should its monitoring enforcement. The Committee stated that the adjudicator is the gateway to the dispute resolution procedure, so with no access to the adjudicator large suppliers would have only the courts for redress, not the arbitration process, which is also very helpful. If the evidence from large suppliers on whether retailers are complying cannot be taken into account, smaller suppliers—this point was made earlier by other hon. Members—might also lose out because the evidence might be crucial to the case. According to the Select Committee, large suppliers might be better able to bring widespread potential breaches to the adjudicator’s attention than small suppliers. For all those reasons, it is important that the scope of the adjudicator fits that of the code.

We had many discussions on whether we should restrict who can complain. In Committee and in the earlier pre-legislative scrutiny those discussions centred on whether trade associations should be allowed to complain. We have decided to allow evidence from any source whatever. Ruling out evidence from particular sources would weaken the adjudicator, which I suspect might be the intention of the amendment, given that it has been tabled by those who do not want the adjudicator to be in place at all.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jo Swinson]

No, I am not. We have had an interesting debate, although I suspect it could have been more concise; nevertheless, we are where we are.

The hon. Member for Christchurch (Mr Chope) tabled amendment 27 on commencement. I am happy to make a commitment that the Government intend commencement to take place two months after the Bill receives Royal Assent. It is, however, usual procedure not to set that out in legislation, but to allow the Secretary of State discretion to commence an Act by order.

Finally, I cannot accept, in fact or in spirit, new clause 3, which was tabled by the hon. Member for Shipley. I agree that we do not want statutory offices to continue when they are not needed, and the Government have been working according to that principle. Indeed, in accordance with our general policy on sunsetting, the Bill’s sunset clause—clause 15—means that the Secretary of State must review the adjudicator every three years and may decide, if appropriate, to abolish the office. However, proposing an arbitrary end to the Act is not appropriate. If, in seven years’ time, the problems with large retailers that have led to the creation of the Bill and the adjudicator persist, we would not want the Act to be repealed automatically. I reassure Members that the Secretary of State will be rigorous in reviewing this matter. I believe that that is a much better way to ensure that statutory offices do not continue unnecessarily.

I hope that hon. Members are satisfied with my assurances and explanations, and that they will not press their amendments. If that is not the case, I urge hon. Members to reject the amendments before us.

[Philip Davies]

We have had a good debate. I am grateful to my hon. Friends who have supported my proposals. I am particularly grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough (Mr Bone) who, as he has made clear, came to listen to the debate before making his mind up. He has decided that if new clause 2 was not accepted, we would be in the ludicrous situation whereby retailers with a turnover of more than £1 billion will be subject to the code, but can be taken to the adjudicator by suppliers with a turnover of more than £1 billion who are perfectly big enough and capable of looking after their own interests and taking any disputes to court.

Unfortunately, while my hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough came to the debate with an open mind, the Minister did not. She made it abundantly clear that she had already decided what the Government’s view was and that the Report stage of the Bill was a completely pointless exercise. Perhaps that is why we have had only three hours to discuss all of today’s proposals. She made it abundantly clear that she was not prepared to listen to the debate or to any arguments because the Competition Commission had told her what she should say and she was not prepared to deviate from that. That makes a farce of having Report stages of Bills. I will allow her to reflect on that.

We cannot allow it to stand that we will be setting up an adjudicator to which multinational companies with a turnover of more than £1 billion will be able to go to make complaints against retailers that also have a turnover of more than £1 billion. We should deliver the best deal for our constituents, not add to the bottom line of big multinational corporations. For that reason, I wish to withdraw new clause 1, but to press new clause 2 to a vote. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New Clause 2

Supplier turnover

‘Suppliers are not allowed to refer cases to the Adjudicator and cannot have cases referred on their behalf if their turnover exceeds £1bn per annum.’.—(Philip Davies.)

Brought up, and read the First time.

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Philip Davies and Jo Swinson

Thursday 18th October 2012 Commons Chamber

[Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)]

Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. Rather than having politically correct targets, is it not better for companies in the private sector to decide for themselves who are the right people to be on their boards, irrespective of gender, race or religion? Should not all such appointments be made on merit, rather than trying to meet the politically correct targets that the Minister has referred to?

