Ukraine

Debate between Edward Leigh and Jim Shannon

Monday 20th May 2024 Commons Chamber

[Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)]

Nothing I will say in this short speech in any way approves of what President Putin has done—he is an appalling man; a tyrant who has caused massive damage to infrastructure and countless deaths—but we have to be realistic in these debates. We cannot just will what we want. There is a mismatch between our determination, our interest and our will, and those of the Russian state.

Let us go back in history. When people in the west discuss Ukraine, they often assume this is a simple case of a large state invading a small country that has always been independent. That is not the view of the Russian state or most people who live in Russia. Ukraine means “borderland”, and for centuries, since Catherine the Great, Ukraine was effectively part of Russia. Even under the Soviet Union, Crimea was part of the Russian Federation, and it was only willed to Ukraine by diktat in the 1950s. Not a single Member of Parliament objected to that and the Crimean people were not consulted.

I am not in any way defending the Russian position—what they have done is appalling—but from that historical reality, and it is a reality for the Russian state, they are absolutely determined to pursue their objectives, as wrong as they may be. As we have heard, Putin is a tyrant. He has put the entire Russian economy on a war footing. He is apportioning a part of the economy to defence that we have not been spending since the second world war. Although we may want to win the war, we have to be realistic. Given the mismatch in resources between the Russian Federation and Ukraine, and given all the difficulties that the Ukrainian state has been trying to cope with in the management of its economy for many years, with corruption and many other issues, it is extremely unlikely, sadly, that Ukraine can win this war.

As I said earlier, this war is following the pattern of earlier wars that Russia has engaged with: early incompetence replaced by an utter determination to win that is completely impervious to the loss of human life.

[Jim Shannon]

Does the right hon. Member not agree that if the battle in Ukraine is lost, then it will go to Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Germany and eventually the whole way back to us? The battle in Ukraine has to be won. It is not a matter of giving in; we have to win it.

[Sir Edward Leigh]

If we are going to win this war, we have to be prepared to give the resources necessary to do so. The truth is that such is the overwhelming predominance of the American industrial military estate that it could have won the war by now. America could have armed Ukraine to such an extent that it could have won. America could have allowed the Ukrainians to use its weapons to bombard Russian forces within Russia. America does not want Ukraine to humiliate Russia and win this war. America does not want Ukraine to lose the war. America could have won this war by now, as it won the second world war, but apparently it is not prepared to will the resources. We may not agree with that or like it, but that is the reality. We all know the strength of the American economy, and we all know that for months weapons deliveries were delayed.

All that I am trying to do is inject a note of reality into this debate. We cannot keep having these debates, saying, “We are determined to win this war. We must win this war”, when we are not willing the resources. I therefore ask the House these questions. Are we determined to put our own economy on a war footing? Are we determined to spend less on health, education, justice, and all the other good things in which we believe, in order to win this war? Are we prepared perhaps to put our own troops into Ukraine? Are we prepared for our own young men to die, or are we just prepared for thousands of young Ukrainian men to die and not have a single casualty ourselves? Those are the realistic questions.

The most likely outcome is that there will be horror and stalemate, and eventually somebody in Europe—President Macron or that sort of statesman—will then say that we have to conduct peace negotiations. What do we do then? Will we be part of a movement to have peace negotiations? Will we reward Putin for his aggression? Will we accept that there is a stalemate, and therefore Russia is enabled to grab part of Ukraine? What is our attitude? Nobody yet in this debate so far has seriously addressed those questions. All they have said is that we will win this war.

Members should look deep down into their hearts. Is there anybody sitting in this Chamber—I mean not what they say publicly, but what they think privately—who actually thinks now that Ukraine will win this war? [Hon. Members: “Yes.”] They say that, but how? Given the huge mismatch in resources between Russia and Ukraine, and given the fact that America is not prepared to furnish Ukraine with sufficient armaments to ensure that we win, how will we? I am with you all. I am prepared to put our own economy on a war footing. I am even prepared to send our own troops to Ukraine. I am prepared to spend less on all the things I value, such as health, justice and all the rest. But we have to be realistic, and at the moment we are not being realistic. As a result, Europe is trembling in a sort of arthritic way, neither pursuing the war with full vigour, which is how we won the second world war, nor prepared to conduct peace negotiations. The result is a stalemate, which is deeply damaging to our reputation, our economy and everything else.

I just pose the question. I am not saying that we should give in or that we should have peace negotiations, but I ask those on the Front Benches to be realistic in this debate.

Planning and Solar Farms

Debate between Edward Leigh and Jim Shannon

Wednesday 19th July 2023 Westminster Hall

[Sir Edward Leigh]

In that brief period of the Government of my right hon. Friend the Member for South West Norfolk (Elizabeth Truss), the then Secretary of State, my right hon. Friend the Member for North East Hampshire (Mr Jayawardena), tried to change the definition to include 3b land. A huge mountain of well-funded lobbying money was put in immediately to frustrate the whole process. Make no mistake: this is not about the countryside and it is not about producing green energy in the right controlled way. It is about money. Some people are going to get very rich indeed.

Solar power has a vital part to play, but solar panels belong in moderate amounts—perhaps—on poor agricultural land, atop buildings and on brownfield sites, not on good farmland. Put them on top of large logistics centres at the side of motorways. Sit them on top of factories and industrial buildings. Put them on schools and houses, by all means, but good land needs to be kept in agricultural use.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I commend the hon. Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Dr Johnson) for securing the debate and the right hon. Gentleman for his contribution. In Northern Ireland, there are examples of solar farms being integrated into small farms where sheep are able to graze. There are a couple of examples of that in my constituency. Solar farms have been agreed to in places where there is industrial land with which it has not been possible to do anything. That land might have been corroded by lead mines or something like that. Those are the best places for solar farms. Productive land should be kept for farming, as the Ulster Farmers’ Union wants.

