Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Philip Davies and Lindsay Hoyle

Tuesday 4th July 2023 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

Order. Can I just ask the Secretary of State to please not take advantage? This is topicals. Please tell me if you want to pick a Member who you do not want to be able to ask their question.

[Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)]

T4.   Will the Minister tell the House what his latest assessment is of the full financial cost to the United Kingdom of reaching net zero, and, if the UK reaches net zero, what difference that would make to global temperatures?

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Philip Davies and Lindsay Hoyle

Wednesday 21st June 2023 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

Philip, I know you are popular.

[Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)]

Q5. Thank you very much, Mr Speaker.My constituents continue to be concerned about energy prices and energy security. Can the Prime Minister assure me that he will not cave in to the extremist bullies from Just Stop Oil and their patsies in the Labour leadership and will instead commit to developing new oil and gas production in the United Kingdom, which would be good for jobs, good for the economy and make us less dependent on foreign countries for our energy supply?

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Philip Davies and Lindsay Hoyle

Wednesday 26th October 2022 Commons Chamber

[Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)]

Q4.   I am surprised to be asking a question, and I know you are shocked too, Mr Speaker, because I know that, like many others, you thought I would already have been offered a ministerial post.

[Mr Speaker]

Let me tell you, I didn’t hold my breath. [Laughter.]

[Philip Davies]

Go figure, as Joe Biden might say.

I congratulate my right hon. Friend on becoming Prime Minister. He is absolutely the right person for the job and I wish him every success. He knows he has my full support. His two immediate predecessors made levelling up a key part of their agenda. Will he reaffirm his commitment to levelling up and start as he means to go on by approving the levelling-up fund bid for Bingley in my constituency?

Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill (Programme) (No.2)

Debate between Philip Davies and Lindsay Hoyle

Programme motion
Monday 5th July 2021 Commons Chamber

[Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)]

I do not want to take up too much time because the time we spend now eats into the time for the main debate. However, it is important to register that literally hundreds of new clauses and amendments have been tabled to the Bill. It is a 300-page Bill, which had two days for Second Reading. The fact that it has only one day on Report is an absolute abuse of this House.

We are supposed to carry out a job of scrutinising legislation and ensuring that it is fit for purpose, but we will have a matter of a few hours for Report. The Minister has no opportunity to engage in debate on all the new clauses to explain why the Government will accept or reject them. Surely the least this House should be able to expect is to have some proper free-flowing debate and some explanation from the Government of their position on each of the new clauses, which people have taken the time and trouble to table. It is an absolute disgrace and it is important that that point is registered before we start the debate because it is an abuse of this House.

[Mr Speaker]

I did allow that contribution—there was special dispensation—so that it could be put on the record.

Question put and agreed to.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Philip Davies and Lindsay Hoyle

Monday 7th June 2021 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I remind those on both Front Benches that topical questions are meant to be short and punchy, so we do need to get on. I have quite a list.

[Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)]

I am sure that the Home Secretary must share my frustration and that of my constituents about the volume of migrants coming across the channel by dinghy, often being escorted here in the process. Can she assure my constituents when real action will be taken to stop this flow, and will she introduce a regime whereby people who try to claim asylum, and who come here from an already safe country such as France, will be automatically deported and sent back there? That will make a big difference in stopping them coming here in the first place.

Overseas Electors Bill

Debate between Philip Davies and Lindsay Hoyle

Friday 22nd March 2019 Commons Chamber

[Philip Davies]

I will indeed, as long as the hon. Gentleman sticks to new clause 1 and has not been affected by the person sitting next to him.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. We cannot have both hon. Gentlemen on their feet at the same time. I believe that Mr Davies is giving way, and Mr Rodda is going to intervene. Mr Davies, are you giving way?

[Philip Davies]

I will give way.

Education

Debate between Philip Davies and Lindsay Hoyle

Wednesday 20th March 2019 Commons Chamber

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

Of the contrary No.

[Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)]

No.

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

I think the Ayes have it. [Interruption.] I think it was quite overwhelming. I will try once more. As many of that opinion say Aye.

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

Of the contrary No.

[Philip Davies]

No. [Interruption.]

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

Order. The hon. Gentleman is allowed to come—[Interruption.] Mr Frith, you know very well that a Member can come in at any time to vote. Members vote all the time without having been in the Chamber, so that is not the best point to make in this case. I would say that there was a singular voice that was continuous, in which case the Division will have to be deferred.

Question put.

The Deputy Speaker’s opinion as to the decision of the Question being challenged, the Division was deferred until Wednesday 27 March (Standing Order No. 41A).

Prayers

Debate between Philip Davies and Lindsay Hoyle

Friday 27th April 2018 Commons Chamber

[Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)]

I beg to move, That the House sit in private.

Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 163).

The House proceeded to a Division.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Lindsay Hoyle)]

I ask the Serjeant at Arms to investigate the delay in the No Lobby.

Assaults on Emergency Workers (Offences) Bill

Debate between Philip Davies and Lindsay Hoyle

3rd reading: House of Commons & Report stage: House of Commons
Friday 27th April 2018 Commons Chamber

[Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)]

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Lindsay Hoyle)]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

New clause 2—Assaults on police constables (No. 2)—

“In section 89(1) of the Police Act 1996, leave out from ‘offence’ to end of subsection (1) and insert—

‘and liable—

(a) on summary conviction, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 12 months, or to a fine, or to both;

(b) on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 24 months, or to a fine, or to both.’”

This new clause would make assaults specifically on police constables carry greater penalties than are currently available to match the new offence and also to ensure that Crown courts have greater powers of sentence for the offence than magistrates’ courts.

New clause 4—Assaults in prison—

“In section 243A of the Criminal Justice Act 2003, after subsection (2) insert—

‘(2A) Subsection (2) does not apply if the prisoner has assaulted any person listed in Section 3 of the Assaults on Emergency Workers (Offences) Act 2018 during the course of their sentence.’”

This new clause would mean that a prisoner serving a sentence of less than 12 months who assaulted an emergency worker during that sentence would not be eligible for automatic release.

New clause 5—Assaults in prison (No. 2)—

“In section 244 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003, after subsection (1A) insert—

‘(1B) Subsection (1) does not apply if the prisoner has assaulted any person listed in Section 3 of the Assaults on Emergency Workers (Offences) Act 2018 during the course of their sentence.’”

This new clause would mean that a prisoner serving a fixed term sentence of more than 12 months who assaulted an emergency worker during that sentence would not be eligible for automatic release.

New clause 6—Assaults in prison (No. 3)—

“In section 246 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003, after subsection (4)(i) insert—

‘(j) the prisoner has assaulted any person listed in Section 3 of the Assaults on Emergency Workers (Offences) Act 2018 during the course of their sentence.’”

This new clause would mean that a prisoner serving a fixed term sentence of more than 12 months who assaulted an emergency worker during that sentence would not be eligible for early release.

New clause 8—Assaults in prison (No. 5)—

“In section 247 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003, after subsection (2) insert—

‘(3) Subsection (2) does not apply if the prisoner has assaulted any person listed in section 3 of the Assaults on Emergency Workers (Offences) Act 2018 during the course of their sentence.’”

This new clause would mean that a prisoner serving an extended sentence under sections 227 and 228 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 who assaulted an emergency worker during that sentence would not be eligible for automatic release after the requisite period.

New clause 9—Assaults in prison (No. 6)—

“In section 243A of the Criminal Justice Act 2003, after subsection (2) insert—

‘(2A) Subsection (2) does not apply if the prisoner has assaulted any person listed in section 3(d), (e) or (f) of the Assaults on Emergency Workers (Offences) Act 2018 during the course of their sentence.’”

This new clause would mean that a prisoner serving a sentence of less than 12 months who assaulted a prison officer or anyone carrying out the same functions as a prison officer or a prison custody officer during that sentence would not be eligible for automatic release.

New clause 10—Assaults in prison (No. 7)—

“In section 244 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003, after subsection (1A) insert—

‘(1B) Subsection (1) does not apply if the prisoner has assaulted any person listed in section 3(d), (e) or (f) of the Assaults on Emergency Workers (Offences) Act 2018 during the course of their sentence.’”

This new clause would mean that a prisoner serving a fixed term sentence of more than 12 months who assaulted a prison officer or anyone carrying out the same functions as a prison officer or a prison custody officer during that sentence would not be eligible for automatic release.

New clause 11—Assaults in prison (No. 8)—

“In section 246 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003, after subsection (4)(i) insert—

‘(j) the prisoner has assaulted any person listed in section 3(d), (e) or (f) of the Assaults on Emergency Workers (Offences) Act 2018 during the course of their sentence.’”

This new clause would mean that a prisoner serving a fixed term sentence of more than 12 months who assaulted a prison officer or anyone carrying out the same functions as a prison officer or a prison custody officer during that sentence would not be eligible for early release.

New clause 13—Assaults in prison (No. 10)—

“In section 247 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003, after subsection (2) insert—

‘(3) Subsection (2) does not apply if the prisoner has assaulted any person listed in section 3(d), (e) or (f) of the Assaults on Emergency Workers (Offences) Act 2018 during the course of their sentence.’”

This new clause would mean that a prisoner serving an extended sentence under sections 227 and 228 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 who assaulted a prison officer or anyone carrying out the same functions as a prison officer or a prison custody officer during that sentence would not be eligible for automatic release after the requisite period.

New clause 14—Assaults in prison (No. 11)—

“In section 243A of the Criminal Justice Act 2003, after subsection (2) insert—

‘(2A) Subsection (2) does not apply if the prisoner has assaulted a prison officer during the course of their sentence.’”

This new clause would mean that a prisoner serving a sentence of less than 12 months who assaulted a prison officer during that sentence would not be eligible for automatic release.

New clause 15—Assaults in prison (No. 12)—

“In section 244 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003, after subsection (1A) insert—

‘(1B) Subsection (1) does not apply if the prisoner has assaulted a prison officer during the course of their sentence.’”

This new clause would mean that a prisoner serving a fixed term sentence of more than 12 months who assaulted a prison officer during that sentence would not be eligible for automatic release.

New clause 16—Assaults in prison (No. 13)—

“In section 246 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003, after subsection (4)(i) insert—

‘(j) the prisoner has assaulted a prison officer during the course of their sentence.’”

This new clause would mean that a prisoner serving a fixed term sentence of more than 12 months who assaulted a prison officer during that sentence would not be eligible for early release.

New clause 18—Assaults in prison (No. 15)—

“In section 247 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003, after subsection (2) insert—

‘(3) Subsection (2) does not apply if the prisoner has assaulted a prison officer during the course of their sentence.’”

This new clause would mean that a prisoner serving an extended sentence under sections 227 and 228 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 who assaulted a prison during that sentence would not be eligible for automatic release after the requisite period.

Amendment 2, in clause 1, page 1, line 3, after “battery” insert “including spitting”.

This makes explicit that this section applies to incidents of assault or battery that are spitting.

Amendment 9, page 1, line 10, leave out “12” and insert “24”.

This amendment would increase the sentence for the new offence from 12 to 24 months in Crown courts to allow for longer sentences and to ensure Crown courts have greater powers of sentence for the offence than magistrates’ courts.

Amendment 3, in clause 2, page 2, line 39, at end insert—

“(aa) an offence under section 3 (sexual assault) of the Sexual Offences Act 2003”.

This causes the fact that the victim was an emergency worker to be an aggravating factor in cases of sexual assault.

[Philip Davies]

I am delighted to support the Bill today—a Bill that I have supported from the outset. I am pleased to be one of its sponsors. May I start by congratulating the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) on getting his Bill to this point and on using his customary charm to do so? I also congratulate the hon. Member for Halifax (Holly Lynch), who has played an invaluable role in supporting the hon. Gentleman in getting the Bill to where it is today. As we all know, she is a doughty supporter of the police, and I know that they appreciate her support greatly. While I am at it, may I thank the Minister, who has played a crucial role in ensuring that the Bill has got to this stage? We are all very grateful for the constructive way in which Ministers have engaged with the process.

My amendments begin with new clauses 1 and 2. I have quite a few to go through, but I will rattle through them as quickly as possible. [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear.”] Well, everything is relative. I will also ensure that I do my amendments justice.

New clause 1 would make assaults on police constables carry the same penalty as the new offence in the Bill, not just the six months currently available to the courts. New clause 2, which I will discuss together with new clause 1, would make assaults on police constables carry a greater penalty than the new offence and ensure that Crown courts had greater powers of sentencing for the offence than magistrates courts. The two new clauses are alternatives—people may consider which one they think would do the job. I would be perfectly content with either.

In an ideal world, I would like to see the highest sentences possible given for offences against the police. Assaulting a police officer is currently a summary only offence that cannot usually be dealt with by the Crown court, and certainly no more than a six-month sentence can be given. I appreciate that assaults against police officers can be charged as other non-police offences of violence, but that is another story. It is relevant to the new clauses, but not something I want to dwell on. I believe that if we have an offence of assault against a police officer, it should attract a robust sentence, because in reality a lot of assaults against the police will be charged in this way.

I have been helpfully informed by the West Yorkshire Police Federation of the number of such assaults in West Yorkshire. Perhaps, in passing, I might praise Nick Smart from the West Yorkshire Police Federation, who does a fantastic job of representing the interests of his members. He is absolutely first class and has done a brilliant job in helping with this Bill. He gave me the Home Office figures that had been collated for April 2016 to March 2017, which showed that there were 1,240 recorded assaults on West Yorkshire police officers in one year. Those figures are not deemed 100% accurate, but they certainly give an idea of the number of assaults going on. The West Yorkshire police figures, based on recorded crime, show that there were 1,729 recorded assaults on police officers from April 2017 to March 2018.

I am sure everybody would appreciate that those are very high figures. They mean that nearly five West Yorkshire police officers are assaulted every day. To me, that is completely and utterly unacceptable, and it is one reason why the Bill is so worthy and important.

Merchant Shipping (Homosexual Conduct) Bill

Debate between Philip Davies and Lindsay Hoyle

3rd reading: House of Commons & Report stage: House of Commons
Friday 24th March 2017 Commons Chamber

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. We are also in danger of talking about criminal law. I know that the hon. Gentleman is very good on the detail of the Bill, and wants to return to it.

[Philip Davies]

You are exactly right, Mr Deputy Speaker. I was sidetracking myself. Let me return to the principle of retrospective legislation.

The Alan Turing (Statutory Pardon) Bill is, in many respects, from the same stable as this Bill. During its very short and sweet Third Reading in the House of Lords, the great Lord Tebbit made a pertinent point. He said that he had “no intention of obstructing” its progress, but added:

“As it continues on its journey towards the statute book, though, there is something that should be said. As we know, Mr Turing committed, and was convicted of, an act that would not be a crime today. So have many others, and many other crimes have been committed similarly. I hope that the Bill will not be used as a precedent. Even more, I hope that we will never seek to extend the logic of the Bill to posthumously convict men of crimes for acts that were not criminal when they were committed, but would be if they were committed today. There is a dangerous precedent within this Bill.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 30 October 2013; Vol. 748, c. 1584.]

I think that the warning given by Lord Tebbit then is very relevant to the Bill that we are discussing today, and that is the particular issue that I have with it.

[Philip Davies]

I do accept that.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. I hope you are not going to enter into a debate on this.

[Philip Davies]

No, I am not going to defy your ruling in any way, Mr Deputy Speaker; I would never do that, as you well know.

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

Order. Mr Chope will always try to lead you off your objective, and we do not want him to do that.

[Philip Davies]

I suspect that you are right about my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch, Mr Deputy Speaker; he has been leading me astray for many years now.

The serious and relevant point that I want to make is that the principles in many respects remain the same. I accept that there is the difference in terms of the criminal law that my hon. Friend outlines—and that you outline, Mr Deputy Speaker. The point I was trying to make—perhaps in a ham-fisted way—is that the principles are similar in terms of retrospective legislation and whether we should go down that route.

In conclusion, I support the Bill and am all for changing the law on this, and I still maintain today that this law that my hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury is rightly dealing with should never have been the law; it was an absolute outrage that it ever was the law of the land, and I am all for changing it. But I am concerned that there might be, not necessarily unintended consequences, but unintended precedents set by trying to change it retrospectively.

Guardianship (Missing Persons) Bill

Debate between Philip Davies and Lindsay Hoyle

3rd reading: House of Commons & Report stage: House of Commons
Friday 24th March 2017 Commons Chamber

[Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)]

I beg to move amendment 1, page 1, line 19, leave out subsection (4):

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Amendment 2, in clause 2, page 2, line 17, at end insert—

‘(2A) Before hearing an application for a guardianship order the court may require the applicant to take such further steps by way of advertisement or otherwise as the court thinks proper for the purpose of tracing the missing person.”.

Amendment 3, in clause 3, page 2, line 27, leave out “90 days”’ and insert “6 months”.

Amendment 4, in clause 7, page 5, line 18, leave out “4 years” and insert “2 years”.

[Philip Davies]

Let me set out from the start that these are probing amendments and I do not intend to push any of them to a Division. By anyone’s admission, this is quite a meaty Bill, running to 25 clauses, but we have had no scrutiny of it in the Chamber. It received its Second Reading on the nod, without any debate whatsoever, and here we are, with time pressing on, and we have had no opportunity before now to debate any of its provisions. I therefore tabled some probing amendments to tease out from my hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Kevin Hollinrake) why some of the Bill’s provisions—the timescales, for example—are as they are.