[Jo Swinson]

It is always a delight to hear from my hon. Friend. He perhaps does not fully recognise the benefits that businesses gain from having more diversity on their boards. The fact that fewer than one in five board members are women shows that there is a wide talent pool out there that is not being drawn upon; businesses could benefit hugely from ensuring that those talents are used in their boardrooms.

Use of the Chamber (United Kingdom Youth Parliament)

Debate between Philip Davies and Jo Swinson

Tuesday 20th July 2010 Commons Chamber

[Jo Swinson]

When did the hon. Gentleman last meet his local members of the Youth Parliament? What was their view of whether they should use the Chamber for debating? What was his response to them?

[Philip Davies]

The hon. Lady makes a good point. I met those members straight after their election. I made a point of contacting them all when they were newly elected to their positions. We all had a meeting in Shipley, and the interesting point, which is the one that she was making, is that not one of them mentioned the fact that they wanted to hold a debate in Parliament. In fact, all the times that I have met members of the Youth Parliament in my locality—

[Jo Swinson]

rose—

[Philip Davies]

I am dealing with the hon. Lady’s intervention. Even if she wants to intervene again, she may at least listen to the answer to the first one. She asked what view members of the Youth Parliament had of meeting here and what my response was to that. My answer—it is perfectly clear, although it might not be the one that she wants, but it is the answer to her question—is that not one of them mentioned that they wanted to hold a debate in the Chamber. In fact, when I visited their debate at Bradford council chamber, not one of them mentioned doing so either.

[Jo Swinson]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Philip Davies]

I am still dealing with the hon. Lady’s previous intervention. The wasp appears to have moved places. If holding a debate here is so important to all the Youth Parliament’s members, perhaps she will explain when she comes back for a second bite of the cherry why none of them mentioned it to me.

[Jo Swinson]

Perhaps the Youth Parliament’s members are not as avid readers of Hansard as everyone else and had not read or heard the hon. Gentleman’s previous more-than-one-hour peroration on this issue. Given that he had spoken for more than an hour, I find it strange that he did not mention that to the Youth Parliament’s members when they came to meet him and that they had no response to it. Will he confirm that he met them after he had made his hour-long speech in the Chamber and that he chose not to mention it?

[Philip Davies]

I did meet the Youth Parliament’s members after I made that speech in the Chamber. I have never hidden my views on the issue. I have no idea what the hon. Lady does, but I know for a fact that she is an incredibly diligent local MP. She can learn nothing from me about being a good constituency MP, but I will explain my approach just for clarity. When I meet local members of the Youth Parliament, my approach is to ask them about the issues that they are interested in and to ask them to tell me about the things that concern them. Clearly, her approach, which is obviously better than mine, because she is a diligent constituency MP, is for her simply to lecture them about what she thinks. I did not think that that was an appropriate way to deal with them, so I allowed them to raise the issues that they were concerned about, and those issues happened not to include holding a debate here. In fact, many of them were much more interested in local issues, such as crime and job opportunities, and debates about going to university, tuition fees and so on. Not one of them felt that holding a debate in the Chamber would be revolutionary to their lives.

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

[Jo Swinson]

Far be it from me to suggest that hon. Gentleman did not begin writing his speech before today given that it is has lasted nearly an hour, but the motion was on the Order Paper yesterday. Given the medium of e-mail, the fact that he is such a strong supporter of the Youth Parliament and that he is speaking at such length, I am surprised that he could not find time in the past 48 hours to consult MYPs from his area.

[Philip Davies]

The reason we are having this debate tonight is not the fact that the Government have given it time, but the fact that they were unable to sneak the motion through at the end of play yesterday without any objection. As the hon. Lady is so keen to debate such matters, I am surprised that she was not here last night to object to the motion going through on the nod. If she wants to give a lesson and set a good example to MYPs, she should advocate debates. Why was she not up complaining that we were setting a bad example by simply nodding a motion through at the end of play without debating it? I am slightly concerned that she is not doing enough to set a good example to MYPs.