Local Audit (Public Access to Documents) Bill

Debate between Philip Davies and David Nuttall

3rd reading: House of Commons & Report stage: House of Commons
Friday 24th March 2017 Commons Chamber

[Philip Davies]

rose—

[Mr Nuttall]

Ah, a dilemma. I will give way first to my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch.

[Mr Nuttall]

There may be some reason for why there is no definition of “citizen journalist” in the Bill, but I must admit that I am unaware of what that reason might be. What I can say, before I give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Philip Davies), is that the Bill’s explanatory notes state in paragraph 4:

“Accordingly, we are seeking to extend the definition of ‘any persons interested’ in section 26(1) of the Act”—

the Local Audit and Accountability Act 2014—

“to include journalists, including ‘citizen journalists’”.

Crucially, paragraph 4 goes on to state that “citizen journalists” means

“bloggers and others who scrutinise local authorities but who may not be accredited members of the press to enable them to access a wider range of accounting material in order to report and publish their findings so that it is available to local electors in an area, thus providing them with information that will enable them to better hold their local council to account.”

Who can disagree with that? It seems an entirely laudable aim, and it is rather disappointing that that laudable aim was not carried through on to the face of the Bill. That is what my amendment seeks to do.

[Philip Davies]

Where do social media fit into my hon. Friend’s wide definition of the term “journalist,” particularly with regard to Facebook and Twitter? If he is basically saying that the term covers anyone who wants to publish anything on the internet, it seems to me that anybody, anywhere can publish on Twitter or Facebook, or whatever. Will that fall within his definition? Does his definition of journalism cover any member of the public? That brings us back to amendment 2, moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Mr Chope).

[Mr Nuttall]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his intervention because he touches on what I will cover in my remaining remarks on amendment 1. There is a distinction to be drawn, because although I agree that my wide definition would, on the face of it, give a very large number of people the right to go and inspect the accounts, the definition does require some publication on the internet. If somebody wanted to go for their own private interest, perhaps for academic research, they would not be included without there being such a publication. There would have to be some element of publication on the internet, and I make no apology at all for my definition covering a wide category of people, because I want to make it as wide as possible.

[Philip Davies]

Just to clarify, as I am still not entirely clear, does that mean that publication on social media such as Twitter would fall within my hon. Friend’s definition of journalism?

[Mr Nuttall]

In short, yes—I am absolutely clear about that—because my definition refers to publication on a website. If a person publishes something on their Twitter account, it is possible to look them up using the web address and to scroll back through their tweets to see what they said yesterday, a month ago or a year ago. It is published for all time on the internet.

[Philip Davies]

I am not unsympathetic to my hon. Friend’s point. The only issue I would raise, and it may be an added complication, is that many Twitter profiles, as we all know too well, are anonymous. We would have no idea who is behind such publications. Is there any implication in amendment 1 that, in defining “journalist”, the public should have the right to know who is publishing the particular material?

[Mr Nuttall]

My hon. Friend raises a good point that I had not previously considered. On the one hand, I agree with him that it is important that individuals should know who is putting such information out there. On the other hand, if it is an anonymous Twitter account, or if the user’s identity has been protected for some reason, I would be inclined to trust the public to treat any published information with a high degree of caution because they would not be able to know its source. Although I would defend the right of anyone to publish such information —this comes back to the question of fake news raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch—the problem with such accounts is that, because they are not accredited to any recognised journalistic outlet, members of the public should be cautious about what they read on them. That does not detract from my fundamental point that the mere fact of information being published on what we refer to with the shorthand “social media” should not stop it being regarded as having been published.

In the past, things were published in a daily newspaper and that was it. There is the old saying about today’s newspaper being tomorrow’s fish and chip paper, and I am old enough to remember when that was true.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Nuttall]

I do not intend to exclude anybody. Nowadays, all the broadcasters have websites. They would not necessarily need to publish or broadcast online, but I am not aware of any broadcasters that do not have websites. Perhaps my right hon. Friend is aware of some, but I would have thought it very simple for any broadcaster, faced with a council using the argument advanced by my right hon. Friend as a shield, to say, “In any event, we will be publishing it on our website.”

[Philip Davies]

To reinforce my hon. Friend’s point, all TV channels can be accessed via the internet these days, so really they all publish on the internet as well. If I read his amendment correctly, it talks about what is included; it does not necessarily refer to excluding other things. It is really an enabling amendment, which I hope will give some comfort to my right hon. Friend the Member for East Yorkshire (Sir Greg Knight).

[Mr Nuttall]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that intervention, because it is important to note that the amendment says “and includes”; I have tried not to exclude any other options but merely to clarify. I hope that that will be noted by the Bill’s promoter and the Minister, who I fear may have some reservations about my amendment. I hope they will concentrate and reflect on that intervention from my hon. Friend.

I wish to comment briefly on several other amendments, but I am understandably concerned that I advance the best possible case for my own. I hope I have been able to satisfy all those with concerns about my amendment and that I have set their minds at ease. I note that the Bill’s promoter has not sought to contest my amendment in any way during my remarks. I sincerely hope that, when she speaks, she will indicate her willingness to accept it in the spirit in which it was tabled. It is not a wrecking amendment; it merely seeks to achieve what her explanatory notes to the Bill say and extend the cover to citizen journalists and bloggers to enable them to inspect the accounts of local authorities.

I wish now to deal with the amendments tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch and make it clear which of them I do and do not support. His amendment 2, as on the amendment paper, would essentially mean that virtually anyone would be able to make use of the powers in the Bill. I am happy to support that, although it is perhaps a touch ambitious, given the views expressed so far during the Bill’s progress by its promoter and the Minister.

My hon. Friend has suggested several other options for the House to consider, including, in amendment 3, extending the access to include politicians. As I made clear in my intervention earlier, I have some concerns about the fact that the word “politician” is not defined anywhere in the Bill, but I have no objection at all to the general proposition of extending the scope from journalists to politicians.

Amendment 4 deals with the position of non-domestic ratepayers, which is particularly important as we move into an era in which we are going back towards the localisation of business rates. That move will inevitably lead businesses within an area to take more interest in what is going on in their local authority, so I wholeheartedly support the amendment.

Amendments 5, 6 and 7 give the House the opportunity to choose between the Bill applying to journalists who are accredited, professional or qualified. We heard from my hon. Friend earlier that his preferred option would be for it to apply to accredited journalists, as per amendment 5. I am happy to go along with my hon. Friend for the reasons he set out.

Amendment 8 would remove the definition of a journalist entirely. As that would, of course, be in direct contravention of my amendment, I would oppose it and press my own instead.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Nuttall]

I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. There would be considerable interest from local residents in accessing all the accounts of all health service bodies.

My hon. Friend’s amendment 11 would extend the period in which inspections can be carried out beyond 30 days. I have heard no explanation as to why the period is 30 days and not 60, 25 or another number. I entirely agree that no logical reason has been advanced as to why we should have a 30-day limit. I would support him on the amendment.

Amendments 12, 13 and 14 are more technical amendments dealing with commercial confidentiality. I welcome amendment 13 and recommend it to the House. The fact that something was commercially sensitive in the past should not prevent the accounts and associated paperwork from being inspected now.

Those are my views on my hon. Friend’s amendments, but I reiterate that I commend my amendment 1 to the House. I hope this is not the case, but if the amendment is opposed, that will draw into question everything said about the Bill’s extending access to a wider number of people and giving information to the public. I have sought only to put in the Bill what the explanatory notes say the Bill is about.

At the very least, if for whatever reason my amendment does not find favour with the promoter of the Bill, I would first be interested to know why. Secondly, the public would be suspicious of the Bill. Let us not forget that the Bill was brought before the House because the initial Acts were defective. I advise the House to be wary of any arguments advanced by the Government against my amendment, because Governments of various hues down the years have led us to the position we are in this morning. I have attempted to be clear and open. One can argue over individual words, but I submit to the House that my amendment is perfectly clear. It seeks to give clarity to the phrase “citizen journalist”, which, whether we like it or not, appears in the heading of clause 1. I commend my amendment to the House.

[Philip Davies]

I am grateful to my hon. Friends the Members for Christchurch (Mr Chope) and for Bury North (Mr Nuttall), who have given a compelling and comprehensive account of their amendments. I rise to adjudicate between them. It is a rare occurrence when my two hon. Friends come at things from slightly different perspectives, but I sense that they have their differences on the Bill. I will do my best to be fair to their amendments in my adjudication.

I join my hon. Friend the Member for Bury North in congratulating the Bill’s promoter, my hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Wendy Morton), on getting her Bill to this stage. It is a good Bill, but if it were to incorporate some of the points made by my hon. Friends the Members for Christchurch and for Bury North, it would be a better Bill. The whole purpose of the Report stage is to try to improve a Bill. My hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Goole (Andrew Percy) is an excellent Minister, and I hope that he and my hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills have listened carefully to my hon. Friends, and that they appreciate, on reflection, that the Bill could be better. I will try to set out which of the amendments the Minister and my hon. Friend should be minded to accept. If they are minded not to accept them, I encourage my hon. Friends the Members for Christchurch and for Bury North to consider pressing them to a Division to test the will of the House.

My hon. Friends have made compelling cases for some but not all of their amendments, which is where I will focus my attention. Amendment 2 is the lead amendment in the group—rightly so, in many respects. It is my contention that it is the most powerful amendment in the group and if my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch is tempted to press any of his amendments to a Division, I hope he focuses his attention on amendment 2, which states:

“Clause 1, page 1, line 5, leave out from ‘after’ to the end of the subsection and insert ‘any members of the public who are registered to vote in local elections in the United Kingdom’”.

In simple terms, my hon. Friend is basically saying that everybody in the country should have a right to know what is going on in local authorities. His compelling case was based on what is happening in his local authority and the neighbouring authority in Bournemouth. Clearly—it seems obvious to me—if two local authorities are potentially merging, a member of the public in one should have the absolute right to full access to all the information from the other to assess whether it is in their best interests for the merger to go ahead. Without access to the information, how on earth can they be in a position to make that judgment? That completely flies in the face of democracy.

It would be perverse in many respects if, in respect of my hon. Friend’s local authority area, the editor of the Evening Standard, who was mentioned earlier, was able to access the documents relating to his neighbouring council by virtue of being a journalist—a fine and leading one, at that, as the editor of a prestigious newspaper—but my hon. Friend’s local residents were unable to get the same information. That would surely be a perverse outcome, and it cannot really be the one envisaged when the Bill was in its infancy. I do not see what possible argument there could be against his amendment. If we believe that, in extending transparency, local authorities can rightly be held to account and the public can have greater awareness of what is going on, why do we not give them all the opportunity to see the information for themselves rather than relying on journalists to do the job for them?

I agree with the principle of extending the range of people who have access to these documents. However, the problem is that this proposal, while a step in the right direction, is not sufficient because, as we all know, the newspaper industry, and local newspapers in particular, are going through a pretty torrid time financially at the moment—I do not think there is any secret about that. With things moving on to the internet, newspapers find it very difficult to adjust and to monetise their content. We therefore tend to find in many local areas that, unfortunately, despite the best efforts of local newspaper groups, they are not increasing the number of journalists who would get access to all these documents and go through them with a fine-tooth comb; they are actually shedding journalists, and they are being spread more thinly. It is slightly naive to hope that, on the back of having given local journalists access to this information, all this stuff will suddenly be in the public domain, because I am not entirely sure that the journalistic trade has the capacity to do that. We will therefore be enabling something that is very worth while but which may not happen in practice. If we want this information to be in the public domain so that the public are able to hold local authorities to account, we cannot just rely on journalists because it is difficult to see how they will have the capacity. We have to allow the public to do it themselves.

I do not see why anybody should not be able to have access to this information. In practice, the chances of somebody in Shipley gratuitously showing an interest in the local authority in Christchurch are very remote. Nobody is going to be inundated with requests for that kind of scrutiny, but residents in Christchurch may well want to know what is happening in Bournemouth, which is just down the road, and they should absolutely have the right to inspect and see whether the council is behaving in the way it should. I was rather shocked to hear the allegations made by my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch about the conflicts of interest of the leader of Bournemouth Council. Without going over the detail myself, it certainly did not sound very good. It is absolutely right that local residents in adjoining authorities should be able to know what is going on.

I genuinely do not see why my hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills or the Minister would want to resist this greater transparency and scrutiny, because surely that is the whole purpose of the Bill. In his amendment, my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch is, in effect, taking the Bill to its logical conclusion. I am pretty sure that if we do not do this now, there will be another private Member’s Bill further down the road introducing the measures that he proposes, because there is a clear logic to what he is trying to achieve. I believe in transparency, and I think it is very difficult to argue against it. If we are to go down the route of transparency, let us have full transparency so that nobody can claim that they did not have an opportunity to access any detailed information that they wanted to see.

Merchant Shipping (Homosexual Conduct) Bill

Debate between Philip Davies and David Nuttall

3rd reading: House of Commons & Report stage: House of Commons
Friday 24th March 2017 Commons Chamber

[Philip Davies]

I can tell why my hon. Friend was such a successful lawyer. He is now getting into legalistic lawyer jargon that is way above my head as a poor former retailer. He goes way beyond my knowledge base. I am sure he has justified that to himself, but I am not sure that I quite understand it.