[Sir Edward Leigh]

Industry always responds to subsidies. I cannot understand why the Government do not create a new subsidy regime whereby if someone builds a massive warehouse, it is in their benefit to put a solar panel on top of it. That is something the Government could do. Let us keep solar panels off good agricultural land, and let us have them in proportion. I hope the Minister will respond positively to this important debate.

Food Security and Farming

Debate between Edward Leigh and Jim Shannon

Wednesday 19th April 2023 Westminster Hall

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I thank the right hon. Lady for securing this debate. On food security and farming, Strangford is an important constituency for beef and dairy farming. They are prominent exports and a major part of our economy. We all want to go forward together, as the Minister understands and knows very well. But one of the changes that we are experiencing in Northern Ireland—I say this respectfully to the right hon. Lady and the Minister—is that, as DUP colleagues have stated before, exports face a delicate issue when it comes to the small print of the Windsor framework, which disadvantages my beef and dairy farmers. Does the right hon. Lady agree that we must move forward together?

[Sir Edward Leigh (in the Chair)]

Order. Can we have a short intervention? It is only a half-hour debate, Jim.

Confidence in Her Majesty’s Government

Debate between Edward Leigh and Jim Shannon

Monday 18th July 2022 Commons Chamber

[Sir Edward Leigh]

I am going to proceed, if I may. Why do we need to claim that this is the worst sort of mass murderer and criminal in political history? It is complete rubbish. The fact is that when this Prime Minister took power, Parliament’s reputation was in tatters.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

[Sir Edward Leigh]

No.

Virtually everybody in this Chamber had voted to have a referendum, yet many Members were doing their level best to frustrate it. Had we not had this Prime Minister, and had we not delivered Brexit, I believe we would have had a meltdown in political trust. He got Brexit done, though I agree that personally I would have liked to have done a lot more with it, and we will do, given time. That is the first issue, and that is why the Prime Minister was given a majority of 80.

The second issue is the pandemic. We have had all these insults against a Prime Minister who was working on our behalf and nearly died in office. It is a disgraceful attack. He was working flat out to save lives. Our record on the pandemic is frankly second to none. Again and again the Opposition tried to force us into more and more severe lockdowns, but this Prime Minister, with his vaccine roll-out, got us out of that mess, and thousands of people are now alive because of him.

Speaking for myself, I wholly regret the departure of this Prime Minister and I remain completely loyal to him to the very end, as I remained loyal to Mrs Thatcher. I think we will ask ourselves, “What have we done? What have we done to a man who gave us this 80-seat majority?”

The third point is that, but for this Prime Minister—the first western leader to arm Ukraine—Kyiv would now be in the hands of the Russians. We led Europe and the world in saving that country. That is the record of this Prime Minister, and I am proud as a Back Bencher to have given him all the loyalty I possibly could, as I will give loyalty to the next leader.

Of course there are challenges. Anybody would think that we lived in a vacuum—that despite the fact that we had the pandemic and the fact that we have a war in Europe, somehow the Government are to blame for all our ills. That is complete rubbish. When the next leader of the Conservative party—the next Prime Minister—comes into office, within weeks the Labour party will be calling for another general election, as we have already heard from the Leader of the Opposition. They will say, “This new Prime Minister is unelected, or elected by a fairly small number of people.” They never said that about the previous Prime Minister, because he was elected by the people with an 80-seat majority.

The problems are not going to go away .We all know that if the Labour party had been in power, the outcomes of the pandemic may not have been a great deal different. We do not know what will happen with Ukraine or with the economy, but the Conservative party, as the Prime Minister explained, is turbocharged because we believe in the power of the free economy, in freedom and in low taxation, although of course we cannot deliver that now. I say to my friends who are competing for the leadership: be responsible. I know it is popular to call for tax cuts now, but we have record levels of borrowing, and we do not solve the problem by borrowing more and more. It is said that we can put the covid expense in a particular box and forget about it for 50 years, and it does not matter, but we all know in our private life that we cannot say to NatWest, “I’ve got this debt on my car—I want to put it in a different box and I won’t have to pay for 50 years.” Debt is debt.

The Conservative party’s reputation is built on economic competence. We have to be careful with the economy. I personally was very unhappy about the rise in national insurance contributions. I am not in favour of tax rises. I believe that the reputation of a Conservative Government depends on low tax. We want to cut tax, but I say to the leadership contenders that we must be responsible.

In conclusion—[Hon. Members: “Hooray!”] I am only trying to give a speech loyal to my party, which is surely no bad thing, and to the present leader of my party.

Freedom of Religion or Belief: International Conference

Debate between Edward Leigh and Jim Shannon

Tuesday 28th June 2022 Westminster Hall

[Sir Edward Leigh]

It is obviously a very worrying situation. I do not want to go into too much detail on it, partly because I am not sufficiently briefed. However, the fact is that this casual violence is there. We should be concerned about that, in what is the largest democracy in the world.

