Philip Davies MP: Overseas aid is a failed policy - we should put our own people first

Philip Davies is the Member of Parliament for Shipley and Parliamentary Spokesman for Blue Collar Conservatism. For more information about Blue Collar Conservatism you can visit the website. Follow Philip on Twitter.

How much money we should be spending on our overseas aid budget has become a highly contentious issue.  On one side of the argument we have the Prime Minister who promised before the election that we would spend 0.7 per cent of our Gross National Income (GNI) on overseas aid as many countries had pledged to do – and now, at a time of such little public trust in politicians, understandable wants to keep the promise he made. 

On the other side of the argument lies virtually every other country in the world and, if the opinion polls are to be believed, the vast majority of the British public who believe that in such tough financial times we need to reduce spending on overseas aid as we have had to do in virtually every other Government department.  I am very firmly in the latter camp.  Whatever the merits of the overseas aid – and I will come on to that later – the fact is that we have not got any money to hand out so liberally around the world.  You would not advise people to borrow money to give to charity and yet that is precisely what we are doing – borrowing money from some countries to hand straight across to other countries.

In the UK we already spend the highest proportion of GNI on the overseas development aid among G7 countries. Department for International Development (DFID) spent £7.7 billion in bilateral overseas aid in 2011/12, ‘supporting’ 62 countries.  That does not include our contribution on multilateral level to the International Monetary Fund, European Bank for Reconstruction and Development or UN agencies. Whilst we are continuing to increase our spending, other countries are now reducing the proportion they spend on overseas aid – including those who had previously pledged to spend 0.7% of their GNI – as they recognise the tough financial times they face.

It is commendable that the Prime Minister wants to keep the promise he made on this issue. The problem is that it was a foolish promise to make given the financial situation of the country, and now that the nation’s finances are in a worse state than the Prime Minister envisaged when he made this promise, most members of the public expect him to adapt to those changing circumstances and act accordingly.

Making a pledge on the amount of money you will spend on anything is foolish.  That is a Socialist approach to issue – a blind belief that simply the spending of money is the solution to a problem.  Surely it is better to focus on outputs rather than inputs and I would much prefer we concentrated on ensuring that the money we spent on overseas aid (which should be reduced) is spent wisely.

Philip Davies MP: On the day Leveson is published, it's worth remembering why the press must stay free

Philip Davies is MP for Shipley and a member of the Culture, Media and Sport Select Committee

A free press is the cornerstone of a free country - one in which the Government and the rich and powerful can be held to account and their misdemeanours brought to the attention of the public.

At the time of writing I don't know what is contained in the Leveson report, which will be published later today, but I have every expectation that it will recommend some form of statutory control over the press.  David Cameron should ignore this pressure and avoid being remembered as the Prime Minister who introduced state control over the press.

Many of us will have been appalled with some of the things we have seen in the papers. Indeed, some of us have been the victims of either malicious lies or lazy inaccuracies by leading newspapers in this country – the Mirror’s front page “Tory MP thumps Labour MP” not long after I was first elected certainly springs to mind for me!  However, that does not mean that things would be better with state regulated newspapers.

Philip Davies MP: Sadly, Ken Clarke's reforms will catapult more criminals on to the streets, to commit more crimes

Philip Davies is MP for Shipley.

Today the House of Commons will debate the controversial Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Bill.  The Prime Minister’s timely intervention to row back on some of the dangerous proposals in the Justice’s Secretary’s recent bill was a welcome relief.

I fully support the U-turn from the disastrous policy which would have allowed prisoners to earn 50% off their sentence for an early guilty plea.  I equally support the proposal to send foreign national prisoners home after they have served the minimum tariff of their sentences, banning foreign travel for offenders serving a community order, promoting a better work ethic among prisoners and reducing the legal aid bill. 

However, there are many aspects of the sentencing small print that confirm that the Prime Minister’s intervention and the U-turn from the Lord Chancellor have only ensured that the bill is now just slightly less worse than the catastrophe it would have been, had he not changed it. 

During his statement in the House of Commons last Tuesday, Ken Clarke proclaimed, “the best way to reduce crime is to reduce re-offending” – something many people could sign up to.  However, I am afraid that his actions simply do not match his words.  His stance on indeterminate sentences show beyond all doubt that re-offending is not his priority.

Philip Davies MP: The tobacco display ban is gesture politics of the worst kind and a triumph for the nanny state

Philip Davies is MP for Shipley.

As a non-smoking believer in freedom, I believe that Andrew Lansley’s introduction of a tobacco display ban is a prime example of gesture politics of the worst kind and a triumph for the nanny state.  Not only is the decision a U-turn on both the Conservative and Liberal Democrats' pre-election commitments, but it is also completely at odds with David Cameron’s ‘war’ on bureaucracy and a betrayal of small businesses at a time of economic hardship.

There can only be two winners in this sorry saga; the Labour Party (who introduced the policy during the previous Parliament) and the anti-smoking zealots.  In fact, ASH and SmokeFree each receive a large amount of government funding, despite being a charity.  In 2009 the Department of Health gave Ash £191,000 for a report called “Beyond Smoking Kills”.  This was on top of a direct grant from the Department of Health to the tune of £142,000. As a result, the Government seem reluctant to look at other evidence-based analysis before deciding on the direction of public policy.

Philip Davies MP: Increased use of CCTV and DNA profiling would actually enhance our freedom

Philip Davies is MP for Shipley.

