Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill

Debate between Philip Davies and Stella Creasy

3rd reading
Monday 5th July 2021 Commons Chamber

[Philip Davies]

I am grateful to my right hon. Friend the Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Sir John Hayes) for his support.

I have 16 new clauses in this group that deal with issues such as extending the time limits for appealing unduly lenient sentences, including for assaulting an emergency worker, under the unduly lenient sentence scheme; limiting the use of fixed-term recalls, ensuring that there is no difference in sentencing between using a knife in a murder in a home compared with taking a knife to murder someone elsewhere; and a sentencing escalator ensuring that people who repeatedly commit the same offence must get a more severe penalty each time they do so, which has a huge amount of support from the public. I hope that the Secretary of State will write to me with his response to each of my new clauses.

In the limited time available, I want to focus on new clause 75, which would ensure that there was no automatic early release of prisoners who assault prison staff while in jail. I would like to see an end to all automatic early release, as alluded to by my right hon. Friend the Member for South Holland and The Deepings. However, as it seems that the Government are not quite with us on that just yet, my new clause would send a clear message to those who assault hard-working and dedicated prison officers and other staff in our prisons that they would have to serve the whole of their sentence in prison if they indulged in that kind of activity rather than, as at the moment, so many people being automatically released halfway through. If jailed criminals attack a prison officer, surely they should lose their right to automatic early release and serve their sentence in full.

Far too many prison officers are being assaulted. They do a very difficult job and we are not giving them sufficient support. We should be doing our bit to prevent these assaults from happening. Clearly, if people knew that they would have to serve the entirety of their sentence in prison, that would be a good deterrent. At the moment, they can assault prison officers and prison staff with near impunity because they know they are still going to be released halfway through their sentence. The number of extra days—I repeat, days—that are given to people when they commit the offence of assaulting a prison officer is derisory. We owe a duty of care to prison officers and should make sure that they are as well protected as possible when they are doing their public service.

That also ties in with the spirit of what the Government have been trying to achieve on attacks on emergency workers. I certainly agree with what the Government are doing in this Bill and I look forward to the Secretary of State bringing forward his proposals to deal with attacks on shopworkers when the Bill goes to another place. I think that showing we are on the side of prison officers, hard-working public servants, in this way would be a very welcome step forward. I imagine that most common-sense members of the public would be surprised to know that this is not the case already, to be perfectly honest.

I have not had any indication from the Government that they are planning to accept my new clause 75. I would love to hear from the Secretary of State why he thinks it is perfectly reasonable for criminals who assault a prison officer not to have their automatic early release stopped and why he thinks it is absolutely fine for them still be released early from their prison sentences. I am pretty sure that lots of prison officers would like to know the same, too. I would like to hear from him on that when he winds up, but I would prefer to hear that he was accepting my new clause 75, which I think the vast majority of people in this House would like to see, prison officers would like to see and the public would like to see.

[Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) (Lab/Co-op) [V]]

This is a Bill that shows us that the Government have yet to understand the value of debate and discussion. As a result, they are missing out on some key amendments, many tabled for discussion in this debate and many for the earlier debate, that could have made the Bill a moment of progress on issues that many of us agree on. Instead, by the way in which the Attorney General, the Lord Chancellor and the Government are approaching the Bill, we see exactly where their priorities lie. Every single time proposals have been put forward to keep women safe, they get kicked into the long grass, with the suggestion that they go to the Law Commission. Yet the Government think it is simple and easy to define what is “annoying” when we all know that is a very difficult one. In the last few weeks alone, we have seen the value of deciding what the difference between protest and harassment is. Surely that should be something that went to the Law Commission.

Instead, in my short time this evening, I want to challenge the way in which the Government are approaching amendments that have come from across the House and which bring us many ideas on how we can improve confidence in our criminal justice system. I want to put on record my support for the amendments tabled by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Camberwell and Peckham (Ms Harman), who has been a diligent activist for human rights all her life and whose ideas about rape should not be let go again. My right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Dame Diana Johnson) spoke courageously to identify an anomaly in our law, where the women in Northern Ireland now enjoy better reproductive rights than women in England, Wales and Scotland. The amendments tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham (Sarah Champion) to help to support our children and keep our children safe are vital. There is cross-party support for action against assault on retail workers and for action to address pet offences, which have been coming up in the pandemic.