The situation in Nigeria is dire. Just this month, a Catholic church in Owo was stormed by militants, leaving 50 dead. Imagine that: 50 people killed in a church. Bureaucrats here and in other western countries try to blame the violence in Nigeria on climate change and the competition for resources. I have heard their excuses again and again—“There are different tribes; there are hunter-gatherers; there are arable farmers.”—but it simply does not wash. However much it departs from our comfortable, western, liberal mentality, the fact is that there is outright genocidal persecution of Christians by extremists in Nigeria. Members do not have to listen to me; the Catholic Bishop of Ondo, in whose diocese the attack took place, clarified that:

“To suggest or make a connection between victims of terror and consequences of climate change is not only misleading but also exactly rubbing salt to the injuries of all who have suffered terrorism in Nigeria.”

We need our Ministers and civil servants to be honest. This is communal hatred and violent persecution. It is not about water supply or irrigation. It does not just affect Christians, although they are the canary in the mine. To be entirely fair, I have also pestered Ministers about Mr Mubarak Bala, the head of the Humanist Association of Nigeria, who is facing 24 years in prison for leaving Islam. That is another case that we should perhaps try to pursue.

[Jim Shannon]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for bringing that forward. When he and I were in Nigeria, we had the opportunity to make that very point, and I hope that the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Leeds North East (Fabian Hamilton), will mention that in his contribution. We were pleased at the response from the Government, so we are hoping that there may be some movement on that.

[Sir Edward Leigh]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that very helpful intervention.

We have been very good at isolating Russia. We have heard about the complications in Ukraine, with the appalling violence by Russia against Ukraine and the churches that have been destroyed by bombing. Frankly, we have not been so good at taking on China over the persecution of the Muslim Uyghurs, which has reached dystopian genocidal levels. It is a disgrace. I am all in favour of good relations with China, maximising trade and promoting prosperity. I understand that our influence with the Chinese Government—the Government of a very large, proud country—is limited, but we cannot shirk our duty, despite the economic impact. Perhaps the Minister could comment on that.

The Government could help UK business and industry to pivot away from China, even if it takes years, if progress is not made on the persecution of the Uyghurs. If a business’s factory is in China, move it to Malaysia, Indonesia or Africa. If its research and development is in China, move it to Israel or Singapore, or perhaps even to Manchester, Dundee or Belfast. Our influence is limited, and my point is also directed at our own companies that are sourcing products from the area where the Uyghurs are being persecuted. What is going on there is a disgrace. Although our influence is limited, what influence we have we should use. We should not be afraid to speak out, whatever the impact on trade might be.

Freedom of religion or belief is one of the most essential human rights. It is under enormous threat all over the world. Our Government should be the leader in the world in speaking out in favour of religious minorities and their rights. The Government should expand the office of the special envoy for freedom of religion or belief and resource it properly. I welcome the appointment of David Burrowes as deputy to my hon. Friend the Member for Congleton. I hope that, just as we have acted with so much vigour in Ukraine, we can act with equal vigour to protect religious minorities of whatever faith, wherever they are in the world.

Future Hydrogen Economy

Debate between Edward Leigh and Jim Shannon

Tuesday 14th June 2022 Westminster Hall

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

Thank you for calling me, Sir Edward. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship for the second time today; thank you very much for calling me.

[Sir Edward Leigh (in the Chair)]

It is the second time, Jim, but I always love your speeches.

[Jim Shannon]

It is always a pleasure to speak in Westminster Hall, no matter what. I congratulate the hon. Member for Redcar (Jacob Young) on setting the scene so very well and giving us all the opportunity to participate by doing that. The thrust of my contribution will be to insist—in a gentle, nice way—that Northern Ireland should be very much a part of the planned future hydrogen strategy. I am ever mindful of the Government’s legally binding targets under the Climate Change Act 2008, and the fact that the Climate Change Committee’s 2018 report, “Hydrogen in a low-carbon economy”, found hydrogen to be a credible option. The Government have committed themselves very much to the net zero target and to ensuring that hydrogen is an energy opportunity that we can all take advantage of.

A hydrogen economy has the potential to create or safeguard a massive 167,000 jobs—we cannot ignore that, and we look forward to some of those jobs coming to Northern Ireland—to provide £10 billion in gross value added to the UK economy, as mentioned by the hon. Member for Broxtowe (Darren Henry), and to reduce CO₂ emissions in the region by 29%. These are helpful targets, and they show that the Government are totally committed to this project. I look forward to the Minister’s response; he always speaks with knowledge in responding to our questions.

Recent work to drive the hydrogen agenda has seen progress move beyond the midlands, with plans to link key transport hubs: Immingham, the UK’s largest port by tonnage and the biggest deep-water port on the Humber; East Midlands airport, the UK’s busiest pure cargo airport; and the Tees valley, where plans are already in motion to develop a multi-modal hydrogen transport hub. Northern Ireland has also launched an ambitious new energy strategy, which includes plans for hydrogen as a key energy source for the future. I am keen to reiterate that and to push for that to happen.

The hydrogen strategy set out a number of things that should happen to expand domestic hydrogen production. They include setting aside £240 million for the net zero hydrogen fund, the significant development and scale-up of hydrogen network and storage infra-structure, with a £68 million commitment, and scaling up the use of low-carbon hydrogen, with heating buildings and transport trials and pilot projects planned—the hon. Member for Redcar (Jacob Young) referred to that. The strategy also talks about a market framework for hydrogen and a “supportive regulatory framework”. Northern Ireland wants to be part of that hydrogen plan, Minister. I know from the answers that he has given to me in the past, and also to my hon. Friend the Member for North Antrim (Ian Paisley), that he is committed to that, but it would be nice to have it in Hansard.

