Business of the House (Private Members’ Bills)

Debate between Philip Davies and Lord Beamish

Monday 17th July 2017 Commons Chamber

[Philip Davies]

It is an ugly rumour but it also happens to be true: I do support the hon. Gentleman’s private Member’s Bill. It seems to me, therefore, that he does not need 26 days to get it through. This, however, might be his tactic in reserve, in case things do not go so well on the first day and he needs more days. I hope he will declare his interest when he moves his amendment.

The hon. Member for Walsall South has not given an explanation for her amendment. The House’s Standing Orders are clear that there shall be 13 days for private Members’ Bills in a Session—not a minimum or a maximum of 13 days, but 13 days. That is it. That is what is in the Standing Orders. If people want to meddle with those Standing Orders, they have to meddle with the whole thing. It is not acceptable to say, “We will have one ballot in this Session of Parliament, and we will have 26 days for that ballot.” That does not wash.

The hon. Members for Walsall South and for Rhondda could have come along with an amendment to the effect that over this two-year period we need to have a second ballot in a year’s time, with 13 extra days for that ballot. That would be a perfectly respectable position to hold, and I would have a bit more sympathy with that argument, although I am not saying that I would support it. The argument that they are making—that we should have 26 days for one private Members’ Bill ballot—is completely and utterly unreasonable.

[Mr Kevan Jones (North Durham) (Lab)]

I understand what the hon. Gentleman is saying about the Standing Orders, but the Leader of the House just announced that the Government may come forward with additional sitting days for private Members’ Bills throughout the Session. Would he oppose those, and for what purpose would he suggest they should be used?

[Philip Davies]

I think the Standing Orders are perfectly adequate. There should be 13 days for private Members’ Bills in a Session; that seems to me a perfectly reasonable number. I do not really see any justification for saying, in effect, that those who enter this ballot of private Members’ Bills in this Session deserve a better chance of getting their Bills through than they would have done in any previous Session of Parliament.

[Philip Davies]

Just because something happened in the past, it does not mean that it was a good thing. The example that the hon. Lady has given falls into that category. If she looks at my voting record, she will notice that an awful lot of things that happened during the coalition years were not particularly to my taste. I used to vote accordingly, as the record will confirm. Praying in aid something that happened during the coalition years is not necessarily the best way to win my support.

My point is that this is a matter of fairness. Everybody enters a ballot in each Session of Parliament knowing that there will be 13 days in that Session when private Members’ Bills can proceed. We are being asked today to agree that in this particular ballot from this particular Session, MPs will have a better chance of getting their private Members’ Bill through than they would have done in any previous Session.

[Mr Jones]

I understand what the hon. Gentleman is saying, but surely if this was a normal, year-long Session, the chances of getting a private Member’s Bill through would be less even than with the 13 days. I have some sympathy with him about the idea of having another ballot, but does he really think it is fair that the number of days should be limited when the Session has been increased to more than a year?

[Philip Davies]

As I have said, I think there is an argument for saying that there should be 13 days for this ballot, and that in a year’s time we should hold another ballot for which there would be another 13 days. That would give people 26 days within the Session. That would be a perfectly reasonable thing to request, and I would have a great deal of sympathy with that. But nobody in the Opposition appears to be making that case. Why can we not have another ballot in a year’s time if we are going to have double the number of days? The hon. Member for Walsall South has not been able to answer that question. No doubt the hon. Member for Rhondda will have a crack at answering it, but I do not think that there is much of an answer.

The hon. Lady seemed to be making the point that we should be trying to replicate what would normally happen over the course of two years. What would normally happen over the course of two years is that we would have two ballots, so why has the hon. Lady not included in her amendment the extra ballot that would normally have occurred during that time? She seems to be cherry-picking the bits that she wants.

I say to the Deputy Leader of the House that he should beware such requests for supposed fairness, when they would actually introduce a very unfair system in this Session of Parliament. He should stick to his guns and say that for each private Member’s Bill ballot, there should be 13 days. That is plenty of opportunity for people to try to get their legislation through. If people want another 13 days, there must be another ballot—something that nobody, as yet, seems to have called for.

Finance (No. 2) Bill

Debate between Philip Davies and Lord Beamish

Tuesday 1st April 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Jones]

I was referring to some of the hon. Gentleman’s colleagues and I do not know whether he is included, as I did not look up his figures. The right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr Redwood), who was in the Chamber earlier, earned £213,000 last year on top of his salary. He will therefore gain from the tax cut that the Government have given him. The Conservative Member with the highest figure earned something like £800,000 a year.