The “Oxford Dictionary of Law” states that retrospective legislation

“operates on matters taking place before its enactment, e.g. by penalising conduct that was lawful when it occurred. There is a presumption that statutes are not intended to have retroactive effect unless they merely change legal procedure.”

The last time, as far as I can see, that the Government set out their policy on retrospective legislation was when somebody put a parliamentary question to the last Labour Government. The then Solicitor General said:

“The Government’s policy before introducing a legislative provision having retrospective effect is to balance the conflicting public interests and to consider whether the general public interest in the law not being changed retrospectively may be outweighed by any competing public interest. In making this assessment the Government will have regard to relevant international standards including those of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms which was incorporated into United Kingdom law by the Human Rights Act 1998.”—[Official Report, 6 March 2002; Vol. 381, c. 410W.]

I mention that because in some respects that backs up my hon. Friend’s position. In effect, it says that the Government’s position is a matter of looking at the public interest. My hon. Friend rightly says that there is no public interest in not making the legislation retrospective, so in some respects that adds some lustre to his argument.

The Library provided other examples of retrospective legislation:

“Statutory Instruments (Production and Sale) Act 1996, which amended the Statutory Instruments Act 1946 to validate retrospectively and authorise prospectively the printing of statutory instruments by contractors working for HMSO.

Caravans (Standard Community Charge and Rating) Act 1991 which amongst other provisions excluded caravans from the definition of ‘domestic subjects’ in the Abolition of Domestic Rates Etc. (Scotland) Act 1987 and deemed the amendment to have had effect since 1 April 1990.”

It cites the Compensation Act 2006 and states:

“The Scotland Act 2012 provided that the regulation of activities in Antarctica should be treated as having been reserved to the UK Government from the beginning of devolution, even though it had not been reserved in the Scotland Act 1998.”

[Mr David Nuttall (Bury North) (Con)]

My hon. Friend has moved on to 2012, but prior to that the Finance Act 2008, specifically section 58, was changed retrospectively to frustrate a tax planning scheme. This affected many constituents across the country, including some of my own, very badly.

[Philip Davies]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Examples of retrospective legislation are quite interesting. The reason I chose the examples I mentioned—my hon. Friend, as ever, is on the ball and threw another one into the melting pot, although I would put it in a slightly different category—is that in effect they were trying to correct things back to what should always have been the case. I think that, in many respects, that was much more of an outrage than the example given by my hon. Friend. The Acts that I have cited were, in effect, tidying up the law so that it was as it always should have been. My hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch was on to something when he said that that should always have been the case. A mistake was made in the first place and needs to be corrected, and we need to go back to the beginning in order to correct it. I was trying to use examples that would support my hon. Friend’s case, and I felt that the ones that I used did that. My hon. Friend was right to give the example that he gave as well.

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

Debate between Philip Davies and David Nuttall

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

[Philip Davies]

My right hon. Friend is usually much more up on these matters than I am, so I always bow to his superior knowledge, but my understanding is that we would get members on these bodies only once we had ratified the convention. If he knows differently, I am happy to allow him to correct me because, as I say, he is usually more right than I am on most matters.

Another procedure that GREVIO can adopt is a special inquiry procedure that can be implemented when there is reliable information indicating that action is required to prevent a serious, massive or persistent pattern of any acts of violence covered by the convention. In this instance, GREVIO can request urgent submission of a special report by the concerned country.

Obviously I do not believe that the Government should ratify the convention at all, but should we do so, I do not want these foreign supranational bodies to come over and start lecturing us about things when in fact we are usually doing an awful lot better than any other country in the world on such matters. We often see this with the United Nations. By ratifying the convention on the terms of this Bill, we will open ourselves up to visits, fact-finding missions and interference by a foreign body lecturing us about what we should be doing, and perhaps even instructing us that we should be doing this, that and the other.

[Mr David Nuttall (Bury North) (Con)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that we already have sufficient procedures and Committees within our own House of Commons to be able to monitor the actions of the Government on the Istanbul convention?

[Philip Davies]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. It is rather sad if the House of Commons, and Parliament generally, thinks it is so poor at holding the Government to account on these things that it cannot do it itself and has to farm out the job to a foreign body. That would be a rather strange approach and from a Parliament that was lacking in self-confidence. The Women and Equalities Committee—I will not go into the issue of its name today—would be more than capable of holding the Government to account on the work they are doing on combating violence against women, and violence against men for that matter. We do not really need foreign politicians and foreign bureaucrats sticking their noses into what we are doing .

--- Later in debate ---

[Philip Davies]

My hon. Friend makes a very good point, and I hope that the Minister will make that clear. I have given up the hope that SNP Members know anything about what is in the Istanbul convention. They clearly have no idea. If they bothered to read it, they would know that it contains powers for Governments to reserve some areas—not sign up to them—but still ratify the convention. We have no idea, however, whether we are going to sign up to these things. Before Parliament agrees to something, we should at least know what we are signing up to. At the moment, we have no idea. Perhaps the Minister will be good enough to tell us, before Third Reading, what the Government envisage us signing up to.

My hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch is right in one sense about the new clause being a probing measure to tease out from the Government which bits of the convention we will sign up to as part of ratification, but he does it a slight disservice. I am not entirely sure I agree that it is just a probing new clause. To describe it as such suggests that I do not particularly agree with it and am just seeking information, whereas I do agree with it, so I cannot agree with him.

If my hon. Friend was to make the same accusation about new clause 19, however, he might have a point. It states:

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

In effect, that would allow the Government to ratify the convention with the maximum number of reservations allowed. It is important to highlight what reservations are allowed and therefore what would be covered by the new clause. The reservations apply to the following outline areas: compensation, which I have just covered on new clause 17, jurisdiction, statute of limitation, residence status and the right to provide for non-criminal sanctions for psychological violence and stalking.

I have talked about article 30 and compensation already. The new clause 19 would also allow the Government in effect to opt out of paragraphs (1)(e), (3) and (4) of article 44, on jurisdiction; article 55(1), as it relates to article 35, on minor offences and ex parte and ex officio proceedings; article 58, as it relates to articles 37 to 39, on the statute of limitation; and article 59, on residence status, especially in relation to spouses. Finally, article 78(3) declares that a state

“reserves the right to provide for non-criminal sanctions, instead of criminal sanctions, for the behaviours referred to in Articles 33 and 34”—

on psychological violence and stalking respectively.

There is a good case for saying that the UK Government and Parliament should be sovereign in all these areas and that where we can leave matters to the UK Government, Parliament and the UK courts, we should take that opportunity, mainly for the reason I outlined in response to my right hon. Friend the Member for East Yorkshire (Sir Greg Knight): we have no idea necessarily how these things will develop over the years, so it is best to reserve as many rights as possible. That would be the most sensible strategy for the Government to adopt, because it would allow them to retain as much control as possible.

[Mr Nuttall]

Does my hon. Friend agree that there is plenty of precedent from around Europe for going down precisely this route in respect of what other countries have done as part of their ratification process?

[Philip Davies]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. In fact, I was just about to come on to that. Of the 22 countries that have already signed and ratified the convention, 11 have done so with reservations attached, and a further four have signed it stating they want reservations too. It is clearly a reasonable approach for Governments to take—it is in the convention that countries can do it, so it must be an accepted approach. It is clearly a reasonable approach, as all countries, Governments and legal systems are different, and it is important that that be recognised as much as possible so that provisions can be to the taste of particular countries. I hope, therefore, that the Government will make it clear where we are with these reservations and what implications there might be. If they are seeking the maximum number of reservations, as I would advise them to do, perhaps the Minister can confirm that she has no objection to new clause 19, which would simply make that clear in the Bill and put the matter beyond any doubt and further debate.

--- Later in debate ---

[Philip Davies]

My hon. Friend is clearly right. I cannot disagree with anything that he has said. The points that he has made about Royal Assent are factual. However, I am not entirely sure that that timetable is achievable either, given the delay that we have already seen. My point is that, rather than rushing to meet an artificial target that they are clearly finding it difficult to meet, the Government should be left to set out those steps at a reasonable time.

My amendment 22 would extend the timetable from four weeks to three years, and I should like to think that everyone would agree that it allows the Government ample time to get their ducks in a row and their house in order. I should like to think that the Government would have no excuse for not sticking to that particular timetable. However, my hon. Friend thinks that that would let the Government off the hook too much. My amendment 24 replaces the four weeks with “when reasonably practicable”.

[Mr Nuttall]

As my hon. Friend will know, I support his “three years” amendment. Would not the other option leave the position open-ended? “Reasonably practicable” may mean “never”.

[Philip Davies]

My hon. Friend is right, and I shall go into that in a bit more detail later. The Government really are selling people a pup. They, and the Scottish National party, are trying to get all the plaudits for putting their shoulders to the wheel to ensure that the Istanbul convention is ratified, but the “filleting” amendments are designed to do the exact opposite. My three-year amendment, as my hon. Friend puts it, may mean a long time in the waiting, but at least it will mean that there is a fixed deadline for the Government to meet. Amendment 24, which says that the report must be laid “when reasonably practicable”, mirrors the Government amendment. It is very similar. Obviously, great minds—mine and the Minister’s—think alike on the matter. However, I concede that the amendment allows for a never-ending timescale. Perhaps that is what the Government, and the SNP, have in mind. I do not know. I am perfectly relaxed about either measure—I will take soundings from colleagues as to which they think is the best. My general point is that the four-week target is never going to be achievable, particularly given all the other things that are going on for the Government at the moment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Philip Davies]

I will try not to be distracted by my hon. Friend too many times. As I think you will appreciate, Mr Deputy Speaker, I have been trying to crack on through my amendments, but there are 47 new clauses and amendments in this group and they take some wading through. However, I have been racing through them. I will leave the Minister to answer my hon. Friend’s point when she speaks.

Amendment 49 is about a report—we are still laying a report—about the measures taken by the Government to comply with the Istanbul convention to

“protect and assist victims of violence against women and domestic violence”.

At the end of that, my amendment would insert

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

I do not see why anyone would want to oppose the Government having to produce a breakdown of how much they are spending on victims of violence and domestic violence, broken down by men and women. Men are nearly twice as likely as women to be the victim of a violent crime—1.3% of women interviewed for the crime survey reported being victims of violence in 2014-15, compared with 2.4% of men. When it comes to the most serious cases, according to the crime survey for England and Wales, women accounted for 36% of recorded homicide victims in 2015-16, whereas men accounted for 64%, yet so far the provisions we have here apply only to women. Therefore, it is important that the Government make clear what provisions they have for the victims of violent crime, whether they be men or women. I hope that the Government will agree to publish that information, and, if not, explain why they object to it so much.

Amendment 50 addresses the next bit of clause 3, which is about the report showing what the Government are doing to

“promote international co-operation against these forms of violence”.

At the end of all that, I have inserted that they should also

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

I do not intend to repeat myself, but I spoke earlier about the information I have managed to acquire from different ambassadors. If we ask the Government to show what they are doing and then to show what other countries who have ratified the convention are doing, that will give us a good idea of how we are doing compared with other countries. Surely that is a meaningful comparison that we would want to look at. At the moment, the Government can offer us no meaningful comparisons to show how we are doing in comparison with other countries. I do not know why they would be afraid of doing that; surely they would want to make sure they were doing better than other countries. My amendment would give them the opportunity to do that and to highlight their record against that of other countries. Perhaps that would level everybody’s standards upwards, rather than them just being at the lowest possible common denominator.

Amendment 51 relates to the report on the measures the Government are taking in providing

“support and assistance to organisations and law enforcement agencies to co-operate in order to adopt an integrated approach to eliminating violence against women and domestic violence.”

At the end of that, I have added

“and to include the names of these organisations”.

It is important that the Government should make it clear, as part of this reporting strategy, what support and assistance they are giving and to which organisations they are giving that support. Then we can scrutinise whether or not they are the right organisations.

It might well be that there are other organisations out there—perhaps small organisations in local communities that the Government have not come across—that we can champion and say, “You don’t seem to be giving any money to these organisations. How about giving them a cut of the funding available?” I do not know what would be lost by the transparency of knowing which organisations the Government were funding.

[Mr Nuttall]

Does my hon. Friend see any irony in the fact that while he and I have proposed, in separate amendments, deleting clause 3(1)(a), (b), (c) and (d), the Government have proposed deleting paragraph (e), which is the most substantive of all the paragraphs to this clause?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Nuttall]

My hon. Friend highlights some of the valuable work that the Government have already been doing without ratifying the convention. Other countries may well want to look at the work of this country to see whether they could improve their procedures and adopt some of the things we have been doing. It is interesting that my hon. Friend highlights those points because, of course, all that has happened without ratifying the Istanbul convention.

[Philip Davies]

Is there anything that the Government could not do to help victims of domestic violence or to deal with violence against women until they have waited to ratify the Istanbul convention?

[Mr Nuttall]

The short answer is no; I cannot think of anything. I would be very interested if anyone else present could come up with any measure that we are prevented from introducing because we have not yet ratified the convention. In fact, as the previous intervention demonstrated, the Government have quite happily brought forward lots of proposals to tackle these matters already, and quite rightly. I have my own ideas about what we could do to try to tackle domestic violence, and I am interested in whether Opposition Members would support me. For example, we could start by saying that those who are convicted of domestic violence and sent to prison are required to serve the full length of their sentence, rather than being let out halfway through. If we are talking about sending signals, let us send the good signal that if someone commits an act of domestic violence and is sent to prison, they would have to serve the full length of their sentence. There are things we could do that I would be very much willing to support.