I urge the Government to listen to the message coming so clearly from women across the country about new clause 30, which has been tabled in my name but has been part of the work I have been doing with my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Withington (Jeff Smith). I pay tribute to his constituent, Julia Cooper, a valiant woman who was simply feeding her baby in a park when a man decided it was acceptable to take photos of her breastfeeding without her consent. When she sought the support of the law, the law said it was perfectly legal for the man to do what he was doing. Take a moment to think about that. We can simply and easily decide that we want to protect statues, but on that most natural and beautiful thing for a mother to do to feed her child the Government are saying no to protecting those women. Again, they are kicking the issue into the long grass.

I served on the upskirting Bill. At the time, we raised concerns that, frankly, it only went below the knee, but we now need to make sure that the law ensures full coverage. I urge Ministers tonight: whether it is in the other place or now, please do not leave the women of this country feeling that you do not understand the lives they lead. We have the lowest rates of breastfeeding in Europe and it is not hard to understand why, if women feel they are going to be shamed or attacked in public.

As someone that this has happened to myself, I ask the Minister to think about what he would feel if it was happening to a member of his family: if somebody was taking photos or a video for their own gratification and he could not stop them. By resisting new clause 30 and saying that this has to go back to the Law Commission, when it is clear what could be done to make it a criminal offence, he is sending a very clear message to women, as he has done on rape, as he has done on domestic homicide reviews, as he has done on child protection, that their concerns are complicated and difficult, but statues and protests are not. I ask him to think again about the message that he is sending and to say, “We will make laws in this place that will support everyone to lead their lives without fear”, because it is fear that someone will feel if they think that somebody is following them with a camera when they just want to feed their baby. Minister, let us not just stick up for the unborn children; let us stick up for those who are newly born, too.

Consumer Rights Bill

Debate between Philip Davies and Stella Creasy

Monday 16th June 2014 Commons Chamber

[Stella Creasy]

My hon. Friend has just illustrated why I believe him to be the expert on this issue. I hope that he will contribute to the debate to explain why this concern about independent advice is so important. He is right about upholding the need for independent advice.

I am conscious that other Members wish to speak in this debate, so let me say a little about net neutrality, and our amendment to amendment 19. I recognise that this is a new and evolving debate. Our discussions have ranged from the Victorian bill of sale to the contemporary net neutrality, both of which reflect this stress over conflicts of interest. For those Members of this House who have not yet had the chance to watch the viral videos about net neutrality, let me explain the concern. Net neutrality is the principle that internet service providers and Governments should treat all data on the internet equally. They should not discriminate or charge by user, content, site, platform, or application. In layman’s terms that means that, whether we are looking at iPlayer, Sky on the Go or Netflix, there would be equal access to services. There would be no speed differential in accessing them.

In America, some broadband and internet providers have been exploring the idea of charging companies different rates for providing their services. That means that they could offer access to some websites at a faster rate than others, and therefore change the way in which consumers access them. The fear is that that would create a two-tier internet, because it will limit the number of sites that consumers can access with ease, and the number of companies that can access and operate services equally. In particular, if large companies were to use their financial muscle, or their internet provision, to restrict access to their competitors or to new entrants to the market, it could limit creativity and innovation in the provision of services. An internet without net neutrality moves huge market power to those who are the gatekeepers to our online services. It is little wonder that 100 companies, including Google, Facebook, Twitter and Amazon, have expressed concern about this issue. Indeed, “father of the internet” Tim Berners-Lee, who was rather unfairly described as a web developer recently, has argued that there is a real concern. He says:

“Unless we have an open, neutral internet we can rely on without worrying about what’s happening at the back door, we can’t have open government, good democracy, good healthcare, connected communities and diversity of culture. It’s not naive to think we can have that, but it is naive to think we can just sit back and get it.”

We welcome the amendment that has been tabled by the hon. Member for Shipley (Philip Davies), but we are concerned that the way in which it has been drafted may inadvertently imply that those sites that are providing pay-per-view services, such as Netflix, would be required also to provide access to some of their competitors, and I am sure that that was not what he intended. We have tabled a clarifying amendment to make it clear that we are talking about those services that provide access to the internet, rather than content.