Amendment 1 would remove subsection (4), which states:

“A person who is detained, whether in a prison or another place, is to be treated for the purposes of this Act as absent from his or her usual place of residence and usual day-to-day activities.”

I want to tease out from my hon. Friend the reasoning behind the subsection, because there was no scrutiny of it on Second Reading.

In passing, I should say that we are discussing the Guardianship (Missing Persons) Bill, and a Missing Persons Guardianship Bill is going through the House of Lords. I am not sure whether that Bill’s provisions are different from this Bill’s, but perhaps Members in the other place are trying to achieve the same thing.

In 2014, the Government held a consultation entitled “Guardianship of the property and affairs of missing persons” in which, as far as I could see, the issue addressed by subsection (4) was not mentioned once. Furthermore, I checked the reasoning behind the inclusion of the subsection with the House of Commons Library, but the staff there confirmed that they had not been able to find out anything about its background. They could not explain why it was in the Bill, beyond its inclusion as an example.

After speaking to Library staff at further length, they said:

“The Bill defines a missing person as someone who is absent from their usual place of residence or their usual day-to-day activities. The reason for being absent may be because the person is detained. However, in addition, as in other cases, the first or second condition set out in subsections (2) or (3) must also be met. In most cases, the first condition is likely to be relevant—that is, that the person’s whereabouts are not known, or not known with sufficient precision to enable contact to be made.”

That was the Library’s explanation of why the subsection might be in the Bill but, given that the staff there were not entirely clear about it, I thought it important to table an amendment so that we could hear my hon. Friend explain it at first hand. That is why I see it as a probing amendment.

Amendment 2 would insert into clause 2:

“Before hearing an application for a guardianship order the court may require the applicant to take such further steps by way of advertisement or otherwise as the court thinks proper for the purpose of tracing the missing person.”

That would ensure that all reasonable steps had been taken to try to locate the missing person.

Preventing and Combating Violence Against Women and Domestic Violence (Ratification of Convention) Bill

Debate between Philip Davies and Lindsay Hoyle

Report stage: House of Commons
Friday 24th February 2017 Commons Chamber

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. I am sure, Mr Davies, you are not going to go down that route.

[Philip Davies]

My word, Mr Deputy Speaker! If we were to abolish Bills that were just about gesture politics, that would abolish private Member’s Bill Fridays altogether. However, that is a debate for another day. I do not want to be sidetracked down that line today.

Amendment 29 would delete paragraph (d). The provision says that the Secretary of State shall lay before each House of Parliament a report on

“the measures to be taken and legislation required to enable the United Kingdom to ratify the Istanbul Convention”.

Surely it is clear what legislation is required to enable the UK to ratify the convention. Why on earth do we need an annual report for the Government to tell us what legislation is required to ratify the convention?

[Philip Davies]

rose—

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

Order. I am a bit worried. Time is going by and I know that you, Mr Davies, will want to hear some of the other speeches. I am sure that you will want to get towards the end of your speech. Mr Chope is trying to distract you permanently. We have to worry about that.

[Philip Davies]

I will try not to be distracted by my hon. Friend too many times. As I think you will appreciate, Mr Deputy Speaker, I have been trying to crack on through my amendments, but there are 47 new clauses and amendments in this group and they take some wading through. However, I have been racing through them. I will leave the Minister to answer my hon. Friend’s point when she speaks.

Amendment 49 is about a report—we are still laying a report—about the measures taken by the Government to comply with the Istanbul convention to

“protect and assist victims of violence against women and domestic violence”.

At the end of that, my amendment would insert

“and produce a breakdown of government spending on victims of violence and domestic violence for both men and women.”

I do not see why anyone would want to oppose the Government having to produce a breakdown of how much they are spending on victims of violence and domestic violence, broken down by men and women. Men are nearly twice as likely as women to be the victim of a violent crime—1.3% of women interviewed for the crime survey reported being victims of violence in 2014-15, compared with 2.4% of men. When it comes to the most serious cases, according to the crime survey for England and Wales, women accounted for 36% of recorded homicide victims in 2015-16, whereas men accounted for 64%, yet so far the provisions we have here apply only to women. Therefore, it is important that the Government make clear what provisions they have for the victims of violent crime, whether they be men or women. I hope that the Government will agree to publish that information, and, if not, explain why they object to it so much.

Amendment 50 addresses the next bit of clause 3, which is about the report showing what the Government are doing to

“promote international co-operation against these forms of violence”.

At the end of all that, I have inserted that they should also

“provide statistics showing international comparison on levels of violence against women and men”.

I do not intend to repeat myself, but I spoke earlier about the information I have managed to acquire from different ambassadors. If we ask the Government to show what they are doing and then to show what other countries who have ratified the convention are doing, that will give us a good idea of how we are doing compared with other countries. Surely that is a meaningful comparison that we would want to look at. At the moment, the Government can offer us no meaningful comparisons to show how we are doing in comparison with other countries. I do not know why they would be afraid of doing that; surely they would want to make sure they were doing better than other countries. My amendment would give them the opportunity to do that and to highlight their record against that of other countries. Perhaps that would level everybody’s standards upwards, rather than them just being at the lowest possible common denominator.

Amendment 51 relates to the report on the measures the Government are taking in providing

“support and assistance to organisations and law enforcement agencies to co-operate in order to adopt an integrated approach to eliminating violence against women and domestic violence.”

At the end of that, I have added

“and to include the names of these organisations”.

It is important that the Government should make it clear, as part of this reporting strategy, what support and assistance they are giving and to which organisations they are giving that support. Then we can scrutinise whether or not they are the right organisations.

It might well be that there are other organisations out there—perhaps small organisations in local communities that the Government have not come across—that we can champion and say, “You don’t seem to be giving any money to these organisations. How about giving them a cut of the funding available?” I do not know what would be lost by the transparency of knowing which organisations the Government were funding.

--- Later in debate ---

[Philip Davies]

My hon. Friend is right, and what is happening here—if anybody bothers to notice—is that I am strengthening paragraph (e); I am trying to give the Government more requirements for reporting what they are doing post-ratification.

I will come to the Government amendment a bit later, but my hon. Friend is right to say that while I am, through these amendments, strengthening paragraph (e) and making sure that the Government have to give more information, the Government, with the SNP’s connivance, are making sure that there will be no reporting on any of these issues post-ratification of the Istanbul convention. Again, they will have to explain themselves on that, but I think that if we are going to ratify this convention, we should at least have some post-ratification knowledge of what on earth is happening and how well we are doing.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. If the hon. Gentleman does want to hear that, it might be helpful if he gets on and ends his speech, as I can then get some answers for him—and I would not want to distract him from hearing the answers.

[Philip Davies]

I am very grateful for that, Mr Deputy Speaker, and I will certainly be leaving plenty of time for the answers, but, as I have said, there are 47 new clauses and amendments here and I am going through them as quickly as possible.

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

You are taking a lot of interventions, too.

[Philip Davies]

As ever, you are absolutely right, Mr Deputy Speaker. There have been lots of interventions and I will try to resist the temptation to be as generous in taking them as I normally am—for a bit, at least.

Amendment 54 again addresses clause 3 and the reports on progress. The amendment says that the first annual report should be laid no later than 1 November 2017. That is interesting in itself, because what the Government are leaving in the Bill is all about before ratification, but I want to keep in post-ratification reports, and my amendments say that the first one should be from 2020 onwards—they should be done from 2020 and then every two years. That would be the effect of amendments 53 and 54.

Amendment 55 is my final amendment and it relates to when this Bill, when it becomes an Act, should come into force. The Bill says it should

“come into force on the day on which this Act receives Royal Assent”,

and the Government have amended that, but I suggest it should

“not come into force until 90% of the signatories to the Convention have ratified it and there has been a proven reduction in violence against women in 75% of the countries who have ratified the Convention.”

It seems to me to be perfectly clear that we would want to ratify the convention only if it is actually shown to work. As I made clear earlier, we do not have the evidence at the moment to support that.

Those are my amendments, and I will now touch briefly on the other ones in the group, which I can race through fairly quickly, I hope. All of the new clauses in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch are about making sure that the Government do not apply any of the reservations. I have explained why I think the Government should apply some reservations, however, and that is why I would reject new clauses 14, 15 and 16. If I might be so bold as to say so, I think my hon. Friend’s best attempt here is new clause 18 on psychological violence and stalking. It is inconceivable that those things would not come with a criminal sanction in the UK, so in that sense we have nothing to fear from signing up to that. It might be my hon. Friend’s argument that if we were to make it clear that we would sign up to that—that we would be happy to make sure they would always have a criminal sanction—it might encourage others to do the same. I do not know whether that would work, but I would not be averse to that, and if my hon. Friend were to push new clause 18 to a vote, I would be more sympathetic to that than I would be to his other new clauses, if that is helpful to him.

The Government amendments—which the SNP has endorsed, let us not forget that—are extraordinary. I have made it clear that I am opposed to this convention, but this cosy deal shows that they do not care too much about it either. They pretend—

Merchant Shipping (Homosexual Conduct) Bill

Debate between Philip Davies and Lindsay Hoyle

2nd reading: House of Commons
Friday 20th January 2017 Commons Chamber

[Philip Davies]

I would not go so far as to say that I am against all legislation. In fact, I did say at the start of my speech that I support this Bill, and when the article 50 provisions come forward, it is likely that I will vote for them, too.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. I know that we said that we would have quite a broad debate, but I certainly do not want to enter into a debate about what Bills will or will not be supported in the future. The hon. Gentleman probably has a good 20 minutes ahead of him and I would not want the discussion of other areas to add to that.

[Philip Davies]

My hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne (Kwasi Kwarteng) led me astray, Mr Deputy Speaker, and you are quite rightly not allowing him to do that. I shall see him later to discuss Kempton Park’s closure.

My serious point is that this matter could have been dealt with many years ago if the 2010 Act had been scrutinised properly. The omission from that Act has meant that we have needed an entirely new Bill simply to correct a failure, and that is a great shame. The Equality Act 2010 (Work on Ships and Hovercraft) Regulations 2011 appear to be the final confirmation that this Bill is not going to change anything, because those regulations are the key piece of legislation relating to the 2010 Act that makes the original provisions redundant. Those regulations were made on 18 July 2011 and came into force on 1 August 2011.

I know that other Members wish to speak, so in the interests of time, Mr Deputy Speaker, I will not test your patience any further by reading out the part of the regulations that, in effect, makes the 1994 Act provisions redundant. They deal with the application of

“Part 5 of the Act to seafarers working wholly or partly in Great Britain and adjacent waters”

and make it clear that the 2010 Act does apply to seafarers and to ships working in this environment, so the position is clear. The regulations also come with an interpretation, which makes it clear that the 2010 Act is the Act that applies, goes through what is meant by a “United Kingdom ship” and a “United Kingdom water”, and sets out the legal relationship of a seafarer’s employment within the country.

The regulations therefore did make the position clear, but my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes South made the pertinent point that somebody who reads the 1994 Act might not know about the 2011 regulations. How many people in here know about the Equality Act 2010 (Work on Ships and Hovercraft) Regulations 2011? It is our job to deal with these things, but how many of us know about those regulations? How on earth can we expect the general public, who might well have been made aware of the law that was in place, to have known that it was superseded by the 2011 regulations? For that reason—normally I might have been tempted to say that the Bill is a solution looking for a problem, and therefore not necessary—I think that the Bill serves a useful purpose.

Preventing and Combating Violence Against Women and Domestic Violence (Ratification of Convention) Bill

Debate between Philip Davies and Lindsay Hoyle

2nd reading: House of Commons
Friday 16th December 2016 Commons Chamber

[Philip Davies]

I am glad that I am educating the hon. Gentleman, because he certainly knew nothing about article 1 of the convention before I highlighted it for him.

Chapter 8 of the report looked at ratification, and began by setting out what others had said about it. The International Development Committee has called on the Government to do more to address violence against women and girls within the UK. Again, it is about violence against women and girls. It states that

“the UK’s international leadership is weakened by its failure to address violence against women and girls within its own borders”.

Professor Kelly argued in evidence that, although the Government are undertaking good work abroad on violence against women and girls, more needs to be done in the UK:

“I think we have a hypocrisy about human rights. We talk about human rights internationally for others, and we are mealy-mouthed about it at home. If we could have a common discourse that, actually, this happens here, too—then I think we might be able to have a more constructive conversation about it.”

The Bar Human Rights Committee of England and Wales said:

“Ratification would emphasise that the state has a positive duty in law to intervene in a proactive way to modify practices that result in harm, violence and degradation to women and girls. It would provide a further basis in law for those who wish to persuade the state to provide adequate and meaningful resources to construct an effective mechanism to protect women from gender violence and harm.”

Again, this is not gender-neutral. How can anyone argue that the convention is gender-neutral? There is no gender-neutral language anywhere in it for anyone to read. The report set out the background to the then Government’s position, which I do not want to go through in detail.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. The hon. Gentleman has said that he wants other Members to be able to get in, and I hope he will bear it in mind that we have a very long list of speakers.

[Philip Davies]

I appreciate that, Mr Deputy Speaker, but there are certain things that I say that nobody else can be trusted to say. If we could rely on balanced contributions from other people, some of these things would not need saying, but they clearly do need saying, so—

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

Order. I may be able to help the hon. Gentleman, because who knows what people are going to say? I have a very long list of speakers, and some of them may add to what he has said, although others may not. We may get to that part of the debate if he lets them in.

[Philip Davies]

Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I take that point on board. I assure you that others will not, not “may not” do so, but you make a good point. In that case—I think you will approve of this—rather than setting out the background to the Government’s position, I will leave it to the Minister to set out the Government’s position—

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

If he gets in.

[Philip Davies]

I would like to think that the Minister has been suitably embarrassed about setting out the Government’s position, but I am looking forward to hearing him do so.

National Minimum Wage (Workplace Internships) Bill

Debate between Philip Davies and Lindsay Hoyle

Friday 4th November 2016 Commons Chamber

[Philip Davies]

Does my hon. Friend agree that we and our hon. Friend the Member for Elmet and Rothwell (Alec Shelbrooke) are on exactly the same side when it comes to social mobility and wanting to extend opportunities, but that we feel that the Bill will restrict opportunities rather than enhance them? If I can catch your eye later, Mr Deputy Speaker, I might be able to suggest to my hon. Friend how we can work together to extend opportunities, as we both seek to do.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

I am sure that you will be able to catch my eye, Mr Davies, subject to the length of Mr Nuttall’s speech.

Outsourcing and Tax Credits

Debate between Philip Davies and Lindsay Hoyle

Friday 4th November 2016 Commons Chamber

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

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

[Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)]

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

National Minimum Wage (Workplace Internships) Bill

Debate between Philip Davies and Lindsay Hoyle

Friday 4th November 2016 Commons Chamber

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

I am sorry to intervene on my hon. Friend’s speech at such an early stage, but last year we established a tradition of congratulating the Chairman of Ways and Means on the brilliant way in which he carried out the lottery to ensure that our hon. Friend the Member for Elmet and Rothwell (Alec Shelbrooke) came third in the ballot and had this Bill to introduce. Perhaps my hon. Friend would like to say a few words on that subject.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Let us assume that he does not need to, and we will get the lottery done shortly.

[Philip Davies]

There are so many things on which to congratulate the Chairman of Ways and Means that it would take me far too long to go through the list, so I shall refrain from doing so.

Riot Compensation Bill

Debate between Philip Davies and Lindsay Hoyle

Friday 5th February 2016 Commons Chamber

[Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)]

On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. I am very surprised that there is not a statement in the House today. You may have seen the reports in yesterday’s newspapers that European judges have ruled that a foreign—Moroccan—criminal cannot be deported from the country despite the Home Office saying that she committed serious offences which threatened “the values of society”. My understanding is that the person concerned is the daughter of Abu Hamza, so this is a very serious matter for the security of this country. Surely it should be raised in this House and a Home Office Minister should be making a statement today. Have you had any indication that the Home Office intends to make any kind of statement about this issue?

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

I do not think I am going to shock you by saying that I have had absolutely no indication of anybody coming forward with a statement. However, the hon. Gentleman has quite rightly, as ever, raised the matter, it is on the record, and I am sure that people in different Departments will be listening as we continue this debate.

Compulsory Emergency First Aid Education (State-funded Secondary Schools) Bill

Debate between Philip Davies and Lindsay Hoyle

Friday 20th November 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Rest assured, I do not need congratulating and we will certainly get into this debate—not in Latin, but in English.

[Philip Davies]

I am not capable of conducting this in Latin, Mr Deputy Speaker—some would say I am not able to conduct it in English. I am getting sidetracked again by my hon. Friend the Member for North East Somerset (Mr Rees-Mogg), and I hope you appreciate that it is certainly not of my doing.

The flavour of most private Members’ Bills that come before the House is that they are backed by a worthy sentiment, but are not really fit for purpose when given any great scrutiny. I fear that we are in that situation today. What we have been offered by a number of Members is what we normally get in this place on private Members’ Bills, which is a painless panacea. Politicians will always offer a painless panacea. With this Bill, I have heard that we can save lives, save money, save time and save absolutely anything. It has been said that there are no concerns and no downsides to this Bill, which will stipulate that it is compulsory for schools to provide first aid education. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Newark (Robert Jenrick), I have spoken to the schools in my constituency, and I wish to share some of the feedback that they have given to me.

