Tributes to the Speaker

Debate between Philip Davies and John Bercow

Thursday 31st October 2019 Commons Chamber

[Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)]

As you know, Mr Speaker, I did not vote for you to become the Speaker when you were elected in 2009, and I am sure you will recall that I spent about an hour with you, sitting down at a table over a cup of tea and explaining all the reasons why I was not going to vote for you to become Speaker. I think that it is also fair to say, Mr Speaker, that we have had our disagreements, particularly on the decisions you have made over Brexit in recent times; I do not think that will come as a great shock to anybody either in the House or outside the House, but we have always conducted those conversations in perfectly civil terms.

Mr Speaker, you have always been immensely kind to me in my time in the House of Commons, not least during the preparations for our wedding—mine and Esther’s—next year, about which you have been especially kind. I must at this point pay tribute to Rose, the chaplain—an inspired appointment by you, Mr Speaker—who has been equally amazingly kind to me and Esther, and indeed is so kind that she has offered to come back to conduct the service even after she has left, which is a mark of her as a person and which is very special for both me and Esther; we are very privileged that that has been the case. That was an inspired appointment by you, Mr Speaker, and you have been incredibly kind.

However, Mr Speaker, I think and hope you will be most remembered for your support for Back Benchers. As you know, I am a permanent Back Bencher, Mr Speaker, so this is more important to me than anybody else; as I always say, the one thing that the Prime Minister and I always agree about is that I should be on the Back Benches. You have always been a champion of Back Benchers, to allow everybody’s opinion, whatever it is, to be heard in the Chamber, and I have always been immensely grateful for that.

Some people have very short memories, but I remember when I first entered Parliament in 2005 in Question Times we barely got beyond Question 6 or 7 on the Order Paper and at Prime Minister’s questions those with a question after Question 10 had no chance of being called, to the great irritation of many colleagues who had spent ages trying to get on the Order Paper for Prime Minister’s questions only to find that they could not even get to ask their question. I do not think anyone could possibly go back to that kind of regime now; indeed, I do not think the House will allow any Speaker to go back to such a regime, and that is because of your making sure that Back Benchers get to have their say. That has made what I think will be a permanent change to the way that this House operates.

I have been very grateful for your friendship over many years, and the fact that you came to my constituency and spoke at Beckfoot School, which those there particularly cherished. I hope we will stay in touch after you have finish your term, Mr Speaker, and I wish you every success for the future.

[Mr Speaker]

I am extremely grateful to the hon. Gentleman. He and I will continue to have curry together: I think we can be sure about that.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Philip Davies and John Bercow

Tuesday 22nd October 2019 Commons Chamber

[Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)]

May I urge the Minister to ignore the siren voice opposite? Most people in the north accept that HS2 is a catastrophic waste of money— a huge white elephant that is destroying the environment and the countryside and will chiefly benefit London, hence why it started out in London in the first place. May I therefore urge him to tell the Secretary of State for Transport to scrap HS2 and crack on with the thing that will really benefit the northern economy—Northern Powerhouse Rail or HS3—connecting the north, which is what we need to benefit the north’s economy.

[Mr Speaker]

I do wish the hon. Gentleman would overcome his natural shyness.

Business of the House

Debate between Philip Davies and John Bercow

Tuesday 22nd October 2019 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

Oh, we are wallowing in the realms of metaphysical abstraction, as Burke would have said, and almost certainly did, albeit not in relation to this Bill.

[Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)]

May I urge my right hon. Friend to reconsider the point made by our right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Mr Duncan Smith)? I think we all know that the people who voted against the programme motion tonight did not really want more time to consider the Bill; they wanted to frustrate Brexit. They wanted to block it. Nobody is fooled. Why do the Government not play them at their own game? The Father of the House, my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (Mr Clarke), said that another three days would do it, so why do we not start the Committee stage tomorrow? The extra three days that seem to be required could be Friday, Saturday and Sunday. We could sit till any hour on all three days, and we could then see how much appetite there really is for extra scrutiny of the Bill. I suspect that if the Leader of the House were to do that, he would find that, actually, not much scrutiny would be required from Opposition Members.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Philip Davies and John Bercow

Tuesday 8th October 2019 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

Well, as usual, we are running late, but my judgment is that the House would be impoverished without the sound of Shipley, and it must not be. Mr Philip Davies.

[Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)]

14. Whether he plans to abolish the practice of automatic release from prison on licence at the halfway point of sentences for all offenders.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Philip Davies and John Bercow

Monday 9th September 2019 Commons Chamber

[Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)]

rose—

[Mr Speaker]

We have got to hear the voice of Shipley. I call Mr Philip Davies.

[Philip Davies]

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I congratulate the Minister and the Secretary of State on securing the extra funding from the Chancellor in the spending review. As the Minister knows, I have been arguing for this for some time. Can I urge him to front-load this money, because we know that school costs have been outstripping their incomes? They need this money as soon as possible. And while he’s there, as the Secretary of State is Bradford educated, will the Minister encourage him to return to Bradford district in order to visit some schools in my constituency?

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Philip Davies and John Bercow

Thursday 2nd May 2019 Commons Chamber

[The Minister of State, Department for Transport (Jesse Norman)]

I must apologise to you, Mr Speaker, because I am not possessed of either a Demosthenic or a Ciceronian eloquence, but what I can do is focus the House’s attention on this perfectly formed and important local question regarding Bradford Council’s discussions on a Shipley eastern bypass. My hon. Friend has been a highly effective campaigner for this project, and as he will know, we have supported it within my Department. My officials remain in regular contact with officers from Bradford Metropolitan District Council. The council will need to provide a detailed business case for the Department to review to take forward plans for the road scheme, and my officials are advising the council on how to develop its business case.

[Mr Speaker]

Frankly, the Minister is altogether too modest. However, it is my own firm conviction, based on observing the hon. Member for Shipley (Philip Davies) for the past 14 years, that he combines the qualities of both those illustrious orators.

[Philip Davies]

You are very kind, Mr Speaker, but I am not sure that we would want a Division on that proposition. As the Minister has made clear, the Government have paid for a feasibility study to be carried out, for which I am extremely grateful, but since then, not a fat lot seems to have happened at the Bradford Council end. So when does he expect to see the feasibility study completed by Bradford Council so that we can crack on with delivering this vital scheme?

Points of Order

Debate between Philip Davies and John Bercow

Wednesday 27th March 2019 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I will come to the hon. Gentleman, but I did promise the hon. Member for Shipley (Philip Davies), and it would seem unkind to deny him a moment longer.

[Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Recently, the shadow Secretary of State for Transport, the hon. Member for Middlesbrough (Andy McDonald), who is in his place, came and made a very welcome visit to the Shipley constituency. Unfortunately, he did not have the courtesy to let me know beforehand that he was coming. This follows hot on the heels of the shadow Chancellor, the right hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell), coming to visit the Shipley constituency, who did not have the courtesy to tell me that he was coming to visit my constituency either. Do not get me wrong, Mr Speaker—they are very welcome to visit the Shipley constituency. Anything that draws attention to the fact that my Labour opponent is a hard-core Corbynista, who will be a loyalist to a Marxist Government in her ideal world, is very much to be welcomed, and I hope next time they will bring Owen Jones and Eddie Izzard with them as well. Would you not agree, however, that they should at least have the courtesy to let me know when they plan to make a political visit to my constituency?

[Mr Speaker]

Yes. I quite understand Members’ desire to visit the constituency of the hon. Gentleman. I say that not merely in the abstract, but on the strength of my very agreeable personal experience. As the hon. Gentleman knows, I visited his constituency with him to speak to school students some time ago, and I positively salivated over the experience, so I can quite understand why others would want to visit Shipley.

Members should do each other the courtesy of prior notification. This matter is now regularly being raised by Members on both sides of the House, and I hope there will not be further recurrences of discourtesy.

Overseas Electors Bill

Debate between Philip Davies and John Bercow

Friday 22nd March 2019 Commons Chamber

[Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)]

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

[Mr Speaker]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

New clause 3—Report on awareness of how to participate in elections as an overseas elector—

‘(1) The Minister for the Cabinet Office or the Secretary of State must publish a report on levels of awareness of how to participate in parliamentary elections as a UK elector among—

(a) persons entitled to vote as an overseas elector under the provisions of this Act, and

(b) overseas electors in general.

(2) The report shall consider awareness of—

(a) the law governing entitlement to qualify and vote as an overseas elector,

(b) the processes of registering and voting, and

(c) other matters as the Minister for the Cabinet Office or the Secretary of State sees fit.

(3) The report shall set out any steps the Minister for the Cabinet Office or the Secretary of State intends to take to increase awareness of—

(a) how to participate in elections as an overseas elector, and

(b) the provisions of this Act.’

New clause 4—Report on effects of extension of franchise—

‘(1) The Minister for the Cabinet Office or the Secretary of State must publish a report assessing the likely effects of the extension of the franchise in section 1 of this Act and any measures necessary in response to those effects.

(2) The report must contain assessments of—

(a) how many British citizens currently resident overseas are eligible to register as overseas electors, and how many are likely to be eligible if the 15-year time limits under sections 1(3)(c) and 1(4)(a) of the Representation of the People Act 1985 were removed;

(b) any possible increased risk of electoral fraud by those purporting to be overseas electors related to the provisions in this Act;

(c) whether current election timetables are of sufficient duration to enable the full participation of any increased numbers of overseas electors.’

New clause 5—Report on the representation of overseas electors—

‘(1) The Minister for the Cabinet Office or the Secretary of State shall, within 12 months of this section coming into force, lay before Parliament a report on the representation of overseas electors.

(2) That report shall include—

(a) consideration of how well overseas electors are represented by their MPs and any related consequences of the provisions of this Act,

(b) an assessment of any additional demands that may be placed on MPs and their resources as a consequence of the provisions of this Act,

(c) any plans the Government has to monitor the representation of overseas electors, and

(d) an assessment of alternative models of representation of overseas electors, including the creation of overseas constituencies.’

New clause 6—Review of absent vote arrangements—

‘(1) The Minister for the Cabinet Office or the Secretary of State shall—

(a) review absent voting arrangements to consider whether they allow sufficient time for overseas electors to participate adequately in parliamentary elections, taking into account the likely effects of the provisions of this Act;

(b) consult the Electoral Commission, local authorities and the Association of Electoral Administrators as part of the review; and

(c) lay before Parliament a report on the review and any steps to be taken as a result.’

New clause 7—Report on postal voting arrangements for overseas electors—

‘(1) The Minister for the Cabinet Office or the Secretary of State shall publish a report on postal voting arrangements for overseas electors.

(2) The report shall set out—

(a) any barriers to the participation of overseas electors in parliamentary elections, including in—

(i) the availability of pre-paid postal services for returning ballot papers,

(ii) the financial resources of returning officers, and

(iii) capacity in the specialist print and production markets to meet absent vote and ballot paper requirements;

(b) whether any such barriers are likely to become more significant or widespread as a result of the extension of the franchise in the provisions of this Act, including in particular countries and regions;

(c) any steps to be taken to make it easier for overseas electors to participate in parliamentary elections.

(3) The report shall, in particular, consider the effectiveness and cost of the International Business Response Licence for postal votes and any associated implications of the provisions of this Act.’

New clause 9—Evaluation of the effects of the Act—

‘(1) The Minister for the Cabinet Office or the Secretary of State must, within 12 months of the provisions of this Act coming into force, lay before Parliament a report evaluating the effects of the Act and the extent to which it has met its objectives.

(2) That report must include assessments of the effects on numbers of overseas electors registered in each parliamentary constituency.’

New clause 10—Closing date for electoral registration applications by overseas electors—

‘(1) The Representation of the People (England and Wales) Regulations 2001 are amended as follows.

(2) In regulation 56, after paragraph (7), insert—

“(8) This regulation does not apply to applications by overseas electors.”

(3) After regulation 56 insert—

“56A Closing date for electoral registration applications by overseas electors

(1) The provisions in this regulation relate to applications to vote by post or proxy by overseas electors in parliamentary elections.

(2) An application by an overseas elector under paragraph 3(6) or (7) of Schedule 4 shall be disregarded for the purposes of a particular parliamentary election and an application under paragraph 4(3) of Schedule 4 shall be refused if it is received by the registration officer after 5 p.m. on the eighteenth day before the date of the poll at that election.

(3) An application under paragraph 3(1) or (2), or 6(7) or 7(4) of Schedule 4 shall be disregarded for the purposes of a particular parliamentary election if it is received by the registration officer after 5 p.m. on the thirteenth day before the date of the poll at that election.

(4) An application under paragraph 4(1) or (2) or 6(8) of Schedule 4 shall be refused if it is received by the registration officer after 5 p.m. on the thirteenth day before the date of the poll at the election for which it is made.

(5) An application under paragraph 7(7) of Schedule 4 shall be refused if it is received by the registration officer after 5 p.m. on the eighteenth day before the date of the poll at the election for which it is made.

(6) An application under—

(a) paragraph 3(5)(a) of Schedule 4 by an elector to be removed from the record kept under paragraph 3(4) of that Schedule, or

(b) paragraph 7(9)(a) of Schedule 4 by a proxy to be removed from the record kept under paragraph 7(6) of that Schedule,

and a notice under paragraph 6(10) of that Schedule by an elector cancelling a proxy’s appointment shall be disregarded for the purposes of a particular parliamentary election if it is received by the registration officer after—

(i) 5 p.m. on the eighteenth day before the date of the poll at that election in the case of an application by an elector who is entitled to vote by post to be removed from the record kept under paragraph 3(4) of Schedule 4, and

(ii) 5 p.m. on the thirteenth day before the date of the poll at that election in any other case.

(7) In computing a period of days for the purposes of this regulation, the same rules shall apply as in regulation 56.”

(4) The Representation of the People (Scotland) Regulations 2001 are amended as follows.

(5) In regulation 56, after paragraph (7), insert—

“(8) This regulation does not apply to applications by overseas electors.”

(6) After regulation 56 insert—

“56A Closing date for electoral registration applications by overseas electors

(1) The provisions in this regulation relate to applications to vote by post or proxy by overseas electors in parliamentary elections.

(2) An application by an overseas elector under paragraph 3(6) or (7) of Schedule 4 shall be disregarded for the purposes of a particular parliamentary election and an application under paragraph 4(3) of Schedule 4 shall be refused if it is received by the registration officer after 5 p.m. on the eighteenth day before the date of the poll at that election.

(3) An application under paragraph 3(1) or (2), or 6(7) or 7(4) of Schedule 4 shall be disregarded for the purposes of a particular parliamentary election if it is received by the registration officer after 5 p.m. on the thirteenth day before the date of the poll at that election.

(4) An application under paragraph 4(1) or (2) or 6(8) of Schedule 4 shall be refused if it is received by the registration officer after 5 p.m. on the thirteenth day before the date of the poll at the election for which it is made.

(5) An application under paragraph 7(7) of Schedule 4 shall be refused if it is received by the registration officer after 5 p.m. on the eighteenth day before the date of the poll at the election for which it is made.

(6) An application under—

(a) paragraph 3(5)(a) of Schedule 4 by an elector to be removed from the record kept under paragraph 3(4) of that Schedule, or

(b) paragraph 7(9)(a) of Schedule 4 by a proxy to be removed from the record kept under paragraph 7(6) of that Schedule,

and a notice under paragraph 6(10) of that Schedule by an elector cancelling a proxy’s appointment shall be disregarded for the purposes of a particular parliamentary election if it is received by the registration officer after—

(i) 5 p.m. on the eighteenth day before the date of the poll at that election in the case of an application by an elector who is entitled to vote by post to be removed from the record kept under paragraph 3(4) of Schedule 4, and

(ii) 5 p.m. on the thirteenth day before the date of the poll at that election in any other case.

(7) In computing a period of days for the purposes of this regulation, the same rules shall apply as in regulation 56.”

(7) The Representation of the People (Northern Ireland) Regulations 2001 are amended as follows.

(8) In regulation 57, after paragraph (6), insert—

“(7) This regulation does not apply to applications by overseas electors.”

(9) After regulation 57 insert—

“57A Closing date for electoral registration applications by overseas electors

(1) The provisions in this regulation relate to applications to vote by post or proxy by overseas electors in parliamentary elections.

(2) An application under section 6(1) or (5), 8(6) or 9(4) of the 1985 Act shall be disregarded for the purposes of a particular election if it is received by the registration officer after 5 p.m. on the twenty-first day before the day of the poll at that election.

(3) Subject to paragraph (4) below, an application under section 7(1) or (2), 8(7) or 9(7) or (8) of the 1985 Act shall be refused if it is received by the registration officer after 5 p.m. on the twenty-first day before the day of the poll at the election for which is made.

(4) Paragraph (3) above shall not apply to an application which satisfies the requirements of either paragraphs (6) and (7) or paragraph (8) of regulation 55 above; and such an application shall be refused if it is received by the registration officer after 5 p.m. on the thirteenth day before the day of the poll at the election for which it is made.

(5) An application under—

(a) section 6(4)(a) of the 1985 Act by an elector to be removed from the record kept under section 6(3) of that Act, or

(b) section 9(11)(a) of that Act by a proxy to be removed from the record kept under section 9(6) of that Act,

and a notice under section 8(9) of that Act by an elector cancelling a proxy’s appointment shall be disregarded for the purposes of a particular election if it is received by the registration officer after 5 p.m. on the twenty-first day before the date of the poll at that election.

(6) In computing a period of days for the purposes of this regulation, the same rules shall apply as in regulation 57.’

New clause 11—Offence of registering to vote as overseas elector in more than one constituency—

‘(1) A person commits an offence if he or she is an overseas elector and is simultaneously registered to vote in more than one constituency.

(2) A person guilty of an offence under this section shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale.’

New clause 12—Report on electoral offences, overseas electors and the extension of the franchise—

‘(1) The Minister for the Cabinet Office or Secretary of State must publish a report on electoral offences, overseas electors and the extension of the franchise.

(2) The report must include assessments of—

(a) the effects of the extension of the franchise under the provisions of this Act on the incidence of—

(i) reports of electoral offences under the Representation of the People Act 1983, and

(ii) prosecutions for such offences,

(b) the capacity of appropriate authorities to investigate and prosecute such alleged offences,

(c) the number of reports of electoral offences under the Representation of the People Act 1983 alleged to have been committed by overseas electors—

(i) in the period since the provisions of this Act came into force, and

(ii) in a comparable period before the provisions of this Act came into force,

(d) the number of prosecutions for electoral offences under the Representation of the People Act 1983 by overseas electors—

(i) in the period since the provisions of this Act came into force, and

(ii) in a comparable period before the provisions of this Act came into force,

(e) any steps to be taken to reduce the incidence of such electoral offences.’

New clause 13—Expiration of Act after five years—

‘This Act shall expire five years from the date on which it receives Royal Assent.’

New clause 14—Expiration of Act after three years—

‘This Act shall expire three years from the date on which it receives Royal Assent.’

Amendment 40, in clause 1, page 3, line 23, at end insert—

‘(5A) An overseas elector’s declaration shall be disregarded for the purposes of registration to vote in a particular parliamentary election if it received by the registration officer after 5pm on the nineteenth day before the date of the poll at that election.’

Amendment 49, page 3, line 42, at end insert—

‘(ea) state that the declarant is aware of the voting offences under sections 60 and 61 of the Representation of the People Act 1983 and associated punishments under sections 168 and 169 of that Act,’.

Amendment 50, page 3, line 42, at end insert—

‘(ea) state whether the declarant intends to make absent voting arrangements or to vote in person at a polling station,’.

Amendment 66, page 6, line 15, at end insert—

‘(da) state that the declarant is aware of the voting offences under sections 60 and 61 of the Representation of the People Act 1983 and associated punishments under sections 168 and 169 of that Act,’.

Amendment 67, page 6, line 15, at end insert—

‘(da) state whether the declarant intends to make absent voting arrangements or to vote in person at a polling station,’.

Amendment 75, in clause 3, page 8, line 11, after “State” add

‘but no sooner than 12 months after section 3(5) comes into force’.

Amendment 23, page 8, line 11, at end insert—

‘(2A) No regulations may be made under subsection (2) until the Secretary of State or Minister for the Cabinet Office has laid before Parliament a report setting out the effects of the provisions of this Act on processes for controlling political party donations.

(2B) The report under subsection (2A) shall consider—

(a) the ability of political parties and campaigners to determine the permissibility of donations from persons resident overseas;

(b) the ability of the Electoral Commission to take enforcement action where the rules on such donations have been breached.’

This amendment requires the Government to prepare a report on processes for controlling political party donations before the provisions of this Act can come into force.

Amendment 24, page 8, line 11, at end insert—

‘(2A) No regulations may be made under subsection (2) until the Secretary of State or Minister for the Cabinet Office has laid before Parliament a report setting out on the likely effects of the provisions of this Act on the number of registered electors.

(2B) The report under subsection (2A) shall consider—

(a) the number of overseas electors registered to vote in Parliamentary elections in each constituency and the policy implications of any such changes;

(b) whether any differential effects on the electorates of constituencies necessitates a review of constituency boundaries; and

(c) the merits of creating one or more overseas constituencies.’

