Overseas Electors Bill

Debate between David Hanson and Philip Davies

Friday 22nd March 2019 Commons Chamber

[Neil O’Brien]

rose—

[Philip Davies]

My hon. Friend has had a good knock so far, so if he will forgive me, I will give way to the right hon. Gentleman.

[David Hanson]

The point that the hon. Member for Redditch (Rachel Maclean) made is surely erroneous, in the sense that members of the armed forces will not be overseas for 15-plus years. They will be serving overseas for short periods. The people overseas for 15-plus years are those who have divorced themselves from the United Kingdom for a long period.

[Philip Davies]

I think the right hon. Gentleman is also referring to the merits of the whole Bill, and I had just said that I did not really want to get into that at this stage. Third Reading is probably the best time to deal with that. Indeed, I am sure that we can save up all these points for then. I am rather anxious to get back to new clause 1, but I will first give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Harborough.

Offensive Weapons Bill

Debate between David Hanson and Philip Davies

3rd reading: House of Commons & Report stage: House of Commons
Wednesday 28th November 2018 Commons Chamber

[David Hanson]

I rise to speak to new clause 1. I say to the Minister straightaway that I think she has missed the point on this. We are trying to strengthen the Bill to protect retail staff who are upholding the law. I support the Government’s position in relation to the banning of sales to under-18s of corrosive products and the restrictions on sales of knives. However, the question is whether it is right that those who hold stocks of those items are accordingly prosecuted if they sell them.

The key question for this House is: what about the people who are at the frontline in upholding the law through enforcing this legislation? Under this Bill, in the case of refusal to sell corrosive products and knives, it will not be the police or the security services, police community support officers or police and crime commissioners, or the local council or trading standards who are at the frontline in upholding the legislation that we hope the House will pass this evening. It will be the individual shop staff—often alone; often, perhaps, not much older than some of the people who are trying to buy these products—who are at the frontline of that challenge.

Let us just picture for a moment a large, 24-hour supermarket open at 2 or 3 o’clock in the morning with a shop assistant at the front counter refusing to make a sale of a corrosive product or a knife, upholding the legislation that the Minister proposes. Imagine for a moment a small, open-all-hours shop refusing to sell these products, or a DIY store on a Saturday afternoon refusing to sell at that frontline. When that member of staff says no, they say no on behalf of us all in upholding this legislation.

The simple measure that I have brought before the House would strengthen the Bill to give those people some protection. It would tell them what their rights are in upholding this legislation and what defences we are giving to them.

[Philip Davies]

As I am sure the right hon. Gentleman knows, I worked for Asda for 12 years before I first entered this place, and what he has said about shop staff is absolutely right. It is a hellishly difficult job working on the checkouts in a supermarket—or in any shop, for that matter—and we ask an awful lot of those people, who are not paid an awful lot to do the really responsible job that they do. I agree that the least that we can do in this House, when we put such pressures on them, is to give them the support that they need. On that basis, I very much support his new clause 1.

Hereditary Peers

Debate between David Hanson and Philip Davies

Tuesday 28th March 2017 Westminster Hall

[Mr David Hanson (Delyn) (Lab)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered Government policy on hereditary peers in the House of Lords.

[Philip Davies (in the Chair)]

Order. I hope right hon. and hon. Members will leave quietly. This is an important debate, and I am sure we should give the right hon. Gentleman the courtesy of being heard. If Members could leave quietly it would be much appreciated.

[Mr Hanson]

As a fellow member of the Justice Committee in another life, it is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Davies.

Asylum (Time Limit) Bill

Debate between David Hanson and Philip Davies

Friday 16th January 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hanson]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend; I was going to come to that point.

[Philip Davies]

rose—

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Hanson]

Before I do, I will give way to the hon. Gentleman.

[Philip Davies]

Does the right hon. Gentleman recognise the scenario, painted by my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Mr Chope), of people coming in as economic migrants, being rumbled by the authorities and then, in effect, playing the asylum system to delay an inevitable removal from the country, often using human rights laws as well to effect further delay? If he does recognise it—and I think many around the country do—what is his solution?