If this Bill is so easy for schools to implement—it is said that it will save time, save money and save lives—then there is absolutely nothing to stop them introducing first aid courses now as part of the existing curriculum. We have heard that already today, and we have heard that many schools already do that. Why on earth would we need to make compulsory something that is so wonderful and that has no downsides? Surely we can just sit back and wait for every school to implement it themselves.

One thing I always say is that we should trust the people who are doing things every day. They tend to be the ones who know the best about what goes on and what works. When I worked for Asda, I found that it was the checkout operators who were the best people to ask about what was going wrong or right in the store, because they saw it every day with their own eyes. I certainly believe in trusting the professionals. My father was a teacher for that matter, so I am all for trusting teachers to get on and do their job. I do not really want the Government to be sticking their nose in at every single turn, trying to lecture them every five minutes about what they should be doing when they are perfectly capable of making those decisions for themselves.

If we think that we have recruited the right people to be teachers, then we have absolutely nothing to fear from leaving them to get on and do their job. If we feel that we have recruited the wrong teachers and that we need to lecture them every five minutes about what they should be doing, the problem is in the recruitment process. We should not need to look over their shoulder all the time, telling them what they should and should not be doing. I fear that we have made that particular mistake with this Bill.

I should make something very clear now, because, doubtless, Opposition Members will try to misconstrue my remarks. First aid, as everyone has acknowledged, is a very important life skill. I encourage as many people as possible to learn that skill. I am, and remain, a supporter of first aid, and certainly do not think that it is unimportant. I do not want to prevent anybody from learning first aid if they wish to learn it. I want people to have that opportunity.

Every year, there are 5.5 million attendees at A&E departments, 3 million of whom have the types of accident and injury that first aid treatment could have helped. For example, there are about 2,600 open wound injuries, 2,400 bone injuries, about 40 incidents of choking and more than 290 injuries from burns. Every year, about 66,000 die from heart attacks and seizures. They are all compelling statistics that endorse the increased use of first aid within society. Indeed, those statistics seem a valuable reason to encourage more members of society to learn first aid, but they do not in themselves justify the reason why first aid should become compulsory in the school curriculum, and that is what I wish to focus on today.

This Bill is not starting out from here. In the previous Parliament, Julie Hilling, the former Member for Bolton West, introduced a very similar Bill as a ten-minute rule Bill, which provided amendments to the Education Act 2002. She also brought in an amendment during the Committee stage of the Education Bill to make provision for teaching emergency life support skills in the national curriculum. The response of the then Minister for Schools, my hon. Friend the Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton (Mr Gibb), highlighted some of the same reservations that should be drawn to this debate today. He said:

“I agree that emergency life support skills can have an immensely positive impact on pupils’ families as well as schools and the wider community. It is encouraging to hear about the excellent work in schools…I am also aware of the invaluable support that organisations such as the British Heart Foundation and St John Ambulance offer individual schools or groups of schools to enrich curriculum work. I applaud them for their important work, but I do not agree that making emergency life support skills a statutory part of the curriculum is the right approach.”

I absolutely endorse what he said. He went on to say:

“We are clear that the national curriculum should set out the essential knowledge and understanding that all children should be expected to acquire in the course of their school lives. It is for teachers to design the wider curriculum in the way that meets the needs of their pupils, taking account of the views of parents, the wider community and local circumstances.”––[Official Report, Education Public Bill Committee, 5 April 2011; c. 990.]

That is the nub of my argument today. It should be a schools’ prerogative to incorporate extra-curricular activities, such as first aid education, into the school calendar, and they should not be forced to substitute other lessons to fit them in. That has been confirmed more recently—

--- Later in debate ---

[Philip Davies]

I am very grateful to my hon. Friend for his intervention. I do not intend to focus on the work of St John’s Ambulance in my speech. Obviously, I cannot cover everything. Perhaps he might be able to do so, Mr Deputy Speaker, if he is lucky enough to catch your eye later on.

What is also important is the time factor. We have heard different times bandied about as to how much training would be needed to fulfil the obligations in the Bill. I am still not entirely sure about it. Half an hour was the minimum that I have heard. It is important to note that my hon. Friend the Member for North Swindon (Justin Tomlinson), who did an awful lot of work in this area before he was deservedly promoted to ministerial ranks, asked a question about the 30,000 cardiac arrests that occur outside hospitals where only one in 10 people survives. He wanted to meet the Minister to discuss the fact that when countries give two-hour sessions of emergency life-saving skills, survival rates often increase by up to 50%. That suggests to me that, for this to be worthwhile, 30 minutes will never be enough. My hon. Friend the Member for South East Cornwall (Mrs Murray), who has knowledge of the subject, made that point in an earlier intervention. It strikes me that, in order to get a Bill through Parliament, we will be told that a session needs to be only half an hour, but the moment the Bill becomes enacted, the schools will be told that half an hour is not good enough and that they will need to do an hour. When an hour is not good enough, they will be told to do two hours, and then four hours. Schools will never know where the time commitment will end.

Under the provisions of the Bill, as I understand it, the Secretary of State can make regulations in this area, so they will be free to say to schools, “Well, we have looked at this, and half an hour is not enough. You need to do more.” We are not giving schools a commitment to teach as they see fit, but potentially lining up for them much longer times they will have to spend teaching these skills if the half an hour that we have been told about proves to be as insufficient and inadequate as my hon. Friend the Member for South East Cornwall has suggested.



As I said, teachers are best placed to decide on these matters. We should not force them to do anything that is not right for them or their school. We are constantly moving towards an overly prescribed curriculum. That is unhelpful to teachers, who must teach these lessons, and to students, who have to try to juggle more subjects in a limited time. This happens time and again in Parliament. When I was on the Opposition Benches— some might argue that I always sit on the opposition Benches, but when I was on the other side of the House —I remember the Labour Government’s proposal that all schools should be obliged to teach about healthy eating, among other things.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. We do not want to go into what previous Governments may or may not have done. The debate is about the Bill. You would not want to sidetrack me, or your good self.

[Philip Davies]

No, absolutely not, and I assure you, Mr Deputy Speaker, that I am not getting sidetracked. My point, which is very relevant to the Bill, is that all these things, very worthy in themselves, are like a salami slicer. We are talking about half an hour here for this, and half an hour there for that. Each half-hour may not in itself seem like a great deal of time out of the school curriculum, but when we put together all the things that a school is obliged to do, we are talking about a serious amount of time—perhaps a full day out of the weekly curriculum. That is what I fear will happen. We cannot take this provision in isolation; we have to look at all the other things piled on schools, and should ask them whether they really have enough time to have yet another thing imposed on them.

I should ask what I often ask on these occasions: if, as we keep being told, this is such a wonderful thing, and there are no downsides, why was the provision never introduced in the 13 years of the Labour Government? The shadow Minister did not explain this very well. I have to wonder whether Labour Members actually have the commitment to this that they would like us to believe. Not only did they not introduce the measure in their 13 years in government, although they had the perfect opportunity to do so, but they spent about an hour and 15 minutes today on two urgent questions and some pointless points of order to delay progress on this debate.

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

Order. We are definitely drifting off the Bill. We will not judge what has held us up. This is not about time, as you well know, Mr Davies; you are the Fridays expert. You do not want me to be misled, do you?

[Philip Davies]

You are absolutely right, Mr Deputy Speaker: it is not about the time. Time carries on, and we carry on with our speeches; time will sort itself out.

As for the flexibility and support that schools have regarding first aid, the Minister for Schools made it clear—we should put this on the record—that there is nothing to stop schools teaching first aid. He said in a parliamentary answer:

“Schools are free to teach emergency life-saving skills and may choose to do so as part of personal, social, health and economic education. The Department…is encouraging schools to purchase …defibrillators…We have also published a guide to defibrillators on school premises”.—[Official Report, 19 January 2015; Vol. 591, c. 17-18.]

The Department has made it clear that schools are already free to do this, and that it does not need to go any further. I also point out that as of 13 November this year, 787 defibrillators have been purchased under the Government’s scheme, so to say that the Government are doing nothing to assist in this area would be completely wrong and misleading. There is an awful lot being done. Much more can be achieved by continuing down a voluntary route than could be achieved by trying, in a ham-fisted way, to mandate things that never seem to work as envisaged.

It is worth pointing out that in May, the Department announced that St John Ambulance would receive more than £250,000

“to build a nation of young first aiders who are resilient, confident and motivated.”

That is part of the Government’s £3.5 million character grant scheme, through which St John Ambulance is training

“600 champions…and 31,500 pupils selected for first aid training, supporting 100,000 pupils… overall. 100 new cadet clubs will also be set up.”

That is a much more valuable way of going about this. An awful lot is being done to give children as much easy access to first aid resources as possible without interfering in the role of schools and teachers.

I acknowledge the fantastic work that school staff members throughout the country do to ensure the safety of children at school. Schools routinely include the needs of pupils when making their first aid needs assessment for staff, and when putting appropriate provision in place. The number of qualified first aiders required will be a part of the school’s first aid needs assessment, and will be based on local circumstances, so it is not as if the provision of first aid in schools is inadequate and we need the measures in the Bill; that is already catered for.

This issue touches on the question of what a school’s role is, and should be; the proposer of the Bill started to go down this route in her argument for the Bill. I think my hon. Friend the Member for Cirencester talked about schools’ roles, too.

--- Later in debate ---

[Philip Davies]

My hon. Friend is right.

It is clear from what happens at the guides that first aid skills need to be updated My hon. Friend the Member for South East Cornwall touched on this in an intervention. The guides do it every two years. For it to mean anything at all, schools will have to teach first aid every two or three years, which will mean even more time out of the curriculum. I remember doing a first aid course at school, but I have to admit that if I were faced with a medical emergency, I would struggle to remember all the training I received. In that sense it would be rendered completely useless. That would apply to many of those who would go through first aid training at school, particularly if they were not paying attention because they did not want to be there in the first place.

We in this place would be far better advised to encourage young people to go out and join the guides or the scouts, or to do the Duke of Edinburgh’s award—the bronze, the silver and the gold. That would be a very worthwhile thing for them to do, and as part of that they would get all the emergency first aid training they would ever need. That would be a much more worthwhile message for us to send out—

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

Order. We have had a lot of examples. The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right that previous speakers also mentioned good examples. Nobody is disagreeing that there are lots of good organisations, but the Bill is about schools and education. We are in danger of getting into an argument about those who provide training in the voluntary sector and whether they should do it. I know that the hon. Gentleman wants to stick purely to the Bill, which is about first aid provision in schools.

[Philip Davies]

rose—

--- Later in debate ---

[Philip Davies]

I take my hon. Friend’s point, but I will explain why I do not think first aid is worth teaching in schools. My fear is if we start doing in school all the things that happen at the scouts, the guides and the Duke of Edinburgh’s award, there will be no point in people joining them, and these very worthy organisations—

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

Order. We are not debating what is provided by the scouts, the guides or anyone else. This is about the provision of first aid training. We do not want to get into all the activities those organisations do or try to compare the two. You understand that, Mr Davies. You are very good.

[Philip Davies]

The point I am trying to make, Mr Deputy Speaker—I apologise if I am making it in a ham-fisted way—is why the Bill is unnecessary. We are discussing whether the Bill should be enacted, and I am making the point—I apologise if I appear to be doing it in a deviant manner, but I assure you, Mr Deputy Speaker, I am not doing so intentionally—that the Bill is unnecessary, for the reasons I am giving. I hope that is well within the scope of the debate.

--- Later in debate ---

[Philip Davies]

It was not down to me that an hour and 15 minutes was taken up by urgent questions.

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

Order. We are not going to debate urgent questions. They are not debatable, and I do not want to hear them mentioned again.

[Philip Davies]

I will plough on with my remarks, Mr Deputy Speaker; such matters are outside my control. If 100 Members are here we will have a vote come what may, whatever I say or do.

There are the costs of the venue hire, training the teachers and training the replacement teachers—this is according to the British Heart Foundation, which goes on to say:

“The largest consumable cost is the initial supply of resuscitation manikins.”

We have not heard about this in the debate so far. The BHF goes on:

“Ideally, in a class of up to 32 there should be one manikin used between two people (16 in total). Schools should have both standard resuscitation manikins and baby manikins. These are one-off costs for the lifetime of the manikin, with annual costs to maintain the equipment. Per school, we estimate that this costs around £2,200 each year. This takes into account the appropriate learning materials required in a programme to aid teaching these life-saving skills to pupils, in addition to general administration and monitoring costs.”

That opens up a whole can of worms: schools will have to find supply teachers—an immense cost—so that teachers can go on a course for a day to learn the first aid information to teach. Even if the teachers do not go on the course themselves, they still need to find time to be taught the first aid information by other teachers. Furthermore, there is the cost of the manikins, mentioned by the British Heart Foundation, as well.

Earlier, I was discussing the problems that schools have. One problem cited by Ofsted is teacher turnover. Continually being required to send new teachers on to training courses is another burden that schools that are already struggling should not have to suffer. When I spoke to people at my local secondary schools about the Bill, that was one of their main areas of concern. Someone at one of the schools outlined their concerns as follows in an email:

“The Academy currently can probably meet this duty as we have a qualified first aid trainer on the associate staff body; however, this would pose difficulties as it would be a requirement to ensure that there is someone with the appropriate level of training on staff—or have to be a brought in provision, to ensure that all young people receive the correct advice”.

That concern was echoed by other schools in my constituency, which were concerned by not only the staffing implications but the time allocation demanded of the school timetable.

Furthermore, schools would have to be required to find room in their budgets to pay for the provisions. We have heard about the cost of the manikins; I also spoke to some prominent union officials who live in my constituency. One said that making first aid education compulsory might not be cost-effective because at the moment first-aiders get a small allowance and training all teachers would be a massive expense. They would probably have to be retrained every three or four years. Is that cost-effective? Probably not.

Hospital Parking Charges (Exemption for Carers) Bill

Debate between Philip Davies and Lindsay Hoyle

Friday 30th October 2015 Commons Chamber

[Philip Davies]

I suspect it means that people are parking in places where they should not be parking within the car park because there are not enough spaces, so they park somewhere where there is not a space.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. I do not think we need to worry too much about going over the capacity of 100%. We need to concentrate on the Bill and worry about carers’ parking.

[Philip Davies]

I very much agree, Mr Deputy Speaker. I will move on. I will discuss how it might work with my hon. Friend in the Tea Room afterwards.

[Mr Chope]

If there is increased demand for car parking spaces at hospitals and it is desirable that those hospitals provide extra provision, that has to be paid for. How will it be paid for?

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

I do not think that is our worry for today.

[Philip Davies]

Whether it is or not, Mr Deputy Speaker, I will move on.

I asked my local hospital how many carers already use its car parking spaces, which very much is our concern today. It replied:

“The Foundation Trust is currently unable to determine how many carers use the designated hospital car parks. It would therefore be difficult to assess the potential impact on car parking revenue”.

That goes some way towards answering the question my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch asked. The honest answer is that we do not know what the impact will be on any particular hospital. My local hospital certainly does not know.

[Julian Knight]

My hon. Friend is making the important point that his foundation trust does not know how many carers park at the hospital. I have asked similar questions and have not received any answers. That shows that we do not know how much the Bill would cost the country if it were put in statute.

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

In fairness, we have had an hour of explaining that we do not know the cost. I am sure that we do not want to rerun that.

[Philip Davies]

Absolutely, Mr Deputy Speaker.

Although there are no official statistics on this matter, in the NHS car parking impact assessment for 2009, the Department of Health provided an estimate of the revenue raised from hospital car parking charges as a whole, which was in the range of £140 million to £180 million. University Hospitals Birmingham NHS Foundation Trust raised £1.5 million from car parking in 2004-05. This measure would clearly leave a substantial hole in NHS hospital budgets.

As I have made clear, one consequence of the Bill would be increased car parking charges for people who do not apply for the free parking. One of my concerns is that we have already seen considerable increases in car parking charges at hospitals. Wye Valley NHS Trust has increased its average hourly rate from 33p in 2013-14 to £3.50 in 2014-15. I would be loth to put any additional cost on people who are using that car park. The Whittington health trust in London doubled its average hourly rate from £1.50 to £3, and Medway Maritime hospital in Gillingham increased its price for a five-hour stay from £5 to £8. Given that we are already seeing such huge increases in parking fees, I would not want to pass a Bill that would see people paying even more.

That point was highlighted by the British Parking Association in 2009, following the scrapping of hospital car parking charges in Scotland. It said:

“Car parks need to be physically maintained, somebody somewhere has to pay. Charges were not introduced to generate income but rather to ensure that key staff, bona fide patients and visitors are able to park at the hospital. Without income to support car park maintenance…funds which should be dedicated to healthcare have to be used instead.”

[Barbara Keeley]

On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. The hon. Gentleman has been speaking for an hour and nine minutes, and we are now getting a lot of repetition. Many other people want to speak.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

In fairness, it is for me to decide whether there is repetition. I certainly do not need any advice. You should not be questioning the Chair’s ability to hold the speaker to account. I am sure that Mr Davies is well aware that many people wish to speak and that he wants to hear those other voices. He is in order, but I am worried that we will get into repetition. I certainly do not want to get bogged down in the maintenance of Scottish car parks. I am sure that he will move on quickly.

