Mental Health Units (Use of Force) Bill

Debate between Kevin Foster and Philip Davies

Report stage: House of Commons
Friday 15th June 2018 Commons Chamber

[Kevin Foster (Torbay) (Con)]

I am listening with some interest to my hon. Friend’s speech. The purpose of his amendments, as he has said, is to replace the word “force” with “restraint”, and he has just given quite a strong list of things that could be restraint. However, surely the whole purpose of this Bill is to focus on force as we see it defined in other legislation. I know from his doughtiness on issues such as nanny state and cotton wool-style politics that the prospect of talking to people with smiles, which he says could be restraint, is the last thing that we want in this type of Bill.

[Philip Davies]

I understand the points that my hon. Friend makes, and I will come on to some of them later on, as they probably sit better with other amendments that have been tabled. I certainly accept his point, and as always, he makes it well.

I am also concerned that using the word “force” might worry people who are thinking about seeking treatment for mental health conditions. If they see that, it might scare them into wondering what may happen to them in some mental health settings. My view is that the word “force” in this case is not appropriate, not sensible and not actually what is generally used. Of course an element of force is used at times to carry out some methods of restraint, but common sense would suggest that the terminology used in the Bill should be what the sector uses.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kevin Foster]

I thank my hon. Friend for giving way. It is always a pleasure to have an extended opportunity to hear him speak on a Bill. His amendment proposes to replace “must take” with “should consider taking”, when the words “if reasonably practical” are already in the Bill. Similarly, his amendment 19 would introduce the rather vague concept of trying to do something. Hon. Members are usually rather doughty in wanting to take vague provisions out of legislation, but in this case my hon. Friend wants to put some in.

[Philip Davies]

I understand the point that my hon. Friend is making. Equally, I am not keen on unnecessarily criminalising decent police officers. My fear, which I know my hon. Friend does not share, is that that could well happen. It could also be the case that the officer would be acquitted following a long disciplinary process and trial. That often happens to police officers, but we should not underestimate the hurt that results from their having to go through all that. I am trying to prevent unnecessary disciplinary and criminal proceedings being taken against police officers.

[Kevin Foster]

I thank my hon. Friend for giving way again. He gave the example of the pilot schemes, and body-worn cameras have led to a reduction in complaints against police of over 90%, which deals with the point he makes.

[Philip Davies]

I made it clear that I support and encourage the use of such cameras, but there may be occasions when, for whatever reason, they cannot be used, and the wording says “must”.

Assaults on Emergency Workers (Offences) Bill

Debate between Kevin Foster and Philip Davies

3rd reading: House of Commons & Report stage: House of Commons
Friday 27th April 2018 Commons Chamber

[Philip Davies]

All of the above. Labour introduced this power in legislation, but did not enforce it. The Conservative party has promised it in manifestos and still has not delivered. The previous Prime Minister, David Cameron, promised it to the Magistrates Association personally and still did not deliver it. I hope that at some point somebody, whichever side of the House they are on, keeps the promise they have made to magistrates, because both parties are guilty of promising something and not delivering it.

New clause 2 would—

[Kevin Foster (Torbay) (Con)]

Before my hon. Friend moves on to new clause 2, I want to raise a query about new clause 1. My reading of the Bill, particularly clause 3, is that it would cover an assault on a police officer. Does he not believe that prosecutors would look to charge under this Bill? Why is it necessary to amend the old legislation if the Bill will be available to a prosecutor in an appropriate case?

--- Later in debate ---

[Kevin Foster]

It is a pleasure to speak in this debate. I pay tribute to the work of the hon. Members for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) and for Halifax (Holly Lynch) in getting this Bill to Report stage. Having taken a private Member’s Bill through the House myself, I know that, even when the wind is fairly behind it, it is still quite a challenge to make sure that one gets something that can enjoy wider support.

It has been interesting to listen to the thoughtful speeches by my hon. Friends the Members for Cheltenham (Alex Chalk), for Mid Dorset and North Poole (Michael Tomlinson) and for Witney (Robert Courts), who applied their usual level of legal analysis to the Bill and helped to shape my understanding of some of the amendments.

It was particularly interesting, though, to sit through the, as always, robust speech by my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Philip Davies), who brought his own sense of common sense to this debate and to his new clauses and amendments. Sadly, however, I will have to express queries and concerns about one or two of his proposals. I will be interested to hear what the Minister says in response to them.

