Points of Order

Debate between Philip Davies and John Bercow

Monday 27th February 2017 Commons Chamber

[Philip Davies]

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

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

[Mr Speaker]

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

[Philip Davies]

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

[Mr Speaker]

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

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

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

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

Debate between Philip Davies and John Bercow

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

[Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)]

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

[Mr Speaker]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

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

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

New clause 11—Annual statistics—

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

New clause 12—Quarterly statistics—

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

New clause 14—Limitation on reservations concerning Article 44—

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

New clause 15—Territorial application—

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

New clause 16—Victims of forced marriage—

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

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

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

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

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

New clause 19—Reservations—

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

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

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

Government amendment 1, leave out clause 1.

This amendment leaves out clause 1.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

“within four weeks of this Act receiving Royal Assent”

and insert

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This amendment is consequential on amendment 4.

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

This amendment is consequential on amendment 4.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This amendment is consequential on amendment 8.

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

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

This amendment is consequential on amendment 8.

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

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

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

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

This amendment is consequential on amendment 8.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

“and to include the names of these organisations”.

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

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

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

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

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

“1 January every 2 years”.

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

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

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

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

and insert—

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

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

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

“Require the United Kingdom to ratify”

and insert—

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

This amendment is consequential on amendment 7.

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

This amendment is consequential on amendment 16.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Speaker]

Well, we shall see.

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

[Philip Davies]

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

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

Awards for Valour (Protection) Bill

Debate between Philip Davies and John Bercow

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

[Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)]

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

[Mr Speaker]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

New clause 8—Report on number of convictions—

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

(a) the number of convictions and

(b) the sentences imposed

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

New clause 9—Expiry of the Act—

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

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

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

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

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

Amendment 4, page 1, line 15, leave out

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

“not exceeding level 1 on the standard scale”.

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

“not exceeding level 2 on the standard scale”.

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

“not exceeding level 3 on the standard scale”.

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

“not exceeding level 4 on the standard scale”.

Amendment 5, page 1, line 17, leave out

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Philip Davies]

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

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

New clause 1 would ensure that

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

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

New clause 2 would ensure that

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

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

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

New clause 3 would ensure that

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

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

New clause 4 would insert:

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

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

New clause 5 would insert:

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

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

New clause 6 would insert:

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

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

New clause 7 would insert:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Philip Davies and John Bercow

Thursday 23rd February 2017 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

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

[Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)]

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

Point of Order

Debate between Philip Davies and John Bercow

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

[Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)]

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Mr Speaker]

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

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

Bill Presented

Prisons and Courts Bill

Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)

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

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

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Philip Davies and John Bercow

Thursday 2nd February 2017 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

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

[Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)]

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

Crime (Aggravated Murder of and Violence against Women)

Debate between Philip Davies and John Bercow

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

[Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)]

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

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

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

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

[Mr Speaker]

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

[Philip Davies]

Thank you very much, Mr Speaker.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

“where gender was recorded, female victims accounted for”

about 76%

“and male victims were”

about 24%.

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

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

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

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

Question put and agreed to.

Ordered,

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

Nusrat Ghani accordingly presented the Bill.

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

[Philip Davies]

I will be here.

[Mr Speaker]

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

Business of the House

Debate between Philip Davies and John Bercow

Thursday 12th January 2017 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call Mims Davies.

[Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)]

May we have a debate—

[Mr Speaker]

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

[Philip Davies]

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

[Mr Speaker]

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Speaker]

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

[Philip Davies]

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

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

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Philip Davies and John Bercow

Tuesday 20th December 2016 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

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

[Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)]

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

European Council 2016

Debate between Philip Davies and John Bercow

Monday 19th December 2016 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

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

[Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)]

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

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Philip Davies and John Bercow

Tuesday 6th December 2016 Commons Chamber

[Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)]

rose—

[Mr Speaker]

I think we will conclude with another dose from Shipley.

[Philip Davies]

Thank you very much, Mr Speaker.