It is not even the final step when the report is finally tabled by the Secretary of State—

“as soon as reasonably practicable”—

and sets out the timetable. The final step comes afterwards. Even when the Secretary of State has finally determined that the United Kingdom is compliant with the Istanbul convention, a date by which the convention will be ratified does not have to be set. Following the amendments made, the Bill simply states that

“the Secretary of State would expect the Convention to be ratified”,

so another small delay is built in there. But then what happens? What is the purpose of the Bill then?

Previously, the purpose of the Bill would have been to report on progress every year until ratification and then, after ratification, to report on how the Government were doing. All the reporting after ratification has now been removed, and reports will be prepared only until ratification. There is no mechanism under this Bill—I stress under this Bill—to measure the various things set out in it, which the promoter must have thought were important at the time it was drafted. Those include measures to

“protect women against violence, and prevent, prosecute and eliminate violence against women and domestic violence”—

there is a long list.

Awards for Valour (Protection) Bill

Debate between Philip Davies and David Nuttall

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

[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.

[Mr David Nuttall (Bury North) (Con)]

Does my hon. Friend think that this new clause would deal adequately with the points raised by the Royal Air Force Families Federation in its written evidence to the Defence Committee?

[Philip Davies]

My hon. Friend makes a pertinent point. I will come to that in a moment.

I know that it is not the intention of the Bill to create the outcome I have just described, but it remains a possibility. As my hon. Friend says, the Royal Air Force Families Federation said in its written evidence to the Defence Committee:

“Yes, there should most certainly be safeguards for family members. The key question is who ‘qualifies’! The definition we use is ‘anyone who is a blood relation’ but this may not be ?appropriate in these circumstances and can be difficult to prove on occasions. Interestingly, the MoD is struggling with its own definition of a family member but it may be sensible to align any definition for these circumstances with the MoD definition if and when they decide what it should be. Otherwise, it’s probably a matter for common sense.”

I know that the issue is dealt with differently now, but I believe that it is worth having a definition of “family” in the Bill, in its new sense.

As I mentioned on Second Reading, the Defence Committee’s report states:

“A number of our witnesses emphasised the importance of ensuring that relatives of deceased or incapacitated medal recipients can continue to wear their relations’ medals at commemoration events without risk of prosecution.”

The report also states:

“Mr Johnson indicated that family members would be doubly protected as they would lack the necessary intention to deceive, as well as being able to avail themselves of a specific defence that will be placed in the Bill.”

I agree that a specific defence should be included in the Bill, and that is the reason for this new clause. How we define “family” is an issue. Crucially, the report goes on:

“The term ‘family member’ must however be defined in terms of the proximity of the relations that it is seeking to include in the defence. It is not a legal term of art with a single definition. Acts of Parliament which use the term commonly carry a definition of ‘family’ within them to be used for the purposes of that Act. Mr Johnson suggested in oral evidence that he was minded that this defence should be quite narrow, so that for example a nephew deceitfully wearing medals could not rely on the defence by claiming that they were his uncle’s awards.”

It also states:

“The inclusion of a defence to ensure that family members representing deceased or incapacitated relations who are recipients of medals is vital, but ‘family member’ must be properly defined to ensure that there is no room for uncertainty or abuse. We suggest that the Bill include a definition of ‘family member’ in order to provide certainty over who will be covered by this category.”

That is what I am trying to do in the new clause. I have taken it as read that spouses should be included, as should blood relatives and step relatives. I have also included provision for those who are adopted into families, which slightly extends the basic definition of “family” according to section 113 of the Housing Act 1985. In reality, there will be only one actual award, so we can assume that the closest family member might have it, or that it would be shared by close family members, in which case it is unlikely that a distant relative would use the award.

The new clause would also prevent the situation from arising in which, for example, a son pinches his father’s medal for a bit of fun and goes around bragging that it is his. However unlikely or unbelievable that claim might be, the act of intending to deceive does not take account of the perception of others. They might well laugh out loud at the absurdity of a 17-year-old wearing a medal when everyone knows he has never been in the armed forces, but as the Bill stands that does not prevent the offence from being committed. I hope that the new clause will help with that.

--- Later in debate ---

[Philip Davies]

I apologise to my hon. Friend for not being well enough prepared to answer his question, but I do not have that information. I do not even know whether anyone has that information. Someone might have it, but I do not.

New clause 9 states:

“(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.”

Basically, this is a sunset clause. If it became apparent that the Bill was not doing as intended, new clause 9 would be a nice way for the Bill to fall without any fanfare. Of course if the Bill were enacted and doing particularly well, someone would be able to rehash it.

[Mr Nuttall]

Does my hon. Friend agree that new clause 9 strengthens the case for accepting new clause 8? New clause 8 would make things far easier for those wanting to assess the success, or otherwise, of the Bill.

[Philip Davies]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. New clauses 8 and 9, in many respects, go together. If we had a sunset clause, we would need to be able to measure the success, or otherwise, of the legislation, and the reporting set out in new clause 8 would help with that task. He is right to draw attention to the fact that, in many respects, new clauses 8 and 9, though not reliant on each other, flow nicely from each other.

I appreciate that that was a quick canter around the course of new clauses.

--- Later in debate ---

[Philip Davies]

As it happens, yes I do, but I think we are straying from the point. I do not want to test your patience by going off on a tangent, Madam Deputy Speaker; I am trying to stick to my amendments. As it happens, I agree with my hon. Friend, but unfortunately that is not what the Bill is about, and it certainly is not what my amendments are about.

The amendments would remove the custodial sentence for the offence in England and Wales. It is bizarre: as a member of the Justice Committee, I regularly listen to Justice questions, and I hear everyone—apart from me and a few other notable exceptions—seemingly agreeing that fewer people should be sent to prison. In fact, the Labour party recently proposed that we should let half the people out of prison—not too long ago, the shadow Attorney General in the Lords recommended that the prison population should be halved, although the Commons Front-Bench team distanced themselves from that suggestion. How on earth can we be desperately trying to get people out of prison who have been convicted of burglary, robbery, arson and all these things—

[Mr Nuttall]

And domestic violence.

[Philip Davies]

Indeed. People are desperate to get those people out of prison as quickly as possible, but at the same time they are supporting a Bill that would send somebody to prison for this offence. You literally could not make it up! How could anybody put those two things together? They think there are too many people in prison and that we should be letting them out, but that the people covered by the Bill should be sent to prison. How on earth can anyone make that argument?

Merchant Shipping (Homosexual Conduct) Bill

Debate between Philip Davies and David Nuttall

2nd reading: House of Commons
Friday 20th January 2017 Commons Chamber

[Mr Nuttall]

Does my hon. Friend agree that the size of a piece of legislation has nothing to do with how important it may be, and that a one-line Bill could have a far bigger impact on society than a Bill that is 100-pages long?

[Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)]

Article 50.

--- Later in debate ---

[Philip Davies]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for drawing attention to my place on the Women and Equalities Committee, of which I am very proud. In fact, I am rather touched that my candidature for the Committee was so popular that nobody even wanted to oppose me in the election. My hon. Friend is absolutely right; in fact, I believe in equality so much that I would rather the Committee were renamed the Equalities Committee, as it shadows the Government Equalities Office.

I do believe in equality. That is the agenda that I want to pursue on the Committee, and my hon. Friend is right: this issue is a key part of that. In fact, we should always make it clear that nobody should ever be discriminated against on the basis of their gender, race, religion or sexuality. All those things should be irrelevant; we should be blind to them. That is the agenda that I want to pursue and I hope that the passing of this Bill will help in that. My hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes South talked about a journey, and that is the journey I want to see, where we do not see everything in terms of race, gender, sexuality or religion, but are completely blind to them and see them as irrelevant. This Bill is part of that journey.

As I hope I have indicated, the Bill clearly has support from across the House. I want to make it clear from the outset that I, too, will support it, should there be a Division. I am here to try to aid its passage through the House; I am certainly not here to try to block it. However, it would not be unreasonable for somebody to say that this Bill is a solution looking for a problem, in the sense that, oddly, it would bring about no tangible change in the law, so to speak, because subsequent legislation has effectively made the sections in question unenforceable and therefore already redundant. As the Library briefing for the Bill states:

“The Bill would repeal aspects of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 which suggest it would be lawful to dismiss a seafarer for a homosexual act. That law is in fact of no effect, as such a dismissal would fall foul of equality legislation. The current Bill is therefore primarily of symbolic value.”

Even the explanatory notes from the Government say that

“the sections are no longer of any legal effect”

and that the policy implication is “ambiguous” at best, pointing out that

“repealing them would both be symbolic and would prevent any misunderstanding as to their current effect,”

but would not change the law per se.

[Mr Nuttall]

It was probably a slip of the tongue, but I thought I heard my hon. Friend mention that the explanatory notes were from the Government, when surely this is a private Member’s Bill.

[Philip Davies]

That is a fair point, but the explanatory notes state that they

“have been prepared by the Department for Transport, with the consent of”

our hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury

“in order to assist the reader of the Bill and to help inform debate on it.”

This is, of course, our hon. Friend’s Bill; that is not in any doubt. My point was that the explanatory notes had been prepared by the Government and their team of experts in the Department for Transport. It is probably fair to say that anyone who is tabling a private Member’s Bill will need the help and support of the sponsoring Department, and will need to tap into expertise that an individual Back Bencher will never be able to muster. I do not think we should carp too much about that particular point.

The aim of the Bill is to tidy up the legislative record and remove legislation that is no longer relevant—I think we can all agree that the existing legislation is absolutely not relevant; in my opinion it was never relevant, but it certainly is not relevant today—and also to clarify the legal position. As was pointed out by my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes South, people could quite easily read the current provisions and presume that they were still law. They might not realise that those provisions had been superseded by measures such as the Equality Act 2010. Although, strictly speaking, the Bill will not make any practical difference in that sense, I think that for those reasons it is worth supporting.

The Bill is straightforward in many respects. It is short. It repeals sections 146(4) and 147(3) of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994, both of which preserve the right to dismiss a seafarer on a UK-registered merchant navy vessel for an act of homosexuality. Those sections relate not to criminal offences, but only to the right to dismiss a seafarer for an act of homosexuality. It is interesting to note that they do not state that seafarers should be sacked for homosexual acts, but do state that they could be sacked for such acts. That is the law that we are repealing, and rightly so. There is no justification for retaining the current provisions.

Section 146 states:

“Nothing contained in this section shall prevent a homosexual act (with or without other acts or circumstances) from constituting a ground for…dismissing a member of the crew of a United Kingdom merchant ship from his ship”.

Section 147(3) makes identical provision in respect of Northern Ireland.

The Sexual Offences Act 1967 decriminalised homosexual acts in private. Section 1(5), however, maintained that that this did not prevent a homosexual act from being an offence in military law, and section 2 maintained that homosexual acts would also remain an offence on merchant ships. I shall return to that point later, but I want to refer briefly to some case studies, because I think they bring to life the reasons why the Bill is important, and the problems that the existing legislation has caused for people—not abstract problems, but real ones.

It should be noted—because I think this has been an issue in the past—that section 2 refers to a homosexual act on a merchant ship. I believe that not only is the legislation that my hon. Friend seeks to repeal wrong in principle, but in some cases its practical application has stretched far beyond the actual wording. I shall return to that point later as well.

The 1994 Act dealt with homosexuality. Section 145 reduced the age of consent for homosexual acts from 21 to 18, and sections 146 and 147 removed the remaining criminal liability which existed under the 1967 Act. Sections 146(4) and 147(3) were added during its passage. During the passage of the Armed Forces Bill, the Under-Secretary of State for Defence, my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes North (Mark Lancaster), said:

“When sections 146 and 147 were enacted, it was Government policy that homosexuality was incompatible with service in the armed forces and, accordingly, members of the armed forces who engaged in homosexual activity were administratively discharged.”—[Official Report, 11 January 2016; Vol. 551, c. 601.]

That policy was abandoned in January 2000, following the case in the European Court of Human Rights that my hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury mentioned in his opening remarks.

Both sections have been progressively repealed over the years, leaving only the lines that I have just mentioned to be dealt with today. Related sections on military discipline and the sections relating to the armed forces have been repealed through both the Armed Forces Act 2006 and more recently the Armed Forces Act 2016. As Jeremy Hanley said during the passage of the 1994 Bill, as the Armed Forces Minister:

“It would clearly be anomalous for the situation in the Merchant Navy to be different from that in the armed forces.”—[Official Report, 12 April 1994; Vol. 241, c. 171.]

That, at the time, was the reason for ensuring that the legislation was in line with the current view about the armed forces, and it seems that that that is the position in which we are now left. Back in 1994, the Minister was making the point that it would be an anomaly to treat those in the merchant navy differently, yet here we are trying to tidy the legislation up.

This is not new. On 25 October 1982, Leo Abse, the Labour Member for Pontypool, said in the House:

“How absurd it is that the law should say that a man on a merchant ship can have a relationship with a passenger but that he cannot have such a relationship with a fellow sailor without an offence being committed. Absurdities are buried in the 1967 Act: that was the consensus of that time.”—[Official Report, 25 October 1982; Vol. 29, c. 850.]