The hon. Member for Redcar referred to the village-scale trial that his constituency hopes to be part of. I do not care where it is, as long as it happens, although I would love to know the time scale for whenever the Minister thinks it would be completed and, then, how the plan would be developed for the rest of the United Kingdom.

My hon. Friend the Member for North Antrim has previously referred in questions to building hydrogen products that the public will ultimately use, such as buses, trains and heavy goods vehicles. The Minister replied to that in a very positive fashion—I think he referred to Glasgow City Council’s commitment—but I would like to see what is actually meant by

“further engagement with the Northern Ireland Executive”.—[Official Report, 22 February 2022; Vol. 709, c. 160.]

My hon. Friend also previously referred in a question to the “golden thread”, which I thought was quite a good saying—the golden thread that keeps together all this great United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, where all of us, in all the regions, can benefit. The Minister without Portfolio, the right hon. Member for Selby and Ainsty (Nigel Adams), referred to

“£100 million of new funding for the net zero innovation portfolio”.—[Official Report, 13 January 2022; Vol. 706, c. 630.]

I very much want Northern Ireland to be a part of that.

To conclude, “The Path to Net Zero Energy”, published in December, has set long-term sustainability targets for the region’s energy sector, including plans to fully decarbonise by 2050. Cost is also a key focus in the plan, in order to increase the affordability of low-carbon forms of energy. Other targets include the delivery of energy savings of 25% from buildings and industry by 2030, as well as doubling the size of Northern Ireland’s low-carbon and renewable energy economy.

[Sir Edward Leigh (in the Chair)]

Order. Can you wind up now, Jim?

[Jim Shannon]

Again, I look to the Minister to make a commitment to Northern Ireland.

Transport Funding: Wales and HS2

Debate between Edward Leigh and Jim Shannon

Tuesday 26th October 2021 Westminster Hall

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

This is very much a debate about Wales, transport and HS2, but the hon. Gentleman has referred to Union connectivity. I would ask if it is possible to consider us in Northern Ireland, who travel from Belfast to Liverpool to Wales, or go down south to come across on the ferry to Holyhead. When it comes to connectivity, we must improve everything within Wales, but we must do that for the benefit of the whole of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland—including for us in Northern Ireland who wish to travel to Wales.

[Sir Edward Leigh (in the Chair)]

Order. As a general rule, if you want to make an intervention, you should be here at the start of the debate.

Maternal Mental Health

Debate between Edward Leigh and Jim Shannon

Wednesday 10th March 2021 Westminster Hall

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

It is a pleasure to speak in the debate, Sir Edward. I thank the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Sarah Olney) for bringing forward what is an important issue, and all the right hon. and hon. Members who have made valuable contributions, setting the scene very well. The matter has been a great concern of mine for many years and I have raised it in the House on several occasions. I have probably spoken alongside my colleague and friend, the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton), among others who are here, on almost every occasion when it has been brought forward.

Covid has been difficult for my family, with the loss of a much-loved mother-in-law; but we have been blessed in that time with sunshine in the rain, as we have two beautiful new grandchildren, Max and Freya—both born during lockdown. It is important to have that opportunity, as a grandparent, to have grandchildren—and new grandchildren. We are up to five now, so I could have a five-a-side mixed football team of boys and girls—I look forward very much to that.

There was no joyful visit to the hospital. Indeed, the first view was through the living-room window and I have not seen the youngest one at all, even from a distance. It has always been on the wife’s video. Video calls are wonderful, but there cannot be anything sweeter than holding your grandchild. As tough as it is for grandparents, it is even more difficult for parents. That is what we have been trying to say today in the contributions that we are making. No mum or auntie is allowed to come round to help the new mum get sorted and into the routine; there are no mums or toddler groups to reassure her that she is doing a phenomenal job, that everyone struggles and that sometimes mum just needs someone to share that with; there are endless days in the house with a baby that she is too frightened to take out into this uncertain world. The impact on mums and dads has been vast and we will probably not know the full extent of it in the years to come.

My parliamentary aide, Naomi, who is a busy girl because she does all the speech writing for me, had two children in a short time. I remember them well. She told me—and she refers to it as her mummy guilt—that her eldest had little opportunity to enjoy her own time before she became the big sister, almost right away. She also talks about the mummy guilt of working full time. Although her parents are able to mind the children, who are well taken care of, the guilt remains that she is not the one picking them up from school, which is what she wants to do.

While I can look on objectively and see two lovely, well-adjusted girls, she sees only the things that she feels she did not do right and which she thinks she did wrong. I do not believe that is the case, but she feels that. All mums will be able to sympathise with the fact that lockdown babies are not able to see or interact with others—that is important. When my children were growing up—this is true of my grandchildren too, from what I have seen of them so far—I saw their interactions with their wee colleagues at school, and they made friends well; they would often hold hands with them in P1 or P2. That is what children do—they need interaction. They are more likely to be parented by the person who is at home with them. I can only imagine the feelings of isolation and guilt at what the child has missed out on and what would have been felt.

I was pleased to receive correspondence from one of my constituents, who wrote to me expressing the feeling of being robbed of her maternity leave and calling for an extension. I can do nothing but support her in that call. The experience of lockdown for new parents has been difficult; no music classes, no parenting groups, no one to reassure them face to face and see if they are truly okay. In addition, we must consider parents whose children went to a neonatal unit. The baby charity Bliss has conducted a survey of parents whose baby received neonatal care during the pandemic. I am not going to repeat the figures cited by the hon. Gentleman for East Worthing and Shoreham, but I remind everyone, including the Minister, to look at them.