This amendment requires the Government to prepare a report on the effects on the number of registered electors before the provisions of this Act can come into force.

Amendment 25, page 8, line 11, at end insert—

‘(2A) No regulations may be made under subsection (2) until the Secretary of State or Minister for the Cabinet Office has laid before Parliament a report setting out the effects of the provisions of this Act on the extension of franchise.

(2B) The report under subsection (2A) shall consider—

(a) likely demand for online registration services and how this demand should be met;

(b) the effects of removing the 15-year time limits on the workloads of local authorities, including demands on electoral registration officers, and how any consequent resourcing requirements should be met;

(c) how the electorates of existing UK constituencies will be affected; and

(d) how the electorates of new constituencies recommended by the most recent reports of the Boundary Commissions for England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland will be affected.’

This amendment requires the Government to prepare a report on the effects of the extension of the franchise before the provisions of this Act can come into force.

Amendment 26, page 8, line 11, at end insert—

‘(2A) No regulations may be made under subsection (2) until the Secretary of State or Minister for the Cabinet Office has laid before Parliament a report setting out the effects of the provisions of this Act on the representation of overseas electors by MPs.

(2B) The report under subsection (2A) shall consider—

(a) how well overseas electors are represented by their MPs and any related consequences of the provisions of this Act;

(b) an assessment of any additional demands that may be placed on MPs and their resources as a consequence of the provisions of this Act;

(c) any plans the Government has to monitor the representation of overseas electors; and

(d) an assessment of alternative models of representation of overseas electors, including the creation of overseas constituencies.’

This amendment requires the Government to prepare a report on the representation of overseas electors by MPs before the provisions of this Act can come into force.

Amendment 27, page 8, line 11, at end insert—

‘(2A) No regulations may be made under subsection (2) until the Secretary of State or Minister for the Cabinet Office has laid before Parliament a report setting out the effects of the provisions of this Act on the creation of a consolidated register of overseas electors.’

This amendment requires the Government to prepare a report on the effects of creating a consolidated register of overseas electors before the provisions of this Act can come into force.

Amendment 68, page 8, line 11, at end insert—

‘(2A) No regulations may be made under subsection (2) until the Secretary of State or Minister for the Cabinet Office has laid before Parliament a report on awareness of how to participate in elections as an overseas elector.’

Amendment 69, page 8, line 11, at end insert—

‘(2A) No regulations may be made under subsection (2) until the Secretary of State or Minister for the Cabinet Office has laid before Parliament a report on absent vote arrangements.’

Amendment 70, page 8, line 11, at end insert—

‘(2A) No regulations may be made under subsection (2) until the Secretary of State or Minister for the Cabinet Office has laid before Parliament a report on postal voting arrangements for overseas electors.’

Amendment 76, page 8, line 16, leave out

“on the day on which”

and replace with “12 months after”.

[Philip Davies]

I am sorry that my duties here will prevent me from attending the memorial service for Paul Flynn, but I am sure we all remember him with a great deal of affection and fondness.

I hope you, Mr Speaker, and Members of the House will forgive me if I come across at any point during these proceedings as being a bit disorganised. I only got the selection of amendments at just after 8.30 this morning, and given that there are so many down, it has been a bit difficult to get them all marshalled into the right groupings. If there is a delay or anything like that, it is simply because I am trying to work out which are the right amendments in the grouping, and I hope you will be patient with me in that regard.

Before I begin with new clause 1 and get into the nitty-gritty, I should congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Montgomeryshire (Glyn Davies) on his success in the private Members’ Bills ballot and on getting his Bill to this stage. We all know that it is not an easy task to get a Bill even to this stage, but my hon. Friend has done it with his customary charm and panache, and I congratulate him on doing so and on securing the support of the Government for his Bill up to the present.

Unfortunately, this has not been a total triumph, as far as I can see. While I am not opposed to the principle of the Bill, which is laudable in many parts, I have concerns about the way it is drafted in particular areas. In Committee, the hon. Member for Nottingham North (Alex Norris) said something with which I entirely agree, and which is therefore worth repeating. He said that

“we should always be very sure about the changes we make to our democracy. Anybody who knows anything about the rules of political parties knows that the little amendments that are made for whatever reason at some point have a habit of creating all sorts of different conclusions later down the line. We ought to ensure that we play out the scenarios that they might present, but also ensure that the changes we make are proportionate to achieving the goal. If we can achieve the same goal by being more surgical, we should seek to do so.”––[Official Report, Overseas Electors Public Bill Committee, 17 October 2018; c. 22.]

I agree with those sentiments entirely not just for this Bill, but, I might add, for many other Bills that come to the House on a Friday.

I have looked through the amendments tabled by others at earlier stages of the Bill and, as far as I could see, some of them seemed worth exploring again to see whether the whole House shares the view of the Committee. I believe that some of my amendments are absolutely critical to making this Bill supportable, and some affect issues that should be examined more closely. I accept that it was a manifesto commitment of the Conservative party to change the overseas voting rules, but this Bill extends not just to the existing set-up to remove the 15-year time limit and give votes for life, but the range of those eligible for votes for life. There is a problem in that, because it goes beyond what we said in our manifesto.

I will turn to the new clauses and amendments in a bit more detail. What is now new clause 1 was actually discussed in Committee. I am delighted to see the hon. Member for City of Chester (Christian Matheson) in his place. If I may say so, he did an excellent job in Committee in tabling some amendments that were very worthy of debate and are worthy of further consideration today, and this was really one of his greatest hits, so to speak.

--- Later in debate ---

[Philip Davies]

The new clause does not exclude that category of people, and the same principle applies. My hon. Friend seems to suggest that perhaps the new clause does not go far enough, and I am happy to take that criticism on board. Others say that we should not include it at all—I think I now have the full gamut of opinion in the House. Some say it is a bad new clause, some say it is good, and some say that it does not go far enough.

[Mr Speaker]

Is the hon. Gentleman suggesting—if so, it will be a first—that he is now a fully signed up practitioner of the third way?

[Philip Davies]

I had not looked at it that way, and I would be slightly horrified if that is how it was perceived. New clause 1 is merely enhancing my reputation as a moderate; I will put it no stronger than that. I appear to be slap-bang in the middle of the debate, as I so often find myself.

--- Later in debate ---

[Philip Davies]

I do not see it in those terms. I will accept that it is not particularly well drafted if that is the conclusion that my hon. Friend has drawn from it, but I do not see it measuring the success of MPs in that sense. I see it as more about whether constituents are getting the service that that MP provides to other constituents in the same way. I do not see this duty being placed on the Government or MPs in the same way as my hon. Friend does.

As for new clause 6, I appreciate that in a moment or so—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I am extremely grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his characteristic courtesy. How fitting it is, colleagues, that the Chamber is as well attended as it is at this time, on this very significant day—thank you. Colleagues, we shall now observe a minute’s silence in memory of those who died in the Westminster attack on 22 March 2017.

Overseas Electors Bill

Debate between Philip Davies and John Bercow

3rd reading: House of Commons & Report stage: House of Commons
Friday 22nd March 2019 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

As a result of that exchange, we have been deprived for a number of minutes of the mellifluous tones of the hon. Member for Shipley (Philip Davies), but I suspect that there will be an outbreak of ecstasy in the Public Gallery at the resumption of the hon. Gentleman’s speech.

[Philip Davies]

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I certainly do not object at all to my right hon. Friend the Member for Rayleigh and Wickford (Mr Francois) interrupting me with his point of order, with which I agreed wholeheartedly. Thank you, Mr Speaker, for your response. I seem destined not to get through my amendments, for different reasons.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Philip Davies and John Bercow

Thursday 14th February 2019 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

We are running late, but we have got to hear the sound of Shipley.

[Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)]

13. What recent discussions he has had with Bradford Council on a Shipley eastern bypass.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Philip Davies and John Bercow

Wednesday 19th December 2018 Commons Chamber

[Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)]

The Prime Minister originally said that if we left the EU without a deal we would not pay it any money. She has more recently said that if we leave without a deal we would have to pay it some money. She must have taken some legal advice on this issue, as no British Prime Minister would commit billions of pounds of British taxpayers’ money without finding out what our strict legal financial liability is. Given that, can she set out exactly what the legal advice is on how much money we would have to give the EU if we left without a deal, which sections of the EU treaties those financial liabilities stem from, and how much she would give over to the EU if we were to leave without a deal, as this is information that this House needs to know and the EU needs to know? I am a generous man—[Interruption.]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I am not having the hon. Gentleman shouted down; he will complete his question.

[Philip Davies]

I am a reasonable and generous man, so if the Prime Minister does not have that information to hand, then perhaps she would write to me after this session with the answers to those specific questions.

Tobacco

Debate between Philip Davies and John Bercow

1st reading: House of Commons
Tuesday 30th October 2018 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

Order. The Clerk has consulted his scholarly cranium, on the strength of which—and it is a very considerable strength—he was about to proffer me some advice, to which I will listen attentively if I can hear it. In any case, I have a view on what the hon. Gentleman has said, but let us first hear the point of order from the hon. Member for Shipley (Philip Davies), if it is on the same matter.

[Philip Davies]

It is on that very point, Mr Speaker. Am I not right in thinking that the Standing Orders state that there “shall be” 13 sitting days in a Session for private Members’ Bills, not that there will be a minimum of 13 days? Would it therefore not be quite proper for this Session to have just those 13 days, as that is what the Standing Orders clearly set out?

[Mr Speaker]

Conformity with Standing Orders is a very good starting point, but in reality it is possible for there to be differences of opinion about their interpretation. Recalling the sequence of events earlier in this Parliament, I believe that the Government nodded their recognition of the fact that a two-year Session had an implication for Opposition days and private Members’ Bills, and that therefore there would need to be an explicit commitment to guarantee the requisite number of days. I am not aware that that has yet happened, and that, I think, is at the heart of the hon. Gentleman’s point of order. If he is asking if I think it would be a good idea for there to be an announcement, my answer is: it might very well be, and if there is to be such an announcement, it would probably be a good idea for it to be sooner rather than later, if for no other or better reason than that it would mean he did not have to exercise his knee muscles again by rising to his feet to raise this perfectly legitimate point. I think we will leave it there for now, but I am grateful to both hon. Members for their points of order.

European Union (Withdrawal) Bill

Debate between Philip Davies and John Bercow

Ping Pong: House of Commons
Wednesday 20th June 2018 Commons Chamber

[Philip Davies]

rose—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. Before we come to the intervention, there is a point of order; I hope it is not a point of frustration.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Speaker]

The discretion that I have always had in such circumstances is the short answer to the hon. Gentleman. This matter may or may not be treated of further at a later point in our proceedings, but I do not want to detract from the time available for the debate.

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, and I think the Secretary of State had given way to his hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Philip Davies).

[Philip Davies]

I am very grateful.

Will my right hon. Friend commend our hon. Friend the Member for Bracknell (Dr Lee), who on the radio today, with his characteristic openness, said that he hoped that, if the amendment of our right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr Grieve) were passed today, the House would use that in order to suspend the triggering of article 50, which let the cat out of the bag as to what the motive is, which is to delay, frustrate or even stop entirely the UK leaving the European Union?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Speaker]

With immediate effect, a four-minute limit on Back-Benches speeches will apply.

[Philip Davies]

First, let me say that I very much agree with my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr Grieve) about the nature of political debate in this country. He is absolutely right to point that out and I agree with him wholeheartedly.

The second point I wish to make is that many people in this House seem to forget that there have been two meaningful votes. The first was when this House decided to give a referendum to the British people. The second was the referendum itself, in which the people voted to leave the EU. They were meaningful votes.

Mental Health Units (Use of Force) Bill

Debate between Philip Davies and John Bercow

Report stage: House of Commons
Friday 15th June 2018 Commons Chamber

[Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Member for Croydon North (Mr Reed), but I want to raise a matter of some importance. Also, I am sorry that I have not given you advance notice of this.

Mr Speaker, you are well regarded for your reputation of championing the rights of Back Benchers, but it has become apparent over the past few days that the rights of Back Benchers in this House are being massively curtailed. The deadline for tabling amendments for Fridays is Tuesday evening, which gives people the opportunity to consider the amendments that have been tabled. The timescale is the same for every Bill’s Report stage.

It has become apparent over the past day or so that the Government have a policy of saying that they will not agree to any amendments tabled unless they have at least eight days in which to consider them and to do a write-round of all Departments. That means that no Back Bencher has an opportunity to have any amendments that they table on Report accepted—the Government will automatically not accept those amendments because they have not had time to consider them. This means that the rights of Back Benchers are being massively curtailed, and also that laws will be passed that are not fit for purpose, because amendments that would otherwise have been accepted by the Government will not have been accepted. Will you look into this matter, Mr Speaker?

It seems to me that if Back Benchers are to have the opportunity to get their amendments accepted, we will need a new regime under which they will have to be tabled at least eight days before a Bill is considered; otherwise, we will have no chance. That would mean that the business of the House would have to be brought forward. Can you also confirm that, for anyone who has taken the time to table amendments to improve this Bill, the only way to have their amendments properly considered would be to ensure that we did not get to the end of our debate on these amendments today, meaning that proceedings would have to be rescheduled for a subsequent day, as that would give the Government time to consider whether to accept the amendments? Is that the only course of action open to a Back Bencher who has spent lots of time trying to improve the legislation?

[Mr Speaker]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his point of order, which is a source of some concern to me. Off the top of my head, it seems important to distinguish between two not altogether unrelated but, in important senses, separate matters. One is the question of the selection of amendments; the other is the question of the House’s treatment of them and the opportunity for treatment of them.

So far as selection is concerned, that is, as the hon. Gentleman knows, a matter for the Chair, and I will go about my duty in this matter the way that I have always done. I hope that I do this dispassionately but with a regard for Back Benchers. He and other colleagues will have discovered over the years that the views of the Government are not a matter of any particular interest or concern to me. If I think something should be selected, it will be selected.

Secondly, the hon. Gentleman will probably not be entirely surprised to know that I was not aware of any new intended arrangements being drawn up for the administrative convenience—I use that term non-pejoratively—of the Executive branch. That is not something of which a Whip has notified me. The Government might well think it most convenient to have rather longer, for the reasons that the hon. Gentleman has adduced, but it is not something of which I have been made aware. I think it would be useful to have knowledge of such a matter, but I do not think that anything can be done today. However, it would be a pity if Back Benchers were hampered in any way.

I would just add that in my limited experience—like the hon. Gentleman, I have never served in government, which I say as matter of some considerable pride—Governments are perfectly capable of operating quickly when it is convenient for them to do so, and of operating at a more leisurely pace when it is convenient for them to do so. If the hon. Gentleman is asking whether I have managed to discern the mindset of the Treasury Bench, I can say only two things. First, I have been here only 21 years, which is quite a short time in which to try to discern the mindset of those on the Treasury Bench. Secondly, if the hon. Gentleman were to think that I did understand fully the mindset of those on the Treasury Bench, he would be attributing to me an intellectual weight that I do not claim for myself.

If there are no further points of order for now, perhaps we can proceed with the oration of Mr Steve Reed.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Philip Davies and John Bercow

Thursday 10th May 2018 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

If the right hon. Member for New Forest West (Sir Desmond Swayne) were not already on the Christmas card list of his hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Philip Davies), it is a safe bet that he is now. I call Mr Philip Davies.

[Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)]

I commend the Attorney General and the Solicitor General for what they do in appealing unduly lenient sentences, which they carry out with great skill—I am very impressed by their work. However, the Attorney General said that he hopes that the scheme will be extended, and he also said that we have been promising this for quite some time, so can he give us a date for when we will extend the unduly lenient sentence scheme?

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Philip Davies and John Bercow

Tuesday 17th April 2018 Commons Chamber

[Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)]

rose—

[Mr Speaker]

The session would not be complete without the voice of Shipley.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Philip Davies and John Bercow

Monday 16th April 2018 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

Order. Time is very much against us, but we must hear the voice of Shipley. Mr Philip Davies.

[Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)]

T9. Can the Home Secretary tell us what has happened to the long-awaited and much-needed immigration Bill and when it might appear before the House?

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Philip Davies and John Bercow

Thursday 22nd March 2018 Commons Chamber

[Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)]

The Secretary of State and the Minister will probably be bored of me lobbying them about the Bradford Odeon being a recipient of the northern cultural regeneration fund but, if I may, I will test their patience once more. The project has widespread support across the Leeds city region and among many people in the cultural sector, and it will do a massive amount to regenerate the Bradford district, so can the Bradford Odeon be a recipient of the fund?

[Mr Speaker]

I do not want the hon. Gentleman suddenly to develop self-effacement, with which he has not traditionally been identified. I have been in the House with him for 13 years and I can honestly say that he has done many things, but he has never, ever bored me.

Motability

Debate between Philip Davies and John Bercow

Thursday 8th February 2018 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I granted this urgent question because I thought that it was urgent, and it is, and it is an extremely important matter, but the House will be conscious that we have very, very heavy constraints on time today, so I am looking to those on the Opposition Front Bench to stick to their time, because after that they will be cut off. I appeal to colleagues for short questions, please, and I know that the Secretary of State will oblige us with short answers.

[Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)]

May I commend the hon. Member for Bassetlaw (John Mann) for his customary tenacity in pursuing this issue? Is it not the case that not only has the taxpayer been overpaying over the years, but disabled people have been overpaying from their benefits for this scheme? Surely those disabled people could be getting exactly the same benefits from it for a lower amount per week. The money saved could then be given back to them to help pay for their other living costs. Will my right hon. Friend consider allowing the scheme to progress, but at a lower cost to disabled people so that they can retain more of their benefits? Motability seems to be losing sight of what it was set up to do in the first place.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Philip Davies and John Bercow

Monday 5th February 2018 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

The shadow Secretary of State has found her own salvation. She asks me, I think rhetorically, how she can put her thoughts on the record, and she knows perfectly well that she has just done so through the device of a purported—I use the term advisedly—point of order. One day somebody will do an academic analysis. I have not done so myself, but, in my experience in the House, at least 90% of points of order are bogus. The hon. Lady has made her point.

[Philip Davies]

Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. Can you clarify whether or not that was an apology from the shadow Secretary of State? It was not entirely clear.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Philip Davies and John Bercow

Monday 8th January 2018 Commons Chamber

[Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)]

I thought I had better get in quick before the Prime Minister’s inevitable call to me. [Laughter.]

There has been a very worrying increase in crime across the Shipley constituency over recent months, and my constituents and I expect to see more police officers. The first duty of the Government is to protect the public and keep them safe, and I have to say to the Government that they are not putting enough focus on police resources. Will they please give the police the resources that they need to keep our constituents safe? The Government are in danger of being very greatly out of touch with public opinion on this issue.

[Mr Speaker]

I am sure that she is keeping a job open for the hon. Gentleman; I feel more certain of it now than ever.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Philip Davies and John Bercow

Monday 6th November 2017 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

Mr Davies, you seem to be in a state of great excitement. I call Mr Philip Davies.

[Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)]

Thank you, Mr Speaker.

May I follow up the question asked by the right hon. Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper)? As the Minister will know, owing to the spending moratorium that Wakefield City Academies Trust imposed on High Crags Primary School, which is in my constituency, the school built up a surplus, or balance, of £276,000. In recent days that money has been transferred from the school’s account, without its authorisation and without its prior consent, and transferred to the trust. Surely the Government cannot stand aside and allow £276,000 to be taken out of the budget of a school in one of the most deprived parts of my constituency. Will the Minister do something to ensure that the money is reinstated for the benefit of pupils at that school?

Gaming Machines and Social Responsibility

Debate between Philip Davies and John Bercow

Tuesday 31st October 2017 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

The hon. Member for Shipley (Philip Davies) is clutching some newspaper article from which, doubtless, he wishes to quote.

[Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)]

May I urge the Minister not to listen to the shadow Secretary of State? He and I were both on the Select Committee that looked into these matters. and he was so interested in problem gambling that he did not even turn up to one evidence session. Perhaps if he had, he would be a bit more knowledgeable on the subject.

Over the summer, the Gambling Commission published its report on problem gambling. It found that the highest levels of problem gambling were in spread betting, followed by betting through a betting exchange, then playing poker in pubs or clubs, then betting online on events other than sports or horse or greyhound-racing, and only then by playing gaming machines in bookmakers. Those much higher levels of problem gambling all come with unlimited stakes and unlimited potential winnings. If the Government are so obsessed with evidence, why are they focusing so much on betting machines in bookmakers? Or are they just playing to the gallery, which most of us know this is really all about?

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Philip Davies and John Bercow

Tuesday 24th October 2017 Commons Chamber

[Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)]

Given that more people are in employment, there is more opportunity for people to take advantage of employee share ownership saving schemes. Unfortunately, the maximum amount of time someone can pause one of those schemes is six months, which means that many women on maternity leave for up to a year have to cash in their schemes and cannot take advantage of them to maximum effect. I am sure that is an out-of-date anomaly, so in the Budget will the Chancellor extend the period of time that an employee share ownership saving scheme can be paused to up to 12 months? In that way, women on maternity leave can enjoy the same benefits of those schemes as everybody else.