[Philip Davies]

I am grateful for that guidance, Mr Deputy Speaker. The hon. Lady has intervened on me more often than anybody else, which has held me up in making my remarks. My advice is that if she wants me to crack on, she should not keep intervening on me so that I have the opportunity to do so.

A big geographical inequality would result from the Bill because car parking charges vary wildly from one part of the country to another—from £4.26 in the north-east to £11.85—

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

Order. The hon. Gentleman has given a great number of examples. I do welcome examples, but there is a limit to how many we need. I think that people can get a flavour of the arguments from the examples he has used. Hopefully he will bring something new to the Chamber. If not, I am sure that he would like to hear somebody else. I am sure that some of his colleagues are desperate to speak.

[Philip Davies]

I am very grateful, Mr Deputy Speaker.

I will turn to the example that the hon. Member for Burnley used in her remarks, which she encouraged me to reflect on. As she said, at the end of last year, Torbay and South Devon NHS Foundation Trust announced that it would offer free parking to registered carers at Torbay hospital. I should point out that that scheme, unlike the Bill, is offered specifically to unpaid carers, rather than people who receive carer’s allowance. That is not what the Bill proposes, despite the impression the hon. Lady wanted to give. The interim chief executive of Torbay hospital, Dr John Lowes, said in December 2014:

“Family members and friends who provide unpaid care to our patients at home are invaluable, so we wanted to do something to make their hospital visits a little less stressful, and to demonstrate that we really do value what they do.”

He explained that the system was being implemented with the involvement of the established local care providers and that

“if someone is registered with either Devon or Torbay Carers Services, they just need to display their Carers Card on the car dashboard whilst they are parked in the public pay and display areas, and they will not be charged for parking.”

There are two points to make about that. First, the hon. Lady argued that what happens in Torbay shows why we can happily roll out the scheme across the country, but my view is that it is a perfect illustration of why we do not need legislation. Torbay has managed to do it without any legislation in a way that suits its local requirements, which is what I want to see.

Secondly, I know from my own experience that there is a problem with having a card displayed on a dashboard in a pay and display area, which is effectively what happens with blue badges. Anybody who has been involved in that area knows that people hand their badge to someone else to use—a member of their family, or whoever. It is not right—it is a terrible thing—but it happens, and we cannot ignore the fact that it would happen under the system proposed in the Bill.

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

I just want to say that I am sure things like that do not happen in Somerset.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. And I am sure that it is not part of the debate for today.

[Philip Davies]

Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. Again, I will move on.

As the Torbay scheme is the nearest to the one that the hon. Member for Burnley proposes, I asked some questions through freedom of information requests about the impact and take-up of the scheme. I asked how many people had used the scheme since it was introduced, and the reply from Torbay was:

“We are unable to provide you with the information requested as it is not held electronically or in a central location. We do not record the details of carers, only a verification that they are on the register.”

We do not even know how many people take up the scheme that has been introduced.

--- Later in debate ---

[Philip Davies]

That is my reading of the situation. Because the definition of carers in the Bill is different from that used by Torbay—

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

Order. May I just say that we have covered Torbay? The hon. Gentleman has moved on, but unfortunately the hon. Member for North East Somerset (Mr Rees-Mogg) keeps wanting to drag him back to what he has already covered. I know that he does not want to go back to that.

[Philip Davies]

I am pleased that you have acknowledged that I am being led astray, Mr Deputy Speaker.

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

But a little bit too easily.

[Philip Davies]

In which case we must look at the Bill itself, Mr Deputy Speaker, if that is what you are urging me to do.

The Bill is called the Hospital Parking Charges (Exemptions for Carers) Bill, but it would actually apply to all health service providers, both public and private, and not just hospitals. I do not think many people appreciate its true scope. Clause 1 states that bodies that provide healthcare must

“make arrangements to exempt qualifying carers”

from car parking charges. That applies to

“any National Health Service hospital, walk-in centre, GP practice or other health care facility to which patients are admitted, or which they attend, for diagnosis, testing, treatment or other appointment relating to their health”,

so we are not just talking about hospital car parking charges. It also extends to private hospitals, so not only are we dictating what should happen in the NHS, but we are telling private hospitals what they should do. Many people might argue that those who can afford private healthcare treatment can also pay for car parking. Whether that is a legitimate use of resources is a different matter.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

Can my hon. Friend explain whether under clauses 2 and 5 somebody can quality for this allowance but not be eligible, or be eligible but not qualify?

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

If the Bill goes to Committee, such points can be teased out and straightened out there, rather than on the Floor of the House today.

[Philip Davies]

My hon. Friend makes an interesting suggestion. I contend that the Bill is so flawed that it cannot be rescued in Committee, or that rescuing it would involve filleting it to such an extent that it would come out barely recognisable, which would be a pointless exercise. I appreciate that such issues could be considered in Committee—as ever, Mr Deputy Speaker, you are perfectly right.

Clause 7 says that the Act must come into force

“12 months after the day on which this Act receives Royal Assent.”

There are two pertinent points about that. If it is so unjust for carers to pay hospital car parking charges, how can the hon. Lady justify requiring them to pay charges for another year? Why not introduce the change much sooner? I think I know the answer to that question, and it reinforces my argument. I think the hon. Lady realises that the provisions in the Bill would be a logistical nightmare to implement, for some of the reasons that I have already mentioned—I am sure there are also many others. She probably realises that to make anything of the Bill it would require at least a year to come up with anything that makes any sense. It is interesting that such a measure is part of the Bill, and it justifies my concerns. The hon. Lady said that she would like the measures in her Bill to be extended in future to cover other people. She made the point that this is a good start—

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

Order. That is speculation for another day. We are dealing with the Bill before the House, not what might be before us in future. I know that the hon. Gentleman is desperate to hear the views of other hon. Members, and I am sure his colleagues are desperate to speak.

[Philip Davies]

I agree. This is hard work, Mr Deputy Speaker, and you are right—I am anxious to press on.

[Mr Chope]

Before my hon. Friend concludes, will he address clause 7(2) which states that the Act extends to England only? Does he think that, as with free school meals, there will be Barnett consequentials?

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

I reassure the hon. Gentleman that we are not going to open that can of worms today. Philip Davies, I know that you want to get beyond clause 7 and to your conclusion.

[Philip Davies]

I knew it was a mistake giving way to my hon. Friend, and that he would try to lead me astray once again. I will leave him to consider Barnett consequentials in his remarks—I am desperately trying to reach a conclusion.

I appreciate that the hon. Lady genuinely wants to help carers, and if the principle behind her Bill is to support carers, I will happily support that principle. However, of all the worthwhile issues and campaigns championed by different carers organisations and charities, it seems that she has picked the one dud. I would have been happy to support many other campaigns for carers had she raised them. For example, parent carers could be offered an assessment rather than having to request one for their children, and we could introduce measures such as:

“Clear recognition in law that parent carer assessments and services must have the promotion of their well-being at the heart of what they do.

Consolidation of legislation on parent carers from three different Acts”.

I would have been prepared to support such worthwhile campaigns to help carers, but I fear that the hon. Lady has picked the wrong campaign. For future reference I urge her to consider some of the other campaigns that carers organisations would like to be raised. I think she would get a lot of support from across the House and—I hope—from the Government.

In conclusion, the Bill is ill-thought through and many areas are far too vague. It will be a logistical nightmare to enforce and implement, and it would cost NHS trusts up and down the country millions of pounds, forcing higher charges on other visitors, or risking patient services. It would exempt a lot of people who are just as worthy recipients of parking concessions—I think that the Government’s guidance on hospital car parking is far more sensible than the provisions in the Bill, and they encompass more people who deserve to be considered. Hospitals already have power to implement the policy suggested by the hon. Lady if they wish, and perhaps on reflection she should go away and come back at some point in future with a different Bill. I have not mentioned the money resolution consequences of this Bill, but I hope that others will consider that issue. I have not seen any money resolution proposals.

Finally—very finally—I have people visiting Parliament today, so I apologise in advance if I cannot be here for the entire debate. I will try to stay for as much as possible because it is an interesting discussion.

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

Don’t let us disturb you. I think your guests are waiting for you.

[Philip Davies]

Perhaps they are, perhaps they are not—I do not know. I genuinely wish the hon. Lady well in her time in the House, and I do not doubt the worthy sentiment in this Bill. We all support what carers do in this country, but I think the Bill is misguided.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

Order. I understand the point that the hon. Gentleman is trying to make, but it has already been well thumbed. As the hon. Gentleman knows, it was covered very thoroughly by Mr Davies, and I do not want him to repeat everything that Mr Davies covered. I think that, in his hour and a half, Mr Davies did not leave a lot of scope, but this is one point that he made sure we were well aware of.

[Philip Davies]

It is worth repeating.

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

Only in your opinion.

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

Debate between Philip Davies and Lindsay Hoyle

Friday 27th February 2015 Commons Chamber

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

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

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. I think that is a job for me.

[Philip Davies]

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

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

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

[Philip Davies]

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

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

Local Government (Religious etc. Observances) Bill

Debate between Philip Davies and Lindsay Hoyle

Friday 16th January 2015 Commons Chamber

[Barry Gardiner]

The hon. Gentleman said that although we say those words, sometimes they are not observed in the subsequent proceedings of the Chamber. I recall the words of Claudius in “Hamlet” after he had been praying, ostensibly, when he said:

“My words fly up, my thoughts remain below:

Words without thoughts never to heaven go.”

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. I might be able to help a little bit. We are not discussing the Prayers of the Chamber. I recognise the benefits and there is an analogy between the two, but the debate is about local government prayers. I have allowed a lot of leeway, but I am sure we will hear the connection made shortly.

[Philip Davies]

I am grateful for your indulgence, Mr Deputy Speaker.

Politicians, whether in the national Parliament or in local government, should always be mindful of these things when they start their proceedings. I am not aware that anybody, whether they have no faith, a Christian faith or some other faith, objects to our starting our proceedings in that way or finds it offensive. For people who do not want to participate in prayers, there is no obligation on them to do so; they can sit them out, as some do, and I fully respect them for that. It should not be compulsory for individuals to have to engage in prayer, but I do not see the objection to people in politics—people serving the public—starting with a reminder of their duty to the people they are elected to serve. That is why I tabled my amendment.

I would go slightly further than my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough. I think it is important that we start with Christian prayers. We are a Christian country and that is our heritage; we should never be ashamed of it. I do not think that people of other faiths are offended by the fact that we are a Christian country either. We still have an established Church of England, and I do not see the problem with that, whether or not we all support it personally. That is our heritage in this country; it is what our values are based on. We should not be ashamed of that; we should be proud of it. It should not cause any offence if everybody started their proceedings in this way.

This is a probing amendment and I do not intend to press it to a Division. I just wanted to stimulate a debate and make people think about why this is not such a bad thing.

Tenancies (Reform) Bill

Debate between Philip Davies and Lindsay Hoyle

Friday 28th November 2014 Commons Chamber

[Stephen Pound]

On the subject of meat, the hon. Gentleman is well known for his prodigious appetite for research. Where in his last comment is there any link to the wording of the Bill? I cannot see any connection between his comments and what the hon. Member for Brent Central (Sarah Teather) is seeking to help with.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

I do not think we have to worry about that.

[Philip Davies]

I was merely pointing out that others had said there was a problem with supply and demand—that there was too much demand—and therefore that landlords had too much of a whip hand. I was merely pointing out that there were better ways of dealing with the supply-and-demand issue than through this Bill, so my point was very pertinent to the Bill. The hon. Member for Ealing North (Stephen Pound) seems to be slower on the uptake than normal, so I shall repeat that point: there are better ways of dealing with the supply-and-demand issues than by passing the Bill, which makes my remarks very pertinent to whether we need to pass the Bill.

As I was trying to say before I was rudely and repeatedly interrupted, the private rented sector has been a topical issue for many years, and there have always been arguments for greater regulation of the industry. The historical context of assured shorthold tenancies and section 21 notices, which are the subject of the Bill, can be easily traced. The 1987 Conservative manifesto recognised that there was a problem with the shortage of rented properties available, and to help increase the supply of rented dwellings, it pledged to make renting easier for landlords. I will not read out the whole section of the manifesto, under the “Better Housing for All” heading, but the relevant bits read, under the sub-heading, “A Right to Rent”:

“Most problems in housing now arise in the rented sector. Controls, although well-meant, have dramatically reduced the private rented accommodation to a mere 8 per cent of the housing market. This restricts housing choice and hinders the economy. People looking for work cannot easily move to a different area to do so. Those who find work may not be able to find rented accommodation nearby. Those who would prefer to rent rather than buy are forced to become reluctant owner-occupiers or to swell the queue for council houses. Some may even become temporarily homeless. And it is not only these people and their families who suffer from the shortage of homes for rent. The economy as a whole is damaged when workers cannot move to fill jobs because there are no homes to rent in the neighbourhood.”

Many might say we face similar challenges today. It went on:

“The next Conservative Government, having already implemented the right to buy, will increase practical opportunities to rent. We must attract new private investment into rented housing… First, to encourage more investment by institutions, we will extend the system of assured tenancies. This will permit new lettings in which rents and the period of lease will be freely agreed between tenants and landlords. The tenant will have security of tenure and will renegotiate the rent at the end of the lease, with provision for arbitration if necessary. Second, to encourage new lettings by smaller landlords, we will develop the system of shorthold. The rents of landlords will be limited to a reasonable rate of return, and the tenant's security of tenure will be limited to the term of the lease, which would be not less than 6 months. This will bring back into use many of the 550,000 private dwellings which now stand empty because of controls, as well as making the provision of new rented housing a more attractive investment.”

That touches on the point made by the hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn). The reason for the system used today was to bring into use lots of properties that were out of use, because unfortunately the system then was not conducive to encouraging people to rent out their properties.

The figure of 550,000—the number of private dwellings to be brought back into the rental market—is staggering and shows starkly the dangers of too much regulatory interference. The fewer properties on the market, the worse is the supply-and-demand issue, so if people think there is a problem with supply and demand now, I must point out that it can only get worse if we introduce too much regulation into the sector.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jeremy Corbyn]

On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. I have been listening carefully to the speech of the hon. Member for Shipley (Philip Davies), and he does not seem to me to be talking much about retaliatory evictions. He is talking more about the generality of the private rented sector. It is obviously in order to refer to that, but it is clearly not the central factor of the Bill. The Bill is quite specific—it deals with retaliatory evictions.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

We are going to hear quite a speech. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will be heading that way, but he is actually in order.

[Philip Davies]

Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. If the hon. Gentleman would let me get on with it, we might get to a conclusion, instead of having him delaying proceedings all the time.

It is interesting to note in that Select Committee report the clear reference to the deregulation of the private rented sector and changes to tenancies in the late 1980s as being reasons for the increase in rented accommodation. That was exactly the point made in the 1987 Conservative manifesto, which I mentioned earlier. The exact figures are interesting, too. The number of private rentals nearly doubled from 1999 to 2012. In 1999 there were 2 million; in 2011-12 there were 3.8 million; whereas the social rented sector declined from 4 million to 3.8 million, but just below the number of the private rentals.

When it comes to understanding the procedure in relation to a section 21 notice for an assured shorthold tenancy, let me tell the hon. Member for Islington North that that is what the Bill is about. I do not know whether he has read the Bill, but that is what it is about. I am sorry to have surprised him by telling him that the Bill is about section 21 notices for an assured shorthold tenancy.

The Department for Communities and Local Government has guidance called, “Gaining possession of a privately rented property let on an assured shorthold tenancy”. It is dated 14 November 2012, but is the current online guidance on the DCLG’s webspace. It says:

“You cannot use Section 21 to gain possession of your property during the fixed term. You can serve a Section 21 notice on your tenant during that time, providing the date you state you require possession is not before the end of the fixed term. If your tenant paid a deposit, you cannot use Section 21 unless the deposit has been protected in accordance with the tenancy deposit schemes.”

This idea that landlords can go along willy-nilly using section 21 at any time a tenant decides to complain about the condition of their property is just for the birds. It is just not accurate. The guidance on the Department’s website is perfectly clear about that.

The tenancy deposit scheme is another regulatory burden on landlords, and it is relevant to the Bill because it is a crucial element of the qualifying criteria for a landlord to issue a section 21 notice. However, that is the only respect in which it is relevant, so I do not think that I need to dwell on it any further, which will please the hon. Member for Islington North.

The guidance on the Department’s website goes on to say:

“You must give at least 2 months notice in writing. If the fixed term has expired the notice will end on the last day of the rental period and you must explain that you are giving notice by virtue of Section 21 of the Housing Act 1988. You will need to give more than 2 months’ notice if the fixed term has expired and the gap between the dates that the rent falls due is more than 2 months (e.g, a quarterly rent).”

Serving the notice is only part of the story, however. Giving notice under section 21 is merely that; it does not constitute a guarantee that the tenants will actually leave. The Department gives a helpful explanation on its website, and I shall set out some quotations from it:

“What do I do if my tenant refuses to leave on the date specified in the notice?

You will need to apply to the courts for a ‘possession order’.”

“What do I do if my tenant refuses to leave by the date given in the court order?

You must apply to the courts for a warrant of possession and the court will arrange for a bailiff to evict the tenant. You will need to use the ‘Request for Warrant of possession of Land (N325)…form.”

“How can I speed up the process?

You can use the possession claim online service if you are seeking possession of the property together with any rent arrears. The service allows you to access court forms online”.