I think that Leo Abse made a very good point back in 1982. The Bill has been a long time coming.

As for the distinction between the armed forces and the merchant navy, it is somewhat curious that the whole section was not amended in one go. Why was the distinction made between the armed forces and the merchant navy? Why have we repealed legislation for one but not for the other? It is not that a distinction was made between the two units in respect of how the legislation affects them, but, as my hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury suggested, as the merchant navy is are not part of the armed forces, it was outside the scope of the Bill that became the Armed Forces Bill Act 2016.

During the passage of that Bill, the Minister explained the reasoning, and my hon. Friend the Member for Henley (John Howell) made the following intervention:

“During the evidence session for the Select Committee, on which I served, I asked Mr Humphrey Morrison, from central legal services, whether this could be done.”—[Official Report, 11 January 2016; Vol. 604, c. 600.]

The answer was that it could not. The Under-Secretary of State for Defence, my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes North, said that the issues had been decoupled, that the armed forces would deal with the first bit and the Department for Transport with the second, and that they would move ahead quickly. My hon. Friend’s Bill follows the commitment made by the Government then.

Some Members may take issue with that, and say that it should not have been left to my hon. Friend to deal with the issue through the luck of the draw and the Government should have legislated before now. I hope that when the Minister has the chance to turn his arm over later, he will be able to explain why the Government have left it to my hon. Friend, and not legislated as his colleagues in the Ministry of Defence suggested they would during the passage of the Armed Forces Bill.

Much has been said about this issue, but I think it important to reflect on why homosexual acts were grounds for dismissal in the first place, so that the reasons can be viewed today in that context. One of the best explanations in relation to military life came from my right hon. Friend the Member for Mid Sussex (Sir Nicholas Soames) in 1996, when he was a Defence Minister. He said:

“The current policy of excluding homosexuals from the armed forces is not—I repeat, not—the result of a moral judgment. The prime concern of the armed forces is the maintenance of operational effectiveness and our policy derives from a practical assessment of the implications of homosexual orientation on military life. I do not believe that the services have a right to be different, but I firmly believe that they have a need to be different.”

My right hon. Friend went on to say that military life is different from civilian life, and this was a cross-party view at the time; it was made in the same debate by Dr John Reid—now Baron Reid—from the Labour Benches. My right hon. Friend went on to say in the debate:

“Service personnel are regularly required to live in extremely close proximity to one another in shared, single-sex accommodation with limited privacy and sometimes under stressful conditions.”

He also pointed out that the belief was that those conditions, with

“the need for absolute trust and confidence between all ranks, require that the potentially disruptive influence of homosexual orientation and behaviour be excluded.”—[Official Report, 9 May 1996; Vol. 277, c. 505-06.]

That was the view at the time, and I might add that General Colin Powell, former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff in America, held the same view at the time. He saw sexuality as different from race and sex. He said:

“Unlike race or gender, sexuality…is manifested by behaviour. While it would be decidedly biased to assume certain behaviours based on gender or membership in a particular racial group, the same is not true for sexuality.”

As I have said, this was the view at the time. We consider it to be a ridiculous view to hold. I do not condone or understand those views, but that was the consensus at the time—cross-party, in different countries. It was not unique to this country.

--- Later in debate ---

[Philip Davies]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who makes a very good point. The Bill therefore does not just have the advantage of being symbolic and removing something from the statute book that I feel should not have been there in the first place, as he makes a good case for saying why it might well have a practical application in law, too. It certainly removes any doubt about the situation—we can all agree on that—which has to be a good thing.

Finally—I do not want to test the patience of the House too much—let me just raise the concern relating to historical cases. During the debates on the Armed Forces Bill, people raised the issue of historical cases in which individuals had been treated unfairly under the 1994 Act and asked whether something could be done. This touches on the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Calder Valley when he said that we cannot really do anything about what happened in the past, and what we can affect is what happens now and in the future. Although I wholeheartedly agree with the repeal of the 1994 provisions, I wish to raise a note of caution about the pardoning of historical cases. A private Member’s Bill has been introduced about the whole issue of pardons for those convicted for homosexuality in the past. I am not going to get sidetracked down that road—

[Mr Nuttall]

It is the fourth Bill down today.

[Philip Davies]

Indeed, so we might well get on to that Bill again today. I will maintain a distinction between the two Bills, however, because there clearly is one. My hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham (Bob Stewart) has made a point that shows how powerful contributions can be when we are discussing such details. He said:

“I had the sad duty of discharging a man administratively from my battalion. I really regretted it happening at the time, but I must urge caution about our going back in time to try to put right what was apparently right at the time but which was clearly wrong.”—[Official Report, 11 January 2016; Vol. 604, c. 602.]

He put that very neatly, and I agree. There are plenty of ugly and wrong parts of our past in this country, but we cannot rewrite what happened or impose our beliefs on past generations, just as we would not want people in 100 years’ time to judge what we do today.

--- Later in debate ---

[Philip Davies]

That is only one side of the equation, because it does not address the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes South (Iain Stewart) about how the provisions may have deterred people from pursuing such a career in the first place. When it comes to asking how many people have been affected, the answer is in a sense unknown, because the provisions may have affected an awful lot of people who decided not to pursue a career in that industry.

[Mr Nuttall]

My hon. Friend makes a very good and pertinent point. The provisions may well have had a hidden effect, and we may never know how many people have been affected in that way. People may have stumbled across the provisions or, if they live in a seafaring community on the coast, someone—this is the established law and has been in place for many years—may have said, “Well, I wouldn’t go down that road if you’re homosexual. I wouldn’t go to sea because you risk losing the job.” That could have put people off, so my hon. Friend is right.

I have explained why repealing the provisions has not been seen as particularly urgent and why we are talking about omitting these sections of the 1994 Act only now. The problem that the Bill seeks to address is not one to which we can ascribe specific numbers of people who have been dismissed, because the provisions we are discussing no longer have any legal effect.

I would argue that the Bill seeks to address another problem, which is the very important point that we should not have a potentially confusing provision on the statute book. My hon. Friend the Member for North Devon also made an important point about making it clear to the homosexual community where we are and where the law is. We should go further in making sure that we do not have pieces of legislation on the statute book that are contradictory or no longer have any validity. I believe it would be sensible if it were regular practice that, in each successive Parliament, the Government brought forward a tidying-up consolidation Bill so that matters such as this could be dealt with. That would give the Cabinet Office the opportunity, at least once every five years, to collate any bits of legislation that Members had come across, or had had brought to their attention by members of the public, that needed repealing. They could all be dealt with in a repeal Bill. I appreciate that the Minister is from the Department for Transport, so that is not necessarily his responsibility, but perhaps he will discuss the idea with colleagues across Government, including in the Cabinet Office.

It is worth mentioning briefly why the provision in the Bill was not introduced when the provisions relating to the armed forces in the 1994 Act were dealt with in the Armed Forces Act 2016. The 2016 Act repealed the equivalent parts of sections 146 and 147 of the 1994 Act to the ones that we are discussing. It appears that it was because of how the Armed Forces Act was drafted. Consideration was given to whether it might be possible for that Act to repeal the provisions relating to homosexual conduct in the armed forces. In fact, that was done only through a Government new clause on Report, moved by the Under-Secretary of State for Defence, my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes North (Mark Lancaster). He said:

“I am delighted to be speaking to this new clause today. It reflects the Government’s commitment to the fair and equal treatment of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender armed forces personnel. It repeals two provisions regarding homosexuality in the armed forces that are inconsistent with the Department’s current policies and the Government’s equality and discrimination policies more generally.”

My hon. Friend the Member for Henley (John Howell) asked him specifically about the merchant navy, saying:

“During the evidence session for the Select Committee, on which I served, I asked Mr Humphrey Morrison, from central legal services, whether this could be done. The answer I was given was that because it was tied up with the merchant navy, it could not be done. What has changed to allow this to go forward?”

The Minister replied:

“We have simply decoupled the two issues. We will be dealing with this matter in this Bill and the Department for Transport has made it clear that it intends to deal with the merchant navy aspect as soon as possible. I am delighted to say that we are therefore moving ahead quickly, as we said we would.?”—[Official Report, 11 January 2016; Vol. 604, c. 600-601.]

The result of that statement, I think, is the Bill tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury.

There was a high-profile case that went to the European Court of Human Rights, that of Smith and Grady v. United Kingdom. The first applicant, Jeanette Smith, was a senior aircraftwoman who had been dismissed from the Royal Air Force in 1994 after being found to have been in a relationship with another woman. I took the trouble to read through the full report of the case—obviously the judgments in such cases are lengthy—and it was harrowing and disturbing to see what had happened. It must have been enormously distressing for the individual involved. According to the judgment, an internal armed forces report described her

“general assessment for trade proficiency and personal qualities as very good and her overall conduct assessments as exemplary.”

She was dismissed, however, because at the time homosexuals were barred from the armed forces.

The second applicant, Graeme Grady, was a sergeant posted as a personnel administrator to Washington at the British Defence Intelligence Liaison Service. He was also dismissed from the RAF in 1994 after being found to be in a relationship with another man, but was described as a “loyal serviceman”. The report of the case sets out the rigorous and intrusive investigations that these individuals had to undergo. The European Court of Human Rights ruled that the Government had breached both the applicants’ rights under article 8 of the European convention on human rights—the right to a private and family life—and the case resulted in the Government changing their policy and allowing homosexuals to serve in the Army, as was reflected in the Equality Act.

What is the scope of the Bill? One further question that I always like to consider in respect of any private Member’s Bill is: are there likely to be any unintended consequences? This was touched on by my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley. It is always worth while considering whether a Bill would have any consequences that might not be obvious at first sight. I am pleased to say, however, that the Bill does not fall foul of that inquiry. We always need to be precise about the scope of a Bill, and we should be clear that the Bill, which we all support, is about tidying up the statute book. We should not try to mislead anyone into thinking that it will have an enormous effect on their personal lives. Repealing the relevant sections of the 1994 Act will not mean that fewer gay or bisexual people in the merchant navy are dismissed, because, as mentioned, under part 5 of the Equality Act, they already have protection against any employer who tries to dismiss them for having a gay relationship.

The Equality Act prevents an employer from discriminating against an employee, by, for example, dismissing them on the grounds of a protected characteristic, and one of those characteristics is sexual orientation. The Equality Act 2010 (Work on Ships and Hovercraft) Regulations 2011 extended the provisions in part 5 of the 2010 Act to include merchant ships. Seafarers, irrespective of their nationality, working on board a UK-registered ship enjoy protections under this legislation. We need to stress the point that this covers all seafarers, not just UK nationals. As I said earlier, my brother is in the merchant navy, so I know that the crew come from all over the world; it is a united nations approach to employment.

The Bill does not make discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation on a merchant ship any more unlawful than it is now, but it does remove any ambiguity on this point. It is worth noting the unusual position of ships: they are both a workplace and a residence for those on board. My brother spends some of his day on duty but at other times he is free to be in his cabin, relax and do other things. As a result of this dual-purpose approach on board ships, operators may impose restrictions at work that extend into what might otherwise be considered a person’s private life. An example might be prohibiting the consumption of alcohol, because even off-duty crewmen might be called on at very short notice, presumably in rough seas or in an emergency, to carry out duties that would require a clear head. Some shipping operators do allow alcohol off duty, but state that crew must never be intoxicated at any time. Breaching such a requirement could lead to dismissal.

Kashmir

Debate between Philip Davies and David Nuttall

Thursday 19th January 2017 Commons Chamber

[Mr Nuttall]

Yes, I do agree, and that is something I will mention briefly later in my speech.

The use of pellet guns has left thousands of people, including children, injured and in many cases blind. Armed militants have increased their attacks on the security forces. In September 2016 an attack on an army base killed 19 Indian soldiers, the army’s worst loss of life for well over a decade. There has also been a serious flaring up of tension between India and Pakistan, with regular exchanges between their forces along the line of control. These have led to significant military casualties. Senior figures on both sides have been ratcheting up the hostile rhetoric, leading to growing fears of another major escalation in the conflict between the two countries.

I know the Government are concerned about any allegation of human rights abuses—Ministers have said so many times in answer to both oral and written questions—but I urge the Minister to condemn the attacks and the use of pellet guns. The fundamental human rights that are enshrined in the Indian constitution must be adhered to. There must be an end to the use of pellet guns on innocent civilians. The United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees and other interested parties must be allowed free and complete access so that they can make an objective assessment.

I turn now to the role of the United Nations in securing a long-term settlement. There has been 70 years of inaction since the original resolutions requiring the conflict to be resolved by peaceful democratic means were passed, so it is easy to see why so many in the Kashmiri community think that the United Nations has lost interest in their problem. I have often said that the dispute is all too frequently ignored by the media. There is always some other conflict elsewhere in the world that grabs the headlines. I know that the United Kingdom, as a member of the United Nations, supports all UN bodies and wants to help them to fulfil their mandate, but there has surely been a failure on Kashmir if the resolutions have gone unfulfilled for so long. I appreciate that the Government have to tread a careful path and that we want to be friends with both India and Pakistan, but a candid and true friend is one who sometimes says things that the other friend may find unpalatable.

[Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)]

I support my hon. Friend’s motion. This is not a question of supporting either the Indian Government or the Pakistani Government; it is about supporting the people of Kashmir. He and I campaigned for many years for a referendum to decide whether our country should be part of and governed by the European Union, and the people of Kashmir should be afforded the same liberty of deciding how they want to be governed in future.

[Mr Nuttall]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. In a few lines’ time, I will mention the historic decision that this country took on 23 June last year.

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

Debate between Philip Davies and David Nuttall

2nd reading: House of Commons
Friday 16th December 2016 Commons Chamber

[Philip Davies]

I am very grateful to the hon. Lady. As I have said, we can go back to the drawing board and bring back a Bill that all of us can support. We have had four speeches so far, and I think I have heard only one passing reference to men. The whole thrust of this debate and argument, and the whole point of this Bill today, is simply about the unacceptability of violence against women. That is all we have heard so far. It is no good now trying to redraw the nature of the debate, because I am raising the point about true equality. If people really believe in equality in this House, let us go back to the drawing board and bring back a Bill that makes that clear.

[Mr David Nuttall (Bury North) (Con)]

Although it is true that article 4, which has just been quoted by the promoter of this Bill, says what she says it says, article 2 is the relevant article, because it sets out the scope of the convention. Paragraph 1 of article 2 quite clearly states:

“This Convention shall apply to all forms of violence against women.”

[Philip Davies]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. I will also come on to article 1, which makes it clear that discrimination against men is absolutely fine as far as the convention is concerned. It flies in the face of the impression that the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan wants to give. There is an easy way to deal with this, as we all seem to be in agreement: we can go back to the drawing board and bring forward a Bill on which we can all agree.

--- Later in debate ---

[Philip Davies]

Yes, my hon. Friend is absolutely right, and he makes a good point. As I made clear, our definition of domestic violence is very different from that used in most other countries. However, there are other reasons, which I will come to, and article 1 contains something I fundamentally disagree with.

We are in the ridiculous situation where 66% of men convicted at Crown Court in England and Wales of violence against the person are sent to prison, compared with 37% of women. If we really want to send out a message—I heard a number of Opposition Members say that that was the purpose of the Bill—of zero tolerance of violence against the person, the first thing, and perhaps the main thing or even the only thing, we should do is press for much tougher sentences for people who are found guilty. One way to prevent and eliminate violence is to send people to prison for longer, because while they are in prison, they cannot perpetrate any violence against anybody in their households, or anywhere else for that matter.

The Labour party, which is apparently so concerned about violence against women and girls, actually introduced a law in a previous Parliament whereby somebody who is sent to prison for committing violence against a woman or a girl has, by law, to be released halfway through their prison sentence, whether or not it is considered that they will go straight back into the household they came from and commit the same crime again. By the law of the land, those people have to be released halfway through their sentence. The last Labour Government introduced that, so it is no good Labour Members coming here today and saying how committed they are to stopping violence against women and girls, when they are the ones who are responsible for these people being let back out on to the streets and back into their houses much sooner than the courts originally intended.

If people want to do something worth while to prevent violence against women and girls and against other people, let us all press for stronger prison sentences. Let us all press for people to spend more of their sentence in prison, rather than being released out on licence. How many people are up for that in the House today? They all go amazingly quiet, because when it comes down to it, they want to huff and puff about being tough on violence against women and girls. When it comes down to the actual thing that most of our constituents would recognise as being tough on violence against women and girls—tougher prison sentences—Opposition Members run away, because they do not like people being sent to prison.

[Mr David Nuttall (Bury North) (Con)]

My hon. Friend is making a very valid point. Does he not feel that there may be some correlation between the fact that the figures for violent crime are increasing and the fact that, as he has just pointed out, criminals know they will be let out halfway through their sentence?

[Philip Davies]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. This is not rocket science: the more criminals who are in prison, the fewer criminals are out on the street committing crimes. That is not really a massively difficult concept to grasp, although Opposition Members appear to be struggling with it. It is not that difficult to understand that if the people who commit these crimes are in prison, they cannot be committing these crimes. My hon. Friend must therefore surely be right in his suspicion.

The convention does not just cover violence, as article 1b mentions, and that is one of the reasons why I have a fundamental problem with the convention. Article 1b wants

“the elimination of all forms of discrimination against women”,

but I do not see how introducing a specific duty to eliminate all forms of discrimination against just women is not discriminatory in itself—I sometimes wish people could see the irony of their proposals. Surely, we should want to eliminate all forms of discrimination—full stop. Article 1b is, in effect, saying that discrimination against a man is okay because all we want to do is end discrimination against women. Well, it is not okay; no discrimination is okay. If this convention said, “Actually, what we want to do is end all forms of discrimination—full stop,” I would be the first to support it, but it does not say that. It talks about discrimination against women only. Surely, Members cannot support that form of discrimination. It flies in the face of everything we are supposed to believe in if we believe in true equality.

Then we have the phrase “including by empowering women”. This is obviously a legal document, and I am not entirely sure what the legal definition of that is supposed to be. We have some very respected people of the law in the Chamber today, and they may be able to help us out with the legal definition. I genuinely do not know, and I will bow to other people’s superior knowledge. The English dictionary definition of empowering is

“approving having qualities that give a person or a group of people the means to take more control of their lives and become stronger and more independent”,

and we are all in favour of that I would like to think.

Most concerning to me, however, is the fact that this whole strategy seems to be based on the premise that all this violence against women is committed by men. Why else would it link discrimination, stereotyping and violence? That certainly seems to be the thought of many of the people who are supporting the convention and the Bill. The impression people might be under is that the perpetrators of all these crimes against women are men. Indeed, on the website of one of the campaigns endorsing the Bill, women were holding up placards with the slogan:

“Together we can end male violence against women”.

So it would seem that they are not interested in ending all violence, regardless of whether the victim is male or female, or even in ending all violence against women.

Despite what people want to believe, violence against women is not caused only by men. Indeed, there is no evidence to support that underlying assumption. A letter I received from the Crown Prosecution Service said:

“We are unable to provide information on your specific requests of ‘the sex of both the defendant and the victim’... This is because we record the sex of the defendant and victim as separate statistics rather than as a joined statistic.”

So today’s Bill is based on an assumption that can quickly be proved wrong. We only have to look at the individual cases that come to our courts to see that there are plenty where violence has been committed by a female offender against a female victim. Let me just give a flavour of those cases.

How about the case of Samira Lupidi, who stabbed her two young daughters to death in a refuge in November last year? Lupidi had been placed in a refuge with the girls after she called the police to their house, claiming her partner had been violent. Speaking about Lupidi’s relationship with the father, the judge said:

“You reacted to this very difficult situation by saying ‘If I cannot have them’”—

the children—

“‘neither can he’… This is a crime which speaks of rage and I sentence you on the basis that you killed them in anger and out of a desire for revenge.”

A jury of six men and six women found her guilty of murder after only 90 minutes’ deliberation.

What about the case of Sadie Morris, a female paedophile who was sentenced to five years in jail after photographing herself abusing a three-year-old girl? The offences took place between 1 and 31 July 2013, with photographs involving one category A image—the most serious level—and one category B and one category C image. What about the case of a Romanian sex gang led by women who trafficked vulnerable women into Britain and forced them into prostitution? The gang raked in more than £15,000 a month and forced the prostitutes to deposit the cash across 14 separate bank accounts.

Ending male violence against women would not have prevented any of these cases, as the offenders were also female. Crime does not discriminate. We have to get real: instead of speaking of female victims of male perpetrators, we should speak of all victims, regardless of sex, and all offenders, regardless of sex. Why do so many Members find that so difficult to do?

There are many female perpetrators of violence against both men and women, according to official Ministry of Justice figures. Its report, “Statistics on Women and the Criminal Justice System 2015”, says that violence against the person and theft were consistently the two offence groups with the highest number of arrests for both females and males. In fact, violence against the person accounted for 34% of all male arrests and 36% of all female arrests in the criminal justice system—we have not heard any of that in the speeches so far—while theft offences made up 21% of male arrests and 26% of female arrests.

Again, this is not restricted to women but also applies to girls. In 2015-16, violence against the person was the most common offence group for which juvenile females —10 to 17-year-olds—were arrested. In fact, 40% of arrests of girls aged 10 to 17 were for violence against the person. It is no good people shaking their heads; these are the facts—the official statistics—although they might be inconvenient. I am not surprised that Opposition Members have not heard about it; we never hear any of this in this place because we are so blinkered in only wanting to look one dimensionally at all these issues. I am not surprised that it has come as a shock to Opposition Members.

This is backed up by reports of cases such as that of Katie Neild, a 27-year-old mother of two who was rushed to hospital after a woman bit her and ripped a chunk out of her face, which left the victim with permanent scarring, even after an emergency skin graft. A case heard at my local court, Bradford Crown court, was that of a female who burgled a 79-year-old woman’s house in August last year. In her defence, the defendant’s barrister claimed that she would be extremely vulnerable in prison with a baby due in less than three months, despite her not being pregnant at the time of the burglary. However, Judge Thomas at Bradford Crown court—a fine man—said that his duty was to the pensioner whose life was so significantly affected that she had not left her home since.

This just gives a flavour of the vast array of cases where female offenders target female victims. The discriminatory underlay of this Bill is pointless and wrong, because not all victims are female and not all offenders are male. We should be bringing forward gender-neutral legislation that seeks to help all victims of crime—men and women—and to punish all offenders, men and women. Even in cases where people may assume that all violence is male on female, such as domestic violence, this is not so.

--- Later in debate ---

[Philip Davies]

Yes, I am very much saying that—that is the thrust of my point. I absolutely would support the Bill if it were gender-neutral, but it clearly is not, and we need only read the convention to see that fact and to have heard the speeches we have heard so far today to realise that it has nothing to do with gender neutrality.

In 2008, Stonewall found that one in four lesbian and bisexual women have experienced domestic violence in a relationship, with 49.3% of bisexual women experiencing severe physical intimate violence. On abuse during childhood, the recent MOJ report, “Statistics on Women and the Criminal Justice System 2015”, notes:

“The perpetrator of physical abuse against females was almost as equally likely to be the mother as the father (33% and 36% respectively).”

This is not as clear-cut as some Members would want us to believe, but the Bill supports the narrative that they want to keep talking about. What they say bears no relation to the facts, but it very much helps a narrative that they want people to take away. At some point, some of us have got to say, “No, we are not prepared to allow these distortions to continue. We are going to argue what the actual facts are, not what people would want the facts to be.”

If people do not want to listen to me—which I understand that they often do not, because I say things that they do not want to hear—perhaps they might have more sympathy for a marvellous lady called Erin Pizzey. In 1971, Erin Pizzey opened the world’s first women’s refuge in Chiswick specifically dealing with all victims of domestic violence. Perhaps because of her background, she has the credentials, which I am not afforded the luxury of being granted, to be given a hearing. She went to the United States at the invitation of the US Government and embarked on a Salvation Army-sponsored tour of 21 cities to help set up shelters for victims of domestic violence. She did the same when she moved to Italy, and she returned to England in 1997. More recently, in March 2007, she opened the first Arab refuge for victims of domestic violence in Bahrain. I hope that people may listen to her if they will not listen to me. In 2011, she said in a press release on the international day for the elimination of violence towards women:

“25th November 2011 is the international day for the elimination of violence towards women. Like everybody else who reads this statement I am of course totally in favour of the elimination of violence towards women but unlike the instigators of this event I believe that we should be eliminating violence against everyone and that includes men and children.

“I applaud the efforts of Viviane Reding who is the Vice-President and Commissioner responsible for justice, fundamental rights and citizenship, Cecile Grebolvel who is the Secretary General of European Women’s lobby and Mikael Gustatsson who is Chair of Parliamentary Women’s Rights and gender equality commission in their efforts to protect women but I am puzzled as to why this enormous empire of women with the huge self important titles manage to avoid any discussion of the effects of violence upon the family, fathers and children.

If we have any hope of tackling the tragic effects of domestic violence we have to face the facts that women can and are also guilty of violence against their partners. To concentrate only of women as victims is to deny the fact that children are also abused by their mothers. We can no longer afford to cover up the huge scandal that has existed for the last forty years where only men have been held up as perpetrators of all violence.

My hope is that sufficient political pressure will be brought to bear upon these women who sit in great positions of power to acknowledge that we do indeed need to make November 25th a day when we all agree internationally that there should be zero tolerance for violence against anyone and that we will all work to make the family a safe and harmonious place.”

I think that we should listen to that very carefully indeed. It sums up entirely my view on this issue. That is a woman who has far more credentials than many people in this place, having set up the world’s first women’s refuge.

In response to a parliamentary question asked by the hon. Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire North (Gavin Newlands), the Government said that they remain committed to ratifying the convention and set out what more needs to be done:

“The previous Government signed the Istanbul Convention to show the strong commitment it placed on tackling violence against women and girls and this Government remains committed to ratifying it… The UK already complies with the vast majority of the Convention’s articles but further amendments to domestic law, to take extra-territorial jurisdiction over a range of offences (as required by Article 44), are necessary before the Convention can be ratified. The Ministry of Justice is currently considering the approach to implementing the extra-territorial jurisdiction requirements in England and Wales and will seek to legislate when the approach is agreed and Parliamentary time allows.”