It would be useful to hear from the Minister about what discussions she has had with her colleagues on the issue of net neutrality and about what action she is taking to ensure that consumers’ interests in the operation of net architecture are being upheld so that we do not have the concerns and challenges experienced by America. In particular, does she feel that existing protocols are strong enough to protect the interests of consumers and avoid competition issues between content providers, and has she done an assessment of the impact on consumers in the UK of a possible two-tier internet?

We have here some very different but interlinked issues around conflicts of interest, freedom of markets and consumer interest, and an effective piece of consumer rights legislation should provide consumers with the tools with which they can mount a challenge to any of them. We hope the Minister will accept our amendments in the spirit in which they are intended, which is about applying clarity in what is meant to the list of unfair contract terms that would give consumers the right to challenge issues in court. I therefore hope that the House will support them accordingly.

[Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)]

I seek to restrict myself to speaking to amendment 19, which I tabled. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Walthamstow (Stella Creasy) for what she said and for her general support for the thrust of my amendment. In the spirit of that cross-party co-operation, I should also make it clear that I am perfectly happy to support her amendment to my amendment. It is not my intention to press my amendment to a Division, but if the hon. Lady decides to press hers, I will of course support her, because her amendment does exactly what I intended my own to do. I hope that it will not come to that, because I hope that the Minister will make it clear that the Government accept there is an issue, understand it and say that they will do something to resolve it. If that is the case, I hope that the hon. Lady will withdraw her amendment, but we should wait to hear what the Minister has to say before we make any decisions along those lines.

Over the past 30 years, competition in the telecommunications industry has gone from a monopoly, through a duopoly to what is widely regarded now as one of the greatest success stories of privatisation, with the UK having one of the most vibrant and competitive markets in the world.

Additionally, the internet has become an essential part of our national infrastructure, transforming the way we work, play, gather information, communicate and trade. The internet provides the underlying infrastructure for many thousands of businesses and has slashed the cost of global communication.

In 2010, the Government, through the Under-Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, my hon. Friend the Member for Wantage (Mr Vaizey), said that they were supportive of open internet, which I hope is still the case. The reality is that some major fixed-line internet service providers and mobile network operators have not participated with the major industry-level agreement towards meeting that objective.

The success of the internet is based on global interoperability—the ability for anyone to interact with any legal internet site anywhere in the world. That has created new opportunities, businesses and jobs, while also reducing costs for consumers. I hope that both sides of the House will agree that an open internet is vital for the future economic, social and political health of our nation. New services are coming online at an incredible rate, and it is important that this vibrant sector is able to develop as society becomes more mobile and people’s habits change.

It is vital that organisations controlling access to the internet do not abuse their position by discriminating against legal services, data, traffic and content for commercial or political purposes, and from a protectionist perspective. Although telecommunications providers should be allowed to use certain traffic management techniques to manage the integrity of their network, it should not be at the detriment of rival services purely for anti-competitive reasons.

Over the past year, I have been made aware of increasing evidence that certain internet service providers are undertaking various marketing and operational practices that are distorting a competitive market, creating consumer harm, hurting a number of specific internet industries and stifling innovation. The activity includes blocking internet services that compete with their own on purely commercial grounds; not communicating to customers clearly at the point of sale that they offer only restricted access to the internet; and refusing to participate in the Government-supported pan-industry code of practice, which seeks to uphold open internet principles and which has been signed by some of the largest players, including BT, O2, Sky and 3. I believe that that verges on mis-selling. The lack of transparency and clarity that has persisted in the market has allowed consumers to be deceived by the practice of selling internet access when in fact significant parts of the internet cannot be accessed under the terms and conditions of some price plans.

It seems like the voluntary ways of ensuring greater transparency in providing internet and telephony services have failed. There have been clear examples where certain operators, particularly in the mobile sectors, have misled their consumers by claiming to offer internet access, or UK internet, when some legal internet services are not available within the package that has been provided. In other cases, the small print—when I say small print I mean it, as one would need binoculars to see some of the terms and conditions—outlines extra costs that the consumer would face if they dared to use the internet they have paid for to access services that compete with their provider’s own.