DNA, CCTV and Automatic Number Plate Recognition (ANPR) are essential crime-fighting tools for detecting crimes, bringing people to justice, deterring criminals from committing further offences and acquitting the innocent.  One of our fundamental liberties is the right to walk the streets without fear of harm or harassment and as a staunch defender of freedom, I fear that the safety of our citizens will be negated by the double-edged sword or reducing these techniques at a time of budget cuts.

I want to be clear from the outset that I am not in favour of the misuse of CCTV cameras by councils for snooping purposes.  I am primarily concerned with utilising CCTV for identifying and prosecuting criminals.  A Scotland Yard study into the effectiveness of surveillance cameras revealed that 86 out of 90 murder cases over a one year period used CCTV during the investigation.  Scotland Yard’s head of homicide, Simon Foy, stated that:

“CCTV plays a huge role in helping us investigate serious crime.  I hope people can understand how important it is to our success in catching people who commit murder.”

In fact, the “Crossbow Cannibal” who has been convicted of the murder of three prostitutes was caught through the use of CCTV. 

CCTV is not only an invaluable tool to the police, but also in courts.  The footage provides a conclusive, unbiased account, void of someone’s spin or recollection.  It is very different to argue with CCTV images and they often lead to changes of pleas from not guilty to guilty. 

Equally, CCTV can prove that someone is being wrongly accused of committing a crime, as was the case of Gary Wood, who was cleared of raping Natalie Jefferson after police studied CCTV footage of his movements that night and realised that the woman was crying rape.  This saves courts time and money and also prevents witnesses from having to experience the stressful and often upsetting situation of giving evidence. 

Philip Davies MP: Ken Clarke's misguided approach on sentencing risks making thousands more people victims of crime

Philip Davies is Conservative MP for Shipley.

Conservative candidates across the country promised in our election manifesto that we would be tough on crime, increase the prison population to 96,000 by 2014 and that “anyone convicted of a knife crime can expect to face a prison sentence.”  Kenneth Clarke has abandoned these Conservative pledges and instead adopted the Liberal-left wing orthodoxies that society will be better served by letting more criminals walk the streets and that the offender is more important than the victim of crime.

The main purposes of prison are to actually punish the criminal, protect the public and achieve justice for the victims of crime, not to rehabilitate.  However, the Government are a million miles away from public opinion on this issue.  Indeed, an IPSOS Mori poll in 2007 found that only 9% of the public thought that ‘too much re-offending’ was one of the most important crime-related issues.

This is not to say that whilst in prison we should not try to rehabilitate criminals, but why does the ‘rehabilitation revolution’ have to occur in the community? For far too long we have had a sterile debate based on whether you are in favour of prison or in favour of rehabilitation – why not have rehabilitation whilst in prison, modelled on the TBS system that has been operating in Holland for over 80 years and has achieved re-offending rates as low as 8 per cent.

Another central tenet of the Sentencing Paper is the desire to reduce the number of people in prison by 3,000, by cutting the number of short-term custodial sentences and increasing the number of community sentences.  This is based on a myth that too many people are currently sent to prison when in fact the truth is quite the opposite. Britain only has 12 people sent to prison for every 1,000 recorded crimes compared with 33 in Ireland and 48 in Spain.  The Government’s policy is also based on a premise that it is relatively easy to be sent to prison, again quite the reverse.  In 2009, 2,980 burglars and 4,677 violent criminals with 15 or more previous convictions, STILL were not sent to prison and criminals with more than 100 previous convictions who came before the courts were more likely NOT to be sent to jail. 

Philip Davies MP: Why I am no enemy of democracy or liberty

Philip Davies has been Conservative MP for Shipley since 2005.

I was somewhat surprised to find myself last weekend among six MPs listed by the Power 2010 group as being an enemy of democracy.  The list of three Labour and three Conservative MPs seemed to be chosen at random as the reasons given apply in equal measure many more of my Parliamentary colleagues on both sides of the House.  Why they chose to single me out is neither here nor there.  I am happy to debate with anyone, particularly when they seem to have little understanding of what democracy actually means.  

Power 2010 uses expensive newspaper advertisements to make outlandish claims and while it claims to want to stimulate discussion, it seeks to attack and demonise those who take a contrary position.  It lists a number of disparate partners, but it is unclear who funds this mysterious organisation.  It claims to speak for the people and uses the general discontent towards elected politicians to promote its partial and almost partisan agenda.  Since being elected in 2005 I have always put the interests of my constituents first and will continue to do so.  I have been honest and upfront with my electors about what I believe in and will continue to do so here by addressing those issues which Power 2010 believes makes me an opponent of democracy.  Indeed I believe it is they who show the greater contempt for democracy, by seeking to ride roughshod over the opinions of the people and the liberties upon which our democracy is based.

Apparently I am an enemy of democracy because I oppose changing the voting system to one of proportional representation, which I might add is Conservative Party policy (and indeed the stated policy of the Labour Party); that I have contempt for civil liberties, whatever that means, and that I favour an appointed second chamber. 

I support the first past the post electoral system because I believe it is without question the most democratic.  Proportional representation, which Power 2010 would seem to prefer given its connections with Charter 88, would effectively remove the power of the people to determine who governs our country.  It would in effect end the notion of government by the people, for the people and give us a government based on the cosy deals of a few through inefficient coalition government.