In my intervention on my hon. Friend on his new clause 1, I said that this Bill creates a new offence that we would expect prosecutors to look to in prosecuting common assault on emergency services workers. I accept that the thrust of the new clause is the idea of having different sentencing regimes for an older offence dating from 1996 as opposed to the new offence created by the Bill. I am not persuaded that it is the best idea to alter the old piece of legislation as well, because that gets us into a debate about whether we should be reviewing or removing certain provisions. It would be more useful to see what happens when the new offence comes in. We would rightly expect prosecutors to see the intention of Parliament in passing this specific new offence that covers assaults on emergency workers and look to use it rather than the old one. I would be tempted to look to see whether the old offence becomes redundant in future. Rightly, prosecutors will look to give the courts the sentencing powers available for this offence and consider the fact that Parliament has passed a new and more up-to-date piece of legislation. I was not persuaded by the arguments on new clause 1, but I will be interested to hear the Minister’s comments.

[Philip Davies]

We have heard from some of our learned colleagues about how the Crown Prosecution Service sometimes makes mistakes when charging people. Would it not be absurd if it were to charge somebody under the wrong offence—the old offence of 1996 and not this one—and when it went before the court, the court could not give the person the appropriate sentence that this House thinks they should get because it will be working to an old piece of legislation? Surely it would make sense to even up the sentence for both, and then whichever offence they were charged with, the judge or the magistrate could do the job.

[Kevin Foster]

I thank my hon. Friend for his, as always, interesting intervention. I think it would make sense to see how the new law works out in practice. It would be quite bizarre if we saw a trend towards charging under the old offence rather than the new one. This is not about removing the ability to charge more serious offences. We need to be clear that this is about giving prosecutors an additional tool to deal with these issues. It is not about removing other offences. If someone attempts to murder a police offer, they clearly should be charged with attempted murder. If someone commits a serious assault on a police officer, they should be charged with ABH or GBH. This is about covering those who behave in a completely unacceptable manner towards an emergency services worker but do not trigger those types of offence, and we must be clear that Parliament’s intent is not for this to become a catch-all offence.

Perhaps in future there will be an appropriate time for a review. I am sure my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley will, as always, dutifully pursue the statistics on the use of this new offence, to ensure that prosecutors and courts have the powers to deal with those involved.

I sympathise with the call to up the sentence to a maximum of two years. I was interested to hear the contribution from my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Dorset and North Poole on that point, and particularly on the issue of either-way offences. Normally, trial on indictment in the Crown court carries a higher penalty than a summary trial in the magistrates court.

The only thing I did not find particularly persuasive was the reference my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley made to the proposed five-year sentence for animal cruelty. It is worth saying that that is the only charge available if someone has exhibited violence to an animal. We think of cases where animals have literally been tortured to death. At the moment, the effective maximum is about six months in jail, whereas this is not a catch-all offence. We are looking for more serious offences to sit alongside less serious ones.

I know from my experience last year of supporting Bills on that issue that my hon. Friend is a very strong supporter of appropriate sentences for animal cruelty. A sick thug who tortures a living creature to death should not be walking out of a court a free person; they should be heading down to the cells for a significant period of imprisonment. I just feel it appropriate to be clear that our intention is not for this to become a catch-all for a range of offences. For animal cruelty, that is the offence someone is charged with, and the court then reflects the seriousness of that offence in the sentencing.

[Philip Davies]

indicated assent.

[Kevin Foster]

I see my hon. Friend nodding his head.

New clause 3 suggests a review after two years. I am interested to hear from the Minister what proposals the Government have to monitor this new offence and its use once it comes into effect. I am rarely persuaded that putting a requirement for a specific review into legislation is the best thing to do, not least given the abilities of Members of the House to question Ministers, have debates, look for information and commission research from the Library. I am interested to hear how the Government propose to deal with that.

On new clauses 4 to 8, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley, I am probably more of the view of my hon. Friend the Member for Chippenham (Michelle Donelan); there is a debate to be had around the early release scheme. I certainly sympathise with the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Corby (Tom Pursglove) that this should not be seen as a right, but should be based on the fact that someone has behaved appropriately. Similarly, if someone comes out of prison on licence, it should be a licence on their behaviour, and if they breach the terms of that licence, the remainder of their sentence awaits them back in prison.