The fact that any operator is able to offer a product advertised with “internet access” and only have to clarify this policy in the small print is unacceptable. Unknowing customers who use popular services such as Skype, WhatsApps or Viber could see their service suspended but continue to be held responsible for paying their bills. That lack of transparency and clarity on these issues is totally unfair to these unknowing customers, and it continues, as consumers are in many cases unable to leverage competitive pressure because it is difficult to understand whether or not certain traffic types are allowed, blocked or just charged additionally. Ofcom’s consumer guide on internet traffic management from 2013 outlined the fact that consumers were not aware about traffic management practices undertaken by internet service providers and whether such practices would affect specific internet services that they used. How can consumers make an effective and informed choice if they are not fully aware of the practices of their internet service provider or mobile provider, and the potential of those practices to inhibit certain services?

Consumer Rights Bill

Debate between Philip Davies and Stella Creasy

Tuesday 13th May 2014 Commons Chamber

[Stella Creasy]

The new clauses and amendments would deal with that. I understand that the tickets for the rugby world cup are not yet formally on sale. The fact that they are already being marketed on secondary sites at such prices demonstrates the scale of the problem that we need to tackle.

I pay tribute to the tremendous and tireless work that has been done by my hon. Friend the Member for Washington and Sunderland West (Mrs Hodgson), who will speak about her new clauses later. I also pay tribute to what has been done by the hon. Member for Hove (Mike Weatherley). I know that the hon. Member for Shipley (Philip Davies), who has also tabled a new clause on this subject, shares the widespread concern that is felt.

[Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Stella Creasy]

I will, but only briefly, because I am conscious of the time, and I know that the hon. Gentleman wants to talk about a number of new clauses and amendments himself.

[Philip Davies]

Given what the hon. Lady said about not wanting to encourage the secondary ticket market, may I take it as read that she will support my new clause 12, which would guarantee people a refund from the organiser if they are not able to go to the event? If they cannot go and they cannot get a refund, they will not have much choice other than to sell the ticket on.

[Stella Creasy]

I think that the hon. Gentleman’s new clause responds to a slightly different challenge, and presents a practical challenge in relation to how it could be applied, but let me make one thing very clear, in case he did not hear me say it the first time. We are not suggesting that there should not be a market for the selling on of tickets; we are saying that what the ticket touts are doing is distorting the market for consumers. That is separate from the issue of whether people can obtain a refund within 24 hours. Let me caution the hon. Gentleman that some aspects of his proposal may not work in a practical sense, whereas we are presenting practical proposals.

New clause 8, in particular, has learnt the lessons of the Olympic and paralympic games. Tickets for those games were given particular protection to enable people to be confident that they could obtain them. The London Olympic Games and Paralympic Games Act 2006 levied fines of up to £5,000 for the reselling of tickets at a profit. The Home Secretary increased that to £20,000, citing the threat from serious and organised criminal groups. We know that ticket touting is being used to support a range of criminal activities. New clause 8 relates to events of national significance. Let us make sure that rugby fans can go to the world cup: it surely cannot be all that difficult to legislate for that.

New clause 16 seeks to get to the root of the problem, which is that people do not necessarily know what they are being sold. A unique identifier is a simple way in which to ensure that when someone buys a ticket, it is a ticket for a particular gig, show or match. The venues themselves will have already given out identifying information, whether it is a seat number or a stall number. We are suggesting that they should be required to provide that information at the point of sale, so that people can be confident about what they are buying. That will enable the event organisers to identify those in, for instance, rugby clubs who are already selling on tickets that they have been given and are misusing their relationship to give out the information.

We think that that accords very well with what the Minister said in Committee about the Consumer Contracts (Information, Cancellation and Additional Charges) Regulations 2013, which she believed would address the issues related to selling. She said that they

“set out…the information that a trader should provide to a consumer for all distance sales—which would include tickets”.

In particular, she said that they gave details of

“the main characteristics of the goods”.––[Official Report, Consumer Rights Public Bill Committee, 25 February 2014; c. 183.]

We believe that new clause 16 would simply put that into practice in the context of the secondary ticketing market, providing clarity for all who are concerned about what they are buying. It accords with consumer regulation, and we hope that the Government will support it, even if they fear that some of the other new clauses relating to ticket touting would be difficult to implement. We certainly hope that they will listen to the clarion call from new clause 8. Surely everyone, in the House and outside, agrees that it cannot be right for us not to be confident that it is the fans who are able to obtain tickets to attend events of sporting significance, whether they obtain them online or offline.