According to the Library, article 44 of the convention, on which the Government were placing great weight, states:

“Parties shall take the necessary legislative or other measures to establish jurisdiction over any offence established in accordance with this Convention, when the offence is committed:

a in their territory; or

b on board a ship flying their flag; or

c on board an aircraft registered under their laws; or

d by one of their nationals; or

e by a person who has her or his habitual residence in their territory.”

Paragraph 2 states:

“Parties shall endeavour to take the necessary legislative or other measures to establish jurisdiction over any offence established in accordance with this Convention where the offence is committed against one of their nationals or a person who has her or his habitual residence in their territory.”

Paragraph 3 states:

“For the prosecution of the offences established in accordance with Articles 36, 37, 38…and 39…of this Convention, Parties shall take the necessary legislative or other measures to ensure that their jurisdiction is not subordinated to the condition that the acts are criminalised in the territory where they were committed.”

Paragraph 4 states:

“For the prosecution of the offences established in accordance with Articles 36, 37, 38 and 39 of this Convention, Parties shall take the necessary legislative or other measures to ensure that their jurisdiction as regards points d and e of paragraph 1 is not subordinated to the condition that the prosecution can only be initiated following the reporting by the victim of the offence or the laying of information by the State of the place where the offence was committed.”

Paragraph 5 states:

“Parties shall take the necessary legislative or other measures to establish jurisdiction over the offences established in accordance with this Convention, in cases where an alleged perpetrator is present on their territory and they do not extradite her or him to another Party, solely on the basis of her or his nationality.”

Paragraph 6 states:

“When more than one Party claims jurisdiction over an alleged offence established in accordance with this Convention, the Parties involved shall, where appropriate, consult each other with a view to determining the most appropriate jurisdiction for prosecution.”

Paragraph 7 states that

“this Convention does not exclude any criminal jurisdiction exercised by a Party in accordance with its internal law.”

It is, apparently, because of article 44 that the Government are dragging their feet.

[Mr Nuttall]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for putting that on the record. I think it worth also noting that article 36 refers to “Sexual violence, including rape”, article 37 refers to “Forced marriage”, article 38 refers to “Female genital mutilation”, and 39 refers to

“Forced abortion and forced sterilisation.”

[Philip Davies]

My hon. Friend is right to highlight the subjects of those articles. It was probably remiss of me not to do so myself.

It seems that the Government are hanging their hat on article 44. Perhaps the Minister will be able to explain more about the difficulties that they are experiencing in relation to it and the other articles mentioned in it, to which my hon. Friend has just referred.

National Minimum Wage (Workplace Internships) Bill

Debate between Philip Davies and David Nuttall

Friday 4th November 2016 Commons Chamber

[Mr Nuttall]

I am very honoured to hear that; to be perfectly honest, I am humbled to hear it, because I am not sure that my speech is worthy of that. Perhaps I have gleaned one or two things from looking at my hon. Friend’s Bill that will genuinely help. I will certainly be able to draw his attention to one or two details, which will assist him.

[Philip Davies]

Does my hon. Friend agree that we and our hon. Friend the Member for Elmet and Rothwell (Alec Shelbrooke) are on exactly the same side when it comes to social mobility and wanting to extend opportunities, but that we feel that the Bill will restrict opportunities rather than enhance them? If I can catch your eye later, Mr Deputy Speaker, I might be able to suggest to my hon. Friend how we can work together to extend opportunities, as we both seek to do.

National Minimum Wage (Workplace Internships) Bill

Debate between Philip Davies and David Nuttall

Friday 4th November 2016 Commons Chamber

[Philip Davies]

It was a long time ago, but I think I was 18 at the time. If anyone still at the newspaper can remember, I stand to be corrected.

[Mr Nuttall]

The journalists weren’t still using quills, were they? I assume from what my hon. Friend has said that he went in every day for “regular work” and that he received “practical experience”, so it seems to me that he would have been covered by clause 1 of the Bill. The local paper may not have been so keen on having him if it had had to pay him.

[Philip Davies]

I agree with my hon. Friend; that is the danger. Whether I was covered by the Bill might be open to interpretation, but my suspicion is that this would have a chilling effect on employers. Rather than getting in to some argy-bargy over whether someone needs to be paid, employers would prefer not to go into it. They would rather sit it out. There is nothing in it for them—and, to be perfectly honest, there was nothing in it at all for the employers in my case as it was all done for my benefit. That is my worry. It is great that newspapers take people on to let them see the ropes and find out what working for a newspaper is all about. As it turned out, to finish the story, I realised after doing my course at the Sheffield college that journalism was not for me. Perhaps I should have done a bit more work experience before I got to that stage, so that I could have learned that earlier.

My hon. Friend the Member for Elmet and Rothwell looks at this issue from one end of a telescope, but I look at it from the other end. If people doing unpaid internships get the chance to get a job in their chosen field as a result, it seems to me that not being paid for their work experience is a small price to pay. That, I am sure, is what the people who offer to do these internships think themselves. Some 75% of the workforce in this field could be without this vital experience if unpaid internships were banned, and 75% of the people who undertook an unpaid internship have successfully entered the industry in which they wanted to work. I think we should celebrate that.

My hon. Friend the Member for Elmet and Rothwell quoted Alan Milburn at length, but I am not sure that that is a particularly persuasive thing to do in order to win me round. Perhaps I was not his target audience. I am sure that we were all supposed to drop our objections the moment the name of Alan Milburn was mentioned, but it did not work for me. However, the report my hon. Friend mentioned, which was conducted by Alan Milburn was, I think, published in 2009—[Interruption.] I have been corrected, it was 2012. It used research conducted in 2004 by the University of Manchester, which found that about 80% of employers had employed former interns. Again, I think that is a cause for celebration today—that these internships are leading to jobs.

Intern Aware sent me a briefing at the time of my hon. Friend’s ten-minute rule Bill, saying that 40% of those who thought of applying for an internship had reconsidered because they did not want to work for free. Let us look at that the other way round. It means that 60% did apply for an internship. We have seen how successful these internships can be so we should celebrate them. People are not doing an unpaid internship thinking that there is absolutely nothing in it for them and that they are being exploited by an unscrupulous employer; they are doing it because they can see the future gain that they are likely to get from doing so. If they did not think it was in their best interests, they might as well have got a paid job doing something else.

It is patently obvious that the number of opportunities will decrease if all these people have to be paid the minimum wage. Why on earth would someone who is running a business take on someone with no experience and spend time helping them, when they could pay the minimum wage to someone who already had some experience and could crack on with the job straight away? If people have to be paid the same, irrespective of who is taken on, who would an employer be likely to take on? It will not be someone who has no experience whatever; it will be someone who can be up and running on day one. We are talking about fewer opportunities for people who want to enter the workplace. Although that is an unintended consequence of the Bill, I have to tell my hon. Friend that it is a completely foreseeable one and we should not fall into that trap.

It was a known consequence that the introduction of the so-called living wage was going to cost jobs. When the previous Chancellor, my right hon. Friend the Member for Tatton (Mr Osborne) announced to a great fanfare the introduction of the national living wage, we knew straight away that it was going to cost jobs—for exactly the same reason as applies here. The Office for Budget Responsibility clearly stated when the living wage was introduced that, by 2020, as a consequence of the living wage, 4 million hours a week would be lost. It said that half of those hours would be lost on account of reduced hours for workers and the other half because of the loss of 60,000 jobs.

I could not believe my ears when I first heard that, so I checked with the House of Commons Library and the chairman of the OBR, and they could not have made it any clearer that increasing the amount that people had to be paid at the bottom end would cost 60,000 jobs. I do not know whether that is a great cause for celebration, although I know that plenty of people were celebrating at the time, but I do not really see it as such, and I suspect that the 60,000 people who are going to lose their jobs will not be celebrating by any means. In any event, the OBR made it abundantly clear that increasing employers’ costs in this way would mean far fewer opportunities. That is what it said about the national living wage, and it is obvious that, as night follows day, the same would apply to work experience positions if they were subject to the same regime.

I am absolutely at one with the hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr Sheerman). It is a shame that he is not present today. He opposed my hon. Friend’s ten-minute rule Bill back in 2014, saying:

“Most people who know me might think that I would support the Bill, but the unintended consequence would be to damage some important opportunities for young people in our country. I…agree with the overall purpose of the Bill, but it will not hit the target. I am against exploitation and I am for fairness and social mobility, but I am also in favour of young people getting the experience that they need to enter the workplace. We need a balance.”—[Official Report, 13 May 2014; Vol. 580, c. 595-6.]

I could not agree more with everything that the hon. Gentleman said. The House divided on the Bill, and I was a Teller alongside the hon. Member for Huddersfield. I opposed it then, and I still oppose it today

Another issue that will not, I suspect, be addressed by the Bill is nepotism. My hon. Friend speaks of ordinary kids with modest backgrounds finding it difficult to access top jobs. It seems to me, however, that the problem is not that they are not paid for the jobs, but that, in many cases, they do not get a look in to start with. I think I am right in saying—and I should make clear that I do not decry anyone to whom this applies—that about one in 12 MPs is related to another MP, either current or former. I am not entirely sure that the Bill will make any difference to that—perhaps it should not make any difference—

[Mr Nuttall]

There are one or two of those in the Chamber. [Laughter.]

[Philip Davies]

It was not for me to pinpoint anyone in particular, and I should say for the record that the ones who are in the Chamber are among the ablest and most effective. I would not have wanted to do anything that prevented them from being here. That is not my point. My point is that, in all circumstances, people will use whatever opportunities they have to further their aims and ambitions, and we should not criticise them for that. The notion that if we pass the Bill we will end up with a system that provides equal opportunities for everyone is for the birds. That is just not going to happen. I do not think that my hon. Friend would make many inroads with this measure even if it were successful.

It is commonplace in business, and in other spheres, for people to secure opportunities such as internships and placements on the basis of who they know rather than what they know. I would like to think that the fact that we in this place are able to offer unpaid internships, work experience or whatever we want to call it to all our constituents if they ask—I certainly would never refuse a constituent, and indeed I try to accommodate as many people as I can who are not constituents—means that everyone, not just people we know, is being given an opportunity. I think that unpaid internships are extending the opportunities to more people, and I do not think that it is simply a question of giving the opportunity to someone we know or to a relative. That is why I think that my hon. Friend is attacking the problem from the wrong end.

--- Later in debate ---

[Philip Davies]

I can understand the point my hon. Friend makes. The Bill makes it clear what a workplace is, but clause 3 deals with exclusions, and there is no mention of the charity sector in that clause. I absolutely understand what he is saying, but I am not sure that it is abundantly clear that that sector is excluded. A stated exclusion would have been helpful to clarify this point once and for all.

[Mr Nuttall]

My hon. Friend has drawn the attention of the House to the problem of volunteers. We have already established the fact that anyone who is doing work, whether or not they are called an intern, is covered by the national minimum wage legislation. If we are prepared to accept that volunteers will be excluded from the Bill, even though that is not explicitly stated, are we not left with a situation in which the only people who will be covered are the people who are doing nothing and who are simply turning up to watch?

[Philip Davies]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right.

The Bill’s attempt to expand opportunities seems to be all stick and no carrot. I have been looking at what happens in other parts of the world. My hon. Friend has touched on some examples of this as well. In a submission from Perspective in 2013 in favour of paid internships, Robina Longworth cited other practices from around the world. However, as far as I can see, none of the countries listed pays the minimum wage to interns. China and Hong Kong, for example, have subsidised internship programmes for university graduates and hiring companies are eligible for tax breaks and loans. Perhaps my hon. Friend the Member for Elmet and Rothwell might like to consider giving tax breaks to companies who take people on. That might be a better carrot to offer.

--- Later in debate ---

[Philip Davies]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that intervention. It is inconceivable to me that the Bill would not result in fewer internships being offered. There would undoubtedly be fewer internships and work experience places. Nobody could say that the Bill would result in more such opportunities for people; there would be fewer. My point is that we should encourage businesses to offer more opportunities, particularly for those who do not get a fair crack of the whip. I know that he and I, and many other Members across the House, would like to see that happening, and perhaps tax breaks would be the answer. Rather than telling companies that they had to pay extra for offering these opportunities, perhaps we should consider giving them a financial incentive to do so. That seems to be a much more sensible and conservative way forward. I welcome what my hon. Friend said about national insurance contributions, but perhaps he should also consider tax breaks.

In Poland, there is financial support for engaging young people on internships. In Korea, there are wage subsidies for small businesses that hire interns on regular contracts. Those subsidies are offered at the conclusion of the internship, so the business is given a carrot to take the person on after they have been given a go to see whether they are good enough. And that is not just about the company seeing whether the intern is good enough; it also offers the intern an opportunity to see whether they want to work in that company or industry. That system appears to work for both sides.

I have had an idea for another thing that would be far better, and I hope that my hon. Friend will take this on board because I feel strongly about it. I have wondered about extending student loans to young people who do not want to go to university but want the opportunity to do something else. We give student loans to people, and I am sure that my hon. Friend would say from a social mobility point of view that they often go to people who are already affluent. In effect, the state gives them a subsidised loan at a preferential rate to enable them to live while at university and get a degree, which will then in all likelihood lead to them getting a higher-paid job than if they did not have a degree. It could be argued that it is like throwing apples into full orchards and that we are subsidising the people who are best off.

