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.