I know that other Members want to talk about ticket touting, and I shall therefore move on to the subject of letting agents’ fees.

--- Later in debate ---

[Stella Creasy]

I simply do not accept the picture the hon. Gentleman is painting. Scotland has banned fees on tenants, and the experience there has been an increase in the number of letting agents and no effect on the rents people are paying. The evidence shows that, as with the payday lenders, when we give tenants the muscle to remove this fee, the market shapes up. We have not seen an increase in the fees that tenants are facing; nor have we seen an exit from the market. Some of the fears the hon. Gentleman might have, which I understand, are not well founded, because a lot of the fees tenants are being asked to pay are not indicative of a service being provided; they are indicative of a profit-making machine. We are trying to deal with the detriment caused by the ability of agents to charge fees to two parties at the same time. By making this a fee for the landlord, it is clear whose interest the agent is acting in.

As I say, we have dealt with the particular issue here, because we have listened to the landlords and letting agents who have expressed concerns about tenants who may not be what they seem. In that instance, there would be a case for being able to charge a fee to the tenant which would be refunded, but the alternative of letting this practice continue and seeing the kind of fees that we are seeing, and therefore the problems that are being caused, is also unsustainable. I hope that Government Members, particularly those who have now recognised there is a problem with the fees in themselves, will go that stage further and recognise that there is a problem with this form of double-charging, support our proposals and learn from the experience in Scotland on this issue.

As I am conscious of the time, I shall move on; I appreciate that there are a number of Members who wish to speak in this debate. I am sure that the hon. Member for East Hampshire, who has made many useful contributions this afternoon, will get to speak in the following debate.

I briefly want to speak to amendment 6. It may come as a surprise to some to see the Government resisting the work of the Federation of Small Businesses, which is trying to help small businesses that are struggling with their consumer contracts. Members in this House may have first-hand experience of that, as we are, after all, small businesses and will have dealt with business-to-business contracts, and many may not realise that they have different levels of consumer protection as a result.

The FSB has recently published a report on small businesses which points out that it makes much more sense to give micro-businesses the same consumer protection as private individuals. After all, it is unreasonable to expect a micro-business to have the same level of legal qualification and expertise to deal with a contract as that of a larger body, and that is what amendment 6 addresses. I note that the FSB has given its support to this amendment. I was surprised when the Minister said earlier that the FSB did not support giving consumer rights to businesses. That has not been the briefing that we have had from it; indeed, it supports this amendment. Will the Minister set out when she expects to give small businesses the kind of consumer protection they need, because it will be one fewer worry for them?

I wish now to touch on some of the other new clauses. New clause 14 deals with Ofcom and switching. We certainly think this is a good idea, and we wish to see the Government following it through. I am sorry that the hon. Member for Shipley (Philip Davies) was not here earlier when we were debating new clause 3 and new schedule 1 and making it easier for consumers to be able to switch. We recognise that there are problems. It is unusual for the UK, by comparison with other nations, to have this issue, and it will be interesting to know whether the Minister is considering it.

I look forward to the hon. Member for Shipley making his case for new clause 13. I certainly agree that transparency is important. The laws governing animal welfare at slaughter, at both EU and UK level, require animals to be stunned before slaughter, but they make an exemption to that requirement for religious slaughter, which is carried out by members of the Jewish and Muslim communities.

We are concerned about whether this amendment has a significant effect on animal welfare and implications beyond that. In particular, we must ensure that our laws strike the right balance between concern for animal welfare, which many of us have, transparency for consumers and respect for the traditions of different businesses and different communities. We also recognise that a lot of work has already been done on this matter in the European Union, and it would be sensible to learn some of the lessons on the wider issues such as how goods and foods are labelled. It will be interesting to hear the hon. Gentleman’s views on that—perhaps not on Europe but on the research that is being done.

I am sure that the hon. Gentleman would not want to make a law that caused confusion in this area rather than clarity. He focuses on halal and kosher food, but the Opposition believe that respect implies an active attitude towards others rather than a passive attitude, and certainly our position is to seek proper engagement with all faith groups before we move forward on such a measure.

Let me turn now to new clause 15, which has been tabled by the hon. Member for Foyle (Mark Durkan). We supported it in Committee and would support it again. It is an incredibly important amendment and I urge Members to listen to what the hon. Gentleman has to say. We do not believe it is acceptable to leave it to consumers to know whether they have a death trap in their house.