[Sir Edward Leigh (in the Chair)]

Order. Will the hon. Gentleman finish?

[Jim Shannon]

I support my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast East (Gavin Robinson) and his early-day motion. In conclusion, I am pleased to stand with parents asking for the help and support that is needed. Give them the support that has been lacking for so long, and let them know that, even when socially distanced, they are not alone.

[Sir Edward Leigh (in the Chair)]

Thank you very much. We now return to virtual for the SNP spokesperson, Dr Lisa Cameron.

Ministerial and other Maternity Allowances Bill

Debate between Edward Leigh and Jim Shannon

2nd reading & 2nd reading: House of Commons
Thursday 11th February 2021 Commons Chamber

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

rose—

[Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)]

rose—

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Edward Leigh and Jim Shannon

Thursday 6th February 2020 Commons Chamber

[Sir Edward Leigh]

Absolutely. I am sure the Comptroller and Auditor General, who is completely independent in what inquiries he undertakes, will certainly want to do a report on the value for money of that Department and, perhaps, of our exit from the European Union in totality.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

With particular reference to Commonwealth countries, what does the right hon. Gentleman believe is the result of work carried out? How can we do more to see better guidelines in place and in operation throughout?

[Sir Edward Leigh]

That is a very good question. Clearly, the NAO, which is not concerned with policy matters but with economy and efficiency, will have its focus laser-like on how we can ensure, both in Northern Ireland and in the rest of the United Kingdom, a good exit from the European Union, good outcomes and, above all, value for money. There is no doubt that a very large sum of money could be wasted—for instance, in the recruitment of extra civil servants. We will have to ensure that we look laser-like at getting value for money.

Northern Ireland Backstop: Conditional Interpretative Declaration

Debate between Edward Leigh and Jim Shannon

Thursday 21st February 2019 Commons Chamber

[Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)]

On 23 June 2016, the voters of the United Kingdom gave their instructions to the Government by a majority of over 1 million. Since then, it has been both the duty and the policy of the Government to implement the result of this people’s vote—a vote which the people were promised was a full and final decision, and which the overwhelming majority of Members of Parliament promised to enact. In passing the withdrawal agreement, the Government may find it valuable to use an instrument of international law called a conditional interpretative declaration to clarify our understanding of the temporary nature of the backstop.

I have been a passionate critic of our relationship with the European Union for decades. There has been a fundamental difference between what the EU has always been and what we were told it was. In the 1970s, we were told that it was a common market—a mere economic relationship. Of course, given our geographical proximity, a great deal of economic integration and co-ordination makes sense. We want to facilitate trade so that our workers and businesses can grow in prosperity together. But the EU was always a project for a political union that the people of this country never fully understood or assented to.

It has been clear to me, and to many, since the Maastricht treaty that the EU’s trajectory and the desires of the British people were moving in entirely different directions. I questioned Maastricht from inside the Government in 1993 and was sacked for doing so—a fate that I hope does not befall the present Minister—and I voted for Brexit in 2016, as did 62% of my constituents in Lincolnshire. I am sure that my bona fides as a Brexiteer are established.

The proposed agreement with the EU consists of four legal documents. I want to use this Adjournment debate—a quiet moment for reflection away from the political hurly-burly—to go into this matter in some legal detail. The main agreement deals with citizens’ rights, companies being able to fulfil existing contracts, court cases being finalised and so on. These are the sensible and just features of an amicable parting of ways. Equally, we welcome the two protocols providing for continuing co-operation with Cyprus over our sovereign base areas and with Spain concerning Gibraltar. It is the protocol on Ireland, known as the backstop, which causes immense problems.

The proposed agreement deals only with the direct questions of how to disentangle ourselves from the European Union’s institutions. On 29 January, the Commons endorsed the amendment tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Altrincham and Sale West (Sir Graham Brady) requiring that the backstop be replaced with alternative arrangements, and that is what we are negotiating in Brussels at the moment.

The weaknesses of the backstop are manifest. There are legitimate fears that, if negotiations for a permanent UK-EU relationship break down, we may find ourselves legally obliged to be stuck in a customs union without end. Indeed, we have read my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney General’s opinion, which worries many people. Were we to be stuck in a customs union, it would be a complete betrayal of voters and the referendum mandate, not to mention the Government’s solemn commitments to implement Brexit.

Given the current state of play, it looks as though there are four options at hand. The ideal solution is for the backstop to be withdrawn and the protocol to be withdrawn from the withdrawal agreement. A new protocol could be submitted committing the UK and the EU to sorting out a trade facilitation agreement using electronic documentation, trusted trader schemes and remote electronic monitoring of cross-border traffic, with no hard border or any kind of physical infrastructure.

It is not impossible to get such an agreement in place by 29 March, but it is unlikely, unfortunately, given the strong opposition within the EU to changing the agreed text. They simply do not want to unpick the agreement. Indeed, they have made that clear many times.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for giving way and for putting forward his viewpoint in the Chamber today. No matter what the issue may be, the Unionist population in Northern Ireland are clear that they do not want a backstop, and if it is going to be removed, it has to be via a legally binding document that will reinforce and give us confidence in any process that goes forward. We do not want Northern Ireland to be treated any differently from the rest of the United Kingdom. I know that the right hon. Gentleman is saying that, so if we move forward, the backstop has to be removed or it has to be time limited within this term of Parliament because we can then control it in the House in the time that is available to us.