[Mr Hanson]

The asylum system needs to have integrity. There are mechanisms, which I am sure the Minister will strongly outline, that show real integrity and that if an individual falsely claims asylum they will be removed in due course. It is important to recognise that robust systems are in place and that we try to enforce them. We must not let people play the system, but we must recognise that genuine asylum claims can be made later than the proposed three-month limit.

I turn to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Brent North (Barry Gardiner). It will not have escaped your notice, Madam Deputy Speaker, that we have been dealing with the Modern Slavery Bill in this House and another place, where it currently resides. That Bill tries to ensure that we deal with the slavery and trafficking that my hon. Friend mentioned. Individuals may have believed, because of language or cultural difficulties, that they came to this country for work or other reasons, but found themselves trafficked, imprisoned or abused. The Government have recognised the issue by introducing the Modern Slavery Bill, and we have supported them on that.

Under the Asylum (Time Limit) Bill, victims of such horrendous crimes—who may have been forced to come to the UK, who may have lived the life of slaves for many months or years but have been resident in the UK—would have no means of claiming asylum because they had been brought here by traffickers. Those are important circumstances that the Bill misses because of its cut-off date of three months.

The Bill is flawed and unworkable. There is a robust system in place. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s comments, which I am sure will reflect the fact that such a system exists. I would welcome the hon. Member for Christchurch reflecting on the fact that situations change outside the UK, affecting people who may have been here for more than three months, and that through no fault of their own they may need to apply for asylum after that date. As a stark example, if a German Jew were at university in the UK in March 1938 and suddenly realised that they could not return to Germany because of potential difficulties with the fascist regime there, and if they had been here for longer than three months and the hon. Gentleman’s Bill was in place, they would have to be sent back to Germany and ultimately to their death. I am sure the hon. Gentleman would not wish such a situation to affect future asylum claims. He should also reflect on the security provided by the Modern Slavery Bill. Whatever the Minister says, I hope the hon. Member for Christchurch will think carefully about these matters and agree to withdraw his Bill.

The UK’s Justice and Home Affairs Opt-outs

Debate between David Hanson and Philip Davies

Thursday 10th July 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hanson]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for pointing out that nuance in the intervention by the right hon. Member for Wokingham. I regard myself as a European and British citizen and part of—

[Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)]

I don’t.

[Mr Hanson]

I appreciate that others take a different view, but that is my view.

I welcome today’s debate because I believe—again, I think the Home Secretary shares this belief—that crime and criminals do not respect national borders. Technology has moved on in the last 15 to 20 years, which means that a range of issues need to be addressed not just within the boundaries of the United Kingdom, but across Europe as a whole. Free movement and new forms of criminal activity, such as cybercrime, require collective action across Europe.

[Mr Hanson]

As I think the Home Secretary also indicated in our little tête-à-tête of agreement, there is a wider world outside Europe, but we have strong ties with Europe. We have free movement in Europe on a range of matters. We do not have free movement from outside the European Community, so there are issues that we should ensure we deal with within the European Community.

[Philip Davies]

We appear to be reaching an extraordinary position, in that the right hon. Gentleman seems to be advocating the free movement of people all around the EU, so that criminals can come and go as they please, but then we need these ridiculous measures to try to deal with that. Why do we not just take a more simplistic approach and scrap the free movement of people? Then perhaps we would not need all these ridiculous measures in the first place.

[Mr Hanson]

Again, I think the hon. Gentleman perhaps has more in common with other parties than his own on that issue. Some of the changes that have taken place—in technology, free movement, cybercrime, new forms of crime, child prostitution, trafficking and drugs—demand a Europe-wide solution, and I think the Home Secretary has accepted that. They are international crimes that know no borders and they need international solutions. Each crime is creating new victims. I believe it is the duty of this House to ensure that we work with our European partners to reduce that crime, bringing criminals to justice and, yes, co-operating to do so.

Scrap Metal Dealers Bill

Debate between David Hanson and Philip Davies

Friday 9th November 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hanson]

I will not delay the House for very long because the official Opposition support new clause 2 and welcome the Government’s consideration of this matter.

