Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Rebecca Pow and Philip Davies

Thursday 30th March 2023 Commons Chamber

[Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)]

4. When she plans to announce details of funding for frequently flooded areas.

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

In July 2022, the Government announced their £100 million frequently flooded fund to support communities that have experienced repeated flooding but have been unable to secure all of the funding necessary to progress their schemes. My hon. Friend will be pleased to hear that his scheme has been approved, and full details will be with him and all those involved in his scheme in Shipley next week.

[Philip Davies]

I am extremely grateful to the Minister for that. She will know that I lobbied hard for the establishment of this frequently flooded fund for my constituents who regularly get flooded but never met the previous criteria. Clearly, I await next week’s announcement with great anticipation, but if not every part of my constituency has been successful in that bid, can the Minister confirm that this is not a one-off fund but an annual fund, and that any area that misses out this time might have an opportunity to be successful in future rounds?

[Rebecca Pow]

Yes, my hon. Friend was a doughty campaigner in raising this issue of frequently flooded communities. As I went around the country when communities unfortunately experienced flooding, it was clear that a number of those communities fell out of being able to access the funding, so I assure him that £20 million is going out in this first tranche. Letters will be sent out shortly, with further details next week. This money—this particular £100 million—has been ringfenced, and I give all credit to my hon. Friend for the part he played in highlighting this issue.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Rebecca Pow and Philip Davies

Thursday 12th January 2023 Commons Chamber

[Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)]

11. What recent assessment she has made of the adequacy of flood defences in the Shipley constituency.

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

Bradford Council and the Environment Agency have identified 48 properties at several locations in the Shipley constituency that are at high risk of flooding from the River Aire. An assessment has confirmed that neither upstream storage nor walls or embankments provide viable options to protect those properties, as I am sure my hon. Friend has been made aware. Bradford Council is carrying out some property flood resilience surveys. When the evidence has been gathered, consideration will be given to putting in property flood resilience measures—depending, obviously, on feasibility and funding.

[Philip Davies]

Fifty properties being flooded 10 times is as bad as 500 properties being flooded once. In fact, I would argue that it is even worse, yet the funding for flood defences does not reflect that. When he was Secretary of State, my right hon. Friend the Member for Camborne and Redruth (George Eustice) introduced the frequently flooded allowance to benefit constituencies such as Shipley, which are regularly flooded but do not have the flood defences that they need to protect residents. When will Shipley benefit from the frequently flooded allowance?

[Rebecca Pow]

I thank my hon. Friend for raising the issue. We realise the difficulties for those few properties that are frequently flooded: as he says, it can be devastating for people who have to experience it time and again. That is why we opened the new frequently flooded fund. Applications have come in, and I am pleased to say that details of who will be awarded funds—I know that Shipley has applied—will be announced at the end of this month.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Rebecca Pow and Philip Davies

Thursday 21st June 2018 Commons Chamber

[Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)]

1. What steps the CPS is taking to improve the rate of prosecution of people responsible for forced marriages.

[Rebecca Pow (Taunton Deane) (Con)]

2. What steps the CPS is taking to improve the rate of prosecution of people responsible for forced marriages.

Guardianship (Missing Persons) Bill

Debate between Rebecca Pow and Philip Davies

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

[Philip Davies]

I very much hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton will be able to confirm that, which is why I described the amendment as a probing one. I want it to be clear, on the record, that that is the case, because it was not entirely clear from looking through the Bill. I hope that my right hon. Friend the Member for East Yorkshire (Sir Greg Knight) is right—I am sure he is—but, as I said, it is a probing amendment so that we can get it confirmed on the record.

[Rebecca Pow (Taunton Deane) (Con)]

My hon. Friend is making a valid point, but as far as I understand it good systems are already in place to determine whether a person is missing and all that side of it. There is, however, no system for looking after their estate or anything that they own if they are declared missing. The Bill is about helping the people left at home to deal with the property or the estate, or, indeed, to deal with the hardship that they might be facing because they cannot access funds or money, or get into the house and all those sorts of things. It therefore seems eminently straightforward and sensible.