[Sir Edward Leigh]

I entirely agree with that. I have been working on this issue with international lawyers for some weeks precisely to try to implement what the Democratic Unionist party wants, first because that is the way to get this through Parliament and secondly because I agree with it. I agree with the DUP. In fact, I agree with the DUP on most things. If the hon. Gentleman will be patient, I will try to outline a legally enforceable way in which we can time-limit the backstop. That is terribly important. It has to be clear cut, legally enforceable and, above all, not subject to any kind of arbitration that is in any way in the hands of the EU. I am trying to get to where the DUP is, and if the hon. Gentleman will listen, I hope that I can help him out with a way forward. In fact, I hope that I can help out the EU and our Government.

We all know that the unfortunate thing is that the current deal cannot get through Parliament because people do not trust the EU not to spin things out, but the EU says that it will not unpick the agreement. That is why everyone says that there is an impasse. I am not sure that that is entirely correct. I think there is a way of proceeding.

I was saying before the hon. Gentleman’s intervention that we could get an agreement and get rid of the backstop altogether, but that is unlikely given the EU’s attitude. Secondly, there is a reasonable possibility that even without any amendments to the current agreement, “alternative arrangements” could start to operate on the Northern Irish border during the transition period. These would supersede the protocol and make it irrelevant before it could even be applied. Indeed, the Prime Minister has said many times that she does not even want the backstop to come into force. Unfortunately, but understandably, there is not enough trust in the Commons to rely on that happening.

Thirdly, there is the suggestion of a unilateral exit mechanism. It would be contained within the withdrawal agreement, which would be renegotiated, but the EU is unlikely to agree to any amendment that allows the UK to exit from the backstop if negotiations have broken down, without the EU’s consent. That is where we are at present. Even if such a thing were agreed, the EU could easily prevaricate and deny negotiations had broken down. That is why I made the point earlier that it is important that nothing is subject to international arbitration.

That leaves us with a fourth option: a clear time limit—it would be difficult to arbitrate about that, as we would have reached the time limit or we would not—or an end date for the backstop, which can be obtained by a conditional interpretative declaration. That is what I am now talking about.

I am not sure that in these debates we have had, because of the short time limits that we have been given, anybody has had the time to go into the legal background to this, so it is important that we put it on the record. As far as I know, my understanding of international law is correct, but of course, we have the Minister and my hon. Friends here, and they can put their own viewpoint forward. At least we can get this debate on the record. Let me try to explain.

There is a long-established practice of countries making unilateral statements when they ratify a treaty clarifying how they interpret the wording of a particular aspect of the treaty. The United Kingdom can interpret the wording in the agreement that the backstop is

“intended to apply only temporarily”

as meaning it must have an end date. What else is temporary? It has an end date, so it must end after a specified period. Such a declaration would be subject to the same rules that are applicable to reservations—another term of art in international law—but would not be a reservation itself, as these cannot be applied to bilateral treaties. Even if the other three options were pursued, whether individually, sequentially or simultaneously, the conditional interpretative declaration would be useful to have on hand already if the first three options ceased to be viable, or if the EU would not negotiate on that basis.

As international law provides that the rules for declarations follow the rules for reservations, it is useful to consult the United Nations International Law Commission’s “Guide to Practice on Reservations to Treaties”. Guideline 1.2 defines an interpretative declaration as

“a unilateral statement, however phrased or named, made by a State or an international organization, whereby that State or that organization purports to specify or clarify the meaning or scope of a treaty or of certain of its provisions.”

A conditional interpretative declaration is a more forceful variant of this instrument of international diplomacy whereby the United Kingdom would assert that its consent to be bound by the withdrawal agreement is dependent upon the interpretation that the backstop has an end date.

Lest one think that interpretative declarations are just a back-door way of applying a reservation to a bilateral treaty, it should be clarified that their applicability is much less extensive than that of a reservation. Conditional interpretative declarations cannot negate any part of a treaty. That is a vital part of what I am arguing. I am not trying to negate any part of the withdrawal agreement.

These declarations can only constrain the meaning given to part of a treaty. A state’s declaration when ratifying a multilateral treaty does not stand in the way of that state remaining a party to the treaty. With a conditional interpretative declaration to a bilateral accord, the outright rejection of the declaration by other parties means the treaty would not come into force. I am going to go into this in more detail in a moment.

RAF Scampton and the Red Arrows

Debate between Edward Leigh and Jim Shannon

Tuesday 5th February 2019 Westminster Hall

[Sir Edward Leigh]

Obviously, we have to hear from the Minister about land values and regeneration, which is an important part of the debate.

In all our dealings with defence, we must learn that we need the flexibility to deal with changing situations and unexpected threats. That applies as much to keeping HMS Albion and HMS Bulwark, with their amphibious assault capabilities, which I am glad the Government have committed to continuing, as it does to keeping RAF Scampton open. The situation we are in today may change rapidly and we need the ability to respond to that effectively. So, too, may the threats we face. Relations between the UK and Russia, while far from war-like, are not quite friendly either. Russian aircraft test our air defences frequently, as NATO aircraft likewise test Russia’s. Scampton is not, of course, a frontline fighter base at the moment. It is not unimaginable that we would need to deal with a scenario in which things heat up over the North sea. As one of my constituents pointed out, if somehow RAF Coningsby was taken out of action, RAF Scampton could be very quickly converted into a frontline role with quick reaction alert capability. If the base is permanently shut and redeveloped, that option, and the flexibility it provides, is off the table. Obviously, if we lose a runway, it is lost.