“Where possession is sought under Section 21, an accelerated procedure can be used which is a straightforward and inexpensive procedure for getting possession of your property without a court hearing.

In most cases using this procedure the court will make its decision on the papers, and can order possession to be given up within 14 days unless exceptional hardship would be caused, in which case the maximum time that can be allowed is 42 days.

You can only use this procedure if you have a written tenancy agreement and you have given the tenant the required notice in writing that you are seeking possession. You cannot use this procedure if you are also claiming rent arrears.”

The landlord therefore still has plenty of hoops to jump through, even after serving notice, unlike the tenant, who will have no problems at all if he or she wants simply to leave.

--- Later in debate ---

[Stephen Pound]

On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. I would never dare for a moment to suggest a course of action that you should take from the Chair, but surely, Sir, you would agree that this is utterly, totally and completely irrelevant. We will be on to episodes of “Rising Damp” next. Is it in order for the hon. Gentleman to seek to read out a list of necessities including “sanitary conveniences” in his pathetic attempt to talk out a good and decent Bill?

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

That is not a point of order, but we have heard the hon. Gentleman’s view and his opinion. My opinion is that the hon. Member for Shipley (Philip Davies) is in order. However, I agree with the hon. Member for Ealing North (Stephen Pound) on one point: we do not want to be given too many more examples.

[Philip Davies]

I am grateful to you, Mr Deputy Speaker.

I am surprised that the hon. Member for Ealing North has led with his chin by drawing attention to the fact that he has absolutely no idea what the Bill is about. The Bill is about retaliatory evictions. That is the whole purpose of it, and that is what the campaign that resulted in the Bill was about. The moment I mentioned the Select Committee’s report that considered retaliatory evictions, the hon. Gentleman stood up to say that that was irrelevant to the Bill. Either the hon. Gentleman is wasting time himself, or he has not the first idea what he is talking about. I have no idea why he is sitting on the Opposition Front Bench masquerading as some sort of expert on the subject.

[Philip Davies]

My hon. Friend is right. I know that this is very inconvenient, but the whole point of Select Committees is to look at and scrutinise issues in detail and to take evidence, with the Committee then making recommendations on the basis of its expertise. It is a sad day in this House when Members seem not to want to know what that Select Committee, under its Labour Chairman, said about the issue we are debating. Free speech is a long way away from the Labour party. The detailed Select Committee report is a hefty 79 pages long.

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

Order. I am not sure that I was referring to a Select Committee report, but we are dealing with a Bill. The two must presumably link, but I am not sure how, as I do not have the Select Committee report before me. I know that the hon. Gentleman wants to discuss the Bill and I presume that that is what we are going to do.

Zero Hours Contracts Bill

Debate between Philip Davies and Lindsay Hoyle

Friday 21st November 2014 Commons Chamber

[Philip Davies]

I will in a second. We can all understand why they do not want to draw attention to the fact.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. The hon. Gentleman will give way when he is ready. The hon. Member for Bolton South East (Yasmin Qureshi) does not have to remain standing. I do not want her knees to give way while she is waiting, because it could be a long time.

[Philip Davies]

I would be perfectly happy for us to have some way of admitting whether we employ our staff on zero-hours contracts. I do not, and I have no intention of doing so, but perhaps there might be something that we all sign.

Deregulation Bill

Debate between Philip Davies and Lindsay Hoyle

Monday 23rd June 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

We have six speakers and 17 minutes left.

[Philip Davies]

I will be brief and do not intend to put any of my new clauses to the vote. My new clauses 10 to 14 deal with Sunday trading. They would completely liberalise the Sunday trading laws—that is what I would prefer—extend the current arrangements or put them on a more temporary basis. This country’s Sunday trading laws are out of date and absurd—they are completely unjustifiable. People talk about defending small shops, as the shadow Minister did, and say, “This measure helps small shops.” He has to realise that the world has moved on. The small convenience shops that are open on a Sunday are not Mr Miggins’s pie shop or Mrs Miggins’s greengrocers; the small convenience stores being protected by the current Sunday trading laws are Tesco Express, Sainsbury’s Local and Morrison’s Local.

Companies such as Tesco are probably quite pleased with the current arrangements, because they do not have to open their bigger stores, which sell goods at much lower prices. They can close the big stores and force everyone to go along to their small shops, where everyone has to pay a hugely inflated price for their shopping. Companies such as Asda cannot compete. The Labour party keeps saying, “We are concerned about the cost of living.” There is a cost of living crisis in this country, and what does it do? It opposes the measure that would have a massive effect on reducing the prices in the shops for people who shop on a Sunday. People are forced to go to higher priced shops such as Tesco Express rather than shop at a bigger store. It is absurd.

Housing Benefit

Debate between Philip Davies and Lindsay Hoyle

Tuesday 12th November 2013 Commons Chamber

[Philip Davies]

Does the Minister agree that the spare room subsidy is one reason why we do not have the right mix of housing? Social housing providers could build houses as big as they wanted, knowing that the Government would cover the full bill irrespectively. In that respect, does he deplore the social housing provider in my area, of which a Labour MP is a director? It complains on the one hand that it has too many three-bedroom houses—

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. Just to help hon. Members, we need shorter interventions. Many hon. Members wish to speak and the matter is important to all our constituencies, so we need short interventions.

Gambling (Licensing and Advertising) Bill

Debate between Philip Davies and Lindsay Hoyle

Tuesday 5th November 2013 Commons Chamber

[Philip Davies]

My hon. Friend makes a very good point.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. May I suggest to the hon. Gentleman that it is not Friday today and that, although I know he is very keen on this subject, a few more Members want to get in?

[Philip Davies]

You are absolutely right, Mr Deputy Speaker: it is not Friday.

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

My worry is that you think it is a Friday, when you usually speak for hours—that’s what’s bothering me!

[Philip Davies]

For once, Mr Deputy Speaker, you are quite wrong. I have been racing through my comments, which I suppose is just like a Friday, when I do the same. I am trying to go through them as quickly as possible and I do not intend to speak for hours. I was just looking at the clock, actually, thinking that I should draw my speech to a close as soon as possible.

The final point on which I want to concentrate relates to taxation and what people may wrongly associate with this Bill. There is too much focus on the big gambling companies, such as William Hill, Ladbrokes and Coral. To be perfectly honest, I do not worry too much about the effect the Bill will have on them. They are big, successful and innovative companies and I am sure they have the wherewithal to cope with the Bill’s taxation regime. I am sure it will create some pain for them, but I do not have a problem with that. The reason why I support the Bill is that there is an awful lot to be said for companies offshore having to pay taxation in the same way as small, independent betting shops in this country. I do not worry about those big companies.

What I am worried about—I hope the Minister will consider this carefully—is the Bill’s likely impact on much smaller internet companies in the gambling industry, such as innovative start-up companies. If we look at the history of the gambling industry, we see that it is often the smaller companies that have driven much of the innovation and change that have been part of improving standards in a number of areas. My concern about the Bill’s new licensing system and the Treasury’s proposed taxation rates is that those companies will be priced out of the market before they can even reach a scale that would allow them to flourish. In effect, they will be strangled at birth and that would wipe out lots of innovation in the gambling sector.

That could easily be avoided, without altering the principles behind the Bill, through the introduction of thresholds or a tiered taxation system when the tax rates are announced. Both those alternatives would mirror the current income tax system, which has tiered rates depending on the size of a person’s income, a tax-exempt threshold at the lower end and graded percentage rates. The Government should look closely at introducing a tax regime that does not involve a simple, across-the-board 15% rate, but that takes into consideration the size of the companies concerned, their ability to pay and innovate, and the investment needed for that innovation, because lots of jobs—an underestimated number—are dependent on these small technology companies in the UK.

People might say, “They’re based offshore. It doesn’t matter.” The companies are based offshore for gambling purposes, but they also employ lots of people in the UK who do their marketing and advertising and who create their TV adverts. We would lose lots of jobs in the UK if we priced such businesses out of the market.

Apprenticeships and Skills (Public Procurement Contracts) Bill

Debate between Philip Davies and Lindsay Hoyle

Friday 1st November 2013 Commons Chamber

[Philip Davies]

Perhaps I have been speaking in Swahili.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will be speaking only in English today.

[Philip Davies]

That is a relief to me, Mr Deputy Speaker. Perhaps my Yorkshire accent is causing the confusion; I am not entirely sure. I have tried to set out why I am not convinced that the Bill will achieve what people want. I made it abundantly clear that I agreed with virtually everything that the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish said in his opening speech, but I am not sure that the Bill matches the speech.

--- Later in debate ---

[Philip Davies]

The hon. Gentleman seems to be arguing that procurement policy will solve every ill in the country. I do not see that. He will be telling me next that public procurement contracts could eliminate illegal immigration. It just does not work like that. Let us focus on how we can make effective progress on individual areas.

As I have said, I think that the Government are doing a very good job at increasing the number of apprenticeships and at making sure that they are proper apprenticeships and that they lead to worthwhile jobs. The Government are already making good progress. We should encourage, celebrate and enhance that work.

The problem with procurement is that public bodies often do not get the best value for money for the taxpayer, so that is what we should focus on. Once we have done that and local authorities and public bodies have iron discipline in getting the best deal for the taxpayer, perhaps then we could look at how they could use procurement to advance some of the public policy areas mentioned by the hon. Gentleman. My point is that we—particularly Bradford council—are a long way from that. Let us get back to basics to start with and start negotiating some good deals for the taxpayer.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. I am a little bit worried about Bradford council. I know, as you have pointed out, that you are not too keen on it, but I think we ought to move beyond Bradford council. Let us keep to the point of procurement generally and apprenticeships and skills.

[Philip Davies]

Of course, Mr Deputy Speaker. My lack of enthusiasm for Bradford council was clearly getting the better of me.

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

It’s showing!

[Philip Davies]

In many cases, public bodies are already co-operating with businesses, and further intervention could have a negative effect. The Minister for cities, the Minister of State, Cabinet Office, my right hon. Friend the Member for Tunbridge Wells (Greg Clark), has confirmed a second wave of city deals, and that strategy goes a long way towards achieving what the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish wants. I am, therefore, not entirely sure that the Bill is needed in that respect.

My right hon. Friend has issued a written statement about the Greater Ipswich city deal, which is about addressing youth unemployment, increasing the skills level of the local work force and making sure that local businesses, local authorities, colleges and the Government co-operate in order to provide opportunities, ensure that

“dedicated support is available to match young people with jobs through a youth jobs centre…Expand the number of jobs and apprenticeships in local businesses”,

and increase

“local investment in skills training”.—[Official Report, 30 October 2013; Vol. 569, c. 49WS.]

It is not that anyone disagrees with the agenda of the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish, but the Government, through their city deals, are already doing an awful lot to address it. They should be allowed to flourish and continue their work, and I hope they will be successful. The Bill will not necessarily help; it may get in the way of, or even repeat, that work.

I think we would all agree that the Federation of Small Businesses is a leading business organisation of small businesses and the self-employed. It was formed in 1974 and has about 200,000 members, so we should listen to what it has to say. The Federation of Small Businesses is very supportive of apprenticeships:

“We believe apprenticeships can transform a young person’s life and give them access to bespoke training and often a highly skilled job as a result. Apprenticeships should be recognised as vital introductions to careers that can take individuals all the way to the top in the business. We need to see reforms continue to strengthen and protect the image of apprenticeships which, over the years, has been damaged by constant change.”

The Federation of Small Businesses shares the opinion with me and the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish that apprenticeships are valuable, but that they must be high quality. I agree with the FSB that that has not always been the case., but it also welcomes the Government’s “commitment to quality apprenticeships”.

The FSB supports the

“intention behind the Bill, which is to drive up apprenticeship numbers.”

As I have said, it would be difficult to oppose the sentiment behind the Bill. However, it also says that it is concerned that the Bill

“might hamper the progress being made and unintentionally harm the image of apprenticeships by reinforcing the perception that apprenticeships are a government driven work scheme of limited value. It is for this reason that we oppose the use of procurement to boost apprenticeship numbers.”

--- Later in debate ---

[Philip Davies]

My hon. Friend is right. It is not clear whether or not apprentices in subcontracts count. Is there a requirement on a subcontractor bidding for a proportion of a contract? If the subcontract is for more than £1 million—

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. The hon. Gentleman has mentioned that he is coming to the end of his speech. Other hon. Members want to speak and I am worried about getting them in. It might be helpful to him if I say that, if you bid for one contract, the subcontract is within the main contract, so it does not apply.

[Philip Davies]

I am grateful to you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I am not entirely sure what part of the Bill states that, but you are far more wise in these matters than I am, and I happily accept your judgment. However, when the hon. Gentleman sums up the debate, he might wish to address those points, so hon. Members can be clear on what we are voting on.

To go back to my initial point, I agree with what the hon. Gentleman wants to achieve. I admire his passion for improving the lot of young people, developing their skills and fulfilling their potential. My fear is that the Bill will not clear up the confusion he has identified, but add to the confusion of local authorities and public bodies. In addition, it could damage small businesses that want to bid for contracts and devalue current apprenticeships. I am sure that he wants none of those things, but that is my concern with the Bill. Until he can answer those questions and deal with those concerns, I am not sure that I can support his Bill, even though I absolutely agree with his thoughts on apprenticeships and what he would like to achieve.

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

Debate between Philip Davies and Lindsay Hoyle

Wednesday 11th September 2013 Commons Chamber

[Philip Davies]

The Government have set out their position in “Driving the Future Today”, as published by the Office for Low Emission Vehicles, which has been given money to provide such points. My concern is that if my hon. Friend’s amendments are accepted, that could lead to the national budget for this issue being used up.

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

Order. I know that you wanted to make a short intervention, Mr Davies, and I know that you may wish to speak later, in which case I would not want you to use your speech up now, but instead to recognise that we need to continue with the amendments before us, rather than causing further distractions.

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

Debate between Philip Davies and Lindsay Hoyle

Wednesday 10th July 2013 Commons Chamber

[Philip Davies]

rose—

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

What a choice! I call Mr Nuttall.

Remploy

Debate between Philip Davies and Lindsay Hoyle

Thursday 4th July 2013 Commons Chamber

[Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)]

What did you do when you closed Remploy factories—

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order.

City of London (Various Powers) Bill [Lords]

Debate between Philip Davies and Lindsay Hoyle

Tuesday 26th February 2013 Commons Chamber

[Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)]

rose—

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. If the hon. Gentleman is trying to catch my eye, would I be correct in saying that he was not here at the beginning for the opening speeches?

--- Later in debate ---

[Philip Davies]

I was in the House. As I had been on such a long haul in the previous debate, I popped out for a quick drink.

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

It must have been quite a long drink. As the hon. Gentleman knows, it is not quite the normal thing and I am sure that he would like to apologise before I call him to speak.

[Philip Davies]

I am very grateful, Mr Deputy Speaker. I do apologise for the discourtesy to you and to my hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mark Field). As I said, I popped out for a drink after the previous debate, where I had been on duty for quite some time.

--- Later in debate ---

[Philip Davies]

My hon. Friend made that point very well during his speech and I do not want to reiterate his point, but he is absolutely right.

Remaining on the subject of the return of seized items, I have some minor worries about this section. Proposed new section 16B(8)(a) refers to circumstances in which:

“if no proceedings have been instituted before the expiry of 28 days beginning with the date of seizure”.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Bury North (Mr Nuttall) made clear, 28 days can be an awfully long time to go without goods if one’s livelihood depends on them. It would be a bit of a kick in the teeth if one were not allowed to have one’s goods when no offence had been committed or was being pursued, and it could have a big impact on one’s livelihood for that month.

Proposed new section 16B(8) goes on to state that an article shall be returned:

“unless it has not proved possible, after diligent enquiry, to identify that person or ascertain the person’s address.”

I am not entirely sure what the definition of a “diligent enquiry” is, or how diligent a “diligent enquiry” needs to be. I fear that some of the provisions will be used to give an excuse for not returning goods to their proper lawful owner. We should be minimising the opportunities for that.

Although my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch did not mention this point, it is worth noting that proposed new section 16C(4) states that the court may order forfeiture of goods even if the value exceeds the maximum penalty for the offence that has been committed. We are in the strange situation where we are levying a maximum penalty, but if the goods exceed that maximum penalty they can still be forfeited. I am not sure on what basis that can be either right or fair. If there is a maximum penalty, surely that should be the maximum penalty. The provision flies in the face of natural justice, and it would be interesting to have some clarification on it.

My hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch made the point that proposed new section 16D(1)(b)(ii) states that people might have to wait six months before compensation, which is a lengthy period of time. The court will only be able to make an order for compensation if it is satisfied that the seizure was lawful under proposed new section 16A. I hope my hon. Friend will come back to section 16A and whether we can strengthen

“reasonable grounds for suspecting that a person has committed an offence”.

Otherwise, the corporation would never have to pay compensation, irrespective of how it acted, but that cannot be the intention of my hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster. Surely, it should be forced to pay compensation if it has acted in a way that is not becoming. We would all like to see that, I am sure, yet we are in danger of giving it a get-out-of-jail card and letting it get out of paying compensation.

I agree with the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch about perishable items. I thought he made them very well, so I will not repeat them—[Interruption.]—despite the encouragement from Opposition Members to extol the virtues of his argument a bit more. Perhaps I will, under their provocation, Mr Deputy Speaker—

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Or perhaps you won’t.