[Philip Davies]

My hon. Friend is right. She is referring to the principle of the Bill, which I absolutely support. I do not intend to do anything to stop the Bill proceeding—that is not the point. The point I am making is that we are looking at the detail, and I want to ensure that we get it right. All hon. Members support the principle of the Bill. I do not want to scupper or affect the principle—she and I are as one on that. The purpose of the amendments is to ensure that we are happy that the details are right, because it is quite a chunky piece of legislation that deserves such scrutiny.

Amendment 2 is based on a requirement in the Leasehold Reform, Housing and Urban Development Act 1993—I do not know whether I need to refer hon. Members to my registered interest as a landlord, but I have now done so—section 26 of which addresses applications when the relevant landlord cannot be found.

Similar legislation elsewhere in the world contains similar requirements before a guardian can be appointed, including in three Australian states—New South Wales, Victoria and the Australian Capital Territory—which set out a process under which an individual can seek to be appointed to manage the affairs of a person who is missing. There is a similar provision in Canadian law. That is the purpose behind the amendment. I want to ensure that we are happy that we have the detail right.

As hon. Members can see, amendment 3 would increase the amount of time from 90 days to six months for which an individual must be missing before a guardian can be appointed. This was specifically designed as a probing amendment, because it was the only way I could think of to tease out from my hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton why he set 90 days as the limit. The only way I could think of doing that was to propose an alternative. My alternative is six months, and I wonder whether 90 days is too short a time.

Awards for Valour (Protection) Bill

Debate between Rebecca Pow and Philip Davies

Friday 25th November 2016 Commons Chamber

[Philip Davies]

The problem with that argument, attractive though it is superficially, is that we have not been able to find a great many cases of these things happening in the UK when there is no legislation in place. It seems that these things are just as rare in countries such as ours, that do not have legislation, as in countries that have legislation. In fact, I suspect that one reason why many countries do not have legislation is that nobody has ever found this to be a problem. That is the whole reason why many things are not legislated for in countries; things tend to be legislated on when there is seen to be a problem, and something needs to be done. The fact that nothing is happening in countries with these laws would indicate that there must be even less happening in those countries without them. I do not follow the logic of my hon. Friend’s position.

[Rebecca Pow]

I am coming at this very much as a layman, but my hon. Friend the Member for Dartford (Gareth Johnson) clearly indicated that there is a problem, and that there are really serious cases of people wearing medals when they should not. Does that not clearly indicate that whatever legislation we have is not working, and that we need something stronger?

[Philip Davies]

I do not share my hon. Friend’s confidence in the evidence from my hon. Friend the Member for Dartford. I have not heard evidence that there is a problem; I have heard an assertion that there is a big problem, but an assertion is very different from evidence. As I made clear earlier—I will not repeat myself, Mr Speaker, because you would not want me to—the Royal British Legion gave evidence to the Defence Committee saying that it did not think this was a big problem. Somebody coming to the House and asserting that there is a big problem is not what I would call good enough evidence for us to pass an Act of Parliament.

Let me come back to the point I was making about people with mental health problems. In its written evidence to the Defence Committee, the Royal British Legion said:

“The Legion is not presently clear if the proposed Awards for Valour (Protection) Bill is intended to replicate the 2005 or 2013 Stolen Valour Act. If based on the former [which it now seems it is], careful consideration may need to be given as to how vulnerable people claiming to have served in the Armed Forces are punished under the terms of the Bill.”

During the inquiry, my hon. Friend the Member for Dartford said:

“from my understanding there are different types of Walter Mitty characters. There are people who have serious mental health problems and need help, frankly.”

He went on to say:

“Therefore, someone with a serious mental health problem who sports medals should not, as is often the case with criminal law in this situation, fall foul of the law to the point where they are incarcerated. The court will presumably go down a hospital order route.”

For me, that is still quite worrying and open to all kinds of risks when the case comes to court. Someone may have a mental health issue, but they might not be suitable for a court hospital order. The fact that they have simply worn medals that were not theirs to wear, even if no gain was made, could mean them facing anything up to a custodial sentence, and that is disproportionate. For people to be criminalised in this way is also a step too far. In some cases, it might be more difficult for someone with mental health issues to show that they did not intend to deceive, if they had no other explanation for wearing the medals.