There are strong economic worries, given the hit that the local secondary economy will take. We need to consider the needs of local enterprise and businesses that are involved directly or indirectly with RAF Scampton.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on securing this debate. I was blessed to visit RAF Scampton during my time in the Armed Forces Parliamentary Scheme and to see Vasco, who looked after us. My colleague, the hon. Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Dr Johnson) participated also. I noted the tremendous integration between the local community and the base, and the fact that many depend on the base for their livelihood. Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that that community must be a material consideration in any decision, and that the Ministry of Defence owes that community a duty of care that it must fulfil?

[Sir Edward Leigh]

As always, the hon. Gentleman makes a very valuable point. I entirely agree with him.

Let me mention Hawker Hunter Aviation. Its land and buildings are privately owned, but it fulfils contracts for the Ministry of Defence and its suppliers. Its business depends on the continuing existence of the airstrip at Scampton, which is far from guaranteed. If the base is redeveloped, we will also need to know what ground has been contaminated by defence use and what the cost of clean-up will be—a very important point. There are many stories to the effect that when the MOD re-routed the A15 to curve around the extended runway, it gave a guarantee that if the base was shut it would restore the original route of that ancient Roman road. Will the Minister comment on that point?

Talking of the Minister, I thank him personally for the gracious way in which he has tried to keep me informed at all times, including coming to my office two months before the decision was announced in public, with several of his officials, to explain what he was doing. I objected then to the closure, as he knows, and I keep objecting, but at least he has been very gracious in trying to keep us all informed. As we all know, he is a quite excellent Minister.

Of course, it is all very well for Ministers and civil servants to find savings—I encourage it—but I fear that they have made a decision to close RAF Scampton without being in full knowledge of the facts, and the changing facts.

Reduction of Plastic Waste in the Marine Environment

Debate between Edward Leigh and Jim Shannon

Wednesday 2nd May 2018 Westminster Hall

[Sir Edward Leigh (in the Chair)]

Order. If we have too many interventions, not everybody will get in.

[Jim Shannon]

So that more people can get in, Sir Edward, I will not take extra time. I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. I wholeheartedly support what he said.

Many people may knee-jerk react and resist, but we are not eco-warriors on the attack. We should be eco-educators coming alongside people, as that will be more successful. I look to the method of my local council with regard to those who persist in refusing to recycle: three strikes and your bin is not lifted. Then they know what they need to do. The gentle approach has meant that very few bins are not lifted, and people in the borough are coming to terms with recycling in a way that is not offensive but inclusive. That is the approach that the Government—I look to the Minister—should use. We have a duty of care to our environment, but also to help people understand. Our approach must reflect that.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Edward Leigh and Jim Shannon

Thursday 20th April 2017 Commons Chamber

[Sir Edward Leigh]

I can indeed. This is a very serious matter that everybody wants to improve, so the Public Accounts Committee followed up on the National Audit Office investigation and recommended that the Department of Health and NHS England make better use of their buying power in order to pay a fair price for cancer drugs and improve data on patient outcomes. The NAO also followed up on several related issues in an April 2016 report. It recommended that the Department and NHS England should, in collaboration with the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence, consider affordability and ensure best prices for high-cost drugs.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

The findings show that although 40 cancer drugs were available through the cancer drugs fund in 2013-14 and 2014-15, some 71% of patients were covered by the 10 most common drugs. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that surely that indicates a need to move those 10 drugs on to the NHS list? Does he believe those findings have had any effect on Government policy on cancer drugs and the cancer drugs fund?

[Sir Edward Leigh]

Which drugs are approved by NICE is of course not a matter for the Comptroller and Auditor General, but I hear what the hon. Gentleman says. He makes his point well and I am sure the House has heard it.

Statutory Sex and Relationships Education

Debate between Edward Leigh and Jim Shannon

Tuesday 31st January 2017 Westminster Hall

[Jim Shannon]

I am happy to give way.

[Sir Edward Leigh (in the Chair)]

I am sorry, but Mr Danczuk wants to speak.

[Jim Shannon]

That is okay.

The other thing I wish to mention briefly is the fact that we must also allow teachers who are uncomfortable discussing and promoting British moral values that might undermine their own dearly held personal faith to withdraw from teaching those values, with no penalty and no fear of losing their job. We have many examples of that. There is the example of Ashers in Northern Ireland. We have the case of the bed and breakfast owners and that of the Christian registrar. It is not enough for our Prime Minister to talk about freedom to live one’s faith; we must now have the support of the law to do that. Any legislation must protect the right of teachers to withdraw from promoting values that undermine their faith.

I will leave it at this. I understand that we cannot press our faith on others, but by the same token we should not be expected to directly oppose the teachings of our faith on the say-so of others. Teachers do not want their teaching to promote the latest Government definition of morality; they want it to help a child to have a fully rounded life and to make a difference. Allow them to do that in an appropriate way and legislate to protect them with any proposed changes. We must learn lessons, just as children learn. I, for one, have learned a lot from the Ashers case about the need for protection, and I hope that the Government, and particularly the Minister, can take that on board.