[Mr Speaker]

The hon. Gentleman used the words “employment” and “employee” and just about got his question in order.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Philip Davies and John Bercow

Wednesday 18th October 2017 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

Mr Spencer, what is the matter with you? My dear fellow! You eat home-produced food, you are a very respected farmer, and you are normally of a most taciturn disposition. I do not know what has come over you. Perhaps you should go and have a rest later. You must cheer up. Cheer up!

[Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)]

Along with the Scottish National party, the Labour party has said that it will not accept no deal with the European Union in any circumstances. That means that Labour will pay whatever final bill the EU demands, and accept any conditions on which it insists. Does the Prime Minister agree that no one with even an ounce of common sense would enter into a negotiation making such an announcement in advance, and does she agree that the stance proposed by the Labour party and the SNP is not a negotiation, but a capitulation?

Point of Order

Debate between Philip Davies and John Bercow

Tuesday 10th October 2017 Commons Chamber

[Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Yesterday, following the Prime Minister’s statement, the Leader of the Opposition, quite properly and rightly, sat through the entirety of the exchanges, as is the custom of the House. It did not go unnoticed, however, that the official spokesperson for the SNP, the hon. Member for Ross, Skye and Lochaber (Ian Blackford), left early. Given that we are about to have a couple more statements, could you rule on whether it is appropriate for official spokespeople on the Opposition Benches to stay for the entirety of the exchanges on a statement, rather than beetling out just after they have made their contribution?

[Mr Speaker]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his point of order. The position is extremely clear—at least it has always been so—but I am happy to take this opportunity to reiterate it. If the representative of a party speaks for that party as a spokesperson, he or she remains in the Chamber for the remainder of the exchanges—no ifs, no buts. The only circumstances in which I would regard it as excusable to leave—and in those circumstances, the person would make a request—would be if they were suddenly indisposed. It is not acceptable for somebody to leave the Chamber because he or she has finished and thinks, “I have other commitments; I need to go somewhere else.”

I do not mind telling the hon. Gentleman that I was asked yesterday “would it be all right if” the Member left to attend to commitments elsewhere, and my answer was no. Let me say in terms that brook of no contradiction that I do not expect official spokespersons or their representatives to come to the Chair and seek to engage in protracted conversations or attempted negotiations on that matter. I say to the SNP Chief Whip in terms unmistakable that it is a rank discourtesy for a Front-Bench spokesperson to speak and then leave apparently on the grounds of being very busy, having many commitments, having a very full diary or having to be somewhere else. No, that is not acceptable.

As the hon. Member for Shipley (Philip Davies) said very fairly, the Leader of the Opposition sat in his place throughout the exchanges, as he always does and as his predecessors have always done, and that has always been the established practice in the House. If a Member has made commitments to be elsewhere that will cause him or her to have to leave early, the answer is that those commitments should not have been made and should be cancelled. If a Member thinks that he or she would like subsequently to be somewhere else, the answer is very simple: put someone else up to speak on the statement, but do not speak and then leave. Not only is it in defiance of parliamentary convention, but it is rude to other colleagues. I should not have to make that point in respect of a party leader. It is so blindingly obvious I should have thought that everybody would have grasped it in any case.

I think that that is pretty clear and I am grateful to the hon. Member for Shipley.

Business of the House

Debate between Philip Davies and John Bercow

Thursday 14th September 2017 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I am bound to say to the Leader of the House, to the right hon. and learned Member for Camberwell and Peckham (Ms Harman) and to the House as a whole that, as Members can probably tell, my cup runneth over. I am in a state of overwhelming excitement. On a formal level, I should just tell the House that as chair of the Commons reference group on representation and inclusion, of which mention has been made, I can say that we are fully seized of the right hon. and learned Lady’s proposals relating to baby leave. Indeed, we discussed them fully on Tuesday afternoon. We are committed to vigorously pursuing them with a view to an effective motion being brought before the House for its decision.

I call Mr Philip Davies.

[Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)]

Thank you, Mr Speaker—[Interruption.]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I should just say, and I am sure the hon. Gentleman will be very relieved to hear this, that nobody has ever suggested he should be granted the status of an honorary sister.

[Philip Davies]

I was just about to commend you, Mr Speaker, for identifying the other honorary sister on the Conservative Benches, for I presumed that was why I had been called.

It is bad enough that we have a bloated, wasteful and unaffordable overseas aid budget, but it is even more ridiculous that we now learn we cannot spend our overseas aid budget on our overseas territories. As we are getting back control from the unelected and unaccountable European Union, may I suggest that we now get back control over our overseas aid spending from the unelected, unaccountable, out-of-touch morons at the OECD, so that we can spend our overseas aid budget on the things that we want to spend it on, rather than on the things that they tell us to?

HS2 Update

Debate between Philip Davies and John Bercow

Monday 17th July 2017 Commons Chamber

[Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)]

rose—

[Mr Speaker]

Tatton or Shipley? Esther McVey.

Points of Order

Debate between Philip Davies and John Bercow

Monday 27th February 2017 Commons Chamber

[Philip Davies]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Last Friday, after the debates on private Members’ Bills, the hon. Member for Redcar (Anna Turley), to whom I have given notice of this point of order, left the Chamber and briefed on social media and the media at large that my speech on the Istanbul convention—the Preventing and Combating Violence against Women and Domestic Violence (Ratification of Convention) Bill, which was first on the Order Paper—stopped her Bill, the Animal Cruelty (Sentencing) Bill, from being debated, and that I had in effect blocked it, despite my telling her that I supported her Bill. That led to my office receiving widespread, unjustified and terrible abuse, to which my staff should not be subjected.

The hon. Lady’s Bill was the eighth to be considered on Friday. You have a better memory of parliamentary proceedings, Mr Speaker, and perhaps you could tell us the last time the eighth Bill on Friday was reached for debate. I have asked the House of Commons Library to find out. In the time the Library has had so far, it has gone back 12 years and found not one example of when the eighth Bill for debate was reached. Clearly, we would still not have reached the eighth Bill had I not spoken at all. By that logic, the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Dr Whiteford) should be blamed for blocking the Animal Cruelty (Sentencing) Bill by choosing to debate her Bill on Report, which would be ludicrous. [Interruption.]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. The hon. Gentleman must come to a point of order for me, but equally he must be heard, and will be.

[Philip Davies]

The Animal Cruelty (Sentencing) Bill could still have been nodded through at the end of the day. It was clearly blocked by somebody, but not by me—I was not even in the Chamber at that time. Could you confirm, Mr Speaker, that no reasonable analysis of proceedings could lead anyone to think that my speech on the first Bill prevented a debate on the eighth Bill from taking place; that I cannot have blocked the Bill because I was not in the Chamber when somebody else objected to it when it could have been nodded through; and that I am a rather straightforward kind of person who, if I say I support a Bill I support it—I support the Animal Cruelty (Sentencing) Bill—and if I say I oppose a Bill I oppose it? Finally, can you make it clear that it is irresponsible for Members to give the public a false picture of our proceedings, and that it is dangerous to do so because it encourages vile abuse of our staff, which is not justified and can have dangerous consequences?

[Mr Speaker]

I am very grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his point of order and for advance notice of it; I thank him for raising the matter with me. Let me confirm the following. First of all, nothing disorderly occurred on Friday. Secondly, although I absolutely understand the disappointment of the hon. Member for Redcar (Anna Turley) at the failure of her Bill to progress, it would in my experience be extremely unusual for the eighth Bill to make progress. Thirdly, I think the record shows that, when moved, the Bill was objected to at the point at which business was interrupted, namely 2.30 pm. I have been informed by the hon. Gentleman, and I do not dispute it for a moment, that he was not present at that point and therefore could not have objected to it.

Let me conclude by saying this in response to the hon. Gentleman. He has, on a number of occasions, very explicitly blocked Bills, possibly by shouting “Object” and certainly by developing his arguments at a leisurely pace and in detail, which he thinks have required his forensic scrutiny. In other words, he has, by one means or another, blocked many Bills. He did not block this Bill. Simply as a point of fact, because I believe in the intelligibility of our proceedings and people not running away with the wrong idea, he did not block the hon. Lady’s Bill.

The last point I would make—I make it to the hon. Gentleman and to other hon. Members—is that I really think it would help if Members in all parts of the House treated each other with courtesy. I do not want to be in the position of having to arbitrate in matters of this kind, but where I have been asked factual questions I have given factual answers. Having heard the hon. Gentleman’s point of order and responded very fully to it, I think it only fair to hear from the hon. Lady, if she wishes to speak.

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

Debate between Philip Davies and John Bercow

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

[Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)]

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

[Mr Speaker]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

New clause 10—Recommendations by GREVIO and the Committee of the Parties (No. 2)—

“Any recommendations or reports by GREVIO (that is the Council of Europe’s Group of Experts on Action against Violence against Women and Domestic Violence) or the Committee of the Parties (that is the Committee of the Parties to the Council of Europe Convention on Preventing and Combating Violence against Women and Domestic Violence (Istanbul Convention)) must be debated in Parliament before any Government response is given.”

New clause 11—Annual statistics—

“The Government must use its best endeavours to obtain statistics on the levels of violence against men, women and all domestic violence victims in each country who are ratified members of the Convention and to make them publicly available and published annually.”

New clause 12—Quarterly statistics—

“The Government must use its best endeavours to obtain statistics on the levels of violence against men, women and all domestic violence victims who are ratified members of the Convention and to make them publicly available and published quarterly.”

New clause 14—Limitation on reservations concerning Article 44—

“The United Kingdom shall not make its ratification subject to any declaration as provided for under paragraph 2 of Article 78 of the Convention that it will not establish jurisdiction under Article 44 when the offence established with the Convention is committed by a person who has her or his habitual residence in the United Kingdom.”

New clause 15—Territorial application—

“The United Kingdom shall not make its ratification subject to any restriction on territorial application under Article 77 of the Convention.”

New clause 16—Victims of forced marriage—

“The United Kingdom shall not make its ratification subject to any restriction on its right to take the necessary legislation or other measures referred to in Article 59.4.”

New clause 17—Compensation awarded to those who have sustained serious bodily injury or impairment of health—

“No ratification of the Convention shall be made by the United Kingdom unless at the time of depositing its instrument of ratification it declares that it reserves the right not to apply the provisions of Article 30 paragraph 2.”

New clause 18—Limitation on reservations concerning psychological violence and stalking—

“The United Kingdom shall not make its ratification subject to any declaration as provided for under paragraph 3 of Article 78 that it reserves the right to provide for non-criminal sanctions for the behaviours referred to in Article 33 and Article 34.”

New clause 19—Reservations—

“Nothing in this Bill shall prevent the United Kingdom ratifying the Istanbul Convention with reservations as provided for in paragraphs 2 and 3 of Article 78.”

New clause 20—Requirement to denounce of the Convention after five years—

“The United Kingdom Government shall denounce the Istanbul Convention no later than five years after it has ratified the Convention.”

Government amendment 1, leave out clause 1.

This amendment leaves out clause 1.

Amendment 56, in clause 1, page 1, line 6, at end insert—

“without making any reservations under Article 78 of the Convention.”

Amendment 57, in clause 2, page 1, line 11, after “Convention” insert “without reservations”.

Government amendment 2, page 1, line 12, leave out “date by” and insert “timescale within”.

This amendment requires the Secretary of State to report on the timescale within which she expects the Istanbul Convention to be ratified, rather than the date.

Amendment 58, page 1, line 13, at end insert “without reservations.”

Amendment 24, page 1, line 14, leave out from “laid” to end of the subsection and insert “when reasonably practicable”.

Government amendment 3, page 1, line 14, leave out

“within four weeks of this Act receiving Royal Assent”

and insert

“as soon as reasonably practicable after this Act comes into force”.

This amendment changes the deadline for a report under clause 2 from four weeks from Royal Assent to as soon as reasonably practicable after commencement.

Amendment 22, page 1, line 14, leave out “four weeks” and insert “three years”.

Government amendment 4, page 1, line 16, leave out “Her Majesty’s Government” and insert “the Secretary of State”.

This amendment means the obligation to make a statement to Parliament will fall on the Secretary of State, rather than Her Majesty’s Government generally.

Amendment 59, page 1, line 17, after “Convention” insert “without reservations”.

Government amendment 5, page 1, line 17, leave out “it” and insert “the Secretary of State”.

This amendment is consequential on amendment 4.

Government amendment 6, page 1, line 19, leave out “its” and insert “the”.

This amendment is consequential on amendment 4.

Government amendment 7, page 1, line 20, leave out “the Convention will be” and insert—

“the Secretary of State would expect the Convention to be”.

This amendment means the Secretary of State will be required to make a statement detailing when she would expect the Istanbul Convention to be ratified, rather than when it will be so ratified.

Amendment 25, in clause 3, page 2, line 2, leave out “each year” and insert “biennially”.

Government amendment 8, page 2, line 2, after “each year” insert “until ratification”.

This amendment makes clear that the government will only have to report on progress towards ratification until ratification has taken place (see amendment 14).

Government amendment 9, page 2, line 4, leave out paragraph (a) and insert—

“(a) if a report has been laid under section 2(1), any alteration in the timescale specified in that report in accordance with subsection (1)(b) and the reasons for its alteration;”.

This amendment is designed to avoid the implication that a report under clause 2 will necessarily have been issued before a report is required under clause 3.

Amendment 26, page 2, line 4, leave out paragraph (a).

Amendment 27, page 2, line 7, leave out paragraph (b).

Government amendment 10, page 2, line 7, leave out “(before ratification)”.

This amendment is consequential on amendment 8.

Amendment 28, page 2, line 10, leave out paragraph (c).

Government amendment 11, page 2, line 10, leave out “(before ratification)”.

This amendment is consequential on amendment 8.

Government amendment 12, page 2, line 11, leave out “to” and insert “in”.

This amendment changes a reference to legislative proposals being brought forward “to” the devolved legislatures to legislative proposals being brought forward “in” the devolved legislatures - which is the usual formulation.

Amendment 29, page 2, line 14, leave out paragraph (d).

Government amendment 13, page 2, line 14, leave out “(before ratification)”.

This amendment is consequential on amendment 8.

Government amendment 14, page 2, line 16, leave out paragraph (e).

This amendment removes the ongoing reporting obligation in clause 3(1)(e).

Amendment 49, page 2, line 25, at end insert—

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

Amendment 50, page 2, line 27, after “violence” insert—

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

Amendment 51, page 2, line 31, at end insert—

“and to include the names of these organisations”.

Amendment 60, page 2, line 31, at end insert—

“(f) the costs to the Exchequer of the measures set out in subsection (1)(e).”

Amendment 52, page 2, line 32, leave out “annual” and insert “biennial”.

Amendment 53, page 2, line 32, leave out “1 November 2017” and insert “1 January 2020”.

Amendment 54, page 2, line 33, leave out “1 November each year” and insert—

“1 January every 2 years”.

Amendment 55, in clause 4, page 2, line 37, leave out from “Act” to end of subsection and insert—

“will 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.”

Government amendment 15, page 2, line 37, leave out

“on the day on which this Act receives Royal Assent”

and insert—

“at the end of the period of 2 months beginning with the day on which this Act is passed”.

This amendment means the Act will be brought into force two months following Royal Assent, rather than immediately on Royal Assent.

Government amendment 16, in title, line 1, leave out

“Require the United Kingdom to ratify”

and insert—

“Make provision in connection with the ratification by the United Kingdom of”.

This amendment is consequential on amendment 7.

Government amendment 17, in title, line 3, leave out “; and for connected purposes”.

This amendment is consequential on amendment 16.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Speaker]

Well, we shall see.

We begin with new clause 6—and I hope we can now begin with new clause 6—with which it will be convenient to consider the new clauses and amendments listed on the selection paper.

[Philip Davies]

I want to speak to new clause 6 and the other new clauses and amendments that stand in my name and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Bury North (Mr Nuttall). We have quite a large group of amendments and new clauses to go through this morning. There are 11 new clauses—seven tabled by me, and four by my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Mr Chope). On top of those, we have 36 amendments, most of which have actually been tabled by the Government, in cahoots, it is fair to say, with the Scottish National party and the promoter of the Bill. I will come to their amendments in a bit, because they seem to be trying to con the campaigners behind the Bill by pretending to support the Istanbul convention, at the same time as filleting the Bill to make sure it does not come into effect at all—but more of that later.

I have tabled 14 amendments, and my hon. Friend for Christchurch has tabled five, so we have 47 new clauses and amendments to consider this morning. I will try to do justice to them, and I will try to do that as quickly as I can, because I appreciate that other people will want to speak to them. However, a quick bit of arithmetic will tell hon. Members that if I spend only two minutes on each new clause and amendment, we will soon rattle past an hour and a half, so it is going to take some time to go through such a large group.

Awards for Valour (Protection) Bill

Debate between Philip Davies and John Bercow

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

[Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)]

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

[Mr Speaker]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

New clause 2—Wearing an award in a public house—

“A person is not guilty of an offence under section 1(1) if they are wearing the ‘award’ in a public house.”

New clause 3—Wearing an award in a place that is not public—

“A person is not guilty of an offence under section 1(1) if they are not wearing the ‘award’ in a public place.”

New clause 4—Wearing an award listed in the Schedule—

“A person is not guilty of an offence under section 1(1) if they are entitled to wear any of the other awards listed in the Schedule.”

New clause 5—Person serving in the Armed forces for more than 2 years—

“A person is not guilty of an offence under section 1(1) if they have served in the Armed Forces for more than 2 years.”

New clause 6—Person serving in the Armed forces diagnosed with Post Traumatic Stress Disorder—

“A person is not guilty of an offence under section 1(1) if they have served in the Armed Forces and as a result of front line service have been medically diagnosed with Post Traumatic Stress Disorder.”

New clause 7—Family member of the person awarded the medal—

“(1) A person is not guilty of an offence under section 1(1) if they are a family member of the person given the award.

(2) For the purposes of subsection (1), someone is a family member of the person if—

(a) he is the spouse or civil partner of that person, or he and that person live together as husband and wife or as if they were civil partners, or

(b) he is that person’s parent, grandparent, child, grand-child, brother, sister, uncle, aunt, nephew or niece.

(3) For the purpose of subsection (2)(b)—

(a) a relationship by marriage or civil partnership shall be treated as a relationship by blood,

(b) a relationship of the half-blood shall be treated as a relationship of the whole blood,

(c) the stepchild or adopted child of a person shall be treated as his child, and

(d) an illegitimate child shall be treated as the legitimate child of his mother and reputed father.”

New clause 8—Report on number of convictions—

“The Government is required to place before each House of Parliament figures showing—

(a) the number of convictions and

(b) the sentences imposed

for the offence of wearing medals with intent to deceive each year following this Act coming into force on, or as near as possible, to the 12 month anniversary of that date.”

New clause 9—Expiry of the Act—

“(1) This Act shall expire at the end of 2022 unless an order is made under this section.

(2) An order under this section shall be made by statutory instrument; but no order shall be made unless a draft has been laid before, and approved by resolution of, each House of Parliament.”

Amendment 1, in clause 1, page 1, line 4, leave out paragraph (b).

Amendment 2, page 1, line 6, leave out “anything representing an award,”.

Amendment 3, page 1, line 6, leave out from second “award,” to end of the subsection.

Amendment 4, page 1, line 15, leave out

“imprisonment for a term not exceeding three months or”.

Amendment 6, page 1, line 15, leave out “3 months” and insert “1 day”.

Amendment 8, page 1, line 15, leave out “3 months” and insert “7 days”.

Amendment 10, page 1, line 15, leave out “3 months” and insert “14 days”.

Amendment 12, page 1, line 15, leave out “3 months” and insert “21 days”.

Amendment 14, page 1, line 15, leave out “3 months” and insert “28 days”.

Amendment 16, page 1, line 16, after “fine” insert

“not exceeding level 1 on the standard scale”.

Amendment 18, page 1, line 16, after “fine” insert

“not exceeding level 2 on the standard scale”.

Amendment 20, page 1, line 16, after “fine” insert

“not exceeding level 3 on the standard scale”.

Amendment 22, page 1, line 16, after “fine” insert

“not exceeding level 4 on the standard scale”.

Amendment 5, page 1, line 17, leave out

“imprisonment for a term not exceeding three months or”.

Amendment 7, page 1, line 18, leave out “3 months” and insert “1 day”.

Amendment 9, page 1, line 18, leave out “3 months” and insert “7 days”.

Amendment 11, page 1, line 18, leave out “3 months” and insert “14 days”.

Amendment 13, page 1, line 18, leave out “3 months” and insert “21 days”.

Amendment 15, page 1, line 18, leave out “3 months” and insert “28 days”.

Amendment 17, page 1, line 18, leave out “5” and insert “1”.

Amendment 19, page 1, line 18, leave out “5” and insert “2”.

Amendment 21, page 1, line 18, leave out “5” and insert “3”.

Amendment 23, page 1, line 18, leave out “5” and insert “4”.

Amendment 24, page 1, line 20, after “may” insert ” not”.