The one slight concern I have is what supervision and requirements there are of people after they are released, having gone back to complete their full sentence or having completed their full sentence in prison. That was highlighted to me recently in a case in my constituency where someone had been released from jail on licence and had then breached the terms of that licence. They were recalled to prison to complete their sentence, and once they had done so, probation had no role on release. There is very little restriction on what they do, unless they are on the sex offenders register, which has certain restrictions. Likewise, some of the support mechanisms and things that are available to those on licence are, ironically, not available to those who have been required to complete their whole sentence.

[Philip Davies]

It was very lucky that the person concerned went back to serve their whole sentence, because we now have fixed-term recalls, as my hon. Friend will know. Usually, when someone commits an offence when they have been released halfway through the sentence, they do not serve the remainder of their sentence; they serve only 28 days or sometimes 14 days of the sentence. Not only are they being automatically released halfway through, but if they breach the terms of their licence, they go back in for only 14 or 28 days. The whole thing is a scandal.

Middle Level Bill

Debate between Kevin Foster and Philip Davies

Report stage: House of Commons
Wednesday 28th February 2018 Commons Chamber

[Kevin Foster]

It is a pleasure to get another opportunity to speak on the Bill. Given that it has already had its Second Reading, I will focus my remarks on today’s amendments and the changes made in Committee.

As the hon. Member for Halifax (Holly Lynch) just mentioned, a number of positive changes were made to the Bill in response to the petitioners’ concerns, and I was grateful to hear my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Sir Christopher Chope) say that changes had been made and that people had listened. It is appropriate, however, that I say briefly why I do not think it would be appropriate for the amendments and new clauses to be accepted.

New clause 1 would set a minimum navigation depth actually lower than the one in current legislation. New clauses 2 to 5 refer to specific facilities that could be provided. As suggested in an intervention, it does not seem logical to specify in statute things such as coin-operated water showers. Were that to sit in primary legislation, it would run the danger of the Bill becoming completely outdated. It also makes sense for users, via the mechanisms proposed in the Bill, to be able to discuss what are appropriate facilities. The inclusion of some of these items might also render particular powers ineffective where planning permission is refused. I therefore urge the House to reject all the new clauses.

[Philip Davies]

I take my hon. Friend’s point about the specific items, but new clause 5 does not mention anything specific; it just maintains that something should be in “good repair and working order”. If that new clause is not accepted, what would the appropriate remedy be for boaters to ensure they did not pay for something they cannot use?

[Kevin Foster]

Clause 4, as amended, means that incomes can only be used for navigation purposes. Ultimately, this becomes a chicken-and-egg situation: money will have to be raised if the commissioners are to provide the type of facilities people want on the Middle Level in consultation with navigation users. The alternative is to ask those who are paying for drainage to pay for those facilities to be provided initially via their council tax bills, which seems neither fair nor equitable. This cannot be a money-raising exercise. The purpose of any moneys raised by navigation must be absolutely clear. People are already paying for drainage via council tax and a levy.

[Kevin Foster]

An amendment was made in Committee making it clear that the powers would not be extended to someone who owns the waterways and the frontage of a property. The promoters have confirmed that the owners of the marinas wish to be included in the powers of the commission. There is no specific definition. We are not talking about a lock or a quay; we are talking about an open waterway. The aim is to manage it as a whole system, with registration applying throughout, and without different safety standards or insurance requirements. That should benefit the hon. Lady’s constituents.

Amendment 1 would extend the time between the passing of the Act and the date on which it would come into effect. A 12-month transition period applies to many of the provisions relating to construction and use, but it does not make sense to delay all the provisions—such as the commissioners’ new duty to have regard to the interests of boat dwellers—to that extent.

Let me now deal with amendment 2. My hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch asked where the words “any other offensive” had come from. The wording is actually similar to the requirements under the Environment Agency’s powers to control discharges into water for works purposes under section 163 of the Water Resources Act 1991. It is a well-established definition, and I hope that that will reassure my hon. Friend.