VAT, the cuts to housing benefit, the bedroom tax and the changes to tax credit have all affected those individuals. My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow North East also mentioned national insurance, which affects those who are on very low pay. As for the idea that the increase in the personal allowance is somehow a great gift to the low paid, it is, as somebody said earlier, simply about giving with one hand while taking away with the other.

One missed opportunity in this Budget is that of putting investment into our economy. Clearly, the narrative is about a small state and the Conservative party wants as small a state as possible. The view expressed by the hon. Member for Macclesfield gave the game away and that is, basically, that the only people who create wealth in this country are entrepreneurs and business, that somehow public expenditure is a bad thing and that spending money on services does not create any wealth at all. In the early days of this Government, the one thing that sucked more money out of the economy than anything was the cuts to public services and local councils. Councils do not sit on money, they spend it in their local communities. I know that many small businesses, including one small building company in Chester-le-Street, nearly went to the wall because their main contracts were with the local authority.

The hon. Member for Redcar used a comparison with maxing out credit cards, but the idea that the state is like an individual’s personal bank account is complete nonsense. Clearly, if the state invests in infrastructure and other things, we get growth in the economy.

[Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I hope the hon. Gentleman will accept my apology for interrupting his flow. When I opposed the ten-minute rule Bill earlier today, I had intended to start by referring Members to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. Having read Hansard, it appears that I failed to do so, so I wanted to come to the House at the first opportunity to correct the record and refer Members to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. That is my purpose in doing so now; it was not intended to interrupt the hon. Gentleman’s flow.

High Cost Credit Bill

Debate between Philip Davies and Lord Beamish

Friday 12th July 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Kevan Jones (North Durham) (Lab)]

May I begin by declaring an interest? I am a non-remunerated director of the Prince Bishops community bank, which is a credit union in my constituency.

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield Central (Paul Blomfield) on introducing the Bill and on coming second in the private Members’ ballot. Having promoted a private Member’s Bill myself, I know the amount of work that is involved. He has picked a subject that has clear relevance not only to his constituency, but to the constituencies of many Members on both sides of the House.

There have been three excellent speeches from Conservative Members, including the last one from the hon. Member for Worcester (Mr Walker), and I will refer to those in a moment. However, it is disappointing that although the entire parliamentary Conservative party was here last Friday, very few Conservative Members are here today. That shows what their priorities are. This Bill would make a real difference to our constituents, unlike the Bill that they lauded last week, which will make none at all.

I accept that some Government Members support the Bill and want it to proceed to Committee, where it can be amended, but I doubt whether that will be achieved, because the Minister has said that the Government will oppose it. That is clearly an attempt to keep the channels clear for the Bill that the Conservative party want to proceed, which is the European Union (Referendum) Bill. It is unfortunate that the Liberal Democrat Minister, the Under-Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills, the hon. Member for East Dunbartonshire (Jo Swinson), cannot be here. I understand that she has had to leave the Chamber because of family commitments. This is not the first time in the past three years that the Liberal Democrats have been hoodwinked by the Conservative party, but it is a classic example of it. A ComRes poll found that about 90% of Labour Members supported further regulation, but that 64% of Government Members opposed it. That shows the priorities that Government Members have, with the honourable exceptions of the Members who have spoken today.

My hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield Central and others have spoken of the heartache and misery that payday loans are causing in many constituencies. First, I will talk about interest rates and pick an example. For no apparent reason, I will decide on Stockton in the north-east—I am not sure whether the hon. Member for Stockton South (James Wharton) is here today. Let us look at the number of payday lenders on Stockton high street: Cash Krazy, No. 1 Currency, Cash Generator. The Money Shop, Cash Converters, and Ramsdens 4 Cash. Rates of APR—I checked the websites last night—range from 2,400%, to the lowest rate of 897%. That shows the scandal surrounding payday loans. Industry spin says that such loans are for short periods, but as we have heard, and as I know from my constituency, they are not. I will mention roll-overs later in my remarks.

[Philip Davies]

I tried to get this information earlier from the hon. Member for Sheffield Central (Paul Blomfield), without any success, so I wonder whether I can tempt the hon. Gentleman. According to moneysupermarket.com, borrowing £100 for one month will lead to a repayment of somewhere between £125 and £135. If he thinks that is excessive, what figure does he believe would be an acceptable amount for someone to repay after a loan of £100 for a month?