[Philip Davies]

But for now I shall resist the temptation.

Instead of repeating my hon. Friend’s points, I will try to pick out those that he might have missed out. Safe to say, subsection (5) to proposed new subsection 16E provides that

“the Corporation shall have a duty to secure the best possible price”

for these perishable goods. How on earth will it go about obtaining the best possible price for these perishable goods? Will it be setting up its own market stall? I do not think so. I wonder why that provision is in the Bill, given that it obviously is not going to happen.

Subsection (4) provides that the goods will be disposed of, if the person from whom it was seized

“fails to collect it within 48 hours of the seizure”,

but just because something is perishable, it does not mean it will go off in 48 hours. It might have a much longer date. I am not sure, therefore, why we have only got 48 hours for all perishable goods, irrespective of how long they could be used for. It seems that we are just presuming that everything being sold will go off within 48 hours, but that clearly does not apply to all perishable goods. I hope that some thought will be given to whether that provision is appropriate, too draconian or just totally inflexible. As we all know, perishable goods go off at various different times.

On the seizure of motor vehicles—or ice cream vans, as my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch pointed out—I wonder how this is going to work. As far as I can see—I could be wrong, and I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster can help me—the Bill does not make it clear who would pay for the seizure, transportation, storage and return of the vehicle concerned. When the police seize or confiscate a vehicle—for example, when people are driving around without any insurance—they bring in a transport company to take it away and lock it up, and people must pay a release charge to get the car back again. Presumably, the corporation would have to go through the same kind of operation. It would not just leave the vehicle where it was, because presumably that is the whole point—it was causing an obstruction or should not have been there, and so the corporation would want to move it.

If the corporation uses the provisions to bring in a garage to tow away and store a vehicle, a cost will be incurred, but it is not clear from the Bill who would be liable for meeting the cost. Would the cost fall on the trader or the corporation? If the cost was incurred by the trader, but it was later shown that no offence had been committed, would the corporation reimburse the trader? As far as I can see—I stand to be corrected—the Bill does not make any of those things clear. It would be particularly helpful, therefore, if we could have some clarity. It is bad enough someone having their vehicle seized, if no offence has been committed, but if they then have to pay to have it returned and cannot claim back the money, it would be a further kick in the teeth. I hope that my hon. Friend will consider those points, on which I am seeking clarification. Clause 9, as my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch said, seems a sensible provision. It will allow businesses more freedom to trade outside their own premises, and I heartily endorse it.

I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster will accept the spirit in which the scrutiny of the Bill has been carried out today. It is our intention to improve it, and I do not think there has been any attempt to wreck it or to stop it. We in this House take seriously our job of protecting people’s freedoms, and of protecting people from unnecessary or over-zealous regulation and legislation. The Minister of State, Department for Business, Innovation and Skills, my right hon. Friend the Member for Sevenoaks (Michael Fallon), who is in his place, has a good track record of trying to stop unnecessary regulation, legislation and bureaucracy.

I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster will accept that my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch and I are simply trying to prevent any unintended consequences that the legislation might have so that it will achieve what he wants it to achieve and does not do what my hon. Friend and I fear it might well do if it goes through unchecked.

Violence against Women and Girls

Debate between Philip Davies and Lindsay Hoyle

Thursday 14th February 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. There are too many private conversations and it is difficult to hear Mr Davies. I am sure we all want to hear what he has to say—[Interruption.] Perhaps not, but at least he can enjoy it.

[Philip Davies]

That is part of the problem, Mr Deputy Speaker. They do not want to hear anyone who does not agree with them. One could be forgiven for thinking that the perpetrators of all these crimes were men and not often women, but again, that is not true. There are many female perpetrators of violence against both women and men, and according to official Ministry of Justice figures, the most common offence group for which both males and females were arrested during a five-year period was violence against the person—34% of females and 31% of males arrested in 2010-11 were arrested for violence against the person. Again, that is not restricted to women but applies also to girls. In 2010-11, violence against the person was the most common offence group for which juvenile females were arrested.

I am afraid that time does not allow me to go through those figures in more detail, which I would like to do.

Canterbury City Council Bill

Debate between Philip Davies and Lindsay Hoyle

Wednesday 6th February 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

Order. Perhaps I can help the hon. Gentleman. He had just said:

“I do not need to speak any longer on this group of amendments”.—[Official Report, 31 January 2013; Vol. 557, c. 1120.]

I hope that remains the case.

[Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)]

He’s got a second wind.

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

I can assure him he hasn’t.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Chope]

Does this not present a perfect opportunity for the Minister to make her maiden contribution to our discussions on the Bills?

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. It might help if I say that the Minister will come in when Mr Davies sits down. If he wants to give way now, there will be no more, but I would sooner hear a little more.

[Philip Davies]

I am very grateful, Mr Deputy Speaker. That is the first time any hon. Member in my seven or eight years in the House has ever said or indicated that they want to hear a little more from me. It certainly has been a red letter day for me, too. I am flattered, Mr Deputy Speaker.

My hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch makes a good point. It would be helpful to hear from the Minister exactly what is in the Government’s mind. Perhaps she will explain why the amendment should be supported and why the wording should apply to the Canterbury City Council Bill but not to the Reading Borough Council Bill.

Perhaps the Minister will also tell us what the Government’s view is of the principle of touting tickets and so on. The Select Committee on Culture, Media and Sport published a report on ticket touting in 2008. I am lucky enough to serve on that Committee, so it is a subject close to my heart. People will have spotted that what is striking about that report is the date—it came out in the middle of the discussions on the Bill. I do not know whether their lordships were influenced in any way by the recommendations of the Committee—I very much hope they were; it was an excellent report, so that may well be the case—or whether they were influenced by the Bill’s principles, but hon. Members may wish to bear in mind the fact that this is a very strange clause in the sense that it is called “Touting”, and that is what is referred to throughout the clause.

The first recommendation of the Select Committee’s report—of course, I will not go through all the recommendations, but it is wise to highlight some of the pertinent ones—states:

“It is important to bear in mind that the term ‘touting’ has very different meanings to different people”.

When we have a Bill that refers to “touting” as if we all know what touting is, hon. Members should bear in mind that comment by the Committee.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jacob Rees-Mogg]

I am troubled about this definition of “touting”, because it includes all forms of entertainment. If one were to give out a leaflet asking people to join the local Conservative party, which is always a source of the greatest entertainment, would that potentially count as touting and be illegal in Reading but legal in Canterbury?

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. I do not think that we need to go down that path; I do not think it would be illegal anywhere.

[Philip Davies]

I am grateful for that guidance. It has saved me from having to deal with that particular intervention

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

I can assure the hon. Member for Shipley (Philip Davies) that there is no need to reply to that either.

[Philip Davies]

I am very grateful for your protection, Mr Deputy Speaker, because I fear I am being troubled by questions that I am unable to answer.

[Jacob Rees-Mogg]

In the interests of impartiality, may I inquire about the Liberal Democrats?

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

Just to show that I am impartial, absolutely not.

[Philip Davies]

I am grateful to you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I am sure you want me to get back to the matter in hand.

--- Later in debate ---

[Philip Davies]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right.

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

Order. I want us to deal with the amendments, not worry about London or Brick lane.

[Philip Davies]

I am grateful, Mr Deputy Speaker.

My hon. Friend the Member for Ipswich makes a good point, however, in that the amendment, which would delete the clause on touting from the Canterbury Bill, raises the question: what is so special about Canterbury? If the House agrees to the amendment, we will remove the restrictions on touting from the Bill. It might well be that people want controls on touting in Canterbury because of its particular circumstances. We ought to listen to the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury during an earlier stage of the Bill. Notwithstanding the offer he eventually made, he made it clear, at that point, that the restriction on touting was an essential part of the Canterbury Bill. He said that Canterbury suffered from huge problems, with which I am not familiar, of people touting for business in certain—perhaps historic—parts of the city. Perhaps people felt that touting took something away from the city.

--- Later in debate ---

[Stephen Pound]

I do not know how they order these things in the city of Christopher Marlowe, but this matter has now been tested in cities that have premier league football teams. There is now a non-profit-making organisation called Seatwave that enables anyone who has a ticket for any English or Scottish premier league match to resell it through that organisation. The key point, however, is that the prohibition on the resale of tickets has been sustained in court. I do not know about the case in Australia, but in Fulham, that is the law.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. I have given hon. Members a bit of leeway, but I am worried that we are now getting into retail matters that have absolutely nothing to do with the Bill, as we all know. I hope that we can now stick to the matters in hand, and have fewer interventions; otherwise, we are going to drift into areas where I do not need to be.

[Philip Davies]

I am grateful to you, Mr Deputy Speaker, and I shall try not to be sidetracked by people trying to lead me astray. The hon. Member for Ealing North (Stephen Pound) is always trying to do that, but I shall resist the temptation.

[Philip Davies]

rose—

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. The good news is that we are dealing only with Canterbury. I am not worried about Reading, and neither is Mr Davies.

[Philip Davies]

I am grateful, Mr Deputy Speaker, and you are right that I am not worried about Reading—except in the sense of trying to find some guidance about why their lordships decided that this particular clause should be deleted from the Canterbury City Council Bill but not deleted from the Reading Borough Council Bill when they are virtually the same. All we can do is consider how the detail in this particular clause is different from the other one.

--- Later in debate ---

[Philip Davies]

rose—

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. We are certainly not opening that issue. I am sure the Whip has better things to do at this stage.

[Philip Davies]

I am very grateful, Mr Deputy Speaker, but if I may be allowed—I do not want that comment to be left hanging on the record—I would like to say quickly that the touts have already bought the tickets, so the artist already has their income. It makes no difference to their income whether it is resold at a different price. I do not wish to pursue that line of argument any further; I just wanted to put that on the record in passing.

I hope that when people are considering whether to support the Lords in their amendment, they will not object to it on the principle that they do not like ticket touting, as I think that would be very unfortunate. It would fly in the face of all the evidence received by the Select Committee and reflected in its conclusions. We were unanimous in thinking that the secondary market was a perfectly legitimate one, and the Office of Fair Trading believes that it works in the best interests of consumers, too.

It seems to me therefore that, given what their lordships have done, this was not a question of principle. If it were a question of principle, I presume that the provision would have been removed from the Reading Bill as well. It can only be, then, a matter of practicality. That brings us back to the detail in clause 11 of the Canterbury Bill, which is about the location in which people can sell their tickets. That is the only bit that is different. Only subsection (1)(b) is different, and it relates to where people can sell.

Here I think my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch is right, in that it would be helpful if Members had some explanation of the local circumstances in Canterbury. I have been to Canterbury once. Unfortunately, it was not to visit the charms of the city and its history, but to visit the Asda store when I worked for Asda. I am not particularly au fait with the city centre, although I am sure it is a fine place.

--- Later in debate ---

[John Mann]

The hon. Gentleman is not confusing the argument, but the argument is confusing me. I have received many representations about matters of concern to the House, but I have received none about this matter. The hon. Gentleman has suggested that it may have been important to the people of Canterbury in the context of what he describes as a possible motivation for the Bill, but they do not seem to have written to me about it. Has he received any correspondence from the people of Canterbury recently, explaining why it was important for the House’s time and votes to be spent on this Bill?

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. I do not think that we need worry about Members’ mail boxes while we are dealing with clause 11. I am sure that the hon. Member for Shipley (Philip Davies) is desperate to stick to the point, and he certainly need not worry about other Members’ mail boxes.

[Philip Davies]

Of course I accept your wise counsel, Mr Deputy Speaker. I will say, however, that their lordships do not appear to have focused too much on the niceties.

When we began our debate on the Bill, we were told that clause 11 was crucial. When my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch and I tried to have it removed, our attempts were resisted, and it is because their lordships had to intervene that we are debating it now. The promoters, who were originally adamant about the inclusion of the clause, are now satisfied that it can be removed as their lordships wish. Earlier, I commended the way in which my hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury had listened to the arguments. What I do not understand is why the amendment could not have been dealt with earlier.

I urge Members to reject any views on the principle of touting, and to consider the practicalities. My hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury will know much more about this than I do, but it seems to me that there is not a great deal of difference between a provision relating to streets and one that also includes parades and promenades.

Commercial Lobbyists (Registration and Code of Conduct) Bill

Debate between Philip Davies and Lindsay Hoyle

Friday 1st February 2013 Commons Chamber

[Philip Davies]

I appreciate the shadow Minister’s view, but I simply do not agree with it. I do not see where the lack of transparency is. I have no problem telling anyone who asks me about which organisations I have met. If my constituents want to know who I have met—what lobbying firms and organisations—I would have no problem telling them, and I would like to think that that would be the attitude of most of my colleagues on both sides of the House. I do not see where the secretiveness is. If anybody is in an organisation relating to culture, media and sport, whichever side of the argument they are on, I am happy, time allowing, to meet them. As far as I can see, that is perfectly transparent. So I do not see the problem the Bill seeks to solve.

Like my hon. Friend the Member for Bury North, I oppose the Bill in principle. It will be a dog’s dinner, to be honest, and will not deal with any of the perceived problems we have heard about. In fact, the Bill is probably the worst of all dog’s dinners.

Let me turn to clause 1, which deals with the registration of lobbyists, and to the fact that there would be a register and the fees that would be charged. My hon. Friend the Member for Bury North had an interesting exchange with the promoter of the Bill, the hon. Member for Dunfermline and West Fife, about fees. The promoter not only intended to be helpful but actually was helpful in setting out the fees that he thought would be charged. However, I share my hon. Friend’s cynicism about fees, in the sense that we all know where they start off but there is no telling where they will end up, particularly when a bureaucracy has an audience that has no choice over whether to join. People will have to join because it will be the law of the land for them to join, so the bureaucracy can end up charging what it likes.

Let me therefore say to the promoter of the Bill—I hope the Minister will hear this too, because if she and the Government are so misguided as to go down this path, we may as well try to make it as good as we can—that it would be helpful to have a cap in the Bill on the fees that could be charged. Just to make a suggestion, perhaps the fees would be no more than the £200 to £300 that the hon. Member for Dunfermline and West Fife seemed to think would be suitable. That would at least remove the issue of people thinking that the fees would go up and up, in a never-ending spiral, to try to satisfy a never-ending bureaucracy that would grow up as a result of this Bill.

We all see how these things work. My hon. Friend the Member for Bury North talked about how such bodies start off being self-funded but end up having to be funded by the state. I think he is probably right. It is not an exact comparison, but we are seeing the start of something similar with the Press Complaints Commission. It is a self-funded body, but it is seen as being too close to the industry it is supposed to be looking after, so people are asking whether that is good enough and whether we need to do something else or get the state more involved. We can see how these things develop, and there is no reason why the same would not happen under this Bill.

I am sure that people will correct me, but it seems to me that clause 2 would introduce the offence of non-registration of one’s organisation. Then there is another criminal offence under clause 3 for breaching the code of conduct—the Labour party created lots of new criminal offences when it was in government and it appears to be continuing the same theme in this Bill. The promoter of the Bill said that we should not worry because everything would be subject to parliamentary scrutiny and approval, and that that was fine—let me say in passing that he has more confidence in parliamentary scrutiny than I do—but as far as I can see the Bill makes no great provision for parliamentary scrutiny. Parliamentary scrutiny is what we are doing now, by discussing the merits of the Bill. It is the council set up under this Bill that would prepare the code of conduct with which, under clause 3,

“those included on the register shall comply”.

It will not be Parliament that draws up the code of conduct, so there will be no parliamentary control there. Once we had passed this Bill, the council would be free to establish the code of conduct as it saw fit and that would be that.

Clause 3 then says, in subsection (2):

“The Secretary of State shall give statutory effect to the code and any revised code by order.”

There is no great parliamentary scrutiny there either. We are basically giving the Secretary of State huge powers to act on his or her own terms and whatever he or she happens to think is the right thing to do. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Bury North, I have a great deal of time for the Minister, but she will know, as we all do, that she will not be the Minister for ever, and we might not get as good a Minister in future. Indeed, we might be left with one who is not as talented and sensible. We might—if we want to be very depressing—end up with the Labour party in government. Who knows what we might end up with at that point? [Interruption.]

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. What I do know is that we are going to get straight back to the Bill and not get into speculation about the next election.

[Philip Davies]

As ever, Mr Deputy Speaker, you are quite right. I was getting carried away with myself—the hon. Member for Dunfermline and West Fife did not help when he invited me to consider the prospect of a Lib Dem Government, which does not even bear thinking about. I will move on, for the sake of my own sanity more than anything else.

The idea that there will be a great deal of parliamentary scrutiny of the terms of the register and the code of conduct is not one that I recognise from my reading of the Bill. Also, I asked earlier who would enforce the criminal offences that the Bill creates. There will no doubt be all sorts of vexatious complaints from people who do not like a particular industry, from people who have been lobbying someone about something, and counter-organisations that do not like a particular industry will put in vexatious complaints here and there. People will be contacting their local police and crime commissioner, their local chief superintendent and their chief constable, and putting pressure on them to investigate this or that case. The police’s resources are stretched enough as it is. I have been opposed to the reductions to the police budget that have taken place over the past few years. Surely at a time when the police budget is going down, the last thing they need is more of these kinds of offences to investigate, when there is much more bread-and-butter crime to be dealt with.