My hon. Friend said that amendment 3 was a probing amendment. Adding a reference to electric vehicles to a provision that also includes vehicles under sail does not take into account the direction in which technology could well move. Electric motors are becoming much more powerful, certainly far more powerful than a sail vessel. However, as I have said, my hon. Friend did say that this was a probing amendment.

The promoters would find amendment 4 unacceptable, because it would potentially remove the need for a static vessel to meet construction and safety standards or insurance requirements. I think that, given the issues that we have been debating over the past year, few of us would consider it sensible for those requirements not to apply to houseboats.

Amendment 5 would extend the commissioners’ powers in quite an odd way, and could require them to dig out virtually every watercourse in the area that is not a navigable course. It suggests the idea of a sort of waterway statutory off-road notice. This has already been taken care of by a change that was made in relation to boats that people own that are on their own property and used only by them. Parking a boat in a marina, for example, would be the equivalent of parking it in a public car park.

I made a point about amendment 6 in an earlier intervention. As was pointed out by my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Philip Davies), replacing the words

“appear to the Commissioners to be (taken together)”

with the word ”are” could allow a challenge over who had been appointed if someone felt that an appointee did not represent them. I do not feel that that would be an appropriate or helpful addition to the Bill. Such a challenge to the advisory committee could potentially frustrate its establishment.

I oppose amendments 9, 16 and 22 because the point of introducing a practical power is to provide for a simple registration plate that can be enforced. Getting into an argument about whether a boat has been used or not seems neither sensible nor appropriate, particularly if we are talking about looking to have basic construction and safety standards and insurance standards. In exactly the same way as if we park a car on a public road, it does not matter whether we are driving it or not as it still needs to be roadworthy and have paid vehicle tax. There are therefore similar precedents in other areas of legislation, so again I suggest that these amendments are both unwelcome and unnecessary.

As for amendments 10 and 11, the Bill makes it clear how the income from navigation will be used to fund benefits for navigation so, again, neither of them is necessary. On amendments 12 and 13, it does not seem unreasonable to allow commissioners to set conditions on the use of facilities such as, for example, cleaning showers and not abusing waste facilities. Indeed, it could undermine the purposes of providing those facilities if they were not able to provide a basic regulation system for how they were used, which is common in many other environments.

On amendment 14, I appreciate the passion of my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch for ensuring that disabled people have a strong voice in this Chamber, along with my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley, who is a passionate advocate of equalities, hence his membership of the Women and Equalities Committee. However, this amendment is flawed as it refers to a register of disabled persons when that register was abolished by the Disability Discrimination Act 1995, so again I suggest it would not be sensible to bring that in.

[Philip Davies]

I appreciate my hon. Friend’s ability to find a technical reason why he should not accept the amendment, but does he accept the principle behind it?

[Kevin Foster]

We are on Report, whose purpose is to look at the technical detail of the Bill and satisfy ourselves it would be appropriate. In terms of whether I support the principle, my council does not offer a parking fee concession for those who hold a blue badge, only the ability to use reserved spaces that are very close. Again, that principle is established in many areas, so I do not think the principle of this is one to take forward. This is not about someone needing an extra facility because they are disabled; this is about a boat and navigation and whether people pay the same charge as everyone else and are effectively treated exactly the same.

On amendments 15 and 16, it does not make any sense to remove the ability to promote reciprocal arrangements, and it could end up costing boat owners more if they have to have separate licences and registration and different standards, so I urge the House to reject these amendments. On amendments 17, 18, 19 and 20, a protocol will be put in place, so I do not accept the suggestion that the existing powers would be oppressive. A houseboat would only be removed in the last resort and where it was proportionate to do so.

On amendment 23, it makes little sense to apply this cap only to the application fee; it does not apply it to the registration fee. This could produce perverse effects in the long run, and I again suggest it should be rejected.

My view and that of the promoters is that amendment 26 this would cause confusion: if things are done in “conjunction” with, rather than through “consultation”, and someone wishes to take legal action, whom do they take it against? They could end up taking it against members of the navigation advisory committee which actually just got involved to represent people, so this could act as a deterrent for anyone wanting to be involved.

There are many good reasons for this Bill to be passed. It has been examined in great depth in the Opposed Bill Committee and on the Floor of the House. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch for his great interest and the scrutiny he has given this Bill, but I urge the House to reject all the new clauses and amendments, if necessary.