As the Minister said, new clause 2 has come about because the police have said that they want the record of dealings to be tightened and the Government to introduce measures to improve proof of accuracy. I am pleased that the hon. Member for Croydon South (Richard Ottaway) and the Minister have responded to those requests with new clause 2. As the Minister said, it will require dealers to record more information about metal disposed of by paying attention to the description of the metal and the date and time of disposal, as well as who disposed of it, to whom it was disposed and any consideration received. This is an important matter, because the new clause adopts a firmer approach to tightening the outlets for stolen metal, as does the rest of the Bill. In our earlier discussions we were clear across the House that our approach to the desecration of war memorials and damage done to railways, churches and voluntary organisations needs to be tightened considerably. The way to do that is to cut off, at source, openings for the disposal of stolen metal through metal outlets. New clause 2 is an additional measure in supporting that approach.

I wish to make two quick points about new clause 4. I can understand why the hon. Member for Christchurch (Mr Chope) has tabled it, but—I am in danger of sounding ministerial—I agree with the Minister’s approach. There is no evidence to my knowledge that individuals under the age of 21 are committing more offences than those over 21. I do not believe the Bill should contain a discriminatory clause that, if enacted, would prevent people under 21 from engaging in legitimate metal dealings. If people are committing offences, it does not matter whether they are 19 or 23. The important thing is the offence being committed. I therefore hope that the hon. Gentleman will not pursue new clause 4. If he does so, he will not have the support of the official Opposition, which I know will trouble him greatly.

I also agree with the Minister that the use of SmartWater, as proposed by new clause 6, would be restrictive rather than expansive. SmartWater is a trade name. It is not necessarily the final product: other products may eventually come on the market. New clause 6 would be restrictive, rather than creating fuller powers under the Act—as I hope the Bill will become shortly—to be implemented in a reasonable way. With those few comments, I give the Minister a fair wind.

[Philip Davies]

I intend to speak to my amendments in the group and, in doing so, say how disappointed I am that the Minister chose entirely to ignore them. We might have to tease him into leaping to his feet at some point to clarify certain points. I will leave it to my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Mr Chope) to explain his amendments, as he will be able to do that far better than I ever could.

--- Later in debate ---

[Philip Davies]

I am even more disappointed now, because it appears that only my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch and I were excluded from the deliberations. The Minister might have been hoping to satisfy me with that intervention, but he has done the exact opposite.

The background to new clause 7 is my fear that we are being asked to agree, in a rushed way and without proper scrutiny, to a Bill that really should have been a Government Bill. It should have gone through the full rigour of scrutiny in the House, and that clearly has not been the case, which is most unsatisfactory. It seems to me perfectly legitimate when one-clause private Members’ Bills are introduced to tidy up technicalities, but we are being asked to rush through a wide-ranging Bill that will have wide-ranging consequences for the public, a particular industry, people linked to that industry and various organisations that are hoping that their property will be better protected. The House should therefore give the Bill proper scrutiny, and that has not been the case.

Our job is to hold the Government’s feet to the fire and ensure that the legislation that we pass is fit for purpose. Based on our deliberations so far, I cannot put my hand on my heart and say that that is the case with this Bill, because of the rushed time scale. The new clause is designed to address that problem. It states that the Act—should the Bill become an Act—

“shall expire one year from the date on which it receives Royal Assent”,

and that section 146 of the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012, which dealt with the banning of cash payments in the industry, shall expire on the same date. That provision itself was a late entry to the 2012 Act, rushed through at the last minute as a knee-jerk reaction without proper scrutiny. It was the “looking as if we’re doing something” approach to politics.

The new clause would enable the measures that my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon South (Richard Ottaway) has worked incredibly hard to bring to the statute book to be brought into force, but give the Government time to come back to us with legislation that was better thought through and better scrutinised by both Houses. We would therefore end up with legislation that we could all be satisfied was fit for purpose, rather than the final word being this Bill, which is being rushed through and in which we may well make a mistake.

[Mr Hanson]

My worry with the hon. Gentleman’s approach is that, as he will know, the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012 includes measures on metal theft that have not yet come into force but which the Bill would repeal. He now indicates that those measures could be reviewed again in 12 months’ time after Royal Assent. The Government—and, I hope, the industry—want certainty that a clear regime is in place. I would welcome the hon. Gentleman’s comments on that, as this legislation could lead to further uncertainty in the industry.