Amendment 25, page 1, line 21, leave out paragraph (a).

Amendment 26, page 2, line 1, leave out paragraph (c).

Amendment 27, page 2, line 2, leave out subsection 5.

Amendment 28, page 2, line 6, leave out subparagraph (i).

Amendment 29, page 2, line 10, leave out subsection (7).

Amendment 31, page 2, line 17, in clause 2, leave out “two” and insert “four”.

Amendment 32, page 2, line 17, leave out “two” and insert “six”.

Amendment 33, page 2, line 17, leave out “two months” and insert “one year”.

Amendment 34, page 2, line 17, leave out “two months” and insert “two years”.

[Philip Davies]

As I said on Second Reading, I do not support the Bill. In fact, as I went through it with a view to amending it, what struck me was that, in many respects, I was trying to amend the unamendable. I cannot emphasise enough, however, how much I understand the sincere intentions of my hon. Friend the Member for Dartford (Gareth Johnson) in introducing the Bill, the effort he has put into it and his efforts to find a compromise that suits everyone. I commend him for his sincerity and for his attempt to find a way forward with which everyone agrees. I just cannot agree with him on this occasion. Should the Bill proceed, I hope that my amendments will be accepted, as I believe they will save it from having some unintended consequences and reduce the chances of criminalising people who may be unintentionally caught by it as it stands.

The Bill is considerably different from the one that appeared on Second Reading. That is very much to my hon. Friend’s credit and shows how much effort he has made to find a workable solution. I am grateful to him for taking on board many of the points that I made in the Second Reading debate. However, I still feel that the Bill is deficient, so I will go through the amendments I have tabled. I hope that they may find favour.

New clause 1 would ensure that

“The offence of wearing awards with intent to deceive is triable only summarily.”

It implies that the offence must be dealt with in a magistrates court only. Some may think that the new clause is unnecessary, but it would mean that people had to think twice before amending the legislation to increase the sentence. That is the purpose of new clause 1: it is a safeguard in that respect. That was specifically mentioned by the Select Committee on Defence in its report on the Bill.

New clause 2 would ensure that

“A person is not guilty of an offence under section 1(1) if they are wearing the ‘award’ in a public house.”

The “intention to deceive” element of the offence could be committed in a variety of circumstances. Seeking to deceive for financial gain would already be covered by fraud legislation. This Bill is clearly supposed to include other types of deception. That could be the intention to deceive to gain respect or to impress a potential future partner. The new clause deals with people in a pub.

We all know that pubs are places where all kinds of rubbish are talked at times by people—not just in pubs, I hasten to add, but particularly in pubs. To think that someone could have a few too many, boast about something to which they have no right with a cheap replica medal bought off eBay or wherever and end up with a criminal conviction is rather over the top. The new clause would remove that possibility. When my hon. Friend conceived the Bill—again, I applaud his sincerity—it was about people who turn up at Remembrance Day parades and events such as that purporting to be someone they are not. Therefore, ensuring that the provision does not apply to people in a public house would help to get us back to the Bill’s original intention.

New clause 3 would ensure that

“A person is not guilty of an offence under section 1(1) if they are not wearing the ‘award’ in a public place.”

Therefore, it would provide the defence of the offence taking place in private. It is important, given the Bill’s intention, to limit the offence to a public place. If someone gets a medal out and uses it to impress someone in their own home or in private property—a private club or somewhere like that—I do not see why that should be an offence. I cannot believe that that is what people think of when they think of people with criminal convictions. If someone wants to argue that some private places should be covered, I would ask, what about the unintended consequences? Is it not time that we stopped ignoring the foreseeable consequences of legislation? Someone who boasts to a woman he has met in a pub that he has a medal, which turns out not to be his, is a copy or is something that looks like an award, could find himself in court with a criminal record for the first time. Some people might not care about that—they might think, “Well, they had that coming”—but I do care. I think we have enough people committing serious offences that we do not deal with properly, and to create offences for those who are likely to have issues anyway, probably including mental health ones, to be committed in the privacy of their home strikes me as being rather over the top.

New clause 4 would insert:

“A person is not guilty of an offence under section 1(1) if they are entitled to wear any of the other awards listed in the Schedule.”

The defence would be that they are entitled to wear a medal named in the long list at the end of the schedule, but they just happen to be wearing the wrong one. If someone is allowed to wear one medal but wears a different one—not an additional one, but just a different one—even if it is a case of enhanced valour, why should they be criminalised if they were entitled to wear a medal on the list? I do not think that that should be a criminal offence. It might not happen often, but it is certainly not impossible, and, assuming it did happen, would we really want to criminalise that person? Would it not be better to make it clear in the Bill that that person would not be criminalised?

New clause 5 would insert:

“A person is not guilty of an offence under section 1(1) if they have served in the Armed Forces for more than 2 years.”

As with the amendment on existing entitlement, I do not think people really had it in mind to criminalise former or current members of our armed forces for this offence. I return to the point about an intent to deceive to gain respect—added respect, I guess. Do we really want to go down that route? We should not want to risk criminalising someone who has risked their life serving our country just because they might have tried to embellish their record in some way. This amendment would remove that possibility for those who have served for two years or more in the armed forces.

New clause 6 would insert:

“A person is not guilty of an offence under section 1(1) if they have served in the Armed Forces and as a result of front line service have been medically diagnosed with Post Traumatic Stress Disorder.”

In a similar vein to the amendments about serving or former members of the armed forces, this amendment would protect, in many respects, many of the most vulnerable people—those with diagnosed PTSD. Those who have been seriously affected by frontline service and who have this condition as a result could be more susceptible than those without to fall foul of this proposed legislation, and I would not want to see that person either intentionally or unintentionally caught out. I would rather make it abundantly clear in the Bill that they could not be caught by the legislation.

New clause 7 would insert:

“(1) A person is not guilty of an offence under section 1(1) if they are a family member of the person given the award.

(2) For the purposes of subsection (1), someone is a family member of the person if—

(a) he is the spouse or civil partner of that person, or he and that person live together as husband and wife or as if they were civil partners, or

(b) he is that person’s parent, grandparent, child, grand-child, brother, sister, uncle, aunt, nephew or niece.

(3) For the purpose of subsection (2)(b)—

(a) a relationship by marriage or civil partnership shall be treated as a relationship by blood,

(b) a relationship of the half-blood shall be treated as a relationship of the whole blood,

(c) the stepchild or adopted child of a person shall be treated as his child, and

(d) an illegitimate child shall be treated as the legitimate child of his mother and reputed father.”

Again, this amendment deals with family members of those given an award. My concern is that they might well have a medal, especially if the person in question has sadly died. Their chances of becoming susceptible to the provisions of the Bill must therefore be greater than for the average person, by definition.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Philip Davies and John Bercow

Thursday 23rd February 2017 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

We are all, I am sure, greatly educated in consequence, but at a cost in time.

[Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)]

One of the reasons for harmful road emissions in my constituency is the queues of traffic from Baildon through to Shipley, so when can we have a Shipley eastern bypass, which would be good for the local economy, alleviate congestion, and deal with these harmful emissions?

Point of Order

Debate between Philip Davies and John Bercow

1st reading: House of Commons
Thursday 23rd February 2017 Commons Chamber

[Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. On 18 January, I asked the Ministry of Justice, in a written question:

“how many and what proportion of sentences for each category of offence are suspended sentences.”

On 16 February, the prisons Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for East Surrey (Mr Gyimah), replied:

“The information requested can be found on GOV.UK”.

Clearly it took a month for the Ministry of Justice to find the information on gov.uk before it could give that answer to me. It did not indicate where on gov.uk the information could be found.

This is not the first time that such a thing has happened. It is becoming an increasingly regular occurrence with the Ministry of Justice. It seems clear to me that it is doing it deliberately to try to ensure that the information never comes to light. I will refer the matter to the Procedure Committee, but I wonder whether you, Mr Speaker, can do anything to ensure that Departments, particularly the Ministry of Justice, give us open and transparent answers rather than using this rather dishonourable tactic.

[Mr Speaker]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that point of order. My response is consistent with what I have said previously on the matter. First, responses should be timely, and he suffered an untimely response—he had to wait rather longer than he should have. Secondly, responses to Members’ parliamentary questions should be substantive, and he did not receive a substantive reply. Thirdly, it is one thing for a Minister answering a written question to refer to a website on which further and more detailed information might be available that would be of interest to the Member concerned, but it is quite another matter simply and blandly to refer to a website, without guidance or direction and saying nothing about where on it the Member should look, and to imagine that that is a satisfactory substitute for a straight answer to a straight question—it is not.

I know that the Leader of the House and the Deputy Leader of the House take very seriously their responsibility to ensure that Ministers provide timely responses that are substantive and do not use that ruse or device. They have heard the hon. Gentleman’s point of order and my response. I thank the hon. Gentleman for raising the matter.

Bill Presented

Prisons and Courts Bill

Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)

Secretary Elizabeth Truss, supported by the Prime Minister, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, Secretary Amber Rudd, Secretary Justine Greening, Secretary Jeremy Hunt, Secretary David Mundell, the Attorney General, Sir Oliver Heald and Ben Gummer, presented a Bill to make provision about prisons; make provision about practice and procedure in courts and tribunals, organisation of courts and tribunals, functions of the judiciary and of courts and tribunals and their staff, appointment and deployment of the judiciary, and functions of the Judicial Appointments Commission; and make provision about whiplash claims.

Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time tomorrow, and to be printed (Bill 145) with explanatory notes (Bill 145-EN).

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Philip Davies and John Bercow

Thursday 2nd February 2017 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

We are out of time, but I really want to hear the last question, not least because the hon. Gentleman is a newly elected and extremely keen member of the Committee about whose name he is concerned. I call Mr Philip Davies.

[Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)]

7. If he will bring forward proposals to change the name of the Women and Equalities Committee to the Equalities Committee.

Crime (Aggravated Murder of and Violence against Women)

Debate between Philip Davies and John Bercow

1st reading: House of Commons
Tuesday 31st January 2017 Commons Chamber

[Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)]

I am afraid that, for reasons that I will set out, I oppose this Bill as it is currently framed. For the benefit of the morons on Twitter, and for some in this House, I should make it clear from the start that obviously, along with everybody else, I oppose women suffering from honour-based violence, but it seems that I am the only one in this House at the moment who equally opposes honour-based violence against men too.

I certainly commend my hon. Friend the Member for Wealden (Nusrat Ghani) for her wish to tackle the politically correct culture that sometimes surrounds certain cultures in this country and which can be very damaging to those caught up in them. I attended a meeting organised by Baroness Cox where three very brave Muslim women explained how they had been very badly treated by sharia courts. Unfortunately, despite all the people here who claim to be concerned about women, I was the only Member of the House of Commons at that meeting, so concerned were people about the violence that those women had faced through judgments from sharia courts.

This Bill deals, quite rightly, with dangerous political correctness, as it does not get any more serious than murder. I completely agree with my hon. Friend about the term “honour killing”—there is nothing honourable about murdering someone. I would encourage her to keep making this point, as even without legislation she could make some progress. I am afraid, however, that while tackling one element of political correctness, she has opened up another politically correct can of worms.

The main reason I oppose this Bill is that it relates only to female victims and not all victims. I fear that we are going to have a rerun of the debate on the Istanbul convention that we had not so long ago in this House. We cannot let—[Interruption.] I know that people do not like any other opinions being expressed, but this is a Parliament; this is a democracy. [Interruption.]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. Members will have noticed that I was keen to move on from Question Time on time today, not least because of the number of would-be contributors to the main Second Reading debate. I do not want matters to be delayed, but the hon. Gentleman must be heard.

[Philip Davies]

Thank you very much, Mr Speaker.

We cannot let this trend of having laws that are unjustifiably aimed at dealing with just one gender take hold, and I will continue to oppose all Bills and motions that do that. Why do we need to have just females mentioned in this Bill? Why can it not be for all victims of these terrible crimes? We do not have an offence of female murder or male murder—we just have murder. There are more male victims of murder in the UK than female victims of murder. If I introduced a Bill that said we are only going to care about the families of the male victims because there are more of them, I suspect that most of the Opposition Members who are complaining would be up in arms about such a Bill that focused only on the male victims of murder because they are in the majority—and the same should apply here. Yes, of course women are far more likely to be the victims of honour-based crimes than men, but they are not exclusively the victims of these crimes. As far as I am concerned, all these things are just as bad as each other.

I am no expert, but I am told that karo-kari, which is the Pakistani term for so-called honour killing, literally means “adulterer” and “adulteress”. These terms have wider definitions than their literal ones to cover all immoral behaviour, and it is quite clear that they cover both sexes and are therefore not gender specific.

In 2007-08, the Home Affairs Committee said that men are also victims of honour-based violence. In January 2015, the Henry Jackson Society published a report on so-called honour killings, where it said that

“men are also victims of ‘honour’ killings. In the cases of male victims reported in the media over the past five years, the perpetrators usually included the families of a current or expartner”.

It went on to confirm that in the UK there were 22 female victims, but seven male victims too. A report by the Government’s Forced Marriage Unit says:

“In 2015, 980 cases…involved female victims and 240…involved male victims. This highlights that men can also be forced into marriage.”

The Crown Prosecution Service report, “Violence Against Women and Girls”, says that

“where gender was recorded, female victims accounted for”

about 76%

“and male victims were”

about 24%.

This means that nearly a quarter of all the victims of these crimes are men. That is not an insignificant number, and it is not something that we should ignore. I understand that this is particularly an issue for gay men, but they would certainly not be included under the provisions of the Bill.

As we are talking about crimes taking place outside this country, we ought to look at the victims of crime over there. The Pakistani Human Rights Commission, which monitors reports of such crimes, came to the conclusion that about a quarter of victims in Pakistan were men. People might want to bear it in mind that The Guardian has reported cases of male killings. The newspaper cited the case of Ahmed Bashir, who died after he was attacked with a sword and a machete in the garden of his west London home. It is very sad that the Opposition do not care about Ahmed Bashir, who was killed with a machete in his own home; it seems that that does not count because he happens to be a man. What kind of Parliament have we become? The Telegraph ran a piece that highlighted the case of another male victim of an honour-based killing. Phyllis Chesler, emerita professor of psychology at Richmond College of the City University of New York, has also written about how male victims are included in honour-based crimes.

There are other issues with this Bill, which I do not have time to go into now, but I believe that its discriminatory premise is wrong. Not all victims are female, and not all offenders are male. We should introduce gender-neutral legislation that is designed to help all victims of crime, whether they be men or women, and to punish all offenders responsible for such crimes, whether those offenders be men or women. [Interruption.] People are saying that that is what my hon. Friend the Member for Wealden said, but I am looking at the annunciator screen, which reads: “Crime (Aggravated Murder of and Violence against Women)”. There is no mention of men. It is no good saying that this Bill includes men; it does not. That is there on the screen for hon. Members to see, if they cannot hear what is happening. They clearly have not read the Bill. Some people will ask, “Why not support something that might help somebody, if not everybody?” I say, “Why not help everybody from the start?” What possible reason is there for not including men and women in the terms of the Bill?

I end where I started. Of course, we all oppose women suffering from honour-based violence, but I, for one, equally oppose honour-based violence against men. To have a strategy for dealing with one but not the other is, in my opinion, not acceptable and not justifiable.

Question put and agreed to.

Ordered,

That Nusrat Ghani, Mr David Burrowes, Michael Gove, Yvette Cooper, Tim Loughton, Robert Jenrick, John Mann, Naz Shah, Craig Whittaker, James Berry, Mr Angus Brendan MacNeil and Stuart C. McDonald present the Bill.

Nusrat Ghani accordingly presented the Bill.

Bill to be read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 24 March, and to be printed (Bill 129).

[Philip Davies]

I will be here.

[Mr Speaker]

The sedentary observation of the hon. Member for Shipley that he will be here was, if I may say so, superfluous. None of us doubted it for a moment.

Business of the House

Debate between Philip Davies and John Bercow

Thursday 12th January 2017 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call Mims Davies.

[Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)]

May we have a debate—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I said “Mims” rather than “Philip”.

[Philip Davies]

I am sorry, Mr Speaker. I heard “Davies”.

[Mr Speaker]

I know that the hon. Gentleman has secured election to the Women and Equalities Committee—although he was the only candidate, so his election was not very burdensome. But he should not worry; he will never be overlooked. We will get to him.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Speaker]

I simply do not wish to wait any longer. The voice of Shipley must be heard.

[Philip Davies]

Thank you, Mr Speaker, for highlighting the fact that my nomination for membership of the Women and Equalities Committee was so popular that nobody wanted to oppose me.

May we have a debate on the outrageous plans of Jockey Club Racecourses to close Kempton Park racecourse? If Jockey Club Racecourses is not about the protection of racecourses and the heritage of British racing, Lord knows what on earth it is about. If the closure had been proposed by Arena Racing Company, members of the Jockey Club would have been the first to complain, particularly given that Kempton Park is a profitable racecourse. May we have a debate to find out what this House can do to stop these outrageous plans, which will be a hammer blow to national hunt racing in this country and will concrete over a huge swathe of the area’s greenbelt, too?

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Philip Davies and John Bercow

Tuesday 20th December 2016 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

Let us hear the sound of Shipley— Mr Philip Davies.

[Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)]

May I urge the Minister not to go down this ridiculous nanny-state route—which one would not expect from a Conservative Government—of setting up an unhealthy food police to go round telling people what they should be eating and what they should not be eating? No food eaten as part of a balanced diet is in itself particularly unhealthy. If the Government are so concerned about families that are just about managing, why on earth would they even contemplate increasing costs for working families?

European Council 2016

Debate between Philip Davies and John Bercow

Monday 19th December 2016 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

In the pursuit of a soothing, emollient and understated voice, I call Philip Davies.

[Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)]

Something on which both sides of the EU referendum campaign can agree is that one of the big issues during the campaign was the amount of money that we give to the EU each year. Will the Prime Minister therefore pledge that when we leave the EU we will not be paying any money towards the EU budget? Even contemplating that would surely be to contemplate betraying what people voted for in the referendum.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Philip Davies and John Bercow

Tuesday 6th December 2016 Commons Chamber

[Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)]

rose—

[Mr Speaker]

I think we will conclude with another dose from Shipley.

[Philip Davies]

Thank you very much, Mr Speaker.

When the previous Labour Government changed the law so that prisoners had to be released halfway through their sentence irrespective of how badly they behaved or if they were still a risk to the public, the then Conservative Opposition were apoplectic and voted against the change. Do the Government think that the then Conservative party was wrong to oppose that change in the law?

Awards for Valour (Protection) Bill

Debate between Philip Davies and John Bercow

Friday 25th November 2016 Commons Chamber

[Philip Davies]

The problem is that my hon. Friend the Member for Dartford said that this was a growing problem. I did not notice my hon. Friend the Member for North Dorset (Simon Hoare) intervening on him to say that it did not matter whether it was a growing problem or not. People are making the case that we need to pass this Bill because this is a growing problem, but there is no evidence for that. As I say, my hon. Friend the Member for North Dorset did not make his perfectly valid point to my hon. Friend the Member for Dartford when he was making his case for the Bill.

Looking at the position taken by past Governments, it is interesting also to consider the historical context of this matter. It was an offence under the Army Act 1955 for people to wear medals and decorations that they had not been awarded if they were used in such a way as to be “calculated to deceive”. That changed as a result of the Armed Forces Act 2006, which repealed the Army Act 1955 and the Air Force Act 1955, in which the offence had originally been specified. The Defence Committee inquiry asked the Ministry of Defence why section 197 of each of those Acts had been repealed and not replaced. It asked for the rationale behind that decision. The MOD’s response was:

“Section 197(1) created three separate offences. They included two offences of wearing any decoration, badge, wound stripe or emblem authorised for wear by the Sovereign, or anything closely resembling them ‘without authority’. It was not clear who could give the necessary permission. The need for authority in all cases suggested that none of these could be worn even in a theatrical performance, film, re-enactment or fancy dress without permission. Nor was it clear whether it applied only to current badges, stripes and emblems or also precluded…the wearing of historic ones. Requiring specific authority for such events was considered to be excessive, and indeed was no longer insisted on. The third offence was of falsely representing entitlement to wear such badges and emblems. Section 197 would also have required considerable amendment.”

The MOD went on to say:

“These provisions in the 1955 Acts were not included in the Armed Forces Act 2006, not only because of the inconvenience of the need for ‘authority’ to wear them, but also because it was considered that the important element of the offences was to prevent people from making financial or other gain dishonestly by wearing uniform, medals or by representing themselves to in the Armed Forces or entitled to a medal. It was decided that this was more clearly and comprehensively dealt with by the general offence of fraud under the Fraud Act 2006. That offence also carries a more appropriate sentence of up to 10 years’ imprisonment on trial before the Crown Court. It was also considered that an offence based on an intent to deceive which did not involve fraud (for example, where there was no attempt to make a financial or property gain, or cause someone loss) was likely in practice to cause difficult questions of proof.”

That is perfectly relevant to this debate.