I have tried to contact a number of mental health charities in recent days to see what their opinion might be on this subject. Unfortunately, none of them was able to give me a firm answer, as they had not been made aware of the Bill. However, I would be very interested to know whether they have any concerns or views on this. One issue with the Bill is that those mental health charities clearly have not been engaged and asked to give their perspective on whether it is proportionate, yet we are in danger of passing a piece of legislation today that may cause problems for people with mental health issues if we do not give it the proper scrutiny, or give those charities the opportunity to have their say. That troubles me greatly.

There is also the issue of Army veterans wearing medals that they did not win—not civilians, but ex-servicemen. Would we call that “stolen extra valour”? Do we really want to prosecute veterans under this legislation? That would surely be an ironic, unintended consequence. However, in the Bill, there is nothing to prevent somebody who served in the armed forces, and did gain some medals, from being prosecuted for wearing the wrong medals. Surely the House does not want that to happen.

The Royal Air Force Families Federation touched on the issue in its submissions to the Defence Committee inquiry. It was asked:

“What is the attitude of current and former serving members of the Armed Forces to military imposters?”

It replied:

“We think the attitude of our people will really depend on individual circumstances, and will range from mild irritation and perhaps even amusement where an aged WWII Veteran has ‘upped’ his awards in an attempt to garner respect/recognition—through to outrage and anger at individuals who are trying to defraud people and profit from their quite deliberate and calculated action in claiming awards to which they are not entitled—the more so when the individual has not even served.”

That is a marvellous point. What the federation is saying is that those who big up what they have done are viewed by former service people with mild amusement, and as people whom they can have a laugh at. The people whom they get really angry about are those who do it to try to defraud others, and as I have said time and again, that is already covered by the Fraud Act 2006.

Those who support the Bill are using the armed forces to justify supporting something that the Bill does not deal with. They are the ones who are confusing apples with oranges, to repeat the phrase used by my hon. Friend the Member for North Dorset. What former service people get really annoyed about is people who try to defraud others by being imposters. If the Bill is passed, those individuals who cause

“mild irritation and perhaps even amusement”

will certainly face a criminal record, and very possibly a custodial sentence. Should people have a criminal record and go to prison for causing mild irritation, and perhaps even amusement, to those people whom the Bill sets out to defend? Surely that is disproportionate.

I want to touch on the difference between impersonating a police officer and wrongly wearing a medal. The Defence Committee report states:

“We also disagree that offences involving an intention to deceive which are not related to fraud may raise practical difficulties on questions of proof. Such offences do exist: for example, the offence of police impersonation under section 90 of the Police Act 1996. Therefore, we conclude that the legal concept of deception is sufficiently well established for this not to cause major difficulties.”

Some say that the Bill’s proposed offence is not a dramatic departure from that of impersonating a police officer, but I disagree: they are completely different issues. Wearing a medal to gain respect or kudos is one thing, but impersonating a police officer is totally different. Police officers have actual powers, which could be used in a most sinister way. Surely that is in a different league from someone wearing a medal that they are not entitled to wear.

Only this week, a good example was reported of the difference between that and impersonating a police officer. Apparently, a man pretending to be a police officer used a blue flashing light on the front of his BMW car to signal to a woman to pull over as she drove in Glenrothes in Scotland at about 20 minutes past 12 in the morning last Monday. He then told her to get out of the car. She became suspicious and drove off to call the real police, who confirmed that it was not one of their officers. What could have happened had she got out of the car does not bear thinking about. Surely that cannot be classed in the same way as someone wearing a medal to which they are not entitled.

On the detail of the Bill, clause 1(1), which centres on the proposed offence of wearing medals or insignia without entitlement, states:

“Subject to subsection (5), a person who, with intent to deceive, wears, or represents themselves as being entitled to wear an item specified by or under subsection (2) which they are not entitled to wear is guilty of an offence.”

If you do not mind, Mr Speaker, I wish to emphasise that the important part of that subsection is the statement that

“a person who, with intent to deceive, wears, or represents themselves as being entitled to wear an item”

would be “guilty of an offence.” That means that somebody does not actually have to be wearing the medal in order to commit a criminal offence under the Bill, even though the Bill’s supporters have been telling us all along that what they want to stamp out is the behaviour of people wearing medals that they are not entitled to wear. The Bill would not just stamp out the wearing of medals; it also states that those who

“represent themselves as being entitled to wear”

a medal would be guilty of an offence.