Then we have to consider the Crown Prosecution Service. What will be the chances of getting a conviction for such offences? We all know what the CPS is like. It is very reluctant to take a case to court unless there is a cast-iron guaranteed certainty of a conviction. There will be all sorts of complaints relating to whether the code of conduct has been breached, for example, and it is hard to imagine the CPS taking anyone to court, no matter how much time the police have spent investigating a case.

The whole thing is a complete dog’s breakfast, and that is before we even come to the definition of lobbying in clause 4. Clauses 1 to 3 were bad enough, but clause 4 is the worst clause of all. We have had an interesting debate on the definition of lobbying. There is so much to say on that, and so little time in which to say it. I do not intend to speak at length. As you will know better than anyone, Mr Deputy Speaker, I am always anxious to proceed at a pace on a Friday so that we can get on to the next piece of legislation, and I do not intend to do anything different today. I will make a few remarks about the definition of lobbying, but I just want to say to the hon. Member for Dunfermline and West Fife that I hope his second Bill, which I trust we will get on to in the not-too-distant future, is better than his first one. The first one has not been a good start.

Clause 4 gives the definition of lobbying as

“any activity carried out in the course of a business or employment which are undertaken for financial gain and are designed to influence the Government of the United Kingdom, Parliament, any local authority in England or any member or employee of any of those bodies in formulating its official policy.”

We could spend hours talking about clause 4, because it contains all sorts of loopholes, flaws and omissions. The whole point of anybody approaching a Member of Parliament, on any basis, is to lobby them. It might be to lobby them because the person believes strongly in something, perhaps in their local community, or to lobby them for financial gain. It tends to be one or the other. Someone might come to see me because they want to reduce the amount that they owe to the Child Support Agency, for example. That is a perfectly legitimate thing to come and see an MP about. I cannot always sort such things out, but I will always do my best for my constituents. They are lobbying me for financial gain, of course they are—it is a perfectly legitimate, respectable thing to do.

The hon. Member for Dunfermline and West Fife seems to be trying to distinguish between different types of financial gain. From his definition in the Bill, he seems to be saying that some kinds of lobbying for financial gain are fine, while other kinds are not so fine and need to have something done about them.

Offshore Gambling Bill

Debate between Philip Davies and Lindsay Hoyle

Friday 25th January 2013 Commons Chamber

[Philip Davies]

My hon. Friend is right. Such measures have been established in other parts of the European Union, and there is no problem with having point of consumption in principle. I have no problem with that, and if I remember rightly my hon. Friend quoted the conclusions of the Culture, Media and Sport Committee on which I serve. She was absolutely right; it was a unanimous report in every regard. There was no minority report or any divisions on the recommendations, and the Committee agreed the report in full. I certainly stand by the recommendations highlighted by my hon. Friend.

This is not about the principle of point of consumption, but the Government may run into problems when considering the purpose for which such a measure is being introduced. If they can satisfy the European Union that they are introducing it to regulate better the gambling sector, they will be on strong ground, and I suspect that test was satisfied in other parts of the EU where such measures have been introduced. In those cases, however, people may have been starting from scratch and deciding to start their regulation of the gambling industry on that basis. That would not apply in the United Kingdom where we already operate on a different basis that we would need to change, thereby introducing a complication that might not have applied elsewhere.

The Government want this debate to focus on why a point of consumption tax, this Bill and the Government’s version of it are so necessary. This is not about increasing funding to the racing industry by increasing levy payments, because that would introduce a complication, and the Bill’s main purpose is not one of increasing revenues to the Treasury—the Government do not want to go down that route because they will run into different legal problems. The Government want to concentrate on the fact that the Bill is necessary only to regulate the gambling industry better. That it may also increase revenues to the Treasury, or that my hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton may use it to increase revenues for the racing industry, is merely a useful coincidence, and, as I understand, certainly not what the Government would like us to believe the Bill is about.

As the Minister knows, I have an awful lot of respect for him—he is a great man and we are very lucky that he holds that position. I suspect, however, that he has been passed what might in rugby terms be described as a hospital pass with this Bill, and it will take all his considerable abilities, charm and finesse to extract himself and the Government from this situation. His position was not helped—he will certainly not want to agree with me on this, although he is entitled to feel it—by our right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer who signposted the proposed legislation in his Budget speech.

Perhaps I may remind hon. Members of what the Chancellor said:

“One area where I am today making substantial changes is gambling duties…The current duty regime for remote gambling introduced by the last Government was levied on a ‘place of supply’ basis. This allowed overseas operators largely to avoid it, and much of the industry has, as a result, moved offshore. Ninety per cent of online gambling consumed by our citizens is now supplied from outside the UK, and the remaining UK operations are under pressure to leave. This is clearly not fair—and not a sensible way to support jobs in Britain. So we intend to introduce a tax regime based on the place of consumption—where the customer is based, not the company—and, from this April, we will also introduce double taxation relief for remote gambling. These changes will create a more level playing field, and protect jobs here.”—[Official Report, 21 March 2012; Vol. 542, c. 803.]

The genesis of the legislation is therefore clear—the Chancellor’s Budget. It will be no great surprise that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Skills, whom all hon. Members regard highly, was and remains a close friend and ally of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I suspect it will not be difficult for people to put two and two together and think, “Well, hold on a minute. The Chancellor said what he said in the Budget, and we have the Offshore Gambling Bill. Hey presto! That is how the Government will introduce the legislation.”

The problem is that the Chancellor made no reference in his Budget to the need to introduce the measure to improve player protection or better regulate the gambling industry. He made no reference to that being a problem that needed solving. We are beginning to understand what motivated the Government to introduce the Bill. I do not criticise the Chancellor: what he said was perfectly reasonable and fair, and many hon. Members on both sides of he House agree with his analysis, but I suspect that it has been unhelpful. He may not have been aware of the legal minefield he was in at the time, but people have become aware of it, and the Government have backtracked to change the nature of the debate. The debate must now be based, therefore, on player protection and the regulation of gambling rather than on—we can probably guess this is the real motive for the measure—getting money into the Treasury, which is no bad thing, and levelling the playing field for companies such as bet365 so that they do not go abroad, which no hon. Member wants.

I believe the Chancellor was also hinting that, if we get the measure right, we may even be able to reverse the trend. It would be fantastic if we were not just trying to stop bet365 leaving the country, but putting a regime in place that encouraged companies that have left the UK to come back. Not only would we retrieve lost revenue; we would also get jobs back. Lots of people in the UK would love the jobs that have been exported to places such as Gibraltar because of the current situation to come back to this country. With the best will in the world, neither the Offshore Gambling Bill nor the Government’s alternative Bill will make any difference in that respect.

There is no prospect whatever of any of those organisations relocating to the UK, whatever rate of tax the Government introduce. I think that would be a missed opportunity. My hon. Friend the Member for Rochford and Southend East (James Duddridge) mentioned a rate of 5%. If we had that rate and the Government asked the gambling industry whether it would agree to come back in return for that rate, there might well be scope for negotiation, but VAT will scupper such a plan, because gambling industries in the UK cannot reclaim their VAT. The money they spend on advertising is not reclaimable, but it is reclaimable overseas.

The House would support a regime that levelled the playing field, and that means companies paying more in taxation than they currently pay—no one would argue with that. The House would support a regime that gave companies an incentive to bring their operations back to the UK and the jobs that would come back with them. Surely that is a great prize to aim for, and I urge the Minister to lobby the Chancellor. All that is required is for the Chancellor to help with taxation—not just point of consumption taxation for the online industry, but VAT relief. Those two things combined could get those jobs and companies back. That is what we should be aiming to do. It is a strange state of affairs when we are spending lots of time trying to stop one company leaving—it is a negative thing to try to achieve—when much bigger prizes are at stake.

In many respects, the main thrust of what my hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton said concerned the levy. I should thank my hon. Friend, because from what she and my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Norfolk (George Freeman) were saying, it seems that, in essence, the Bill is designed to help me. As we discussed earlier, I am a very modest owner of racehorses. I am an owner of very modest race horses, too, to be perfectly honest. Contributing to the odd shares and legs and other parts of the anatomy—I am sure that it does not make a great impact on the considerable wealth of Mr Michael Easterby, in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton—provides me with a great deal of pleasure. I seem to be the kind of owner that my hon. Friend says she wants to help. I regret to inform the House that I am also a very small-scale breeder of racehorses, too. The saying goes in racing circles that the only thing worse than having one broodmare is having two. There is no better way of leaking money as quickly as possible than breeding horses. The only thing that can compete is owning horses. Whichever one chooses, the only possible outcome is that one will be considerably poorer at the end of it than at the start. I think that somebody once said that the best way to gain a small fortune out of owning and breeding racehorses is to start with a large fortune—there is a considerable amount of truth in that. I should therefore be grateful to my hon. Friend for having me in mind to try to boost the modest returns I get from my horses. It is a rare pleasure when any of them trouble the scorers.

In passing, my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Norfolk encouraged us all—I think I am right in saying this; we can all check Hansard later—to back a horse called Wind for Power in the 1 pm at Lingfield today. I am sure that that was partly directed at the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas), who was waiting to debate her Bill. I am sure she would have been encouraged to back a horse with that particular name, and I am delighted to announce that the horse won. If anybody took my hon. Friend’s advice, they are now considerably richer than they were when this debate started.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. I loved the hon. Gentleman’s description of his horses, whether he has a leg and which horse is going to win. I am sure that it is very relevant to offshore gambling, but we seem to have lost that for a little while—I think we got lost in the leg somewhere. I am sure he is going to bring it back into line for me.

[Philip Davies]

I am very grateful, Mr Deputy Speaker. You are, as ever, absolutely right. I was getting carried away with my hon. Friend’s tipping prowess and I promise not to return to it. I will take your chastisement as an indication that you are keen to acquire a leg or two of your own, and I will certainly be happy to negotiate a deal for you.

Even though the horse racing levy is supposed to benefit people like me, I am not entirely convinced by the argument given by my hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton. Clause 4 is well meaning and I do not want to decry that, but I do not think that it will have the impact she thinks it would. I spoke about this briefly in an intervention. The levy is determined, hopefully, by agreement—it has been recently, which is to be welcomed—between the betting industry and racing industry through the auspices of the levy board, and we should all thank it for its work. When they come to an agreement about how much money should be handed over from the betting industry to the horse racing industry, rather than concentrating on the mechanism of how that money is raised, people are really thinking about how much it will raise. People think, “Well, what we need is a certain amount of money from the betting industry to make the racing industry viable which is reasonable to ask the gambling industry to provide based on the money it makes from the horse racing product.” A figure is therefore arrived at that seems reasonable.

I cannot remember, but I have a feeling—the Minister will be able to help out on this—that the last time the Secretary of State determined what the Government thought was a reasonable price for the betting industry to pay the racing industry, the figure arrived at was somewhere around £75 million. The Government then introduced a mechanism in the levy, making slight amendments to try to deliver £75 million—or whatever figure they thought was a fair amount for the gambling industry to pay—and that was that. The mechanism was arrived at to deliver the figure.

My hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton seems to presume that everyone will continue with the same mechanism, which will simply deliver more money to the racing industry, but I suspect it would not really work like that. I suspect that the levy board would still go through the same deliberations and work out what was reasonable to expect the gambling industry to provide, and that a mechanism would be worked out to deliver around £75 million. Therefore, the 10.75% of gross horse racing profits that go to the levy would probably be reduced to hit that target. As a consequence, the Bill —clause 4 in particular—would generate no more money for the racing industry. Rather, it would simply mean that the money came from a different mechanism.

Antarctic Bill

Debate between Philip Davies and Lindsay Hoyle

Friday 2nd November 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. An intervention is meant to be very short. The hon. Lady had a good go, and I tried to give her a nudge, but she wanted to carry on. I am sure that Mr Davies, with his ability, has got the message. If needs be, the hon. Lady can intervene again shortly.

[Philip Davies]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for her intervention. It is a shame that my hon. Friend the Member for North East Somerset is not here, as he could add the Science and Technology Committee’s report to the reading material on seals with which I will supply him. I am sure that piece of work will trump anything I can produce, and that my hon. Friend will be particularly interested in it.

My right hon. Friend the Member for Mid Sussex has been pressing the Government on the British Antarctic Survey, and in particular its cost to the public purse over the past few years. Given the financial situation we are in, it is understandable that expenditure has been considerably reduced over the past five years or so. Does the Minister have any thoughts on what an optimum amount of money would be to ensure that BAS’s work continues? Total resource and capital expenditure has fallen from £56 million to £46 million over the past six years.

I welcome you to the Chair, Mr Evans. I am sure that your predecessor, Mr Hoyle, was sad to leave during such an exciting part of the debate. Clause 14 amends the Antarctic Act 1994 to enable the UK to grant permits to non-British nationals on British expeditions, and it concerns an important point that my hon. Friend the Member for North East Somerset raised earlier. The legislation will enable foreign scientists working in the UK to apply to the UK for authorisation, rather than to their national Governments. As I understand, non-UK nationals are not currently eligible for a UK permit, even if their activity is to take place on an expedition organised by a British scientific institution. The Bill’s explanatory notes highlight that that has previously “caused inconvenience” to some UK institutions that employ non-UK nationals, and could even prevent a national of a state not party to the protocol from being issued a permit. That anomaly clearly needs to be resolved, and this Bill is a useful mechanism for dealing with it.

Part 2 of the Bill also implements agreed revisions to annex 2 of the environmental protocol on the conservation of Antarctic fauna and flora. It tidies up the implementation of the original treaty, which was signed in 1959 and came into force in 1961, and subsequent agreements. The Bill proposes to

“give marine plants and invertebrates protection for the first time”—

I am sure my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud is proud to do that—

“introduce measures to conserve British Historical Sites and Monuments in Antarctica better”,

which I am sure all hon. Members support, and

“update the Antarctic Act 1994 to facilitate better regulation of British activities in Antarctica, including to respond to the increasing internationalisation of Antarctic expeditions.”

Other matters tend to be fairly straightforward. I am anxious about time and to hear what the Minister has to say, and I am sure that all hon. Members wish to see other important business progress. In conclusion, I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud on his Bill, which has the support of the whole House. I would like to think that my contribution has been helpful—people do not always say that my contributions to Friday debates are helpful, but on this occasion I hope it has been useful in raising issues that we may wish to consider further in Committee. We must ensure that we end up with a Bill that gives the best possible protection to an important part of British overseas territories, which is what we all want.

Scrap Metal Dealers Bill

Debate between Philip Davies and Lindsay Hoyle

Friday 13th July 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Winnick]

rose—

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. I think we are getting away from licensing. Mr Davies, I think you are desperate to get back to where you were and I am sure that you do not want to be distracted.

[Philip Davies]

As ever, Mr Deputy Speaker, you read me like a book. I was just thinking about how I did not want to be distracted by the hon. Gentleman, but I have every confidence that his next intervention will put us back on track.

Welfare Reform Bill

Debate between Philip Davies and Lindsay Hoyle

Wednesday 1st February 2012 Commons Chamber

[Philip Davies]

On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. Is it in order for an hon. Gentleman to make an accusation that five national newspapers apologised for making? Is it in order for him to make the same accusation and then not give way to allow me to correct him? Those five newspapers at least had the courtesy to acknowledge that they had made a mistake.

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

That is not a point of order for the Chair, but you have put the point on the record which I think is what you wished to do.

London Local Authorities Bill [Lords]

Debate between Philip Davies and Lindsay Hoyle

Wednesday 25th January 2012 Commons Chamber

[Philip Davies]

Despite the fact that my hon. Friend also probably goes to far better quality restaurants than I do, I am pleased that she agrees with me. However, I do not want to get sidetracked. I was in danger of that—my hon. Friends were leading me astray—but I must return to the matter in hand.

Swindon borough council conducted a report on environment and leisure in 2007. A councillor stated:

“We have been surprised by the strength of feeling in relation to this issue”—

that is, toilets. He went on:

“Our toilets are a matter of significant inconvenience in terms of location, accessibility and condition, which impacts upon public health, the image of the town and limits the quality of life for many people.”

It is important that we focus on the importance of such matters to local residents and to visitors. Given that London is such a centre for tourism, we ignore that at our peril.

The Department for Communities and Local Government report reiterated the need for easy access to toilet facilities for older members of the public. A 2005 survey by Changing Lives, nVision and Future Foundation showed that

“people aged over 55 and families with children are most inclined to take holidays and short breaks in this country. At the same time, these groups are more likely to place a higher value on being able to access a toilet.”

Given that most of those people who take a short break in this country are more than likely at some point to go to London, it would be perverse to allow the clause to apply to London alone.

The Department for Communities and Local Government report concluded:

“Being able to access a toilet is a fundamental need for any visitor. Tourists need more local information, more signposts. They cannot simply go home, into work, or their local pub to use the toilet. Tourists choose their destinations carefully, drawing on their previous impressions, talking to friends and family, looking up feedback on the internet. Sense of destination—the extent to which it has met a visitor’s needs and made a strong and positive impression—is therefore vital to secure repeat trade and sustainable economic development.”

Would it not be a shame if people’s experience of visiting London, which should be fantastic, was ruined by the simple problem of being unable to get into a toilet when they needed one because turnstiles had been erected?

We should also bear in mind that we have the Olympics this year in London, which has led to other sporting events, such as the world athletics championships. We are told that they are the great opportunity to showcase London and to boost the tourism industry in this country. We are told how important public toilets and their accessibility are to tourism, tourists and visitors. Would it not be bizarre, when we are spending all that money to attract more tourism to London, to do something that would adversely affect it?