As I understand it from my hon. Friend the Member for South Thanet, the example we have been given in support of the Bill is that of the clearly disreputable person who made preposterous claims to become a councillor. That seems to be covered perfectly by the Fraud Act 2006, because he wanted to take a job, which came with some pay, through dishonest means. As that is already covered under the 2006 Act, the Bill would make absolutely no difference, apart from the fact that such a person could not be treated as severely by the courts if prosecuted under this legislation as they could be under the 2006 Act. Hon. Members who are using that case to make the argument for the Bill are saying that they would want that person to be treated less severely by the courts than they could be under the existing legislation. That seems a rather bizarre way of making the case for the Bill.

Previous speakers making the case for the Bill have said that we must fall in line with other countries. A few months ago, I asked the House of Commons Library to let me know what happened in countries around the world. It came up with some detailed and enlightening research on the subject, some of which is summarised in the excellent research paper that accompanies the Bill. I suspect, Mr Speaker, that you would not want me to read out what happens in every other country with regard to this matter; I suspect that you would want me to make slicker progress than that. Tempted though I am to highlight what happens in other countries, given that that was given as one of the great reasons why we need legislation in this country—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I do hope that the hon. Gentleman will speak as freely as he ordinarily does.

--- Later in debate ---

[Philip Davies]

rose—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. May I gently say to the right hon. Member for New Forest East (Dr Lewis), who chairs the Defence Committee with such aplomb and distinction, that his intervention was somewhat longer than the list?

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Philip Davies and John Bercow

Wednesday 16th November 2016 Commons Chamber

[Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)]

In the teeth of opposition from the Conservative party, the last Labour Government changed the law to make sure that all prisoners were released halfway through their sentence, irrespective of whether they had misbehaved in prison or still posed a threat to the public—[Hon. Members: “Rubbish!”]

[Mr Speaker]

Order.

[Philip Davies]

That must have contributed to the upsurge in violence in our prisons. Does the Prime Minister agree with the previous Labour Government that prisoners should be released halfway through their sentence, irrespective of how badly they have behaved or the threat they pose to the general public, or does she agree with me that this is an outrage that flies in the face of public opinion and must be reversed?

Orgreave

Debate between Philip Davies and John Bercow

Tuesday 1st November 2016 Commons Chamber

[Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)]

I very much support the Home Secretary’s decision. Unlike most of the people bleating on the Labour Benches, I actually lived in South Yorkshire in a mining community during the time of the miners strike and saw at first hand the bullying and intimidation from the miners that went on. People who did not contribute to the strike fund had their windows done in.

These people were trying to bring down the democratically elected Government of the time. They lost, and they need to get over it. Anyone only has to look at the TV pictures—[Interruption.]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I recognise that this is a subject that arouses very strong feeling, but the House knows me well enough by now to know that I will facilitate the fullest possible questioning on the matter from Members in all parts of the House. However, I ought to be able to say without fear of contradiction that the hon. Member for Shipley will be heard.

[Philip Davies]

People only have to look at the TV footage of the event to see the violence that the miners were carrying out against police officers. Will the Minister explain why, if this matter is so important to Labour Members, in the 13 years they were in government they did absolutely nothing about it?

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Philip Davies and John Bercow

Tuesday 25th October 2016 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

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

[Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)]

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

Business of the House

Debate between Philip Davies and John Bercow

Thursday 20th October 2016 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

Order. As usual, a very large number of hon. and right hon. Members are seeking to catch my eye. As colleagues will know, my normal practice is to call everybody on these occasions, but there are exceptions. Today, there is a statement on community pharmacy to follow, and there are two very heavily subscribed debates to take place under the auspices of the Backbench Business Committee. Therefore, it may not be possible to call everyone today, but if I am to have any chance of doing so, there is a premium upon brevity, which will be brilliantly exemplified by Mr Philip Davies.

[Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)]

May we have a statement urgently from the Government about the farce of allowing the child refugees into the country? The Home Office has admitted that two thirds of successful applicants as child refugees are actually adults. Today, Jack Straw has said that we need to do better on age checks, as the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill (Liam Byrne), did when he was the Immigration Minister. That is a serious concern to many of our constituents. May we have an urgent statement on what the Government are going to do to make sure that the child refugees are actually children?

Points of Order

Debate between Philip Davies and John Bercow

Thursday 8th September 2016 Commons Chamber

[Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)]

Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker.

[Mr Speaker]

Is it further to that? Is it on that very theme?

[Philip Davies]

It is further to that point of order.

[Mr Speaker]

In that case, let us hear from the hon. Member for Shipley (Philip Davies), and then I will respond to both.

[Philip Davies]

I absolutely endorse everything that my hon. Friend the Member for Broxbourne (Mr Walker) has just said. In addition to that, we also have the situation whereby the Government propose to reduce the number of MPs by 50 but not to reduce the number of Ministers by an equal proportion, thereby giving the Government more control over the House of Commons. That is clearly an outrage, and surely it is something that needs to be considered in conjunction with the points raised by my hon. Friend.

[Mr Speaker]

I am very grateful to both hon. Members for raising their points of order. Let me seek to deal, in so far as they require to be dealt with, with each in turn. First, in relation to the point of order from the hon. Member for Broxbourne, who is, as we all know, the illustrious Chair of the Procedure Committee of the House, I remind colleagues that the hon. Gentleman asked the Chair by what means he could register his concern. As the hon. Gentleman knows, because he is a perceptive and sagacious fellow, he has found his own salvation. He has made his own point with his own inimitable eloquence, and it is on the record. I know how strongly he feels about it, and I know there are many Members across the House who feel very strongly about it, and these matters will doubtless be further debated.

Secondly, in relation to the hon. Member for Shipley, I note the force of his point about reductions in the number of MPs needing, as he sees it, to be accompanied by reductions in the number of Ministers. The hon. Gentleman has got such a long-established good memory for what people have said in the past that I feel sure that, although he did not say it today, he will be well aware that I myself expatiated on this matter on 19 January 2011 in a lecture to the Institute for Government. On that occasion, I made the point that it would be a rum business to reduce the number of MPs but not to cut the number of Ministers. I said it then and was right then, and therefore I am very happy to say it again, five and a half years later, and to be right a second time.

We had better leave it there. I am not sure that either of them was a point of order, but they were jolly good fun.

Junior Doctors: Industrial Action

Debate between Philip Davies and John Bercow

Monday 5th September 2016 Commons Chamber

[Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)]

I was just reading an article from earlier in the year from The Guardian newspaper, which said that Saturday working is the major sticking point in the junior doctors’ dispute. Does the Secretary of State agree that any doctor who goes on strike over premium rates of pay on a Saturday, which most people in this country do not get when they work on a Saturday, should hang their heads in shame? Will he give a commitment that he will not make any further concessions, as he has already given far too many. Is it not time to look at whether we stop doctors from going on strike altogether in the NHS, as is the case with other emergency services?

[Mr Speaker]

It may be the first occasion upon which the hon. Member for Shipley (Philip Davies) has vouchsafed to the House that he is a Guardian reader.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Philip Davies and John Bercow

Thursday 21st July 2016 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

We now have the statutory male on the Government Front Bench. If the Minister for Schools had not turned up, I might have been tempted to invite the hon. Member for Shipley (Philip Davies) to make an appearance on the Front Bench, but I suspect that would have been a divisible proposition.

[Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)]

Only a matter of time.

[Mr Speaker]

Indeed.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Philip Davies and John Bercow

Monday 18th July 2016 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

We are running late, but we must hear the voice of Shipley.

[Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)]

16. What his Department’s policy is on the building of houses on green-belt land.

National Health Service

Debate between Philip Davies and John Bercow

Wednesday 13th July 2016 Commons Chamber

[Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)]

I rise to oppose the Bill, which is wholly based on a false premise. The hon. Member for Wirral West (Margaret Greenwood) said that the Bill was necessary to stop the privatisation of the NHS. Well, the privatisation of the NHS is not occurring, so going by her own words, the Bill is completely unnecessary.

The hon. Lady laid the blame for the so-called privatisation of the NHS on the Health and Social Care Act 2012, and she thinks that repealing that Act will therefore solve the problem of what she describes as the privatisation of the NHS. The hon. Lady, who cannot seem to be bothered to listen to the debate, even though it is about her Bill, might have acknowledged that the so-called privatisation of the NHS started long before the 2012 Act. In fact, it gathered pace during the time of the last Labour Government.

If we look at the figures for expenditure on private providers, we see that from a near standing start under the Labour Government, the amount of the total NHS resource expenditure going to private providers grew much more rapidly under the Labour Government than it has under this Government. The increase in resources going to those providers has actually slowed down; it is much slower than it was. It was the hon. Lady’s party that introduced the private sector into the NHS and allowed private sector providers to provide NHS treatment.

I welcome that, as it happens. I do not see it as a bad thing. If my constituents need hospital treatment on the NHS, they have usually had to go to either the Bradford Royal infirmary, in the constituency of the hon. Member for Bradford West (Naz Shah), or to Airedale hospital, in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley (Kris Hopkins). However, under the current provisions, whereby the NHS can allow private providers to supply services, my constituents can now go to the Yorkshire Clinic in my constituency for high-quality treatment. They are served much closer to their homes, and their treatment is still free at the point of need.

As far as I am concerned, that is the essential founding principle of the NHS that must be preserved—that treatment is free at the point of need. That is what matters to people. That is what they want when they need healthcare treatment—free, high-quality healthcare at the point of need, at a location that is convenient for them and convenient for their family members to visit. Whether that is carried out at an NHS hospital or a private hospital is neither here nor there, as long as they are getting treatment free of charge at the point of need. My constituents have benefited greatly from being able to have treatment at the Yorkshire Clinic rather than having to go to one of the NHS hospitals outside my constituency.

The last Labour Government, of course, were far worse when it came to giving contracts to the private sector. Those of us who were here at the time will know that they did not pay the same tariff—[Interruption.] The hon. Member for Oldham East and Saddleworth (Debbie Abrahams) keeps chirping away from the Opposition Front Bench; if she listened, she might learn something. [Interruption.] Well she might, and other hon. Members might well too. Many of them were not here at the time, but those who were will recall—[Interruption.]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. The hon. Member for Shipley (Philip Davies) is exercising his democratic rights as a parliamentarian, so he must be heard—preferably with courtesy, but certainly without noise.

[Philip Davies]

Thank you, Mr Speaker; I appreciate that.

I was making the point that when the Labour party gave out contracts to the private sector, it actually paid the private providers a higher tariff for carrying out that work than they paid NHS hospitals and providers. To my mind, that was a complete outrage. If Labour was so much against the private sector, why on earth was it paying private providers a higher tariff than NHS providers? It was the current Government who stopped that absurd practice and made sure that private providers were paid the same tariff as NHS providers. The hon. Member for Wirral West could have mentioned that in her remarks, but she failed to do so.

As I said, the whole Bill is based on a false premise, because it was the last Labour Government who introduced the private sector into the NHS and paid private providers more for carrying out the same work, and the current Government have dealt with that absurdity.

The hon. Lady was pretty quiet about the part of the Bill that deals with section 38 of the Immigration Act 2014, which she wishes to repeal. That section requires nationals from outside the European economic area who come to the UK for longer than six months to pay a health surcharge when making their immigration application. Although no statistics are yet available on the amount of revenue raised from that surcharge, an answer to a parliamentary question last year showed that the Government estimated that they would recover about £200 million a year from foreign nationals using the NHS. The hon. Lady wishes to repeal that legislation. In effect, she wants foreign nationals to come to the UK and use the NHS free of charge. No wonder she mentioned so little of that. At the end of her speech she talked about the financial crisis that the NHS is suffering, yet she is bringing forward a Bill that will stop the NHS being able to recover some of the money spent on treating foreign nationals. The whole Bill is a complete absurdity and nonsense.

If the hon. Lady is proud of that provision in the Bill, why did she not mention it during her speech? Perhaps she is secretly embarrassed about it. Perhaps she knows that her constituents would not particularly appreciate her attempt to introduce legislation to give foreign nationals free treatment, which would cost the NHS more money rather than saving it money. I know that she is one of the last remaining supporters of the Leader of the Opposition, but even he might think that that was rather a strange way of trying to improve the NHS’s financial position.

I know that this is the same Bill that the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas) presented during the last Session. Perhaps the hon. Member for Wirral West did not actually read the Bill. Perhaps she presented it without having looked at it, and did not realise that it included that particular provision. Either there has been an omission on her part, or we have the rather strange absurdity that she wants to introduce legislation to take at least £200 million a year away from the NHS. She might be able to discuss how that would help the NHS, but I do not see the logic in it.

I do not intend to prevent the hon. Lady from having her moment in the sun. I merely wished to point out that the whole Bill is based on a false premise. It was the last Labour Government who introduced the private sector into the NHS, not the current Government. No matter how many times the hon. Lady repeats that particular myth, it will not get off the ground. Her Bill would cost the NHS more rather than saving it any money, and on that basis, when it comes before the House, I shall be here.

Question put (Standing Order No. 23) and agreed to.

Ordered,

That Margaret Greenwood, Caroline Lucas, Dawn Butler, Stella Creasy, Nic Dakin, Peter Dowd, Mike Kane, Liz McInnes, Yasmin Qureshi, Marie Rimmer, Stephen Twigg and John Pugh present the Bill.

Margaret Greenwood accordingly presented the Bill.

Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on 4 November 2016 and to be printed (Bill 51).

Article 50: Parliamentary Approval

Debate between Philip Davies and John Bercow

Monday 11th July 2016 Commons Chamber

[Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)]

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

[Mr Speaker]

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

[Philip Davies]

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

European Council

Debate between Philip Davies and John Bercow

Monday 21st March 2016 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I would call the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mrs Trevelyan) if she were standing, but she is not so I cannot do so. There you are. You have a clue: if you stand, you will get in.

[Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)]

The Prime Minister has reiterated his Government’s support for Turkey’s accession to the European Union. In doing so, he helpfully pointed out that there would be no status quo option in the forthcoming referendum. What assessment has he made of the long-term effect on migration from Turkey, and of any additional costs to the UK taxpayer in increased contributions to the EU, if it were to join? Or is he in favour of Turkey’s accession to the EU at any price to the UK taxpayer?

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Philip Davies and John Bercow

Wednesday 9th March 2016 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

Order. There is far too much noise in the Chamber. Colleagues should be able to hear.

[Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)]

T8. A constituent of mine who works for Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs in Shipley has contacted me after being told by his managers that he is unable to help the campaign to leave the EU in the forthcoming referendum and even to deliver leaflets in his own time. Given that Government Ministers are free to campaign in a personal capacity to leave the EU, why are the Government not extending the same courtesy to civil servants?

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Philip Davies and John Bercow

Tuesday 5th January 2016 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I think it is a case of wishing the hon. Gentleman a happy birthday.

[Philip Davies]

Thank you very much, Mr Speaker—much appreciated.

Children who have suffered the trauma of abuse may benefit from a range of therapeutic services, but there is a lack of consistent data about the number of abused children in need of therapeutic support and the number of services available. Can the Minister assure me that as part of plans to transform children’s mental health, the needs of abused children will be properly monitored and considered at every level?

Syria

Debate between Philip Davies and John Bercow

Thursday 26th November 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

Let us hear piercing directness and brevity from Mr Philip Davies.

[Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)]

I am prepared to support the Prime Minister in military action against Islamic State, which poses a severe and direct threat to us, but not against Assad, who does not. I want an ISIS-only strategy, rather than an ISIS-first strategy. Will the Prime Minister confirm that the motion he brings forward will be tightly defined and will include military action only against Islamic State, and that it will not give him wiggle room to go ahead and attack Assad on the back of that?

Benefit Sanctions Regime (Entitlement to Automatic Hardship Payments)

Debate between Philip Davies and John Bercow

Tuesday 27th October 2015 Commons Chamber

[Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)]

I rise to oppose the Bill, but congratulate the hon. Member for Ochil and South Perthshire (Ms Ahmed-Sheikh) on promoting it. She used to be a member of the Conservative party, but she has certainly regressed since those heady days. It seems a long time since she espoused any Conservative principles—she certainly did not do so today.

I would not want people who are listening to this debate to run away with the idea that people across the country and across this House are opposed to benefits sanctions in the way set out by the hon. Lady. In fact, many of us are very supportive of the sanctions regime. To start with, we should point out that sanctions have always played a part in this country’s benefits system—it is not this Government who introduced them. They have always been an essential part of the benefits regime, to make sure that people do what they are requested to do in return for those benefits.

Many of my constituents contact me to say that they think that the requirements on people who claim benefits, which taxpayers pay for through their taxes, should be even more onerous, not less so, as the hon. Lady seems to suggest. I refute her starting point, which is that sanctions are a bad thing. In my opinion sanctions are a good thing, and the least the taxpayer should expect is that people abide by the requirements that are understandably made of them in return for claiming benefits.

On the hardship fund, which the Bill directly refers to, the hon. Lady seemed to peddle some information that may not turn out to be quite as it seems. It should be pointed out that jobseekers who are sanctioned can apply for a hardship payment that is equivalent to 60% of their normal benefit claim, and those on jobseeker’s allowance who are seriously ill or pregnant can receive 80% of their normal benefit payment. If the hon. Lady wants it to go any higher than that, and if people are just going to have their sanction replaced in full by a hardship payment, there would be no point in having any sanctions in the first place, so I refute her point.

The hon. Lady should have pointed out in her remarks—this makes her Bill rather redundant—that those with children, all ESA recipients and anyone categorised as vulnerable can claim hardship payments from day one of their sanction. She omitted to say that in her speech. She was trying to give the impression that that is not the case, but it is the case. Although other jobseekers cannot claim for the first 14 days of a sanction, the most vulnerable people are already protected. Contrary to the point she made, claimants are regularly told about the availability of hardship payments throughout their claimant journey, and improvements have been made to the payment process to ensure that payments are made within three days. The vast majority who apply do receive hardship payments.

The hon. Lady mentioned the independent review of sanctions and the Select Committee report. She should bear it in mind that Matthew Oakley, who led the independent review of JSA sanctions, said that sanctions are

“a key element of the mutual obligation that underpins both the effectiveness and fairness of the social security system”.

She did not manage to point that out in her remarks. She spoke about the Select Committee report, but the Chairman has said that he was

“pleased that the Government has accepted many of the Committee’s criticisms of its approach and…the recommendations for change.”

Hardship payments are already available to the most vulnerable people from day one of a sanction, and most people in the country support the principle of sanctions when claimants do not fulfil their obligations. I must say, Mr Speaker, that there is a book as thick as you like of the reasons people may avoid being sanctioned. The idea that people can just miss a five-minute appointment once and are automatically sanctioned is for the birds. That may well be the tale they go and tell the hon. Lady in her surgery, perhaps because they want her sympathy when they go and tell her their tale. I suspect that the truth about why they have been sanctioned is often very different from the tale they tell her. I am sorry that she just seems to accept what they say hook, line and sinker, without any criticism whatever. I know that SNP Members do not like to hear any criticism. They are not used to it in Scotland, but they had better get used to it in this House. [Interruption.] SNP Members would do well to listen to other people’s opinions from time to time. They may learn something. [Interruption.]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. Mr Angus Brendan MacNeil, you have yet to reach the apogee of statesmanship, which is my long-term ambition for you. Calm, like the colleagues to your left and right, is the right course—calm!

[Philip Davies]

To try to get the hon. Gentleman to become a statesman may be beyond even you and your skills, Mr Speaker.

Given that the most vulnerable already have access to hardship payments from day one and that the sanctions regime in itself is a good thing, given that what the hon. Lady proposes goes way beyond the recommendations of the Oakley review and even way beyond the recommendations of the Select Committee, and given that people are already informed about the hardship payments throughout their claimant journey, her Bill is not only bad—if anyone adopted her strategy—but completely unnecessary.

I do not intend to deprive the hon. Lady of her day in the limelight by pressing the Bill to a Division, but I thought it worth while pointing out that many Members of the House and, more importantly, many people in the country, do not accept her criticisms of the sanctions regime for benefits.

Question put (Standing Order No. 23) and agreed to.

Ordered,

That Ms Tasmina Ahmed-Sheikh, Hannah Bardell, Mrs Sharon Hodgson, Caroline Lucas, Ms Margaret Ritchie, Liz Saville Roberts, Naz Shah, Dr Eilidh Whiteford and Corri Wilson present the Bill.

Ms Tasmina Ahmed-Sheikh accordingly presented the Bill.

Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 4 December, and to be printed (Bill 85).

Welfare Reform and Work Bill (Programme No. 3)

Ordered,

That the Order of 20 July 2015 (Welfare Reform and Work Bill (Programme)) be varied as follows:

(1) Paragraphs (4) and (5) of the Order shall be omitted.

(2) Proceedings on Consideration shall be taken in the order shown in the first column of the following Table.

(3) The proceedings shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at the times specified in the second column of the Table.