--- Later in debate ---

[Philip Davies]

Some may argue that this is a red letter day for me—it is the first time I have extracted a concession from a Government of any persuasion. I accept it in the spirit it was given, and I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon South for showing such a flexible attitude. A review is essential, as is an expiry date which, in effect, forces the Government to return to the legislation in future, having considered all the evidence from the review. That will ensure that we get legislation that is right in the long term. That is absolutely the right approach—I gently suggest that it is a model for future legislation, but I will not push my luck too far.

To tidy up the other amendments in my name in the group, I suggest that the Government should, as part of the review, publish the crime figures associated with scrap metal theft for the whole of the period of the review. Given that we are seeking to tackle the problem of metal theft, those figures will be an important part of any review. My amendments would ensure that they would be part of it, so—I am on a roll—I hope the Minister agrees to them.

I also ask the Government to publish a study comparing the use of all legislation prior to the introduction of the Bill, and an assessment of the effect that prohibiting scrap metal dealers from using cash has on business. The general tenor of the amendments is to ensure that crime and the scrap metal industry are properly considered by the review. I am sure that that is what all hon. Members would want and expect, and the amendments will ensure that it happens.

On that note, I again thank my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon South for his flexible approach and his willingness to accept an earlier review than the Bill allows and an expiry date. That is a great credit not only to him, but to the Bill.

[Mr Hanson]

I suspect that in the future when an unknown university student in an unknown university does a model exercise on legislating on a particular problem, they will look at the Bill on scrap metal dealers as an example of how not to proceed with legislation. With due respect to the hon. Member for Croydon South (Richard Ottaway) and the Minister, new clause 7 would add a potential further delay to the legislation.

The problem of metal theft was identified on both sides of the House as an urgent issue, because the inflated price of metal was causing an increase in the amount of metal stolen from churches, war memorials and so on. The Opposition, trying to focus the Government’s mind on the matter, tabled amendments to the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Bill about a year ago. Those amendments were rejected by the Government, who kicked the matter into the long grass. The Government came to realise, through pressure from Members including the hon. Members for Croydon South, for Worcester (Mr Walker) and for Enfield North (Nick de Bois), that this was a problem and revisited the matter. They tabled amendments to the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Bill that broadly reflected the Opposition’s earlier amendments. Most of the aspects that we had included were there. With Opposition support, the amendments on metal theft were included in the Bill, now an Act.

Sections 145 to 147 of the Act were scheduled for implementation in December. However, the Bill before us today would repeal those sections before they have even been brought into effect, because the Government have realised that the points that the Opposition made nearly 12 months ago—with, I accept, cross-party support from coalition Back Benchers—were valid.

The Government have supported the hon. Member for Croydon South in bringing forward the Bill, which had full support from the Opposition on Second Reading. The Minister and the hon. Gentleman have been very gracious in their approach to the Bill and they have accepted amendments that the Opposition tabled in Committee. Now we face the threat of the Bill being talked out because the hon. Members for Christchurch (Mr Chope) and for Shipley (Philip Davies) have concerns about it. In the light of the new clause calling for a delay—[Interruption.] For a review, then. As a result, the Minister and the hon. Member for Croydon South have agreed a review date after three years and a sunset clause after five years.

[Philip Davies]

I have a great deal of time for the shadow Minister and we agree with each other on far too many occasions, but I do not know what he is talking about. The new clause would not introduce any delay into the Bill—far from it. It would introduce a review, but there was a review in the Bill anyway and it would merely be brought forward. It would also mean that in five years’ time, the Government would have to bring back more considered legislation. I do not know what the right hon. Gentleman’s problem is.

[Mr Hanson]

My problem is that the way in which the Government have approached this issue has been piecemeal, unco-ordinated and involved U-turns on legislation before it has even come into effect. What we most want out of this is certainty for the people who provide scrap metal services and are trying to plan their businesses and invest in providing that valuable service to the community, as well as certainty in the deterrent effect of the legislation for those people who are carrying out despicable acts. All the way through, the Government’s approach has been piecemeal: there have been U-turns, uncertainty and not a great deal of focus, and I say that while respecting what the hon. Member for Croydon South has done in introducing the Bill, and respecting the Minister for accepting amendments in Committee.