However, people who do not go to university are often the poorest in the country and they get nothing. They do not get a subsidised loan to pursue their career ambitions. Why not offer something like a student loan to, for example, someone from a poor working-class background in Yorkshire—

[Mr Nuttall]

Or Lancashire.

[Philip Davies]

Certainly not Lancashire.

That person may want to pursue a career in which they have a great interest, and such a loan, at a preferential rate, could give them the opportunity to come down to London to do the relevant work experience. They could then pay the loan back, just as university graduate does, when they are in a job that pays a certain amount of money. That would extend opportunities to people who currently do not get them. I have never quite understood why the only young people who get subsidised loans from the Government are those who go to university. What about all the other people who want to do something different?

National Living Wage

Debate between Philip Davies and David Nuttall

Monday 18th April 2016 Commons Chamber

[Philip Davies]

I have already given way to the right hon. Gentleman; he can have another go in his own speech later.

Labour Members have to face the consequences of the policy: the OBR has made it clear that it will result in fewer people being employed. The right hon. Member for Enfield North mentioned companies such as B&Q and Morrisons. When I worked for Asda, every employee was given a 10% discount card. I have no idea what Asda’s policy is today—it may well be the same—but it used to employ a lot of people with families, and a 10% discount card was a very valuable commodity to them. We should be wary about forcing employers to put up pay, because the inevitable consequence will be that some benefits might have to go if they want to keep the same number of people employed in their stores. These decisions have consequences, and we cannot pretend that increasing people’s pay will not have consequences.

The right hon. Lady mentioned care homes and the care sector. We need to think carefully about what the consequences will be for them. In my constituency, in Bradford, a very small proportion of the extra 2% that is being levied on council tax is being passed on to independent care homes. I thought it was designed to help them with the costs of things such as the national living wage. This high-minded policy is motherhood and apple pie. It enables people to look good and argue, “I think that, whatever people earn, they should get more, and that even when they do get more, they should get even more than that,” but an awful lot of care homes around the country could close as a consequence. Is that really what we want to happen in the UK? It would happen not because employers are mean, nasty people, but simply because they cannot afford to pay the national living wage at the rates that the councils are giving them for care home fees. That is the economic reality, whether people like it or not.

I met a number of employers recently, and they pointed out that the policy takes no account of differentials. When the pay of people at the bottom is raised to a higher rate, they are not the only ones to get a pay rise, because everyone else in the organisation will say, “Hold on a minute, I was paid £1 an hour more than they were, so if their pay’s being increased by £1 an hour, I want an extra £1 an hour as well to maintain that differential.”

Anybody who knows anything about running a business will know that, particularly for employers who run small businesses on the high street in small towns in our constituencies, there is not a never-ending pot of money to pay higher wages to everybody and to protect those differentials. Something has to give: either those differentials disappear, much to the unhappiness of the people who had them before, or fewer people will be employed, or people will be employed for fewer hours.

[Mr David Nuttall (Bury North) (Con)]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[Philip Davies]

I am afraid that I cannot give way, because there is not much time left.

Finally, I have two very quick points to make. First, the increased national minimum wage will almost certainly lead to even more people from the European Union coming to the UK if we do not leave the EU in the forthcoming referendum. That is a basic fact. Secondly, a higher minimum wage is great for people who are already in work and getting paid. However, it can be as high as we like, but it will be of very little use to those who do not have a job. Many people in this country already find it very difficult to get on the jobs ladder, for all sorts of reasons.

I have made this point before and got into terrible trouble for it, but the fact, whether people like it or not, is that too few disabled people in this country are employed. It would not be good if they were put further away from the jobs ladder, and I want the Government to think about what they are going to do, when wages are higher, to help disabled people find a job, including subsidising employers to bring them up to the living wage. Something has to be done. We cannot just leave people on the scrapheap unable to get a job because the first rung of the jobs ladder was too far away to give them a chance in the first place. We have to think through the consequences of all these high-minded policies.

Foreign National Offenders (Exclusion from the UK) Bill

Debate between Philip Davies and David Nuttall

Friday 11th March 2016 Commons Chamber

[Philip Davies]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right; it is a scandal, whichever way we look at it. The person was given 11 months rather than 12 months, despite the fact that he had arrived in Britain in Christmas 2000— 11 years previously—when he was given permission to stay for only four days! He was convicted 11 years later.

[Mr Nuttall]

Does my hon. Friend agree that the deliberate frustration of the will of elected parliamentarians in this place on behalf of the people is what brings politics into disrepute, when people subsequently blame us rather than the judges? They say, “It must be the politicians’ fault because our MPs did not put in place sufficiently strong pieces of legislation to stop this from happening.”

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Nuttall]

I am not surprised by my hon. Friend’s observation because I was going on to say that Romanians made up the largest group of foreign nationals arrested: 7,604 Romanian suspects were held, followed by 7,429 Polish, as well as 3,618 Lithuanians, 2,928 from India, 2,740 from Nigeria and 2,280 from Jamaica.

[Philip Davies]

In his remarks, will my hon. Friend comment on whether the Bill is compatible with the EU charter of fundamental rights? The 2010 manifesto—we both stood on that platform, which catapulted the Prime Minister into 10 Downing Street—said there were “three specific guarantees”, including one on the charter of fundamental rights, and that we would

“seek a mandate to negotiate the return of these powers from the EU to the UK.”

Unfortunately, the Prime Minister appears to have forgotten to include that in his letter and it was not therefore part of the negotiation.

[Mr Nuttall]

My hon. Friend opens up an entirely new area of debate. I suspect that the European Court Justices would rule against the content of the Bill under the charter of fundamental rights, because they would find that it was against the freedom of movement provisions of the treaties. That is why the very first line of the Bill says:

“Notwithstanding any provision of the European Communities Act 1972”.

It would be an interesting situation if the European Court of Justice ruled that the provisions in the Bill fell foul of the charter, but this House said that it would disregard the ruling because of what was in the manifesto, regardless of whether that matter was included in the terms of the renegotiation. As we now know, there are to be no changes to the provisions relating to the free movement of people.

Even though the latest offender management statistics for England and Wales show that, for the first time in a decade, the number of foreign national offenders held in custody and immigration removal centres operated by the National Offender Management Service had fallen below 10,000, some 12% of the current prison population in England and Wales is made up of foreign national offenders, so one in eight of those in our prisons are foreign national offenders.

The latest number that I have is that, as of 31 December 2015, there were 9,895 of them. That is, it has to be said, a decrease of 6% compared with 31 December 2014, but that is mainly due to the closure of the Home Office-commissioned places at the Haslar and Dover immigration removal centres, which took place last year. The Ministry of Justice’s figures for the period up to 31 December 2015 include 345 prisoners whose nationality has not been identified and recorded. Of course, if those unrecorded foreign national offenders were included, we would still be above the 10,000 mark.

It is still the case that 12% of the prison population in England and Wales is made up of foreign national offenders, at an enormous annual cost to UK taxpayers. That is 10,000 people who are likely to be released at some point in the future; 10,000 people who, if they are not deported, could live in our communities; 10,000 people who have chosen, of their own free will, to break the law of the country that has welcomed them in and provided them with a home.

The latest offender management statistics bulletin from the Ministry of Justice states:

“The five most common nationalities after British Nationals in prisons in England and Wales are Polish, Irish, Romanian, Jamaican and Lithuanian, accounting for approximately one third of the foreign national population and one in twenty of the prison population overall.”

It is absolutely right that we, as a country, should seek to attract the brightest and the best to contribute to our society, where they are needed, but it is equally right to put in place a robust mechanism to ensure that those who choose to break the rules are excluded. The Bill is intended to do just that. Foreign national offenders are in prison because of a wide variety of offences, but the very fact that they are in prison signifies that they are the most serious of offences.

Compulsory Emergency First Aid Education (State-funded Secondary Schools) Bill

Debate between Philip Davies and David Nuttall

Friday 20th November 2015 Commons Chamber

[Philip Davies]

It absolutely should be a voluntary thing. I was struck by my hon. Friend’s earlier intervention when he said that people who volunteer for things tend to enter into them with much more gusto than if they are compelled to be there. That is self-evidently the case. I do not see why that should not be the case for the teaching of first aid as well.

I should say that when the Government were pressed on this matter by Bob Russell, the former Liberal Democrat MP for Colchester, the Secretary of State made it clear that her Department was prepared to help schools teach life-saving skills more generally if that was what schools wanted—again, that is very laudable. She also made it clear that the Government had negotiated a contract so that schools could obtain defibrillators at reasonable rates and train their pupils in the use of them.

[Mr Nuttall]

Is my hon. Friend also aware that St John’s Ambulance makes resources available to teachers to enable them to deliver these lessons at a very low cost?

[Philip Davies]

I am very grateful to my hon. Friend for his intervention. I do not intend to focus on the work of St John’s Ambulance in my speech. Obviously, I cannot cover everything. Perhaps he might be able to do so, Mr Deputy Speaker, if he is lucky enough to catch your eye later on.

What is also important is the time factor. We have heard different times bandied about as to how much training would be needed to fulfil the obligations in the Bill. I am still not entirely sure about it. Half an hour was the minimum that I have heard. It is important to note that my hon. Friend the Member for North Swindon (Justin Tomlinson), who did an awful lot of work in this area before he was deservedly promoted to ministerial ranks, asked a question about the 30,000 cardiac arrests that occur outside hospitals where only one in 10 people survives. He wanted to meet the Minister to discuss the fact that when countries give two-hour sessions of emergency life-saving skills, survival rates often increase by up to 50%. That suggests to me that, for this to be worthwhile, 30 minutes will never be enough. My hon. Friend the Member for South East Cornwall (Mrs Murray), who has knowledge of the subject, made that point in an earlier intervention. It strikes me that, in order to get a Bill through Parliament, we will be told that a session needs to be only half an hour, but the moment the Bill becomes enacted, the schools will be told that half an hour is not good enough and that they will need to do an hour. When an hour is not good enough, they will be told to do two hours, and then four hours. Schools will never know where the time commitment will end.

Under the provisions of the Bill, as I understand it, the Secretary of State can make regulations in this area, so they will be free to say to schools, “Well, we have looked at this, and half an hour is not enough. You need to do more.” We are not giving schools a commitment to teach as they see fit, but potentially lining up for them much longer times they will have to spend teaching these skills if the half an hour that we have been told about proves to be as insufficient and inadequate as my hon. Friend the Member for South East Cornwall has suggested.



As I said, teachers are best placed to decide on these matters. We should not force them to do anything that is not right for them or their school. We are constantly moving towards an overly prescribed curriculum. That is unhelpful to teachers, who must teach these lessons, and to students, who have to try to juggle more subjects in a limited time. This happens time and again in Parliament. When I was on the Opposition Benches— some might argue that I always sit on the opposition Benches, but when I was on the other side of the House —I remember the Labour Government’s proposal that all schools should be obliged to teach about healthy eating, among other things.

--- Later in debate ---

[Philip Davies]

I apologise, it was my hon. Friend the Member for Chippenham (Michelle Donelan); the Minister is absolutely right. Over the past few decades, there has been a huge change in the perceived role of schools, and parents and politicians have placed increased responsibility on schools. They are now expected to assume responsibility for ensuring that children leave with a rounded education. That includes teaching children about personal and sex education, bullying, mental wellbeing, and society as a whole, as well as teaching them traditional subjects such as maths and science—and Latin, for the benefit of my hon. Friend the Member for North East Somerset.

Personal, social, health and economic education, although a non-statutory subject, is common in school timetables across the country. In primary and secondary schools, it takes an average lesson of 30 minutes or an hour in the weekly calendar, and is an established part of the school day. Despite the fact that the Government should be reducing the regulatory burden on schools, across the country, teachers are expected to assume a pseudo-parental role. We say to parents, “Don’t worry about how you bring up your children, what you enter them in for, or encouraging them to do things, because we’ll cover it all for you.” That is a bad way for the country to go. We should put more responsibility on parents to sort out extra-curricular activities for their children, and less on schools. We are encouraging parents to abdicate their responsibilities. It should be my role to encourage my children to do things out of school that may enable them to get first aid training; we should not always say that it is the school’s responsibility.

A serious effect of the Bill is that it will take up time in the curriculum. Across the UK, and specifically in the district where my constituency is, Bradford, there are too many failing schools. In those circumstances, it is not appropriate to expect either teachers or students to focus on a completely new subject area when, in too many instances, basic maths and English are not up to standard. Recent Ofsted reports highlighted some of these issues. Of one school that received an “inadequate” rating, Ofsted said:

“Students have weak literacy, communication and numeracy skills.”

Against that backdrop, if an extra half-hour, hour or two hours of study should be done during the school day, perhaps focusing on the weak literacy, communication and numeracy skills would be a far better use of students’ time. That may not be the case everywhere, but that is why we have to leave the decision to teachers. When there is extra time in a school, surely it is teachers who know what a pupil would do best to focus on for half an hour, an hour or two hours.

In many schools in Bradford, it is perfectly clear that spending extra time on English would be far more beneficial than a two-hour course in first aid, regardless of whether that is worth while. Some of Bradford’s examination results are extremely poor. In fact, Bradford is one of the most failing local education authorities in the country. Surely we have to get our priorities right for those schools. Many of the teachers in those schools are working incredibly hard to turn them around. They need the support and encouragement to enable their school to give extra tuition in English and maths—those are things that they are trying to do. The last thing they need is for this House and the Government to come in with a sledgehammer and say, “I know you’re really trying to turn around the maths and English qualifications of your pupils, but forget about spending half an hour, or a couple of hours, doing that; your pupils have to do first aid training.” That is why these decisions are best made locally.