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

Awards for Valour (Protection) Bill

Debate between Philip Davies and John Bercow

Friday 25th November 2016 Commons Chamber

[Philip Davies]

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

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

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

The MOD went on to say:

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

That is perfectly relevant to this debate.

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

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

[Mr Speaker]

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Philip Davies]

rose—

[Mr Speaker]

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

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Philip Davies and John Bercow

Wednesday 16th November 2016 Commons Chamber

[Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)]

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

[Mr Speaker]

Order.

[Philip Davies]

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

Orgreave

Debate between Philip Davies and John Bercow

Tuesday 1st November 2016 Commons Chamber

[Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)]

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

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

[Mr Speaker]

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

[Philip Davies]

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

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Philip Davies and John Bercow

Tuesday 25th October 2016 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

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

[Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)]

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

Business of the House

Debate between Philip Davies and John Bercow

Thursday 20th October 2016 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

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

[Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)]

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

Points of Order

Debate between Philip Davies and John Bercow

Thursday 8th September 2016 Commons Chamber

[Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)]

Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker.

[Mr Speaker]

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

[Philip Davies]

It is further to that point of order.

[Mr Speaker]

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

[Philip Davies]

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

[Mr Speaker]

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

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

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

Junior Doctors: Industrial Action

Debate between Philip Davies and John Bercow

Monday 5th September 2016 Commons Chamber

[Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)]

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

[Mr Speaker]

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

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Philip Davies and John Bercow

Thursday 21st July 2016 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

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

[Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)]

Only a matter of time.

[Mr Speaker]

Indeed.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Philip Davies and John Bercow

Monday 18th July 2016 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

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

[Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)]

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

National Health Service

Debate between Philip Davies and John Bercow

Wednesday 13th July 2016 Commons Chamber

[Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)]

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Mr Speaker]

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

[Philip Davies]

Thank you, Mr Speaker; I appreciate that.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ordered,

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

Margaret Greenwood accordingly presented the Bill.

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

Article 50: Parliamentary Approval

Debate between Philip Davies and John Bercow

Monday 11th July 2016 Commons Chamber

[Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)]

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

[Mr Speaker]

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

[Philip Davies]

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

European Council

Debate between Philip Davies and John Bercow

Monday 21st March 2016 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

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

[Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)]

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

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Philip Davies and John Bercow

Wednesday 9th March 2016 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

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

[Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)]

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

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Philip Davies and John Bercow

Tuesday 5th January 2016 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

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

[Philip Davies]

Thank you very much, Mr Speaker—much appreciated.

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

Syria

Debate between Philip Davies and John Bercow

Thursday 26th November 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

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

[Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)]

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

Benefit Sanctions Regime (Entitlement to Automatic Hardship Payments)

Debate between Philip Davies and John Bercow

Tuesday 27th October 2015 Commons Chamber

[Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Mr Speaker]

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

[Philip Davies]

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

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

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

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

Ordered,

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

Ms Tasmina Ahmed-Sheikh accordingly presented the Bill.

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

Welfare Reform and Work Bill (Programme No. 3)

Ordered,

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

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

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

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

Finance Bill

Debate between Philip Davies and John Bercow

Monday 26th October 2015 Commons Chamber

[Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)]

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

[Mr Speaker]

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

Redcar Steelworks

Debate between Philip Davies and John Bercow

Thursday 15th October 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call Philip Davies

[Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)]

indicated dissent.

[Mr Speaker]

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

Point of Order

Debate between Philip Davies and John Bercow

Thursday 15th October 2015 Commons Chamber

[Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)]

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

[Mr Speaker]

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

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

[Philip Davies]

For now?

[Mr Speaker]

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

Greece

Debate between Philip Davies and John Bercow

Monday 6th July 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

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

[Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)]

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

Business of the House

Debate between Philip Davies and John Bercow

Thursday 18th June 2015 Commons Chamber

[Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)]

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

[Mr Speaker]

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