[Mr Jones]

That is an interesting point. The Bill suggests it is for the regulator to determine that and I will give some examples in a minute. I find the hon. Gentleman’s position very strange. I have a copy of the Telegraph & Argus from 7 March 2013—not that long ago. It has a very flattering photo of the hon. Gentleman and the headline:

“MPs welcome crackdown on payday lenders”.

That seems a little at odds with what he has been saying today, so perhaps he should go back to the Telegraph & Argus—which I understand is a reputable newspaper—and correct its possibly misleading headline. No doubt this weekend he will explain to his constituents that he is not actually that much in favour of a crackdown on payday lenders.

Can someone get interest rates that are cheaper than those I have described? Yes, they can. Credit unions have been highlighted already, and as the hon. Member for Worcester (Mr Walker) said, we must also do more to encourage high street banks to contribute to the pot, or offer some type of facilities for these people. Another way of getting a cheap loan is knowing one of the payday lenders. Everyday Loans is owned by a friend of the Prime Minister, Henry Angest, who lent £5 million to the Conservative party before the last general election. On average, Everyday Loans charges 74.8% interest, but the Conservative party paid 3.5% interest.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Jones]

Given the mess that the Chancellor is making of the economy, I am not sure I agree with the hon. Gentleman. The point is that the Conservative party can accept a cheap loan from a person involved in payday lending, at the same time as many of our constituents and ordinary hard-working families are being charged 74% interest. It goes further. Adrian Beecroft is a major stakeholder in Wonga which, as has been mentioned, charges up to 4,000% interest. He wants us to deregulate more—zero-hours contracts, the minimum wage and all the other things that he wants put forward in a deregulation Bill—but that will cause more of the problem. I am not surprised that he is in favour of it, because it will lead more people to payday loans at exorbitant rates from the likes of Wonga. I am a bit baffled by the Government’s approach to the Bill. It would be sensible to send it to Committee, debate it and if they want to amend it, they can bring forward proposals.

The heart of my point is how policy is influenced. The Prime Minister said this week that nobody buys Conservative party policy. We have heard very good contributions from Conservative Members who are clearly in touch with what is happening on the ground. However, while the Conservative party chairman, the Minister without Portfolio, the right hon. Member for Welwyn Hatfield (Grant Shapps) has described payday lenders as “obscene”, he is not afraid to accept their money.

Representatives from Wonga attended an event at the Conservative party conference that was described as a “speed dating event”, at which the Economic Secretary to the Treasury, the hon. Member for Bromsgrove (Sajid Javid), the Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury, the hon. Member for South West Hertfordshire (Mr Gauke) and the Minister of State, Department for Business, Innovation and Skills, the right hon. Member for Sevenoaks (Michael Fallon) spent 20 minutes at each table. The idea of speed dating two of them might not seem too bad, but the idea of speed dating the right hon. Member for Sevenoaks is taking things too far.

[Philip Davies]

The hon. Gentleman is thrashing around, trying to throw mud in every direction. In relation to the mud he was trying to throw at me, when I think he was alleging that I was acting in an inconsistent manner, he clearly does not read the mud he has been throwing. If he read the article he would know that I said:

“I am sure everyone supports the OFT in their aim to have an industry which operates responsibly. However, we must tread carefully. Removing legal lenders through well-meaning legislation and regulation will not reduce the demand for their services, it will just push people to illegal loan sharks whose way of operating is often utterly unacceptable and much worse for their customers.”

Did the hon. Gentleman read what I actually said in the article he quoted, or was he just hoping that if he threw enough mud some would stick?

[Mr Jones]

I think the mud is firmly stuck on the hon. Gentleman. From his comments today, I would suggest that he has been an apologist for the payday lenders rather than someone calling for a crackdown. All I am saying is that he might want to correct the Telegraph & Argus headline. He has used this debate to support the payday loan industry, rather than support a crackdown.

[Philip Davies]

The hon. Gentleman is just highlighting his own ignorance. If he read the article, which he clearly has not, he would know that it quoted all the Bradford MPs. The article was not specifically about me; it was about what all five MPs in the Bradford district said. The headline was a reflection of that, and not what I said. My views were made perfectly clear then and they are consistent with the points I have been making today.