The exchange between my hon. Friends the Members for Plymouth, Moor View (Johnny Mercer), and for Dartford during the Defence Committee inquiry dealt perfectly with that point. My hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Moor View, asked:

“Would the Bill seek to criminalise the false representation of entitlement to a decoration or medal without a person even wearing it? Let me give you an example. Any links to any members of this Committee are purely coincidental”—

I should certainly say that, given that my hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham (Bob Stewart) is sitting directly in front of me—

“but say you’ve got Corporal Bob going down the pub and racking up a not insignificant bar bill and gobbing off about winning a Military Cross in Normandy or whatever. Would this legislation apply in that case?”

My hon. Friend the Member for Dartford replied:

“It would. The first subsection of this Bill indicates that someone who wears or represents themselves as being entitled to wear would be covered. So if someone goes along saying, ‘I won a Victoria Cross and look what’s happened to me; it’s dreadful; I need some help and assistance,’ they would fall foul of this law because they are making a false claim.”

The dialogue between my right hon. Friend the Member for New Forest East, who is Chairman of the Committee, and my hon. Friend the Member for Dartford was very stark. My right hon. Friend asked:

“Is that only if they are trying to gain something, or is it out of just boastfulness that they would still be caught?”

My hon. Friend replied:

“If it was carried out in a way that was intending to deceive people, it would be covered by this Bill.”

My right hon. Friend said:

“Even just to get the prestige or the credit.”

“Yes”, said my hon. Friend.

That means that someone who gets drunk and starts pretending that they have a medal that they have not earned, in any circumstances and in front of any other person, could be guilty of the proposed offence and face a prison sentence. Do we really think that that is proportionate? Are we really going to criminalise those people and potentially send them to prison? Is that really what this House intends to do?

Clause 1(2) states that the medals covered are

“a military medal or insignia meeting the requirements of subsection (4)…the George Cross, George Medal or Queen’s Gallantry Medal…any other medal or insignia awarded for valour and designated by the Secretary of State by regulations…or an article or emblem resembling any item specified by or under paragraphs (a) to (c).”

Subsection (4) states:

“For the purposes of this section, ‘military medal or insignia’ means a medal, insignia, clasp, ribbon or bar or equivalent authorised by the Monarch or Defence Council awarded to a member of the United Kingdom’s armed forces in connection with an act or acts of valour.”

In its written evidence to the Defence Committee, the Royal British Legion wrote:

“Although the precise wording of the Bill is yet to be printed”—

that was the case at the time—

“the Legion understands that it aims ‘to prohibit the wearing or public display, by a person not entitled to do so, of medals or insignia awarded for valour, with the intent to deceive’. As the Bill is further developed, the Legion would welcome assurances that those who wear the medals of deceased relatives, or replica medals of official awards they have been granted, will not be captured by the provisions of the Bill.”

We now know that they are not captured by the provisions. The RBL continued:

“The Committee may also want to consider how the Bill will accommodate the practice of wearing commemorative medals. As Committee members will no doubt be aware, many veterans feel strongly that their service during particular military campaigns or periods of operation should be formally recognised, yet there is often no official medal commemorating their service. Veterans have accordingly been known to commission and purchase commemorative medals that highlight their involvement in a particular campaign or demonstrate their service, although they are not officially recognised. Whilst the Legion does not endorse the wearing of commemorative medals on parade, we would not like to see such individuals punished under the terms of the proposed Bill, provided that their service record supports their involvement in a particular campaign.”

The definition of “medals” appears to be narrowly drawn, but it could easily be changed by future regulations, and it is not restricted to medals; it includes clasps, ribbons and bars and, perhaps even more importantly, anything resembling those items. My hon. Friend the Member for Dartford said:

“The challenge in drafting the Bill has been: where do you stop?”

I am sure that he knows where he wants to stop, but as with so many things, once something has started, it is very difficult to stop—

Proceedings interrupted (Standing Order No. 11(4)).