Finance Bill

Debate between Philip Davies and John Bercow

Monday 26th October 2015 Commons Chamber

[Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. The hon. Member for Wolverhampton South West (Rob Marris) is droning on about all sorts of stuff. My understanding is that Third Readings are supposed to be about what is in the Bill, not just a general drone about the economy. Will you rule on that, Mr Speaker? [Interruption.]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I was listening closely, and allowing the hon. Member for Wolverhampton South West (Rob Marris) some latitude, but the thrust of the point of order is correct. I should emphasise that this is not a portmanteau debate for the airing of a miscellany of grievances. This is a relatively narrow Third Reading about what is in the Bill, upon which I know the hon. Gentleman will now dilate for the remaining two and a half minutes.

Redcar Steelworks

Debate between Philip Davies and John Bercow

Thursday 15th October 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call Philip Davies

[Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)]

indicated dissent.

[Mr Speaker]

I thought the hon. Gentleman was standing—I had been so advised. Never mind; it is a rarity that he does not wish to contribute. I call Mr Alan Mak.

Point of Order

Debate between Philip Davies and John Bercow

Thursday 15th October 2015 Commons Chamber

[Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. In business questions, the hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart) mentioned the conference season. Surely it is unacceptable in this day and age that Parliament goes for three weeks without any scrutiny of the Government. Surely the political parties can organise their conferences at weekends so that Parliament can continue to sit. Is there anything that you can do to help to facilitate this and to make the political parties have their conferences at weekends so that the House can continue to scrutinise the Government during that period?

[Mr Speaker]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his point of order, of which I had no advance notice, but about which fact I make no complaint whatever. I simply say to him the following: first, at the moment it is a matter for the parties, though potentially it could be the subject of a resolution by the House.

Secondly, I think that there is a psychic quality about the hon. Gentleman, because I have, in very recent days, penned words on this very matter that might appear in an organ of note within the House soon. As so often, I find myself very much in agreement with the hon. Gentleman. This is our main place of work. This is where people expect us to be. The idea that, because voluntary organisations choose to hold a voluntary gathering, we should absent ourselves from our main place of work for three weeks has long struck me as incongruous. It appears that it also strikes the Scottish National party as incongruous, as it seems perfectly capable of organising a substantial conference on a Thursday, Friday and Saturday, thereby not necessitating a further week of absenting from parliamentary business. I think I had better leave it there for now.

[Philip Davies]

For now?

[Mr Speaker]

Only for now. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman.

Greece

Debate between Philip Davies and John Bercow

Monday 6th July 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

Order. Accommodating remaining colleagues will require brevity, to be exemplified by Mr Philip Davies.

[Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)]

Is not the genesis of the problem that the EU allowed Greece to fiddle the figures in order to join the euro in the first place? Is not this blinkered pursuit of a political project of ever-closer union, rather than thinking through the economic consequences, the reason why we need to leave the European Union?

Business of the House

Debate between Philip Davies and John Bercow

Thursday 18th June 2015 Commons Chamber

[Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)]

May we have a debate on the continued crossings of illegal immigrants across the Mediterranean? While it is perfectly understandable that people want to see people who are at risk of dying rescued, many of my constituents are concerned that the Royal Navy is picking these people up and continuing their journey into the EU, rather than picking them up, turning them round and taking them back to where they came from. Is it now the Government’s policy to give safe passage to any illegal immigrant seeking to enter the EU or the UK, provided they can prove that their journey is dangerous and life-threatening?

[Mr Speaker]

Order. Before the Leader of the House replies, can I very gently remind the House—this is not with specific reference to what we have just heard, but more generally—that questions should relate to next week’s business and include a request for a statement or a debate?

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Philip Davies and John Bercow

Thursday 26th February 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

Order. Progress is very slow and we must speed up matters. We can be guided in that by a legendary parliamentarian, Mr Philip Davies.

[Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)]

Will my hon. Friend confirm that, aside from the strong record he has outlined, about 80% of the growth in female employment in the past four years has come in managerial, professional and technical professions?

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Philip Davies and John Bercow

Thursday 12th February 2015 Commons Chamber

[Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)]

Can the Secretary of State tell us: how much this country has handed over in membership fees alone to the European Union since it became a member of the Common Market; what our cumulative trade deficit has been since we joined the Common Market; what our trade deficit was last year with the European Union; in how many years we have had a trade surplus with the EU since we joined the Common Market; what proportion of the world economy the EU made up when we joined the Common Market; and what proportion of the world economy the EU is today?

[Mr Speaker]

That sounds like a request for an essay. It needs to be an extremely pithy one.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Philip Davies and John Bercow

Monday 2nd February 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I think we will finish with a dose of Davies. I call Mr Philip Davies.

[Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)]

I have asked Bradford council to supply details of the amount of money it raises in council tax from each ward across the Bradford district. I would have thought that would have been readily available information for any local authority, but Bradford council keeps refusing to publish it, claiming that it does not even have it. We all know why: the council does not want to show how much is contributed in council tax from the Shipley constituency and how little goes back to that constituency. May I therefore ask the Secretary of State whether he will make it a statutory duty for local authorities to publish details of how much council tax they receive from each ward in their area?

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Philip Davies and John Bercow

Thursday 29th January 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

That is useful to all of us, and in particular to the hon. Member for Clacton (Douglas Carswell), who would not otherwise have known of it.

[Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)]

You will be aware, Mr Speaker, that I raised with the Prime Minister last week the plight of Murphy, a dog who had been stolen in Bradford—one of a spate of dog thefts in the local area. Does the Minister think microchipping will help to reduce the number of dog thefts, and what other steps is his Department taking to ensure that we see fewer of these terrible instances?

Business of the House

Debate between Philip Davies and John Bercow

Thursday 8th January 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I thank the hon. Member for Wythenshawe and Sale East (Mike Kane) for what he has said and the Leader of the House for his reply. Paul Goggins was hugely respected and much loved across the House and what has been said today will offer some comfort and succour to his family. That is greatly appreciated.

[Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)]

May we have a debate on how the honours list is determined? Mr Peter Smith, the Tour de France project co-ordinator for Leeds council, was awarded an MBE in the new year's honours list, which was, I am sure, well merited, but does that not go to show what a glaring omission it was that Gary Verity, who brought the Tour de France to Yorkshire, was ignored? In that debate we can perhaps show the strength of feeling in Yorkshire that Gary Verity should receive a knighthood for what he did, which I hope will be addressed as soon as possible. In any such debate, we could also perhaps discuss the merits of a knighthood for Geoffrey Boycott who, as the Leader of the House knows, is a rival to him as the greatest living Yorkshireman.

East Coast Main Line

Debate between Philip Davies and John Bercow

Thursday 27th November 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

Order. Extreme brevity is now required. Let us be led by Mr Philip Davies.

[Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)]

Thank you, Mr Speaker. As the Secretary of State knows, I have long lobbied for additional railway services on the east coast line to Shipley and Bradford, so I very much welcome his statement today. Will he confirm exactly how many additional services there will be to Shipley and Bradford, when they will come on track and what can be done to try to speed up the process?

Sex and Relationships Education (Curriculum)

Debate between Philip Davies and John Bercow

Tuesday 21st October 2014 Commons Chamber

[Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)]

I rise to oppose the Bill of the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Diana Johnson), but I should begin by congratulating her on the impressive doughnut she managed to arrange for herself, masking the fact that the people around the doughnut were the only Members on her side actually in the Chamber at the time. I give her full marks for her doughnut, which was better than her speech.

When a politician is faced with a problem—this is not necessarily a party political point—their solution always incorporates two ingredients. The first ingredient is that they have got to be seen to be doing something. I long for the day when a Minister stands up at the Dispatch Box and says, “Actually, that’s got nothing to do with the Government; that is for people to sort out for themselves.” They never do, however; politicians always want to highlight how important and powerful they are. The second ingredient in their solution is that what they propose does not really offend anybody. As long as they can come up with something that looks as if they are doing something and does not really offend anybody, that will be the solution they will go for, even if it will not make a blind bit of difference to the problem. [Interruption.] The hon. Lady’s speech today was a prime example of a politician who wants to be seen to be doing something with a proposal that does not really offend anybody, and which will make absolutely no difference at all to the problem she has rightly highlighted. [Interruption.]

The hon. Lady talks about the importance of dealing—[Interruption.] I know that Opposition Members are so intolerant of other people’s opinions that they do not like to listen to them—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. The hon. Gentleman was, I think, being heard, because he rarely has any difficulty in making himself heard, but the hon. Gentleman must be heard.

[Philip Davies]

Thank you very much, Mr Speaker.

When the hon. Lady talks about the problems of child abuse, everybody agrees; of course we all agree that there is a massive problem with child abuse and it needs to be tackled. She highlighted the problems we found in Rotherham, but I am not sure most of my constituents would think the answer to that is to make sex education compulsory. Actually, I think what most people identified as the problem was the culture of political correctness that Labour councils up and down the country were cultivating, which prevented good people from speaking out about the disgusting things that were happening. If the hon. Lady had introduced an anti-political correctness Bill in Labour local authorities, it might have actually made some real difference. Trying to pretend that the solution to this problem is compulsory sex education is completely ludicrous.

We have been having sex education in our schools for more than 40 years, and it was supposedly going to solve things such as teenage pregnancies and unwanted pregnancies. Most of my constituents would probably conclude that the more sex education we have had since the early 1970s, the more teenage pregnancies and unwanted pregnancies we have had. [Interruption.] Perhaps somebody might look at the evidence—[Interruption.] I know Opposition Members do not want to hear this, but they might want to look at the evidence and then they might think that perhaps we should try less sex education in schools—or perhaps, even better, no sex education at all. That might be a better tactic. [Interruption.]

I will point out—[Interruption.]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. Fiona Mactaggart, you are an excessively excitable individual on occasion. Calm yourself and seek to behave with restraint, and as the aspiring stateswoman you should want to be.

[Philip Davies]

Thank you, Mr Speaker. The Labour party is known for its intolerance of other people’s opinions. I am just pleased Labour Members are highlighting that so effectively today.

The sex education fanatics always point to Holland, because in Holland they have lots of sex education at a very young age and they have very low levels of teenage pregnancy, but the sex education fanatics never mention Italy. Italy has equally low levels of teenage pregnancies and unwanted pregnancies, but has very little sex education. A few years ago I looked at what Holland and Italy had in common, because then we might find out the true solution. What they have in common—and have had in common for many years—is that they have much closer family units, where families are much more likely to do things such as eat meals together. They have also historically been spectacularly ungenerous to single mothers in the benefits system and the housing allocation system. If we want to tackle issues such as teenage pregnancies and unwanted pregnancies, it would be much better to look at the benefit systems and the housing allocation system. That would make much more of a difference than this ridiculous obsession with more and more sex education.

As sex education has failed, people like the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull North have said, “Actually, what we need is more sex education.” As we have had more sex education, however, the problem has got worse, as she has highlighted. She then changes tack and says, “Actually, what we need is better sex education.” Actually, one day everybody will have to conclude that what we need is less sex education, or even better, none.

The hon. Lady spectacularly failed to mention the role of parents. The message we should be giving to parents is this: “Being a parent is a very responsible business. You should not enter into it lightly and there are things that only parents can do and are expected to do, because the state cannot fulfil the role of a parent for you.” We have got ourselves into a problem by saying, “If you’re a parent, don’t worry about what you do. Don’t worry about whether you’re doing a good job, because if you don’t do a good job of it—if you don’t care about it—the state will pick up the pieces for you.” That is an appalling message to send out to people. We should be saying, “This is a serious business and an important matter and there are certain things that are your responsibility alone, and the state cannot take those functions away.”

Some parents may well be bad at teaching sex education, but who is to say that all teachers are good at teaching sex education? It may well be that many teachers are not very good at teaching sex education and that the parent would have been the best person to teach it to the child. We should not forget that point.

My job as a parent is to bring up my children with my values and the values I think are important to instil in them. I do not want my children to have the teacher’s values instilled in them, whether or not I like or support them. These are things that should be done by parents and parents alone. Teachers should be there to teach children about things parents are not capable of teaching, not about the things that parents should be teaching if they were doing their job properly.

If we want to tackle the problem of child abuse—which we all want to do in this House—let us look at the root causes: the political correctness of the Labour party that caused the problems in Rotherham. Let us not go down the route of this nanny state version of a Bill which is a complete waste of time and will make absolutely no difference at all, but fulfils the role I mentioned at the start, of a politician who wants to look as if they are doing something proposing something that does not really offend anybody. It offends me, and it offends people out in the country.

I will not delay the House by calling for a Division, as there is an important debate coming up and I would not want to highlight how silly some of the Labour Members are in the Lobby. So we will just leave it at that, but I hope this Bill goes absolutely nowhere.

Question put and agreed to.

Ordered,

That Diana Johnson, Simon Danczuk, Sarah Champion, Kevin Barron, John Healey, Mrs Sharon Hodgson, Lyn Brown, Barbara Keeley, Roberta Blackman-Woods, Andrew Gwynne and Wayne David present the Bill.

Diana Johnson accordingly presented the Bill.

Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 21 November, and to be printed (Bill 101).

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Philip Davies and John Bercow

Tuesday 14th October 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

The hon. Member for Shipley (Philip Davies) has been kept waiting, but his moment has arrived.

[Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)]

8. What costs were incurred by his Department in prosecuting the case of Vasiliki Pryce in both of her trials at Southwark Crown court.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Philip Davies and John Bercow

Tuesday 9th September 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

Mr Graham Allen. Not here.

[Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)]

3. What assessment he has made of the availability of books to prisoners.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Speaker]

Mr David Davis. Not here.

[Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)]

T4. The Secretary of State has long argued that we should increase magistrates’ sentencing powers to 12 months for one offence. I hope that he can now clear up some confusion on the issue, because that provision was a manifesto commitment which was then abolished under the Secretary of State’s disastrous predecessor. My amendment proposing the introduction of the new sentencing power was rejected by the Government as recently as June, but the Prime Minister has now told the Magistrates Association at a reception that it will happen before the next election. Can we clear up the question of where we actually are, and can we crack on with doing something that would save money and would also be incredibly popular?

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Philip Davies and John Bercow

Thursday 17th July 2014 Commons Chamber

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (George Eustice)]

We believe that, in the first instance, it is for food retailers and food outlets to provide their customers with reliable information. I know that my hon. Friend is a long-standing campaigner on this issue, but, as I have explained to him before, the introduction of a compulsory labelling scheme for halal and kosher meat would present challenges, because there is no single unified definition. Nevertheless, the European Commission is currently conducting a review, and we will consider its report when it is published later in the year. [Interruption.]

[Mr Speaker]

I hope that the health of the Secretary of State is unimpaired.

[Philip Davies]

That is one way of ingratiating oneself with a new Secretary of State, Mr Speaker.

Is the Minister aware that the Jewish and Muslim communities would be happy with full labelling of halal and kosher meat if all other meat products were also fully labelled to show the method of slaughter? I am sure that many consumers would want to see such labelling. Will the Minister proceed with the introduction of comprehensive labelling showing the method of slaughter, including halal and kosher, given that it clearly commands widespread support?

[Mr Speaker]

The Minister now has a chance to amend his career prospects.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Philip Davies and John Bercow

Thursday 3rd July 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

With extreme brevity please, Mr Philip Davies.

[Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)]

Earlier this week I visited GamCare at its headquarters in Clapham to see the wonderful work it does helping people with problem gambling. May I urge the Secretary of State and the Minister to go themselves to listen to the counsellors, as I did, and to get their perspective on what we can best do to help people who sadly develop a gambling addiction?

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Philip Davies and John Bercow

Monday 30th June 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I am in a generous mood so I will call Mr Davies and then I will give the hon. Member for Tamworth (Christopher Pincher) a chance to do better the second time round.

[Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)]

The people of Micklethwaite in my constituency are grateful to the Secretary of State for twice rejecting an inappropriate planning development there. Unfortunately, the Labour council has now approved a very similar development, with grave concerns from local residents about the planning process, and what appeared to be a whipped vote. Will the Secretary of State look into that to see whether he can intervene, and whether any rules can be brought in to stop repeat applications for the same site?

Criminal Justice and Courts Bill

Debate between Philip Davies and John Bercow

Monday 12th May 2014 Commons Chamber

[Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)]

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

[Mr Speaker]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

New clause 31—Tagged curfew on remand not to count towards time served—

‘(1) The Criminal Justice Act 2003 is amended as follows.

(2) In subsection (1B)(c) of section 237, leave out “or section 240A”.

(3) In the italic heading before section 240, after “custody”, leave out “or on bail subject to certain types of condition”.

(4) Leave out section 240A.’.

New clause 37—Open prisons: deportees—

‘No prisoner serving a sentence for which he is liable for deportation can be moved to a Category D prison.’.

New clause 38—Resettlement licence: deportees—

‘No prisoner serving a sentence for which he is liable for deportation can be eligible for resettlement licence.’.

New clause 39—Open prisons: murderers—

‘No prisoner serving a sentence for murder can be moved to a Category D prison.’.

New clause 40—Resettlement licence: murderers—

‘No prisoner serving a sentence for murder can be eligible for resettlement licence.’.

New clause 41—Open prisons: serious offenders—

‘No prisoner serving a sentence for an indictable only offence can be moved to a Category D prison.’.

New clause 42—Open prisons: victims—

‘No prisoner serving a life sentence can be moved to a Category D prison before the views of the victim or the victim’s family have been sought and considered by the Secretary of State for Justice.’.

New clause 2—Meeting a child following sexual grooming etc.—

‘(1) The Sexual Offences Act 2003 is amended as follows.

(2) In section 15(1)(a) (meeting a child following sexual grooming etc.) for “two”, substitute “one”.’.

At present, someone is only considered to be committing an offence if they contact the child twice and arrange to meet them or travel to meet them with the intention of committing a sexual offence. This new Clause would mean that the perpetrator would only have to make contact once.

New clause 3—Offence of abduction of child by other persons—

‘(1) The Child Abduction Act 1984 is amended as follows.

(2) In section 2(1) (offence of abduction of child by other person) for “sixteen”, substitute “eighteen”.’.

At present, there is a disparity between the ages that children must be to be considered to be abducted depending on whether they are in the care system or not. This new Clause would rectify this disparity and set a consistent age of under 18.

New clause 15—Aggravated offences against members of the armed forces—

‘(1) Part 12 (Sentencing) of the Criminal Justice Act 2003, is amended as follows.

(2) At the end of section 146, insert—

“147 Increase in sentences for aggravation related to membership of the Armed Forces

(1) This section applies where the court is considering the seriousness of an offence committed in any of the circumstances mentioned in subsection (2).

(2) Those circumstances are—

(a) that, at the time of committing the offence, or immediately before or after doing so, the offender demonstrated towards the victim of the offence hostility based on the victim being a former or serving member (or presumed former or serving member) of the armed forces or army reserve; and

(b) that the offence is motivated (wholly or partly) by hostility towards persons who are former or serving members of the armed forces.

(3) The court—

(a) must treat the fact that the offence was committed in any of those circumstances as an aggravating factor; and

(b) must state in open court that the offence was committed in such circumstances.

(4) It is immaterial for the purposes of paragraph (a) or (b) of subsection (2) whether or not the offender’s hostility is also based, to any extent, on any other factor not mentioned in that paragraph.

(5) In this section “armed forces” means Royal Navy, Army and Royal Air Force, both regular and reserve.’.

Amendment 20, in clause 18, page 17, line 29, leave out from ‘portrays’ to end of line 42 and insert

‘sexual activity which involves real or apparent lack of consent or any form of physical restraint which prevents participants from indicating a withdrawal of consent’.

[Philip Davies]

New clause 29 stands in my name and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Bury North (Mr Nuttall). I appreciate that with this group of amendments time is of the essence, so I will try to be as snappy as possible. I usually try to accommodate interventions, but I hope that Members will be mindful of the fact that there are amendments in the group that have been tabled by others. In the interests of time, and in order to allow everyone a fair lick of the sauce bottle, I will try to refrain from speaking to the amendments that do not stand in my name, even though there are things that I would like to say about them if time allowed.

New clause 29 would reverse the changes made in the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012 in relation to those who are eligible to be recalled to prison for just 28 days for breaching their licence. The Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008 amended the Criminal Justice Act 2003 to enable fixed-term recalls in the first place—one of the many shameful things done in the law and order field by the previous Labour Government. However, the 2012 Act further amended the 2003 Act to extend the use of fixed-term recalls to previously denied prisoners. That is another example of the previous Lord Chancellor, my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (Mr Clarke), being even more lax on law and order issues than the previous Labour Government. Many of us might have thought that that would be rather hard to achieve, but he managed it in that particular field.

Most people believe that when someone is let out of prison early, whether it be halfway through their sentence, a quarter of the way through on home detention curfew, or at some other point before they should be let out, if they reoffend during that time or breach their licence conditions, they should go back to prison to serve the rest of their original sentence—at the very least; one might even argue for sending them to prison for longer. Unfortunately, this is not only not always the case; it is often not the case, or may even never be the case at all.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Philip Davies and John Bercow

Wednesday 30th April 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I can scarcely hear the mellifluous tones of the Minister. There are far too many noisy private conversations taking place in the Chamber. I am sure that both the House and the nation will wish to hear Mr Philip Davies.

[Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)]

T3. In 2011-12, the TaxPayers Alliance found that trade unions received a subsidy from taxpayers of £113 million a year through direct grants and facility time. Does the Minister agree that any part-time or full-time union work should be paid by the unions rather than the taxpayer? Will he update the House on the progress made to reduce that unnecessary cost to the taxpayer?

Finance (No. 2) Bill

Debate between Philip Davies and John Bercow

Tuesday 1st April 2014 Commons Chamber

[Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)]

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

[Mr Speaker]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that point of order. His courtesy in the House is well known, as in general terms is his interest in the sector concerned. His omission was inadvertent and he has put the record straight at the first opportunity, and I thank him for doing so.

Tobacco Packaging

Debate between Philip Davies and John Bercow

Thursday 28th November 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

Order. We are dealing with an extremely important matter, which I judge as urgent, but we have business questions and two ministerial statements to follow, so the model is what might be called “the Gibraltar model” of Mr Nigel Evans, whereby a good exchange was had, but it was a brief one. I will not be able to accommodate everybody who wants to speak.

[Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)]

Idiotic, nanny state proposals such as the plain packaging of tobacco are what we expect from the Labour party. What we expect from Conservative Ministers is for them to believe in individual freedom and individual responsibility, and to stand up to the health zealots and nanny state brigade who, if they could, would ban everything and have everything in plain packaging. Will the Minister commit to sticking to those Conservative principles and to ignoring the nanny state brigade of Labour Members?

Business of the House

Debate between Philip Davies and John Bercow

Thursday 7th November 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

Order. People who work in the House of Commons are indeed paid the living wage. The right hon. Gentleman, the Leader of the House, is factually—[Interruption.] Order. The Leader of the House is correct in what he said. That is the beginning and the end of it.

[Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)]

I am sure that the whole House was shocked by the death of the young girl who was attacked by her dog earlier this week—our thoughts must be with her family. Will the Leader of the House arrange for an urgent review of the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Bill, because if its provisions on dangerous dogs go through, the mother of that young girl would face up to 14 years in prison, which would be a ridiculous unintended consequence of the legislation? Will he ensure that the Bill at least involves provision on intent, or that it is changed in other ways, to ensure that the mother of that young girl, who is going through enough trauma at the moment, does not face a ridiculously long prison sentence?

Gambling (Licensing and Advertising) Bill

Debate between Philip Davies and John Bercow

Tuesday 5th November 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

Order. For the record, that was an intervention from Mr Duddridge, but it was uttered from a sedentary position. It is better to stand up on these occasions.

[Philip Davies]

I very much agree, Mr Speaker. My hon. Friend’s idleness is not to be commended. I will bear that in mind in future and give priority to those who can be bothered to stand up when intervening.

The 95% figure is my hypothesis. Nobody here appears to disagree with it. If the Gambling Commission wants to supply us with information following the debate to gainsay that, I will be happy to read it, but I do not believe that anybody is seriously arguing that at least 95% of gambling takes place with people who are properly licensed and registered. The Government seem to have got themselves into a bit of a muddle. As I said in an intervention on my hon. Friend the Chairman of the Select Committee, the Government have not made it clear what they think is currently bet with illegal sites, but they have made a very good stab at guessing what will be bet with illegal sites after this Bill has come to fruition. The Treasury, which obviously has pound signs in its eyes as it sees the Bill progressing through Parliament, has already made its forecasts for the revenue it expects to get from it. The assessment of remote gambling taxation in its 2012 Budget policy costings suggests that if a place-of-consumption tax is imposed at a 15% rate, about 20% of the UK market will be unlicensed, unregulated and therefore not paying tax.

Private Landlords and Letting and Managing Agents (Regulation) Bill

Debate between Philip Davies and John Bercow

Friday 25th October 2013 Commons Chamber

[Philip Davies]

rose—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. We cannot have a Second Reading debate on the merits or otherwise of early-day motions. Although the signing proclivities of the hon. Member for Mansfield (Sir Alan Meale) may be a matter of some interest, it is not obvious that they are a source of illumination as regards the Bill, upon which I know the hon. Member for Shipley (Philip Davies) intends, with whatever reference to early-day motions, to focus his remarks.

[Philip Davies]

You are right, Mr Speaker. I certainly would not have mentioned early-day motions if they were not relevant to the Bill, as I hope you appreciate. The hon. Member for Mansfield misunderstood my point. I was commending him for signing so many early-day motions. It is a sign of how active he is as a Member of Parliament and I am grateful for the support that he has given me in the past.

The point that I was coming on to, which I hope Mr Speaker will agree is relevant, is that one early-day motion that appeared to escape the hon. Gentleman’s notice was No. 233, which was entitled “Regulation of the private rented sector”. It was tabled by the hon. Member for Edmonton (Mr Love) and had a great deal of support from the usual suspects, like the hon. Member for Islington North. It stated that the House

“notes with concern the Government’s decision to abandon plans for a national register of landlords and further regulation of the private rented sector; recognises that the private rented sector plays a significant role in supporting the housing market in the UK; believes that rogue landlords and letting agents continue to pose a threat to consumers in the private rented sector; further notes the statistic from the Office of Fair Trading that the number of complaints against rogue landlords and letting agents is on the rise; and calls on the Government to bring forward proposals immediately to create a national register of landlords and to propose further regulation of landlords and letting agents in the private rented sector.”

In relation to the views of the hon. Member for Mansfield, it seems to me that that early-day motion was very much on the money, but it was not among those that he signed. Perhaps he can tell us whether he just did not notice that one—so many are tabled that we cannot notice all of them, and I certainly miss them from time to time, as I am sure we all do—or whether his interest in the subject has been sparked more recently, whereas early-day motion 233 was tabled earlier in this Parliament. It was interesting to note that he had not signed it, given that it seems highly relevant to what he is trying to impose on us today.

Clause 1 would establish a mandatory national register of private landlords. That raises a number of questions about the purpose of such a register. What would it be used for? Who would use it? What would be achieved by such a register? Who would administer it? In subsection (2), a duty is

“placed on all private sector residential landlords to sign up to the Register, and to pay an annual registration fee and provide all the information prescribed in regulations by the Secretary of State as required in the Register.”

I have many concerns about that. The payment of an annual registration fee, which appears to be dictated by whoever is appointed or by the Secretary of State himself, seems to open up landlords to an unlimited cost.

What control will there be over the registration fee? The hon. Gentleman made it clear in his speech that he did not see such a fee resulting in any cost to the taxpayer, which must mean that he expects the whole cost to be covered by the landlord, presumably through their registration fee. However, as we all know, with any kind of bureaucracy we always end up with a narrow focus. I think the hon. Gentleman himself referred to envisaging a light touch, but such measures seldom end up as light touch. They always end up with some empire building and more and more costs being added. At the end of the day, the landlord will pick up the tab. If the Bill were to be enacted, not only would they be picking up a tab, they would be picking up an unlimited tab, because the fees will be out of their control.

Deep Sea Mining Bill

Debate between Philip Davies and John Bercow

Friday 6th September 2013 Commons Chamber

[Philip Davies]

My hon. Friend makes a very good point, and it should be considered. Again, the Minister may be able to address it.

[Mr Speaker]

Order. The hon. Gentleman is making a conscientious application to serve on the Bill Committee, where that matter, among many others to which he has briefly alluded, can be explored in further detail.

[Philip Davies]

I am very grateful to you for highlighting my pitch for me, in a far more eloquent way than I was, Mr Speaker, so that nobody could be in any doubt that I would, obviously, be delighted to serve on the Committee.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Philip Davies and John Bercow

Thursday 5th September 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

On that subject, I call Mr Philip Davies.

[Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)]

Does the Secretary of State agree that the biggest problem with the lack of diversity at the BBC is the political viewpoint of the people who work there? To that end, what is she saying to Lord Hall, who has started by recruiting James Purnell to a highly paid job without any advert whatsoever, and he has started to recruit his new Labour chums to senior positions in the BBC too? Does she agree that it should be the British Broadcasting Corporation, not the Blairite Broadcasting Corporation?

High Cost Credit Bill

Debate between Philip Davies and John Bercow

Friday 12th July 2013 Commons Chamber

[Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Is it in order for the person who proposes that the House sit in private neither to vote for that nor to be a Teller for that side during a vote?

[Mr Speaker]

The answer to the hon. Gentleman’s point of order is that nothing disorderly has occurred.

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

Debate between Philip Davies and John Bercow

Wednesday 10th July 2013 Commons Chamber

[Philip Davies]

rose—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I call Mr Philip Davies, and I am modestly confident that the contribution will be relatively brief as I feel sure that he will wish to get on with the consideration of amendment 10. Nevertheless, I have come back to hear colleagues and I wish to hear from the hon. Gentleman.

[Philip Davies]

Among your many other great qualities, Mr Speaker, you are clearly a mind reader. I was only just thinking to myself that I must be brief so that we could get on to the next group of amendments. I commend you for that.

I find myself in a rather difficult position. I usually agree totally with my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Mr Chope) in his amendments, which are always thoughtfully considered and well argued. He usually manages to persuade me. I am rather torn on this group of amendments, however, as although he has persuaded me on some of them he has not on others. My hon. Friend the Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman) has done a great job in making the case for the proposers of the Bill and articulating their side of the argument and, in some cases, he has persuaded me.

I am not entirely sure how this might operate, as I am not an expert in the procedures of the House—unlike you, Mr Speaker, and my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch—but I want to tell my hon. Friend which of his amendments I think are strongest and on which he might, if possible, wish to divide the House. Some of the amendments are stronger than others.

Some of my hon. Friend’s amendments are superficially attractive, as they generally are. He made a good point with amendments 1 and 2, which highlight provisions in the clause that are either bad or unnecessary. However, there is some merit in having some flexibility for the London boroughs in organising how they do business. There might be good reasons for trialling measures or introducing them at different times, and that flexibility should be allowed. The provisions might be superfluous but I do not see from listening to the arguments that they are particularly dangerous.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Philip Davies and John Bercow

Wednesday 5th June 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I want to hear Mr Davies, the voice of Shipley. Let us hear him.

[Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)]

Q11. I recently visited my brother in hospital in Doncaster only to find that using the television stationed above his bed would cost him £6 a day. Can the Prime Minister justify why it costs hospital patients £42 a week to watch the television when it costs prisoners only £1 a week to do so? If he cannot justify it, can he tell us what he is going to do about it?

Point of Order: Rectification Procedure

Debate between Philip Davies and John Bercow

Thursday 28th February 2013 Commons Chamber

[Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)]

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In March 2011 I accepted an invitation to Cheltenham races from Ladbrokes, which I properly and accurately registered in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. However, I failed to refer to my entry in the register when I tabled three parliamentary questions on problem gambling, when I led an Adjournment debate on problem gambling, and during an inquiry into the Gambling Act 2005 held by the Select Committee on Culture, Media and Sport, on which I serve and to which the chief executive of Ladbrokes gave evidence. A complaint was subsequently made to the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards. All other complaints made by the person concerned were dismissed.

As soon as I was made aware of the complaint, I told the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards that I believed that I should have referred to my entry on those occasions. My failure to do so was due not to a desire to conceal it—if that had been my motivation, I would not have registered my interest in the first place—but to an oversight, as I had forgotten about it. I offer that not as an excuse, Mr Speaker, because there is no excuse, but merely as an explanation. As soon I was aware of the complaint, I also apologised to the Select Committee, and offered to resign from it if any one of its members felt that I had acted improperly. I am very grateful to them all for accepting that mine had been a genuine error, and for saying that they did not believe that any impropriety had taken place.

I assure you, Mr. Speaker, that this benefit had no influence on my questions or speeches, or on the work or conclusions of the Select Committee, whose report was agreed unanimously. The Registrar for Members’ Financial Interests said in her letter:

“I should emphasise that there is no suggestion that Mr Davies’ behaviour was in fact influenced.”

Nevertheless, it was my duty to refer to my entry in the register on those occasions, and I failed to do so. It was therefore only right for me to take the earliest possible opportunity to apologise to you, Mr Speaker, and to the whole House. I hope that you and the House will accept my sincere apology for what was a genuine error.

[Mr Speaker]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his statement.

ROYAL ASSENT

Groceries Code Adjudicator Bill [Lords]

Debate between Philip Davies and John Bercow

Tuesday 26th February 2013 Commons Chamber

[Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)]

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

[Mr Speaker]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

New clause 2—Supplier turnover—

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

New clause 3—Sunsetting—

‘This Bill will expire in seven years from the date it receives Royal Assent.’.

New clause 4—Supplier headquarters—

‘Suppliers are not allowed to refer cases to the Adjudicator and cannot have cases referred on their behalf if they have their principal headquarters outside the European Union.’.

New clause 5—Supply source—

‘The provisions of this Act shall not apply to any supplies which are produced, manufactured or processed, in whole or in part, outside the European Union.’.

Amendment 28, in clause 12, page 4, line 32, at end insert—

‘(a) the nature and type of arbitrations to be conducted under section 3 including:

(i) the law applicable to an arbitration; and

(ii) where the arbitration should be conducted.’.

Amendment 3, in clause 13, page 5, line 18, at end insert—

‘(2) The Office of Fair Trading shall be required to publish a response to the Adjudicator on the recommendations set out in subsection (1) explaining whether they will be acted upon or not.’.

Amendment 30, page 5, line 18, at end add—

‘(3) In assessing changes that could be made to the Code, the Adjudicator shall give due consideration to—

(a) the territorial extent of the Code, especially in relation to activities of large retailers outwith the UK, including work done by subsidiaries of large retailers;

(b) whether intermediaries in the supply chain should be covered; and

(c) whether commercial pressures or criminal activity pose risks to consumer interests by potentially compromising standards of food safety, hygiene and food authenticity.’.

Amendment 33, page 5, line 18, at end add—

‘(3) In assessing changes that could be made to the Code, the Adjudicator shall give due consideration to—

(a) the territorial extent of the Code, especially in relation to activities of large retailers outwith the UK, including work done by subsidiaries of large retailers;

(b) whether intermediaries in the supply chain should be covered.’.

Amendment 34, in clause 14, page 5, line 31, at end insert—

‘(4A) The report must include details of any incidents that have come to the Adjudicator’s attention during the reporting period in which breaches of the Groceries Code or commercial pressure on retailers have led or may have led to actual or potential cases of compromised—

(a) food safety;

(b) food hygiene; and

(c) food authenticity.’.

Amendment 35,  page 5, line 34, at end add—

‘(c) the Food Standards Agency.’.

Amendment 27, in cause 25, page 11, leave out lines 7 to 12 and insert

‘This Act shall come into force two months after Royal Assent.’.

[Philip Davies]

New clause 1 stands in my name and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Bury North (Mr Nuttall).

I do not want you to think, Mr Speaker, that my speech would be better suited to a debate on Second or Third Reading, but it is important that I give some context as to why new clauses 1, 2 and 3—which all stand in my name—are important.

I do not have any interest to declare, but I do have considerable experience that is relevant to the Bill. Before entering Parliament in 2005 I spent the previous 12 years working for Asda. I spent four years working in-store and eight years working at the head office in Leeds, so I have first-hand knowledge of how the supermarket industry works. To be perfectly honest, it works in a completely different way from the way in which people might be forgiven for thinking it works if they listened to previous debates on the matter. We have been given to believe that terrible, shocking, awful, nasty supermarkets care nothing about their suppliers, that their only role in life is to screw their suppliers into the ground and leave them destitute—bankrupt, if we are to believe previous debates—and that the only way to prevent that from happening is to have this ridiculous adjudicator, which is the Bill’s premise. That argument is complete and utter nonsense—that is not how it works at all.

--- Later in debate ---

[Philip Davies]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend, and again, I take his intervention as a signal that he will support my amendment. That brings us on to the nub—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I do not wish to interrupt the hon. Gentleman for any length of time, still less to be discourteous to him, but above all I would not want the House to be inadvertently misled. He has no amendments in this group, but he does have a series of new clauses tabled, if memory serves me, in his name and that of the hon. Member for Bury North (Mr Nuttall), namely new clauses 1 to 3, on which I know the House will now focus with beady eyes.

[Philip Davies]

I am grateful, Mr Speaker, and you are absolutely right, as ever. My hon. Friend the Member for Sherwood (Mr Spencer) seems to indicate that he is prepared to support new clauses 1 and 2, and I will be grateful to him for that. It seems that the longer we go on, the more support I am garnering for my case, so I am encouraged to go on a bit longer.

--- Later in debate ---

[Philip Davies]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend. We were told that that was exactly the purpose of the Bill in the first place. When it was being sold to us, nobody said it would benefit Procter & Gamble. As has been rightly said, if we want the adjudicator’s time freed up to look after the small suppliers, we do not want its time being taken up by these big multinational corporations.

As it happens, I am going to say something that might seem controversial, but to be perfectly honest I do not particularly care. If supermarkets are going around screwing Procter & Gamble into the ground to get the cheapest possible price to pass on to their customers, I say, “Good on them!” Procter & Gamble’s profits will not be massively impacted on by the supermarkets. I want supermarkets to negotiate robustly with big companies in order to get prices down for my constituents. The Labour party is supposed to support the working person—the people on fixed incomes—but the early indications are that its Members will vote to protect Procter & Gamble’s interests over the interests of their constituents. What on earth has the Labour party come to, when it sides with Procter & Gamble?

It is not just Procter & Gamble, however. We have Harvest Energy, Green Energy Fuels, Imperial Tobacco, Arla Foods and Gallaher—the top suppliers to supermarkets. The naive people who think that the adjudicator will not empire build are living in cloud cuckoo land. If they think that the adjudicator will not look into all sorts of things, they obviously have no experience of these matters.

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I am slightly concerned that the hon. Gentleman has been diverted from the path of virtue on which he embarked some minutes ago. He was talking specifically about his new clauses, but he has since taken a series of interventions that, in a sense, have caused the debate to elide into a Second Reading consideration of the merits or otherwise of adjudicators and so on. I know that he will want to return to the terms of his new clauses, on which, of course, he can expand at such length as he sees fit, as I am sure he will. I call Mr Philip Davies.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Speaker]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. I am sure he is seeking to be helpful, but I thought I had myself made the point perfectly adequately that the hon. Member for Shipley (Philip Davies) would wish to return to the terms of his new clauses, which are themselves entirely orderly.

[Philip Davies]

I am grateful, Mr Speaker, but people ought to be aware that the Bill leaves great scope for the adjudicator to decide what to do. People should not have too much faith. The Bill deliberately gives it massive power and freedom.

--- Later in debate ---

[Andrew George]

The hon. Gentleman is, in truth, arguing for the abolition of all the competition authorities. That seems to be the direction that his argument is taking. In fact, clause 4 makes it clear that the decision to investigate would be made if the adjudicator had reasonable grounds for suspecting a breach of the code, and clause 10 makes it clear that any supplier who brought a complaint that was “vexatious or…without merit” would be required to pay some or all of the costs involved. Paragraph 48 of the Competition Commission’s final report stated that it envisaged that the groceries code adjudicator

“would prioritize the resources of its office to focus on those disputes and complaints concerning suppliers without market power over and above those concerning suppliers of major branded products that have market power.”

It is clear that such decisions must be made by the adjudicator, and I am perfectly content that the Bill has the capacity to ensure that that description—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I am loth to interrupt the hon. Gentleman in mid-flow, but interventions seem to be becoming progressively longer. There is no problem about their frequency, but there is about their length. We must now hear from Mr Philip Davies.

[Philip Davies]

I am grateful to you, Mr Speaker.

The hon. Member for St Ives (Andrew George) misreads the Bill, but I will come to the point about the recovery of investigation costs when we debate the other groups of amendments. The Bill does not say that those costs have to be recovered in that way; it says that they “may” be recovered. He seems to have huge faith in allowing the adjudicator to do just as it pleases, but I do not want it to do just as it pleases. I want it to follow strict rules that will prevent it from empire building, and that is part of the purpose of my new clauses.

Offshore Gambling Bill

Debate between Philip Davies and John Bercow

Friday 25th January 2013 Commons Chamber

[Philip Davies]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[Mr Speaker]

Order. May I just say, with reference to what has been said, that periodic reference to and use of the word “offshore” because it is part of the title of a Bill does not render orderly an intervention that is otherwise disorderly?

[Philip Davies]

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way, but would she accept that most of the corruption she mentions with regard to sport and gambling has had nothing to do with any UK-based company or even one based in Gibraltar? It has been fuelled by illegal activity in the far east—perhaps that is why she got mixed up on China earlier. Any changes to regulation here would make no difference at all to that illegal betting activity in the far east.

Voting Age

Debate between Philip Davies and John Bercow

Thursday 24th January 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call Natascha Engel.

[Philip Davies]

rose—

[Mr Speaker]

I am calling the hon. Lady because only recently have Members on the Government Benches started standing, which is perfectly within their prerogative. I am saving them up.

Unduly Lenient Sentences (Right of Appeal)

Debate between Philip Davies and John Bercow

Tuesday 22nd January 2013 Commons Chamber

[Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)]

I won’t be talking that one out.