[Mr Jones]

The hon. Gentleman must have a very good relationship with the Telegraph & Argus—I do not have the piece here; I just wrote it down—because there is a blooming big photograph of him next to the “crackdown” headline, when it is not a crackdown but the back-down that he has put forward today.

Returning to the speed dating initiative and the influence on Conservative party policy on this area, the party’s response was:

“It is essential for good regulation that ministers and others meet with and listen to the views of the businesses they regulate as well as those who campaign for tougher measures.”

I do not think that anyone would disagree with that, but why should the option to meet Ministers cost £1,250? Will my local credit union or some of the victims of payday lenders have access to those Ministers? No. This is privileged access to senior Ministers bought by raising money for the Conservative party. Payday lenders indicated that they wanted light-touch regulation, despite ordinary people suffering at their hands.

As others have said, payday lenders look like Robin Hood in reverse; they take money from the poor and give it to the rich, and some of the Government’s policies will only make it worse. If people have to wait seven days to apply for jobseeker’s allowance, it will be a bonanza for the payday loan industry. If someone is made redundant and has no savings, what do they live on? They will go to a payday lender and get into the cycle of debt already described. The hon. Member for East Hampshire (Damian Hinds) made a good speech, but I do not think he understands that a lot of people do not have savings, have no recourse to family members with large savings and are living from week to week—in some cases from day to day. I work with credit unions encouraging people to save small amounts—I accept his point about that—but, as the hon. Member for Worcester said, credit unions will not solve the problem, unless we make an effort to expand them.

There is another problem waiting to hit this country big time, and it does not just concern people suffering now: an increase in interest rates. Yesterday, The Times reported that if mortgage interest rates rose by 2%, 800,000 people would be spending more than 50% of their income to pay off their debts, and that if they rose by 4%, that figure would be 1.2 million. This is a time bomb. Currently, we rely on low interest rates, but if they rise, the situation will get serious, with a lot of people struggling now needing support, and a bonanza for the payday loan companies. I am not surprised that, as someone said, many American companies have moved away from that regulated market to what must seem to them like the Klondike.

I want to raise a question I have come across in my constituency, and one that has been raised already: can these people afford to pay back this money? In most cases, the answer is no; and the lenders know that. Their record on background checks is poor. It is like with heroin addicts. These payday loan companies get people on to it, and then keep them on it. That brings us to roll-overs, which the OFT, like my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield Central, have criticised. Once people get into debt, it just carries on, so it is a bit like heroin. People get hooked and never get off the treadmill. That must be stopped.

The hon. Member for Castle Point (Rebecca Harris), who is no longer in her place, mentioned the misuse of the continuous payment authority. This comes down to financial education. People are not aware that these debts need not be the priority. Often, they are treated as the priority, however, because people have been led to believe that they have to pay them off before their mortgage and other debts. That definitely needs explaining and regulating, which the Bill would do.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Jones]

I am going to do an unusual thing now and agree with the hon. Member for North East Somerset (Jacob Rees-Mogg), who said that this House should have control of those things. The de facto position under this Government—and, I have to say, the previous Government—is that the best way to do these things is to create an arm’s length regulator, which will somehow sort the problem out. I am not opposed to that—although the episode involving the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority this week has shown that it can backfire a little—but if we are to have a regulator, Parliament has to set clear guidelines. I am therefore not opposed to external regulation, as long as it operates according to a clear set of guidelines, which this Bill would set out. Indeed, that is the strongest aspect of this Bill.

[Philip Davies]

The hon. Gentleman seems to be saying that he wants roll-overs banned. I wonder whether he can answer the question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Mr Chope) earlier. If somebody comes to the end of a loan and cannot pay it back, for whatever reason, what does the hon. Gentleman suggest they should do?

[Mr Jones]

There are two issues about the situation the hon. Gentleman describes. He asks, “Would it work?”, but he should look at Canada, where there is already a limitation of, I think, four months. First, I would ask the lender, “What credit checks did you do on the individual in the first place to lend the money?” Secondly, the company should try to work out how that individual could pay—whether over a longer period or something like that—but certainly not sucker them into another loan, which is what happens now. The hon. Gentleman is being naive—he is obviously not keen to crack down as hard on payday lenders as the headline suggests. The point is that if someone cannot pay back the first loan, how on earth are they going to pay back the second one? These companies know that. I do not want to call the hon. Gentleman naive—he is certainly not naive—but he is being naive in arguing that payday lenders somehow do not know that once they have got people hooked on that line of credit, it is in their interests to keep them on it.