Protection of Freedoms Bill

Debate between David Hanson and Philip Davies

Monday 19th March 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hanson]

As the Minister has said, we are indeed traversing old ground that is familiar to me, to him and to his officials. The initial discussion on DNA retention had its genesis in the debates on what became the Crime and Security Act 2010, which was produced during what I shall have to call the dying days of the last Labour Government. At that time, the then Home Secretary, my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle (Alan Johnson), and I, the then Policing Minister, wrestled with the issues on DNA retention. We looked at them in great detail, and made an assessment of the judgments of the European Court of Human Rights on these matters.

We also considered how we could maximise the envelope that was available for the retention of DNA. That was a matter of judgment. We wished to ensure that we had the greatest possible ability under the legal requirements set down under those European Court judgments to maintain the retention of DNA so that we could use it to catch criminals who had committed crimes or who could potentially commit further crimes. We made the assessment—rightly or wrongly; we believe rightly—that there were between 20,000 and 23,000 individuals who might well have committed crimes during the six years. With the shorter period that the Minister is proposing in the Bill, such people will not now have to face that judgment. The police might not be able to use the DNA samples any more when the Bill comes into force, as the DNA profiles will no longer be in place. This is indeed old ground.

The 2010 Act was the subject of a difference of opinion between me and the then shadow Minister, and that difference has not changed in the subsequent two years. Happily in many ways, I was not party to the Bill’s initial consideration in Committee, as I was at that time shadowing Treasury Ministers. I returned in October, however, to find that the Government were intent on progressing the change in the DNA regime. I see my hon. Friend the Member for Tynemouth (Mr Campbell), who was a Home Office Minister at the time. Let me say that as a name for a Bill, the Protection of Freedoms Bill is one of the greatest misnomers ever in my near 20-year career in this House. It unpicks the impact of Labour’s 2010 Act. In so doing, I believe it puts at risk individuals in our communities who could have been helped and supported and could have been protected from becoming victims by the provisions of the 2010 Act.

Our amendment (a), to which the Minister has referred, is meant to provide a device to allow us to debate some of the serious offences that would be impacted by the Government’s proposed changes to the DNA regime. We have argued strongly—it is a matter of judgment—that the Crime and Security Act 2010 was the best way to meet our European obligations at the same time as trying to protect civil liberties and ensuring also that the British people would be free of murder, rape and crime. There are balances to be struck in ministerial life, which is always about balances. When I was in government with my fellow Ministers in the Home Office—the Department that the present Minister is now privileged to serve—we felt that under European law and paying respect to the protection of liberties, we should try to extend the window of opportunity to protect as many people as possible by ensuring that DNA samples were collected.

[Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)]

Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that if someone’s DNA is held on a database, it does not impinge on their freedoms to go about their daily lawful business, unimpeded in anything they want to do? Does he further agree that people’s freedoms are enhanced by having as many murderers, rapists and other serious offenders brought to justice and put behind bars, rather than having them wandering the streets because their DNA is not on a database?

[Mr Hanson]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his support on this matter. He has been consistent in his support for the Opposition’s proposals and has joined us in Divisions. Deep down, he understands that the Conservative party’s legacy as the party of law and order is seriously being put at risk by measures that are soft on individuals who have the potential to commit rape, murder or other serious crimes, who could be prevented from committing those crimes if their DNA were on a database for a longer period. I believe that that presents a real risk not just to public, but to the reputation of the Conservative party.

--- Later in debate ---

[Philip Davies]

Does the Minister know of any innocent person who has been negatively affected by the placing of his details on a DNA database? This is a question of balance. The Government’s main aim appears to be to ensure that the DNA of someone who has not committed a crime is not put on the database, but as far as I know that does such people no harm. Surely a greater danger is posed by the person whose DNA should be on the database but is not, and who then commits a crime that is not detected.

[Mr Hanson]

I hesitate to agree with the hon. Gentleman yet again, but I do agree with him. As far as I am aware, the fact that someone’s DNA is on the database under the 2010 Act is known only by the police—if they wish to examine it—and by the person concerned, and they can tell whoever they wish to tell, or alternatively tell no one. It is not a matter of public knowledge.

This is the nub of my amendment, flawed though it is. Of the 23,000 people I mentioned earlier, about 6,000 a year will go on to commit serious crimes, including rape and other sexual offences, murder and manslaughter. I simply ask—as I have on every occasion when I have had an opportunity to discuss the issue—why we should allow that to happen when we have the ability, potentially, to prevent it from happening.