[Mr Speaker]

I am sure that the hon. Member for Dartford (Gareth Johnson) is very grateful for that assurance, which will be noted in the record. I do not think that it is very likely to be repeated.

Transforming Rehabilitation

Debate between Philip Davies and John Bercow

Wednesday 9th January 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I am keen to accommodate the extensive interest in this important statement, but I remind the House that this is an Opposition day with significantly subscribed debates to follow. Therefore, if I am to succeed in my mission to accommodate colleagues I require their help in the form of succinct questions, an object lesson in which will now be provided, I feel sure, by Mr Philip Davies.

[Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)]

I warmly support the thrust of my right hon. Friend’s proposals, but the thorny issue is about what constitutes a successful outcome on payment by results. I have met people in the probation service who think that reducing reoffending from 10 burglaries a month to two is a success. Will my right hon. Friend assure me that that will not be considered a success and that only no reoffending will be considered a successful outcome?

Prisons (Property) Bill

Debate between Philip Davies and John Bercow

Friday 30th November 2012 Commons Chamber

[Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)]

I beg to move amendment 2, page 1, line 9, leave out ‘,’ and insert

‘or any other location that the prisoner attends while in custody,’.

[Mr Speaker]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Amendment 3, line 16, after ‘prison’, insert ‘or prison officer’.

Amendment 4, line 23, at end insert—

‘(d) for any unauthorised or unlawful purpose.’.

Amendment 5, page 2, line 9, at end insert

‘recycling it or donating it to any charity.’.

Amendment 6, line 12, leave out from ‘force’ to end of line 14 and insert

‘and which is held by the prison on that date;’.

Amendment 7, line 15 , leave out paragraph (b).

Amendment 8, line 17, leave out from second ‘article’ to end of line 20 and insert

‘covered by this Act if it had been in force at the time the items were seized.’.

Amendment 9, line 20, at end insert—

‘(1A) The power under subsection (1) shall not be exercisable in relation to anything which might contain or constitute evidence of a criminal offence.’.

[Philip Davies]

This is a rare situation for me. We have come to the second private Member’s Bill of the day, both of which I wholeheartedly support—an unusual occurrence for a Friday. I find myself in a slightly uncomfortable situation in that regard. I have tabled the amendments not to bury the Bill, but to try to improve it. It is already an excellent Bill, but it could be further strengthened. I hope to persuade my hon. Friend the Member for Pudsey (Stuart Andrew), whom I congratulate on getting the Bill to this stage, that my amendments would enhance his Bill, and I will give it my best shot.

I begin by congratulating you, Mr Speaker, on not selecting my first amendment. It is what is known, I believe, as a consequential amendment, and it suggested leaving out the word “or” and inserting a comma instead. The House would probably not have wanted to have had a Division on such a lead amendment, so I congratulate you on not indulging the House with it. The other amendments are well worthy of at least consideration.

On the disposal of unauthorised or unattributable property, clause 1 states:

“an article found inside the prison or in a prisoner escort vehicle”.

Amendment 2 suggests an addition to include:

“any other location that the prisoner attends while in custody,”

Obviously, the Bill covers the prison and prison escort vehicles—that is perfectly reasonable. I am concerned, however, about all the other places prisoners might find themselves while in custody. It would be bizarre if something was not covered because of a technicality—because the prisoner did not happen to be in prison or a prisoner escort vehicle at the time.

Disabled Persons’ Parking Badges Bill

Debate between Philip Davies and John Bercow

Friday 9th November 2012 Commons Chamber

[Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)]

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

[Mr Speaker]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

New clause 2—Misuse of parking badge—

‘Anyone found guilty of knowingly allowing another to use their disabled parking badge shall be liable on summary conviction to fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale.’.

New clause 3—Use of stolen disabled parking badge—

‘Anyone found guilty of using a stolen disabled parking badge will receive a minimum custodial sentence of six months.’.

Amendment 1, in clause 2, page 2, line 18, at end insert ‘in writing’.

Amendment 4, page 2, line 18, at end insert

‘the written notification must be sent by registered post and signed for by the applicant or someone living at that address.’.

Amendment 2, in clause 3, page 2, line 34, at end insert—

‘(c) it is a defence to the offence in this section if a new valid parking badge has been issued that covers the time the badge was used or if the person being prosecuted has not received notification of the cancellation of the badge in question.’.

Amendment 3, page 2, line 35, at end insert

‘in subsection (4C), leave out the words after “on summary conviction to’ to end of line and insert “a custodial sentence not exceeding one month”.’.

Amendment 8, page 2, line 35, at end insert

‘after subsection (6) insert—

‘(6A) An issuing authority has a duty to send out badges that are being renewed no less than three weeks prior to the date of expiration of the badge in question provided the applicant has completed the necessary paperwork by the authority’s deadline for such paperwork.”.’.

Amendment 9, page 2, line 35, at end insert

‘after subsection (6) insert—

‘(6A) An issuing authority has a duty to invite members of the badge scheme in writing to renew their membership two months before the badge is due to lapse.”.’.

[Philip Davies]

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Kemptown (Simon Kirby) on his great achievement in getting this far with his private Member’s Bill. He has steered it through with his customary charm and skill. I very much hope that it will find its way on to the statute book and that it will make further progress today, but I believe that the Bill could be improved in some areas, so my amendments are proposed in a spirit of constructiveness more than anything else. I have not given up hope that he may be persuaded that some, if not all, of my amendments would greatly enhance not just the Bill’s wording but the spirit of what he is trying to achieve.

I should make it clear from the start that this subject is very close to my heart. Members may know that before I entered Parliament I spent many a year working for Asda. During that time, I was delighted to have the role of trying to improve the facilities and services for our disabled customers. The biggest issue that they used to complain about, by a considerable distance and without any real competition, was disabled parking—the abuse of disabled parking spaces and the fact that they found it difficult to get them and that there was a lack of them.

I spent a great deal of time considering that particular issue and was very proud to be a member of a campaign called baywatch. Before anybody gets the wrong idea, it had nothing to do with Pamela Anderson or people dashing around in red swimsuits and bikinis. The campaign was set up to improve disabled parking. Its members were the four major supermarket chains, as well as disability groups such as the Disabled Drivers Motor Club, the Disabled Drivers Association and Scope, which used to host our monthly meetings; Disability Now magazine was also an active participant.

Parking badges were without doubt one of the biggest problems, and the solutions are not as easy as people may think. I will not go through all the problems but I want to touch on why we need to tread carefully. People have blue badges for good reason—they have them because they need them to park close to where they need to go—but complications arise when, for example, somebody has been on holiday and broken their leg. They would not qualify for a blue badge, because they are reserved for people with more permanent conditions, but that person is incapacitated, albeit temporarily, and might need a parking space close to the store. The issue is not always as black and white as people may want it to be; shades of grey and nuances have to be taken into consideration.

I have spoken to organisations that represent people with disabilities who are particularly exercised by the problem of disabled parking, and my amendments are based on some of their thoughts. They would strengthen my hon. Friend’s Bill, and I hope he will be persuaded of the need to do that.

New clause 1 is fairly straightforward and self-explanatory:

“Anyone found guilty of knowingly using a fraudulent parking badge will receive a minimum custodial sentence of three months.”

The Bill, although excellent, is rather silent on the penalties for people who break the rules. These are serious offences and they should be treated as such.

One reason why we needed the baywatch group in the first place and why many people with disabilities are so exercised about this matter is the scale of the problem. It is not something that happens on just a few occasions; it happens day in, day out. I urge hon. Members to go around places where there are disabled parking bays to see how many of the cars display a valid badge. I think that they will be staggered by the number of times they come across one or more cars where a proper badge is not displayed. In my opinion, that is the case because the penalties for not displaying the correct badge are insufficient. The purpose of the new clause is that if the penalties were more severe, they would reduce the abuse of disabled parking bays.

[Philip Davies]

It would be the sentence passed by the court. My hon. Friend makes the good point that people who are sent to prison these days serve a maximum of only half their sentence. People with short sentences, such as three months, may serve considerably less than half their sentence. However, to reassure him that I am not going soft on crime in my old age, I still hope that one day we will have a Government who bring back honesty in sentencing so that the sentence handed down by the court is the one that is served. I obviously think that a person who is sentenced to three months in prison should serve three months in prison. Unfortunately, that is not the case under the current lax regime, but we should not give up hope that it may happen one day.

I have suggested this specific offence because my understanding is that there is currently no such offence. There are many people who are more qualified than I am, such as my hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Kemptown and my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Mr Chope), who is a lawyer of considerable distinction, who will perhaps clarify whether that is correct. Currently, anybody who is found guilty of knowingly using a fraudulent parking badge would have to be pursued under the Fraud Act 2006. As far as I understand it, no other offence would have been committed. Under the 2006 Act, the maximum sentence is six months in prison. Hon. Members could argue that we have the relevant offence in the 2006 Act and that there is already a maximum sentence of six months in prison, and ask why we need the sentence of three months. What I am trying to get across is the need for a minimum sentence.

Most people with disabilities are under the impression that nothing ever happens to people who go around using fraudulent blue badges. I wonder whether the Minister can give us any figures on that. The feeling is that such people are rarely caught, that if they are caught, they are very rarely prosecuted, and that if they are prosecuted, nothing really happens to them. That is why the problem persists. A minimum custodial sentence of three months would not only send out a message about how seriously the House takes this problem, but would act as a useful deterrent—[Interruption.]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I apologise for interrupting the hon. Gentleman, but there is a lot of noisy wittering at the back of the Chamber. I am sure that hon. Members, whether Back Benchers or Ministers, will wish to listen to the speech of the hon. Gentleman and to show some courtesy. If they do not wish to do so, they are perfectly free to exit the Chamber. That might be a great relief, as it would allow the rest of us to focus on the hon. Gentleman’s speech.

Scrap Metal Dealers Bill

Debate between Philip Davies and John Bercow

Friday 9th November 2012 Commons Chamber

[Philip Davies]

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

[Mr Speaker]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Amendment 114, in clause 15, page 9, line 8, leave out ‘5 years’ and insert ‘1 year’.

Amendment 115, page 9, line 8, leave out ‘5 years’ and insert ‘2 years’.

Amendment 116, page 9, line 8, leave out ‘5 years’ and insert ‘3 years’.

Amendment 117, page 9, line 8, leave out ‘5 years’ and insert ‘4 years’.

Amendment 118, page 9, line 11, at end insert—

‘(c) publish the crime figures associated with scrap metal theft for the whole of the period of the review.’.

Amendment 119, page 9, line 11, at end insert—

‘(d) publish the crime figures associated with metal theft generally for the whole of the period of the review.’.

Amendment 120, page 9, line 11, at end insert—

‘(e) publish comparative figures for 1(c) and 1(d) for the preceding equivalent period to the review to show trends in metal crime.’.

Amendment 121, page 9, line 11, at end insert—

‘(f) publish figures showing the number of convictions for each new offence created in the Bill.’.

Amendment 122, page 9, line 11, at end insert—

‘(g) publish a study comparing the use of all legislation in existence prior to the introduction of this Act to this Act and the role that has played in tackling metal theft.’.

Amendment 123, page 9, line 11, at end insert—

‘(h) publish an assessment of the effect that prohibiting scrap metal dealers from using cash has had on business.’.

Amendment 124, page 9, line 11, at end insert—

‘(i) publish a study of the cost to all scrap metal businesses over the period of the review of the new legislation.’.

Amendment 126, page 9, line 11, at end insert—

‘(k) publish a comparison of convictions under the Scrap Metal Dealers Act 1964 compared to the convictions for the same offences under this Act for a period of the same length as the term of the review.’.

Amendment 127, page 9, line 11, at end insert—

‘(l) assess the prevalence of the export of stolen scrap metal to Scotland in the whole of the period of the review.’.

Amendment 128, page 9, line 11, at end insert—

‘(m) assess the prevalence of the export of stolen scrap metal to Europe in the whole of the period of the review.’.

Amendment 129, page 9, line 11, at end insert—

‘(n) assess the prevalence of the export of stolen scrap metal through UK ports to other countries exlcuding Scotland and Europe in the whole of the period of the review.’.

Amendment 99, in clause 17, page 9, line 37, leave out subsection (2).

Amendment 100, page 9, line 40, leave out ‘under section 11(2) or 18(8)’ and insert

‘or regulations under this Act’.

Amendment 131, page 10, line 1, leave out subsection (4).

Amendment 85, in clause 20, page 11, line 41, leave out from ‘Act’ to end of line 42 and insert

‘shall come into force two months after Royal Assent’.

Amendment 86, page 12, line 1, leave out subsection (3).

[Philip Davies]

I hope to strike more oil with this group of amendments than I have managed thus far. I am rather disappointed that the Minister’s approach so far has been, “This is my script. I won’t listen to the debate, I will just stick to my script come what may.” My hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Mr Chope) and I will have another go at persuading him that the Bill could be improved.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Philip Davies and John Bercow

Thursday 18th October 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

In the spirit of equality, I certainly would not wish to exclude the hon. Member for Shipley (Philip Davies). Let us hear from him.

[Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)]

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

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Philip Davies and John Bercow

Tuesday 10th July 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I am sure that we are now much better informed, but anybody would think that these lawyers are paid by the word.

[Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)]

3. How many sentences he has asked the Court of Appeal to review because they appear to be unduly lenient since May 2010; and in what proportion of those cases the sentence was subsequently increased.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Philip Davies and John Bercow

Monday 19th March 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

We do need to speed up a bit. If the Minister could provide slightly shorter answers, that would be helpful to the House.

[Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)]

In 1999, Michael Weir was convicted of the murder of Mr Harris. The only link to that crime was DNA found on a glove of Michael Weir’s. Michael Weir’s DNA was taken after he was arrested on a drugs-related charge that had been discontinued two years earlier; he had been discharged. Will the Minister confirm that under the Government’s new plans for DNA retention, Michael Weir’s DNA sample would no longer have been on the database, and Mr Harris’s murderer would never have been brought to justice?

Points of Order

Debate between Philip Davies and John Bercow

Wednesday 29th June 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

The short answer to the hon. Gentleman is that the Minister has not indicated to me any intention to make a statement on the matter. However, until a very few moments ago, the Leader of the House was in his place, and will have heard the start of the point of order. I imagine that the Deputy Leader of the House will communicate the rest of it to him. My advice to the hon. Gentleman, in view of the pressing timetable, is that he might wish to raise the matter at business questions, if he can catch my eye, and secure some sort of clarificatory response from the Leader of the House. He has to wait fewer than 24 hours for his opportunity.

[Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I recently became aware that recently the Liberal Democrats, on a day when they should have been in Parliament representing their constituents, decided to have an away-day in my constituency, and stayed there overnight; I certainly commend them for their taste. I cannot claim to be the most assiduous in this regard myself because I have occasionally forgotten to inform a colleague that I have been in their constituency, but it is, I am sure you would agree, rare that 50 MPs would forget to inform a colleague that they were engaging in political activity in somebody else’s constituency. Could you give any guidance as to what is expected of hon. Members when visiting other people’s constituencies?

[Mr Speaker]

I think it was what would be characterised by the party concerned as an official visit to the hon. Gentleman’s constituency; in other words, it is not a private activity, and although I do not think it would be reasonable for the hon. Gentleman to expect 50 communications from individual Members who would be attending that gathering, I do think it is reasonable for the hon. Gentleman to expect to be informed in advance by a representative of that party, so I hope that the self-styled voice of Shipley is reassured by my response to his point of order.

Business of the House

Debate between Philip Davies and John Bercow

Thursday 19th May 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

Order. As usual, a great many right hon. and hon. Members are seeking to catch my eye but I remind the House that there is pressure on time with a further statement to follow and two important and well-subscribed debates under the auspices of the Backbench Business Committee, so there is a premium on brevity.

[Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)]

On Report of the Localism Bill this week, Back Benchers had about 40 minutes to debate the first group of amendments, in which there were eight new clauses and 156 amendments, and 25 minutes to debate the second group, which contained a similar number of measures. When we were in opposition my right hon. Friend was the first to criticise the Government for allowing such an appalling lack of time for debate on Report. What is he going to do to address the shameful amount of time being allocated to such debates?

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Philip Davies and John Bercow

Tuesday 17th May 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call Graham Evans. He is not here. Mr Davies.

[Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)]

Has the Secretary of State read the research commissioned by Lord Ashcroft and conducted by Populus called “Crime, Punishment & The People—Public opinion and the criminal justice debate”? If he has read the report, which I commend to him, will he confirm that its findings, which will make sobering reading for him, will be part of the proposals on sentencing?

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Philip Davies and John Bercow

Tuesday 8th March 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I am very grateful, but from now on we do need briefer answers—[Interruption.] No, we need briefer answers, because I want to accommodate Back-Bench Members. It is about them that I am concerned.

[Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)]

T2. I believe that the introduction of plain packaging for cigarettes would be gesture politics of the worst kind, that it would have no basis in evidence and that it would simply be a triumph for the nanny state—and an absurd one at that. Given that, does the Secretary of State believe that I am still a Conservative, and if so, is he?

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Philip Davies and John Bercow

Wednesday 16th February 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

We now know more about Haiti and some miles away.

[Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)]

2. What his Department’s policy is on providing aid to India; and if he will make a statement.

Use of the Chamber (United Kingdom Youth Parliament)

Debate between Philip Davies and John Bercow

Tuesday 20th July 2010 Commons Chamber

[Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Will you confirm that a Division on the motion would be deferred, but that if the closure were moved tonight, a Division on it would take place here and now? Many people watching these proceedings would think it quite strange that we would have a Division on a closure motion, but that there would be no Division on the substantive motion. Will you confirm that?

[Mr Speaker]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman; his point of order helpfully confirms the factual position. In the event that there were a closure motion, it would, as with all closure motions, as he perceptively interprets, be subject to an immediate vote. In the event that the decision on the substantive motion is a matter of dispute when the voices are collected, a deferred Division will be held tomorrow. The hon. Gentleman therefore, as usual, has an exquisite understanding of procedure. That fact is now known not only to me but to all Members of the House here present.

--- Later in debate ---

[Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Is it in order for hon. Members to vote at a certain point in the evening for a debate to last until any hour, and then for those same Members to vote a few hours later for a closure motion?

[Mr Speaker]

The hon. Gentleman asked whether that was in order, and the simple answer is yes. If there are no further points of order, we shall proceed to the presentation of public petitions. I call Mr Peter Bone. [Interruption.] Order. I know it has been a long evening, and I am grateful to hon. and right hon. Members for their forbearance and good humour. May I just appeal to hon. and right hon. Members who are leaving the Chamber to do so quickly and quietly, because others will want to hear, as I certainly do, the presentation by Mr Peter Bone of the public petition in relation to the matter on the Order Paper.

Canterbury City Council Bill

Debate between Philip Davies and John Bercow

Monday 5th July 2010 Commons Chamber

[Lilian Greenwood]

I would like to say a little more about why the Bill is necessary in Nottingham city—not all Members will be as familiar with it as the Minister is. Nottingham has a strong retail sector—it is one of the best cities in the country for shopping. One part of the city, Clumber street, between the Old Market square and a large shopping centre called the Victoria centre, is, I believe, one of the busiest pedestrianised shopping streets in the whole of Europe. On a Saturday when one is trying to get from one place to another it is incredibly crowded.

One of the problems is an activity which, although Members might want to call it peddling, is actually illegal street trading. People set up small stalls—they are not pedlars walking from place to place waiting for people to stop them and buy—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I am learning quite a lot about the geography and high streets of south Nottingham, and that is a matter of considerable interest, but it had been my impression that the hon. Member for Shipley (Philip Davies) was still making his speech and was giving way to an intervention. I think we will now let him respond to it.

[Philip Davies]

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Obviously I accept your ruling, but the hon. Member for Nottingham South was being extremely helpful in at least setting out the case for why we need the legislation, and I think we are all grateful for that. It is just a shame that this is the first occasion on which we have heard any of these matters discussed.

I do not wish to cover ground that was covered during the debate on the City of Westminster Bill, but I must return to one point. The Minister made a second very helpful speech earlier, and I commend his comments and the approach that he has taken. He is still indicating that the Government wish to introduce a national framework by some means, and I still do not see any point in reviving private business for particular towns and cities when it seems that the Government, in good faith, are going to make some provision in that regard anyway.

I ask the sponsors of the Bills whether what the Minister has said today—which was much more proactive than anything that we heard from the last Government—has made them change their minds. I entirely understand why, during the last Parliament, people were keen for these private Bills to proceed, because the Government kept saying that they were going to do something and then never did. I have much more confidence in this Minister. I think it far more likely that he will proceed with something much more sensible in a much more timely way, and I think that in the light of what he has said, we should question whether we need to revive the Bills.

I do not wish to detain the House, which has debated these matters for some time, but the issues are important. Again, I commend my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch, who has made a fantastic contribution. Without him, we should not have seen any concessions. I shall leave this with him. I shall be happy to follow his lead, and I shall give some thought to whether these Bills should be treated differently. However, I hope that when they go to the other place—if that happens—they will receive the scrutiny that they deserve, and that we will celebrate pedlars who are trying to make something of their lives rather than attempting to do them down.