Let me turn to credit unions. The hon. Member for Worcester made some good points about credit unions. I agree with him on one point: I am opposed to giving money to credit unions to top them up. However, he also raised some good points about a levy and how it could be used. Financial education and promoting access to credit unions would be a good idea. If they became beholden to the grant as such to keep them going, that would be a mistake. He therefore raised a good point. He has certainly thought about the issue and is right.

Finally, the issues that this Bill addresses are affecting millions of our constituents. Frankly, what is happening is a national scandal. These companies are taking money from the poorest and most deprived communities and individuals in this country and making millions of pounds out of them. I do not know how these people sleep at night; they are causing absolute misery. One thing that we in this House can do is to take steps to put right any injustices we see.

It is absolutely appalling that the Government oppose this Bill and will not allow it to go into Committee. This has nothing to do with the Bill itself; it has more to do with another Bill that the Government want to get through—the European Union (Referendum) Bill. They want to kill this Bill and allow the other one through. I hope that the millions of people up and down this country who support regulation will recognise what the Conservatives are doing. They put party politics over Europe higher than the misery of millions of our constituents, which is a complete disgrace. I have to add that it is not just the Conservative party, because not for the first time the Liberal Democrats have been hoodwinked into supporting the Tories.

I support this Bill because millions of people need the protections it provides. It should be allowed to go into Committee. It is not perfect; it can be amended and the Government could actively work to improve it in line with some of the sensible suggestions that have come from Conservative Back Benchers, including those of the hon. Member for Worcester, which would help to solve the problem of injustice. Am I angry that the Government are killing this Bill today? Yes, I am, and I think many other people will be, too.

Mental Health (Discrimination) (No. 2) Bill

Debate between Philip Davies and Lord Beamish

Friday 30th November 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Kevan Jones]

I agree with that point, but there is no difference between that example and a Member who has a stroke and goes into a long-term vegetative state. There is no provision to remove such a Member. The Bill is just saying that mental illness should be on a par with other medical conditions.

[Philip Davies]

I agree with that point. I am merely using this opportunity to ensure that people know exactly what the Bill would do and to check whether there are potential anomalies. I accept the hon. Gentleman’s point that the same situation applies to people with other conditions and that there should perhaps be no difference between them.

Another anomaly that may arise is that somebody could stand for Parliament and continue as a Member of Parliament who may not be eligible to vote because of the existing regulations on voting. As this is a Third Reading debate, I must talk only about what is in the Bill, rather than what should be in the Bill, but I hope that you will allow me to say in passing, Mr Speaker, that perhaps the work of my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon Central in this field is not yet done. Although I support the Bill, it might create anomalies that we have to come back to on another occasion. I therefore hope that this is a work in progress.

I am not sure whether the provisions on juries deal with somebody who has just been released from being sectioned or who ought to have been sectioned but has not been because nobody knows about their condition. Perhaps the Bill might have been better if it had included an additional time period for such people. I am not sure whether the lack of such a period will cause a problem. The point has been well made throughout the debate that mental illness is not necessarily permanent or constant, but safeguards need to be in place to limit the exposure of those with recent conditions and those who have perhaps not been identified.

The proposals on company directors cover the model articles of association for normal companies and right-to-manage companies. Unless I have missed something, which is not impossible, there is nothing in the Bill to prevent a company from using the old provisions in its articles of association if it chooses to deviate from the model articles of association. Will companies that are already in existence be affected by the Bill? If so, and if it has an immediate effect, what will happen if a company has already invoked this particular part of their articles of association from the model version and is in the middle of proceedings? If the Bill affects only new companies, does that mean that the 2.5 million companies that are already registered with Companies House will not be covered? It is important that we deal with the model articles of association because they are the default position, but have we missed something with regard to individual articles of association? What happens if a company has only one director and they have the most serious long-term mental health condition?

I support my hon. Friend—the whole House should support and congratulate him—but there are anomalies in the Bill, and the Bill might create even more. I hope the House can tackle those in future to ensure that we do what my hon. Friend and other hon. Members intend, which is to give the best possible opportunities to people with mental health problems, who for far too long have been unfairly discriminated against under the law.