Finally, I want to say a bit about Government amendments 14 to 20 and the very welcome U-turn that seems to have been made. In Committee, we were concerned that consumers could be left waiting many months for a refund, but the Minister suggested that the Government believed there were potential disadvantages of introducing a time limit that outweighed the benefits that such a change could bring. We suggested 30 days in which to get a refund, so I am absolutely delighted that the Government have gone one stage further and said that people should get their money back in 14 days. That gives me great hope that while the Minister may be saying “computer says no” at the moment to some of the things that we have been talking about today and in Committee, we will see further concessions in due course. We shall welcome them accordingly.

[Philip Davies]

It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Walthamstow (Stella Creasy). I was, surprisingly, rather encouraged by her response to my amendments. It could be a red-letter day for me, getting support across the House for some of my amendments.

I want to focus mainly on new clause 13, which is about the labelling of halal and kosher meat at the point of sale. With your permission, Mr Deputy Speaker, I will seek to press it to a vote, should the opportunity arise. It is an issue of great importance to the public, and we have heard an awful lot of commentary on it in the media and among many of our constituents in recent weeks. They would appreciate seeing where their Member of Parliament stands on the issue.

--- Later in debate ---

[Stella Creasy]

rose—

[Philip Davies]

I am not going to give way for the reasons I mentioned earlier.

If I have a ticket to the Lords test match, for example, or to the rugby world cup final, and I go into my local pub and someone says to me, “It is my lifetime ambition to go there, I would give £4,000 for a ticket,” what is wrong with my saying that I will give up my ticket and they can go instead? Everybody is happy, nobody has lost out, but Labour want to interfere with people’s aspirations. Why should that be banned? If someone does not want to pay the higher price, they should not pay it. Nobody is forced to pay the inflated prices if they do not want to.

If the secondary sale of tickets bothers event promoters so much, why do they not do something practical to stop it? Why sell all the tickets in one go, for example? Why not hold them back? Why put them all on sale so that they are sold within 43 seconds, meaning that they can be resold at inflated prices? If promoters are so bothered, why not sell tickets bit by bit, week by week, month by month so that there are still tickets available the week before the event? That would remove the secondary ticketing market, but they choose not to do it. That can only lead me to presume that the event organisers are shedding crocodile tears, as they are happy to get all the money from the tickets being snapped up.

An ICM poll showed that 83% agreed with the premise:

“Once I’ve bought a ticket it is my property and I should be able to sell it to just as I can any other private property.”

Consumer Rights Bill

Debate between Philip Davies and Stella Creasy

Tuesday 28th January 2014 Commons Chamber

[Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) (Lab/Co-op)]

I share the Secretary of State’s passion for this subject, and I challenge the idea of my hon. Friend the Member for Barrow and Furness (John Woodcock) that it is boring. I am delighted that so many hon. Members have come into the Chamber to stand firm on the idea that consumer rights are a key concern. Despite the short notice, I hope that they will join us in agreeing that it is important to have a strong consumer rights framework in this country.

We agree that the Bill is long overdue. The previous Government introduced a White Paper on delivering a better deal for consumers. It was designed to take action on rogue traders, empower and assist trading standards and bring in a consumer rights Bill to help modernise consumer sales law, so giving consumers the real power that we all want. The Bill should be the culmination of that elephantine gestation.

We therefore welcome the idea of bringing in consumer rights legislation to meet the test that the Government set on their website, which states:

“The government believes that consumers who are well-informed about their rights and what they’re buying are more confident and more likely to spend money well, getting better deals or buying new goods and services.”

It seems to the Opposition that a good first test to set the Bill is whether it meets this ambition: does it help consumers not to be big spenders, but smart ones, and does it give them the information and rights to be able to use their money well and wisely? I am afraid that the Opposition believe that the Bill falls at that first hurdle, in that it provides neither information nor rights, and it makes the Secretary of State a consolidator, not a champion of consumer rights. As such, this legislative opportunity short-changes, rather than strengthens, the pounds in our pockets.

The Opposition know that healthy, fair and competitive markets and effective methods for information-sharing across providers are vital for building an economy that works both for consumers and for businesses. We know that savvy consumers make for better customers for businesses, and that better-informed citizens get better outcomes.