[Mr Nuttall]

We have heard a number of speeches this morning, but it has never been made clear exactly when these first aid lessons are to be delivered. In which year of a child’s education does my hon. Friend think these lessons will be delivered?

[Philip Davies]

My hon. Friend makes a good point. I do not know. Schools would presumably have to muddle through as best they can to meet the requirements of the Bill. I am sure teachers are very good at chopping and changing and muddling through.

As I made clear at the start of my speech, I have contacted all the schools in my constituency and got feedback from some of them. One of them had a “requires improvement” judgment in February 2014, and one reason was that the students’ achievement in both maths and English has not been good enough since 2012. The priority for the school and its leadership team is not to expand the curriculum to make us all feel better about ourselves because we are fulfilling a worthy sentiment; the teachers are working incredibly hard to ensure that their pupils leave as young adults who are equipped with the right level of maths and English to set them up for the future. That is the first priority of our schooling system in this country. We should not sit here and think everything is hunky-dory in all our schools; it is not. Those teachers want help do that difficult job, dealing with some difficult pupils, but the Bill does not give them that support.

The National Literacy Trust states:

“Around 16 per cent, or 5.2 million adults in England, can be described as ‘functionally illiterate’. They would not pass an English GCSE and have literacy levels at or below those expected of an 11-year-old.”

That is a serious problem, which schools should be addressing. The importance of that form of education, which is what parents expect when they send their children to school, cannot be overestimated.

As we have heard from various Members, many people learn their first aid skills with the guides or the scouts. The nub of one of my arguments is that children do not need to learn first aid at school, as there are many organisations and clubs which teach it, including St John Ambulance and the Red Cross. The first aid badge is one of the most important badges that people can get in those organisations. Individuals must show a thorough range of first aid knowledge before they are entitled to the badge. My hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Mr Chope) referred to the pride that people take in displaying their badge on their uniform when they have earned it through those sessions. The guides first aid badge is valid for only two years, at which point they are required to take the test again in order to keep the badge up to date.

--- Later in debate ---

[Philip Davies]

No, because as I was going on to say, I do not think we could get an accurate figure on the savings; it would be completely arbitrary. How could we measure the savings? I am concerned about the effect on our schools of the Bill—that is what is before us today and I want to focus on it.

How would first aid education be measured in schools? If we make something compulsory in schools, we have to have some way of measuring that the school is doing it, otherwise it becomes complete nonsense. When people do courses elsewhere, they get a certificate or a badge, which gives them recognition. Presumably, at the end of the session, to check that somebody has got through the training—I am sure the promoter of the Bill will correct me if I am wrong—somebody will have to assess that people have met the required standard. If there were a 30-minute lesson without anyone knowing whether anything had been learned, that would be completely pointless. There would have to be some kind of test to work out that what needed to be learned had been learned. That goes without saying.

Would schools be required to provide some form of examination at the end of the training as a formal recognition or qualification? How would that work? Will there be a national model test that everyone will have to pass at the end of their lessons or will schools have to produce their own test? [Interruption.] I detect from the sedentary chuntering around me that there would be no such test. What on earth is the point of a lesson in first aid without testing whether people have learned what they need to in order to save somebody’s life? Surely the whole point is that people should become capable of saving somebody’s life. What is the point if we do not even know that?

[Mr Nuttall]

Clause 1(5) states:

“The National Curriculum for England is not required to specify attainment targets or assessment arrangements for EFAE”.

[Philip Davies]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend. In all honesty, that makes the whole Bill a farce. Even those in favour of compulsory first aid education would surely agree that if at the end of the training there was no way of measuring whether people had learned anything or got to the standard required to save somebody’s life, the Bill would become a complete and utter nonsense—gesture politics of the worst possible kind.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Nuttall]

I am not sure whether there was a question in that intervention, but if I am in order, Mr Deputy Speaker, I shall carry on. I shall try to ensure that there is time for us to hear from the Minister, but I have some concerns about the Bill, and I think it fair to point out that it would place an additional requirement on teachers. That, surely, must be a matter of fact.

[Philip Davies]

Does my hon. Friend not consider it striking that plenty of people who are in favour of the Bill have made the assertion that teachers are in favour of it, but he and I, and our hon. Friend the Member for Newark (Robert Jenrick)—who have actually spent time speaking to teachers in our local schools—have found something different?

[Mr Nuttall]

My hon. Friend is right. That is what causes me to have some doubts about the opinion poll whose findings keep being quoted at us. When I have actually spoken to people about the issue, I have received a slightly different answer, which is why I think we need to look at the questions that were asked in the poll.

[Philip Davies]

Who commissioned it?

[Mr Nuttall]

Absolutely. We do not know who commissioned it, or whether those who did so were hoping to get the answers that are being reported—or, indeed, whether they commissioned some reports that have never seen the light of day.

The issue of the burden on teachers is raised with me by teachers themselves. If the Bill became law, it would undoubtedly result in their having to do extra work in schools where they do not already teach this subject.

Another element is the cost of the Bill. I will not repeat the points that were made by my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Philip Davies)—

[Philip Davies]

Why not?

[Mr Nuttall]

My hon. Friend made some very good points, but I now want to make the point that as no explanatory notes and no impact assessment accompanied the Bill, we are essentially being asked to sign a blank cheque.

[Philip Davies]

Does my hon. Friend believe that the Bill will require a money resolution?

[Mr Nuttall]

Ah. My hon. Friend has made a good point. We have been given no detailed explanation of exactly how this training is to be delivered in schools, but I believe that, however it is delivered, its delivery will result in some additional cost to the education system. I am sure that we shall hear more about this from the Minister when he gives us the Government’s view in a few minutes’ time, but I should have thought that the Bill would require a money resolution.

My hon. Friend the Member for South East Cornwall (Mrs Murray) said that there was a danger that if the training was not carried out to a given standard, and was not tested properly, some further injury could be inflicted on someone, albeit unwittingly and with the best of intentions. Sometimes, as the phrase goes, a little knowledge can be a dangerous thing. We keep hearing that money will be safe for the NHS, but there is a danger that the NHS could end up with larger bills because people who think they know what they are doing are actually making things worse. That may not happen, but there is a danger that it could.

Hospital Parking Charges (Exemption for Carers) Bill

Debate between Philip Davies and David Nuttall

Friday 30th October 2015 Commons Chamber

[Philip Davies]

I agree that that part of the Bill is clear, but as the hon. Member for Worsley and Eccles South (Barbara Keeley) has just said that there are 6 million carers but only 1 million will gain any benefit from the Bill, some people may consider that there is an unfairness there.

[Mr David Nuttall (Bury North) (Con)]

These exchanges have completely overlooked clauses 4, 5 and 6. Those clauses refer to eligible carers, who are defined in clause 5. I shall not go into the definition now, but it could bring in millions more carers, rather than just the 1.1 million who we have just been told are covered in the Bill.

[Philip Davies]

My hon. Friend has made a very good point, and I hope that he will expand on it in his own speech. I do not want to steal his thunder.

--- Later in debate ---

[Philip Davies]

I did not get a chance to talk about this earlier. Does my hon. Friend know whether, under the Bill, the Government would reimburse the hospitals for the lost revenue, or whether the hospitals’ balance sheets would have to take a hit?

[Mr Nuttall]

The Bill is silent on that point. It might well be that, in the mind of the hon. Member for Burnley, some mechanism would be put in place to reimburse the trusts, depending on the number of carers registered with them. Or perhaps she would simply say to them, “Sorry, if you’ve got a lot of carers in your area, you’ll just have to suffer the consequences.” It is not clear what would happen.

I want to turn to a drafting matter that has not been touched on. Clause 1 is entitled “Duty to exempt qualifying carers from hospital car parking charges”, and subsection (1)

states:

“Health Care providing bodies shall make arrangements to exempt qualifying carers engaged in any of the qualifying activities listed in section 2(2) from charges for parking their cars”.

The question that arises is how wide the scope of healthcare facilities actually is. Clause 1(2)(b) states that the duty in that previous subsection is the responsibility of “any private hospital”. I personally believe it would be a step too far if we were to legislate on what private companies were allowed to charge for and to whom they should give exemptions.

Clause 1 provides for “arrangements” to be made for “qualifying carers”, while clause 4 provides for a “scheme” for “eligible carers”. Why does there have to be a difference? Why does one set of carers get arrangements while another get a scheme? It appears that schemes are more complicated than arrangements. Clause 1(4) requires the arrangements for qualifying carers to be in place within 12 months, whereas in the case of eligible carers, 12 months are allowed for a scheme to be submitted to the Secretary of State, and it does not have to be implemented until a year and a half after the Bill becomes law. If the matter is so urgent, why will it take a year and a half for carers to become entitled to the exemption?

It is a pleasure to welcome you to the Chair, Madam Deputy Speaker. I think there has been an error in the printed version of the Bill. In the printed copy that I have, clause 4(1) states:

“Health Care providing bodies shall establish schemes to exempt eligible carers engaged in any of the qualifying activities listed in section 2(1)(b) from hospital car park charges and submit such schemes to the Secretary of State within 12 months of this Act coming into force.”

However, clause 2(1)(b) states:

“A qualifying carer under section 1(1) is a person who…has an underlying entitlement to the Carer’s Allowance.”

The provision in clause 4(1) has been amended online to refer to section 2(2), which is the correct subsection. Section 2(2) is indeed the subsection that sets out what a qualifying activity is. It states:

“A qualifying activity under section 1(1) is transporting, visiting or otherwise accompanying or facilitating”—

Access to Medical Treatments (Innovation) Bill

Debate between Philip Davies and David Nuttall

Friday 16th October 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mr Nuttall]

I am grateful that the sponsor of the Bill agrees with me on this, because it is the key point of the whole debate. Those who oppose the Bill have alleged that it will somehow put patients at risk. If that were the case, I would not be supporting it. I am supporting it because having read it carefully, and having considered all the evidence and all the views of all the professional bodies that are ranged against it, I have come to the conclusion that patients would have all the safeguards after the Bill has been passed that they do now.

The Bill has the potential to increase and improve the range of medical treatments available to my constituents.

[Philip Davies]

My hon. Friend is setting out a very good case. Does he accept, though, that the concerns of some of my constituents that I outlined are valid, and that in Committee we should look at ways in which they can be dealt with if necessary? We should not just accept the Bill in its current state; we should look to see whether we can improve it in Committee.

[Mr Nuttall]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend. The arguments are finely balanced. As he said, he has constituents who support the Bill and constituents who are against it. If the Bill receives its Second Reading, as I hope it will, the concerns of those who have reservations about it, and those who go further and are outright opposed to it, can be considered in detail in Committee and, if possible, reflected and taken into account by way of appropriate amendments at that stage or on Report.

Homes (Fitness for Human Habitation) Bill

Debate between Philip Davies and David Nuttall

Friday 16th October 2015 Commons Chamber

[Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)]

I congratulate the hon. Member for Westminster North (Ms Buck) on bringing forward her Bill and giving it a good airing. Unfortunately, we do not have a great deal of time left, so I am not sure we will be able to do it justice, but I certainly commend her for it.

First, I should draw the House’s attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. As I have said in previous debates on this subject, I am both a landlord—although an accidental landlord, I might add—and a tenant, and therefore in the unusual position of being able to see both sides of the argument and having an interest on both sides of the argument.

The private rented sector has been a topical issue for many years, not least recently, and there have always been arguments for more regulation of the industry. Indeed, landlords appear to be an easy target for the left. As this Bill is again directly targeted at landlords, it is worth considering exactly who these landlords are. The DCLG’s private landlords survey of 2010 found that more than three quarters—78%—of all landlords owned only a single dwelling for rent, comprising 40% of the total private rented housing stock, while 95% had fewer than five dwellings in their property portfolio, accounting for 61% of the total stock. A large majority—81%—of private individual landlords owned just one dwelling, of whom 97% had fewer than five properties in their portfolio. Only 3% of private individual landlords owned five or more dwellings, and they accounted for almost a quarter of all dwellings owned by private individual landlords.

Basically, nearly four in five landlords rent out only one property. When we talk about additional regulations and burdens, it is always worth pointing out that the vast majority of those affected are individuals with just one property, not great conglomerations or massive corporations renting out huge numbers of properties. I sometimes think that Labour Members want us to believe such a caricature.

[Mr David Nuttall (Bury North) (Con)]

As someone in the category of accidental landlords who rents out only one property, will my hon. Friend confirm that the vast majority of such landlords—many of them may have inherited the property—are law-abiding landlords who ensure that their properties are kept to a very high standard?

[Philip Davies]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. There is no doubt that the overwhelming majority of landlords—I put myself in this category—want to do the right thing, would never dream of renting out a property that was not in a fit state to be rented out and want to comply with every regulation that is introduced. As someone in that situation, I can however tell him that it is very difficult to keep tabs on all the things expected of a landlord. It is very difficult for a landlord—an accidental landlord or one who has not set out to earn money from being a landlord—to keep tabs on every dot of the i and cross of the t that hon. Members seem to want to impose on landlords, as though they had nothing to do but wade through legislation generated by this House.