Oral Answers to Questions
Debate between Philip Davies and Ben Gummer(8 years, 4 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Ben Gummer
I thank the hon. Lady for bringing her personal experience to the House, and I hope that all is well. She will understand that screening has to be a non-political matter. That is why we have a specific, clinically led committee to look at whether a screening programme should be implemented. It has been looking at NIPTs over the past year and will be making its decision very shortly. On the principle, though, I completely agree with her; it lies at the foundation of the NHS and we support it.
Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)
12. What assessment he has made of the adequacy of clinical commissioning group transformation plans in addressing the needs of (a) all vulnerable children, (b) children in the care system, and (c) children who have been abused.
Canterbury City Council Bill
Debate between Philip Davies and Ben Gummer(11 years, 3 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Philip Davies
As has been said, we are discussing the last group of amendments and I start by paying tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Mr Chope). Colleagues who have shown a belated interest in this Bill may think that they have in effect been thwarting my hon. Friend over the past few minutes. Instead, they have been voting to rubber-stamp amendments to the Bill for which he argued many years ago but which the Government of the time, and elements of the Opposition—the Conservative party was sitting on the other side of the House then—resisted. It is a measure of my hon. Friend’s success that he has gone from leading a few of us into the Lobby to support his amendment to this red letter day on which 250 people have supported that amendment. He should be very proud of that.
Ben Gummer (Ipswich) (Con)
I wish to place on the record that my first intervention in this House was during a discussion on this matter, probably in May or June 2010. Before we conclude our proceedings, it is important to say that I, too, pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Mr Chope) for his ability to cover a range of subjects. That evening we discussed the monastic rights of the city of Canterbury, and a creature called the Pedlar of Swaffham that was raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Norfolk (George Freeman). At each turn my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch was able to discourse on those obtuse matters with eloquence and in great detail, and I pay tribute to him for that. As he says, however, all good things come to an end and perhaps it is good at this moment to draw a line under this varied subject.
Philip Davies
I am grateful to my hon. Friend and he is right to pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch and make it clear to the House that he knows so much more about matters than I do; his expertise spreads far and wide. I have certainly learned a lot over the years, and I am pleased that my hon. Friend the Member for Ipswich (Ben Gummer) is also learning a great deal from him.
Given that so many people have shown a belated interest in this Bill, it seems only right that before they vote on the Lords amendments they understand what they have been invited to vote on. In previous discussions on this matter—as my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch said, we have been debating these Bills for around six years—we were, to be perfectly frank, talking to a small audience. We could therefore, through various nods and winks, understand each other’s arguments, and the Bill could rapidly progress and rush to a Division because we all knew what we were talking about. Tonight we are in a unique position where lots of people who want to participate in the voting do not know the Bill’s six years of history as I and my hon. Friend do. We must lay out exactly what people will be voting for in this group of amendments because I would not want anyone to vote inadvertently for something in which they do not believe.
The amendments relate to clause 11 of the Canterbury City Council Bill, and this is the right time to pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury (Mr Brazier). During the passage of the Bill, he has probably felt a great deal of frustration on occasion, as have other Members who have sponsored the Bills. In all fairness to him, he did not sit there in frustration without listening to the arguments and taking on board what was said. He was good enough to listen to the force of the argument. We had a long debate on touting in relation to the Canterbury City Council Bill, and he was good enough to listen to the arguments. As he made clear in an intervention on my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch—I did not hear all of it because of the hoo-hah going on at the time—the amendment results from the promise given by my hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury at previous stages. He said it would be a fair deal to get rid of clause 11.
Hon. Members know that my hon. Friend is one of the most honourable people, if not the most honourable person, in the House. As ever, he has been as good as his word. However, we cannot leave it at that—the Scrap Metal Dealers Bill is a precedent—because assurances given in the House on how legislation will be dealt with in the other place have not always been kept. We cannot therefore take it as read that their lordships decided to accept the amendment on the word of my hon. Friend, because they have decided to ignore the words of other hon. Members in the past. We must therefore presume not only that their lordships wished to keep to my hon. Friend’s word, but that they were persuaded by the case.
It is striking that, whereas the Lords have decided to delete clause 11 from the Canterbury City Council Bill—that is the amendment we are debating—they chose not to delete clause 11 from the Reading Borough Council Bill, which is virtually identical. Clause 11(1)(b) in both Bills lists the places to which the provisions will apply. However, whereas the Reading Borough Council Bill refers only to “a street”, the Canterbury City Council Bill refers to
“a street or esplanade, parade, promenade or way to which the public commonly have access, whether or not as of right.”
That is the only difference in the clauses in the two Bills.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch said in his opening remarks, it is perhaps a shame that we have not had a great explanation of what their lordships were thinking when they made the amendment to delete clause 11 from the Canterbury Bill. Is the difference in the wording of the two Bills a matter of principle on touting or a matter of practicality? In essence, the measures are the same.
Philip Davies
I am grateful to you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I am sure you want me to get back to the matter in hand.
Ben Gummer
This is an issue of concern. One feature of Brick lane, which I live near, are the many people touting for their restaurants. I suppose that a natural consequence of the proposal is that touting for a restaurant in London will be entirely legal, but in Reading it will not. That inconsistency bears out precisely the point that my hon. Friend made earlier.