In my speech, I will set out the scale of the challenge that demands a roar, not a whimper, and a Government who will speak—indeed, shout out—for consumers and their rights in a free, fair and functioning economy to provide a consumer rights framework that does not wait until people get ripped off before coming into force. In explaining what that means, I want to set out the areas of the Bill that need to be strengthened and on which we will therefore table amendments.

[Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)]

This is a Bill on consumer rights, and many consumers would, for example, like the opportunity to shop freely at a large store on a Sunday, as they already can in Scotland. Does the hon. Lady agree with extending the rights of consumers to spend their money in whichever shops they want, whenever they want on a Sunday, or perhaps with devolving that down to local authorities, so that they can vary Sunday trading hours if they so wish? Is she really that much on the side of consumers?

[Stella Creasy]

I hope that the hon. Gentleman is on the Public Bill Committee, because I would enjoy many such conversations with him. His interest in how widely consumer rights can be applied is legendary in this House and in the country. We need a fundamental understanding of where rights for consumers make a difference to our economy. We believe that the Bill needs to meet such a test, and I shall set that out today. I hope that I can make clear and compelling arguments about why the Bill should make a real change to people’s lives and redress the balance of power for consumers.

Use of the Chamber (United Kingdom Youth Parliament)

Debate between Philip Davies and Stella Creasy

Tuesday 20th July 2010 Commons Chamber

[Philip Davies]

No one is arguing that the UK Youth Parliament should not have a national meeting, but that is not what is before the House. We are discussing where it should have its meeting. I am sure that the hon. Lady will concede that the Youth Parliament members could meet in Westminster Hall or the House of Lords. If her prime purpose is that they should meet, that is not an argument for why they should meet here.

[Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) (Lab/Co-op)]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way in this waspish debate. He is making a long and pained contribution about why the UK Youth Parliament is important and the many issues that it considers, but he has not set out why those things cannot be considered in the Chamber. He makes a strong case about the many things that young people talk to him about, and I would be worried if the only thing that they discussed was the use of this place, but he has not explained why that should be ruled out. He needs to be clearer about why not this place, rather than why somewhere else.

[Philip Davies]

The problem with the hon. Lady’s intervention is that I have been able to speak for only a few seconds before people like her have tried to intervene. I have generously taken hon. Members’ interventions to allow them to have their say, but that has prevented me from setting out my argument. The solution to her dilemma is for her to allow me to continue my speech without intervening because she may then hear my arguments. It appears, however, that she is not interested in listening to anyone else’s point of view because she has already made up her mind. She might wish to pass on that lesson to members of the UK Youth Parliament, but I am not sure that it is particularly healthy.

I am all for the UK Youth Parliament and for encouraging young people to participate in politics, but is it not sad that the best way that the assembled brainpower of the House can think of to get more young people involved in politics, engaged in the political process and inspired to want to become MPs is to allow them to hold a debate once a year in the House of Commons Chamber? Is that the depth of our imagination?

--- Later in debate ---

[Philip Davies]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Unlike all the previous interventions that I have taken, he has pre-empted a point that I wished to make myself.

[Stella Creasy]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way, because obviously we have not heard much from him this evening. Will he clarify that there are some instances in which he would allow young people to use the Chamber? In which case, it would appear that his objections are to the UK Youth Parliament rather than to young people sitting in this Chamber. That would be a useful clarification of his views.

[Philip Davies]

The point that I am making is that there is no logic to the case for allowing only the UK Youth Parliament to use this Chamber. If people take the view that no one else should be allowed to use the Chamber, it would be a sensible and rational point of view. If someone takes the view that anyone should be allowed to use the Chamber, that would be an equally valid point of view. For the life of me—[Interruption.] The hon. Lady makes an intervention, but she does not seem to be particularly interested in the argument. I can only reiterate that she must have already made up her mind.

The argument that has not been made, and which the hon. Lady must make later, is why the UK Youth Parliament alone should be allowed to use the Chamber once a year for the duration of the Parliament, and why she wants to exclude every other organisation from using the Chamber. Why is that the case? Why is she making that point? It is the point that I, for the life of me, cannot understand. The Minister did not set out particularly well why the Government believe that only the UK Youth Parliament should be able to use the Chamber.