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. The hon. Gentleman is obviously well briefed—he has certainly flushed out a lot of the subject that he wanted to flush out—but I am worried that he is beginning to pad out the debate on this measure. He may wish to speak to other measures, and it might help his good self to move on a little. I am sure that we have heard about turnstiles and the toilet break quite thoroughly, and a lot of hon. Members have managed to intervene.

[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.

Equality and Diversity (Reform) Bill

Debate between Philip Davies and Lindsay Hoyle

Friday 21st October 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Nuttall]

I appreciate that my hon. Friend, for reasons that I know not, opposed last week’s motion to allow electronic hand-held devices in the Chamber, but one great advantage of now being allowed such devices is that I was able immediately to follow his advice, go to www.capc.co.uk and access the website of the Campaign Against Political Correctness. On it, there can be found the “Not in my name” section, where Bolaji Alajija, a 42-year-old student nurse from north London, says:

“I don’t see why there is all the fuss. What’s the harm in having a black doll? It’s exactly the same as a white doll. People shouldn’t be so sensitive.”

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. I remind Members that, although they are allowed to use iPads, they have to make a speech without continuously reading from them. I am sure Mr Nuttall will take that on board.

[Philip Davies]

I am very grateful for your guidance, Mr Deputy Speaker, particularly as someone who voted against allowing these wretched things to be used in debates. If anyone was ever going to convince me that I made the wrong decision in that vote, however, it is my hon. Friend, who has gone to an excellent website, and I certainly commend him for doing so.

The second part of my Bill tackles the Sex Discrimination (Election Candidates) Act 2002. I was not a Member when the Sex Discrimination (Election Candidates) Bill was debated, but it will come as no surprise to you, Mr Deputy Speaker, to know that had I been I would have definitely opposed it. I have a great deal of time for many of my female Conservative colleagues, we have some extremely able MPs and, for the record, I have excellent female staff. Indeed, I would go so far as to say that the greatest Prime Minister this country has ever had was, indeed, a woman, but I do not particularly care if the House is made up of 10% women or 90%. For me, that will never be an issue, so the fundamental premise of the 2002 Act will always be totally flawed.

The most important thing for me is not how many men or women are in Parliament, but how many Conservatives there are in Parliament, and I challenge anybody who is obsessed with the idea that the most important end in itself is that we have more women in Parliament. If, for example, a Conservative male fought a marginal seat against a Labour female, would any of my hon. Friends campaign for her on the basis that it was so important to get more women into Parliament, or would they campaign for him? I venture that they would campaign for him, because I am sure that for all Government Members, apart from of course the Liberal Democrats, it is far more important to have more Conservatives in Parliament than to be worried about how many MPs there are of a particular gender.

During the Bill’s Second Reading on 24 October 2001, almost 10 years ago to the day, my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May), now the Home Secretary, said:

“I shall be honest with the House. There was a time when I never thought that I would stand up in the Chamber and support such a Bill.”—[Official Report, 24 October 2001; Vol. 373, c. 334.]

I wish she had stuck to her earlier opinion, as it would have been the more Conservative thing to do.

While my right hon. Friend supported the Bill, the former Member for Maidstone and the Weald, Ann Widdecombe, did not. In the debate, she said:

“The Bill is fundamentally wrong. I must ask this question; are all the men in this place sound asleep? Do they realise what the Bill means for them? Have they thought that positive discrimination for women can entail negative discrimination for men?”

The irony is that, as those in the House at the time were already Members, they did not need to worry about candidates, so the Bill was effectively about kicking away the ladder of opportunity from men who had not yet reached the House. I wonder how those Members would have felt if they had been told, “Sorry, I know you would make an excellent MP, but we’re going to stop you applying for the seat that you’ve lived in all your life, because you happen to be a man.” How would any men present today have felt if such a rule had applied to them?

Ann Widdecombe also hit the nail on the head, when during the debate she asked:

“What would that mean for a man in that constituency who had given to his local council the same lifelong service that the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Helen Jackson)—

at the time—

gave to hers”?

Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Bill

Debate between Philip Davies and Lindsay Hoyle

Wednesday 29th June 2011 Commons Chamber

[Anna Soubry]

Will my hon. Friend please understand this? When someone is subject to an IPP, they have no knowledge about when they will be released. Does he know that they can be released only when they are deemed no longer to be a risk to society? A relatively small number of people have been released and we can assume that they were released only because they were no longer deemed a risk to society. The reason for that is that they have been on the sort of courses that other people on IPPs have not had the benefit of. The lack of courses is the real problem.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. May I ask for shorter interventions, because many Members wish to speak and I want to try to get everyone in?

[Philip Davies]

My hon. Friend is right that people are released only when it is safe to release them. My constituents think that it is rather a good thing that people are released from prison only when it is safe to let the out. I am all for that, unlike the Lord Chancellor.

The reason why the Lord Chancellor is not bothered about reoffending and indeterminate sentences is that he is not interested in reoffending at all. What then is his priority? It is the same as it has always been: simply reducing the number of criminals in prison. That is highlighted in the Bill’s explanatory notes, which state:

“The overall impact of the sentencing proposals will result in annual savings of approximately £80m in 2014/15, due to a reduction in the demand for prison places of 2,650”.

I invite all my hon. Friends to look back at what they promised their constituents at the general election in their personal manifestos and at what they said against their opponents at the hustings. Which of those who will vote for the Bill tonight said at the hustings that they were standing on a platform of reducing the number of criminals sent to prison by 2,650? I suspect that none of us said that, and I invite my hon. Friends to consider that when they decide how to vote tonight.

I am also concerned about the widely reported mandatory six-month sentence for thugs who use knives to threaten people. As I have already shown, this is a solution looking for a problem, because the sentencing guidelines already insist that such cases are sent to Crown court for a first offence because it is deemed that magistrates do not have sufficient sentencing powers.

It gets worse. On threatening with knives, clause 113 states:

“It is a defence for a person charged with an offence under this section to prove good reason or lawful authority for having the article with him or her in the place…concerned.”

That is a reasonable defence for possession of a knife, but how is it a reasonable defence for using a knife threateningly just to be able to explain why one has the knife in the first place? Either that is a drafting error or it is complete nonsense. Perhaps the Minister will enlighten us in his reply.

The provision is not mandatory anyway, because it is later stated that people do not have to be sent to prison if there are particular circumstances that relate to the offence or the offender that would make it unjust to send them there. So much for it being mandatory. It is a joke.

Clauses 56 and 57 are further examples of the Lord Chancellor’s aim of sending fewer people to prison. Clause 56(2)(a) removes the duty of the court to impose more onerous conditions once someone breaches a community order, or to resentence them to custody. It says that the court “may” do so instead of saying that it “must”, as currently applies.

Clause 56(2)(b) allows the court to impose a fine as a punishment for breaching a community order. That provision did not exist before. Clause 57 increases the length of sentence that can be suspended from a maximum of 51 weeks to two years and removes the need to attach any community requirements at all. If a criminal has committed an offence that deserves a custodial sentence of up to two years in prison, that is what they should get: a two-year sentence in prison. Furthermore, if someone is given a suspended sentence with no requirements, they will effectively not be punished at all.

As I said a couple of weeks ago, breaches of suspended sentences can now result in a fine, thanks to clause 58. Anybody who breaches their existing get-out-of-jail-free suspended sentence should go to one place only: immediate custody. Is it any wonder that the British public have no faith in sentencing? The criminal justice system can be effective only if the public have confidence in it.

The Bill also fails to extend a magistrate’s power of sentencing to up to 12 months, yet that was a firm manifesto commitment. Not only are we not implementing what was already in the law, we are repealing that part of the law in this Bill. We have already heard at length how schedule 10 removes the ability of the courts to remand somebody in custody, to try to make it harder for people to be remanded in custody so that they are instead granted bail. In the previous Parliament, the last Labour Government introduced the mechanism that time spent on bail on a tag could be knocked off a prison sentence in the same way as time spent on remand is knocked off a prison sentence. We were apoplectic with rage about that, and my hon. and learned Friend the current Solicitor-General said when we were in opposition that this proposal

“will cause a great deal of scepticism, undermine public confidence in the justice system and make the Government look increasingly ridiculous if the court is then required to say, ‘By the way, all the time that you have spent at home in bed is time that can be taken away from your custodial sentence.’”—[Official Report, 9 January 2008; Vol. 470, c. 369.]

I could not agree more. The only difference is that I still believe that this is wrong, whereas my Front-Bench colleagues have gone from thinking it was utterly ridiculous to formalising the policy as part of the Bill. Of course, the other measure to which we were wholly opposed in the previous Parliament was the automatic release of people halfway through their prison sentence, and that, too, is formalised in this Bill.

The British public are losing faith in the criminal justice system. One only has to look at the Populus polling carried out by Lord Ashcroft that showed that 80% of the public—80% of victims of crime, 80% of police officers—think that sentences for convicted offenders are already too lenient. When asked how they expected the new coalition Government would compare on crime with the last Labour Government, more than 50% of those polled said they expected them to be tougher. When asked their views a year after the coalition Government came to office, only 13% thought the Government had been tougher, whereas 23% thought they were less tough. That perception is a disaster for the Conservative brand, and this Bill will only further weaken our position.

All the above shows that this Bill is not the rehabilitation revolution or the reduced reoffending revolution we were promised; rather, it is a release revolution that will simply catapult more criminals out on to the streets to commit more crimes. I do not know if the Lord Chancellor is trying to break the world record for the number of manifesto pledges broken in one Bill, but if he is, he has made a good fist of it.

Employment Opportunities Bill

Debate between Philip Davies and Lindsay Hoyle

Friday 17th June 2011 Commons Chamber

[Philip Davies]

I will in a second.

Where the hon. Member for Manchester Central and I disagree is that I think that reducing taxation stimulates the economy and ends up giving more revenue to the Exchequer. I know that he has been about a long time. He will find that, in the golden age when Mrs Thatcher was Prime Minister, she proved beyond all doubt that, if we cut the rate of tax, we can increase the receipts from tax, because it stimulates the economy.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. I have looked at the Bill and I am not sure where it deals with taxation. I know that it is about the minimum wage but we are drifting into the area of taxation, to which I know the hon. Gentleman would not want to take us.

[Philip Davies]

As ever, Mr Deputy Speaker, I am grateful for your guidance. I am sure that you are right that I was in danger of being taken away from the main issue by the hon. Member for Manchester Central. I am happy to give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough (Mr Bone), unless he feels that he will also incur the wrath of the Deputy Speaker.

--- Later in debate ---

[Philip Davies]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right; many of those people already pay an excessive amount of tax through their spending, as he says. The best thing that we could do is give them some relief in the income tax that they pay. There is an easy way of ensuring that we can help to stimulate the economy without penalising anybody in the amount that they take home. If the only purpose of the minimum wage is to ensure that people take home a certain amount of money each week, I do not see what objection there could be to people taking home exactly the same amount of money.

I could talk about the provisions in the Bill on asylum seekers. I am not entirely persuaded of the case made by my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch, because I wonder whether the Bill might unintentionally encourage even more people to come here falsely claiming asylum. He did go some way to persuading me of the merits of his case, so I would not allow that to be an objection to my supporting the Bill. I would be happy to support the Bill because of the minimum wage provision that allows people to choose whether they wish to be subject to it or not, and I would perhaps try to delete the part on asylum seekers in Committee. If hon. Members support the provision to allow asylum seekers to work and to be paid, they could equally support the Bill on Second Reading and attempt in Committee or on Report to delete the part on the minimum wage that they do not like. Given that that opportunity is there for them, I hope that we will not hear any weasel words from people who will be seen to have voted against allowing asylum seekers to work and to be paid. They are voting against that just as much as they are voting against anything else in the Bill. I hope that the hon. Member for Manchester Central will not try to weasel his way out of the fact the he is in danger of voting against something that he claims that he enthusiastically supports. He could try to delete the part he does not like at a later stage.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. This has been an important debate, but we are in danger of overstepping the mark. “Weasel” is right on the edge, and I do not want the debate to deteriorate. It is a good debate and we should not insult each other.

[Philip Davies]

For the avoidance of any doubt, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I will withdraw the word “weasel”. I certainly did not mean it in any pejorative sense.

Further and Higher Education (Access) Bill

Debate between Philip Davies and Lindsay Hoyle

Friday 4th March 2011 Commons Chamber

[Philip Davies]

I do not particularly want to get sidetracked—I am sure that you will not allow it, Mr Deputy Speaker—but the Government’s position on grammar schools, which is pertinent to my point about merit, is frankly a nonsense. Basically, they are saying, “If you’re lucky enough to have grammar schools in your area, that’s fine and you can keep them, but if you poor swine in Bradford want a grammar school system, you aren’t allowed it.” The Minister’s support for grammar schools extends only so far as those areas that already have them, and those of us who would like them cannot have them. That is lukewarm support—

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. I think that the hon. Gentleman has been sidetracked. I am sure the Minister did not want that because I know that he is very interested in higher education in this debate, rather than grammar schools. I am sure that the hon. Member for Shipley (Philip Davies), as he suggested, will want to come back to the topic of the debate.

[Philip Davies]

I am grateful, Mr Deputy Speaker; I was indeed tempted by the Minister to go down a route that neither you nor I want us to go down.

I will keep my remarks brief because I am intrigued to hear what the Minister has to say. I want to hear some kind of confirmation, not only that while he lives and breathes he will support grammar schools, but that while he is the Minister and while our right hon. Friend the Member for Witney (Mr Cameron) is the Prime Minister, he will ensure that universities recruit people on merit alone and that people are not allocated places simple because of their background, the school they went to, the socio-economic environment in which they live or the wealth or otherwise of their parents. If we started going down that route, it would be a disaster for this country. The idea of positive discrimination, which lies behind such proposals, is a disaster. Positive discrimination is discrimination, and we should not advocate it, because it demeans people. Many parents make terrific sacrifices to send their kids to private schools. People who cannot ordinarily afford to do so make the most amazing sacrifices, because they understandably want their children to have the best start and opportunities in life.

My parents made terrific sacrifices to enable me to go to a boarding school that they really could not afford to send me to, and I am immensely grateful to them. I do not see why this Government, in particular, or anybody for that matter, would want to say to such parents, “Well done. You’ve made these sacrifices to help your children get the best possible start in life. What we’re going to do now is rig the rules to make sure that all your sacrifices have been in vain, because we’re going to stop your daughter or son having the opportunity to go to the university they deserve to go to, based on the hard work that they put in, as you don’t meet the criteria, you’re not from the right socio-economic background or they didn’t go to the school we would have preferred them to go to.” What an appalling message.

--- Later in debate ---

[Nick de Bois (Enfield North) (Con)]

Does my hon. Friend share my concern that even if people choose to go into business to pursue their ambitions, there is now a suggestion that we should select directors based on their sex rather than merit? Does he agree that we should put an end to such creeping social engineering?

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. We are not going to go down that line. We are going to stick to the subject in hand. As tempted as Mr Davies will be, I know he will restrain himself.

[Philip Davies]

I will follow your guidance as always, Mr Deputy Speaker. It is fair to say that you know my opinion just as much as my hon. Friend does. We can leave it there. I must say in passing that my hon. Friend is probably the best person in the House to speak about job opportunities, because of his marvellous work in his constituency helping with jobs fairs and trying to get people into work. He will have seen at first hand in his constituency the skills that people need to get jobs, and he will know that a university education is not always essential for a person to get the right job. He should be commended for what he has done, and we should listen to his advice, because he knows more about the matter than most.

I commend my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch, because he has raised an important matter, notwithstanding what I would describe as the technical opposition to the Bill offered by my hon. Friend the Member for North East Somerset. Whether or not we agree with the Bill, I think we all agree that the Government should not feel it necessary to stick their nose into university recruitment. They should allow universities to do what they have always done, which is to recruit people on merit, and merit alone, irrespective of their background, gender, race or any other factor. Those things should be irrelevant, and people’s ability alone should be decisive.

Police

Debate between Philip Davies and Lindsay Hoyle

Wednesday 9th February 2011 Commons Chamber

[Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)]

I agree that the police can save money, and they might start to do so by addressing some of the equality and diversity politically correct drivel on which they waste millions of pounds each year. If the Government were simply cutting the police budget and savings could be found, that would be fine. However, the problem with the Government’s argument is that they are doing this against the backdrop of restricting the police’s ability to use the DNA database to catch criminals and trying to restrict further the use of CCTV cameras which also help the police catch criminals, and they are releasing people from prison and having fewer criminals in prison. They cannot do all those things with fewer police.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

As I have already said, we must have much shorter interventions.

London Local Authorities Bill [Lords] (By Order)

Debate between Philip Davies and Lindsay Hoyle

Wednesday 13th October 2010 Commons Chamber

[Mr David Burrowes (Enfield, Southgate) (Con)]

My hon. Friend makes a characteristically good case in support of his argument, and I join him in supporting—

[Mr Deputy Speaker Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. Some hon. Gentlemen have just come into the Chamber, but in fairness they ought to have been here for most of the debate. I am being quite lenient, but I really do think that we ought to think about that in future.

[Philip Davies]

Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I will continue. I will have a chat outside with my hon. Friend; we can resolve our potential differences outside the Chamber.