English Votes for English Laws

Debate between Edward Leigh and Jim Shannon

Wednesday 15th July 2015 Commons Chamber

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

It is a pleasure to speak in the debate. I wish I could say in all honesty that I had been looking forward to listening to all the views that have been put forward today. I hope that the House will be persuaded by the concerns that have been expressed by those on the Opposition Benches and that Members will not be reassured by the comments from across the Chamber. I have great respect for everyone in the House, and I do not seek controversy or try to fall out with people, but this is a debate that seeks to divide us, as has been illustrated by the comments that have been made so far.

I congratulate the hon. Member for Glasgow North East (Anne McLaughlin) on her contribution to the debate. It is always nice to hear the maiden speeches, as a Member travels through the highways and byways of their constituency and we learn a wee bit about it. That is always a pleasure that I have, and I know other Members have as well, and I wish the hon. Lady well in this House.

I hope I will leave this House in no doubt about the importance of ensuring that the changes introducing English votes for English laws are not passed by this great establishment—an establishment that represents each of the four regions of the United Kingdom and I hope will continue to do so. I fear, however, that if EVEL were to be passed by the Commons, this institution that binds us all together and enhances the integrity of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland will cease to represent each and every one of us, as we currently are—together. It would lead to a number of problems, with an extremely fractious House being just one of them. We have seen examples of that tonight—everybody seems to have an opinion and does not care what anybody else in the House thinks, and that disappoints me. This is going too far, too fast.

As I am sure I have mentioned on a number of occasions, and as is well known, I am unashamedly a Unionist. I passionately believe in this great institution in which we stand and in which I have the pleasure and privilege to be the Member for Strangford. I fervently believe in the integrity of the UK and I ardently believe that we are better together. At no other time have I feared so much for the future of the Union as I did last year and as I do in this debate today. Last year, the Union seemed to be at breaking point, but thankfully the Scottish people voted in the September 2014 referendum to stay within the Union. I know that my colleagues sitting to my left have a different opinion about that, but at that time the opinion was very clear and the Scottish people, along with others in Northern Ireland, Wales and England, rejoiced at that decision, because it is true that we are better together. They put their trust in Westminster, but I have no doubt that by passing EVEL Westminster would be portrayed as ensuring second-class citizenship for the rest of us who make up this great country—and where is the trust in that?

As my hon. Friend the Member for East Antrim (Sammy Wilson) said, this EVEL debate stokes the fires of division and everyone seems to be retreating into their own trenches and into their own opinions.

[Sir Edward Leigh]

The hon. Gentleman knows that I share many of his views. I admire his Unionism and I am as strong a Unionist as he is. Would he give credit to some Conservative Members who have at least ensured that this is not a total exclusion, but a sort of double veto? We have made some changes. May I assure him that whatever the SNP does to provoke English Members, for instance on hunting and on other issues, I for one will put the Union first? Many of us do not want this compromise to be changed; we do not want this to be a more extreme measure and we are listening to what he is saying.

[Jim Shannon]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. We agree on many things, but unfortunately I suspect that we will not agree on this. That will not stop us being friends outside this Chamber and fighting the battles on many other issues on which we very much agree.

Many hon. Members, including the hon. Member for Carmarthen East and Dinefwr (Jonathan Edwards), have talked about the Barnett consequentials, how that issue affects us, how decisions on that will be made and how those decisions would then have a financial impact on us. My hon. Friend the Member for East Antrim also referred to the impact on the Speaker or the Deputy Speaker of having to make difficult decisions that could lead to further complications. It would almost be a domino effect, with one thing hitting another, and it going on and on. Those are real concerns. We are all here to contribute towards this and to make our comments, and I hope that the Government will look at what they are putting forward, and stall or delay.

EVEL concerns me because it fractures relations in the House, but I also struggle to see the logic behind it. It seems simple enough in principle, but in reality it is quite the opposite. The implementation lacks clarity and so far we have not heard much that is clear from the Government. I say that with respect to them, because I cannot see where the logic is in this. It is interesting to remember what the Prime Minister has said in the past, which is that England must never be “overruled” again. If he wants EVEL to pass, surely the same principles must be extended to each constituent part of the UK. If Westminster is legislating on a reserved matter for just one part of the UK—be it Scotland, Wales or Northern Ireland—why should the MPs from those corners of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland not have exactly the same veto rights that my English colleagues will have under English votes for English laws? I know that the Conservatives, who form the biggest party here, might try to argue that the English should have more say, but creating a two or a three-tier Parliament will not improve our constitution, and that is the underlying fact of it all. It will cause more harm than good. I remind Members of the oft-quoted phrase, “If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.” That is how I see it. I see something that is okay.

One colleague said that, last year, 14 pieces of legislation affected English MPs only, but that other Members in the House had a chance to participate in them. Those laws still went through, so I do not understand why we need to push through this change. Clearly, there was not an issue in the last year of the previous Parliament.

I have sat on a number of Bill Committees that have considered matters relating to health. I sat with the Opposition and voted along with them on—I suspect—every one of the amendments that they tabled. About 10 or 12 clauses were applicable to Northern Ireland. Some Bills had more such clauses than others, but we still voted on all the issues because we felt that we had to protect those in Northern Ireland. Again, I say that we need to consider the full implications of this matter.

May I now transport the Members who are still in the Chamber to another great place—I say that with tongue in cheek—the European Parliament in Strasbourg. We are neither members of the eurozone—thank the Lord for that—nor adherents to the Schengen agreement. If members of the eurozone had to pay out £1 billion to help bail out Greece, there would have been implications. Do Members who support the proposed EVEL Standing Orders think that the European Parliament should be entitled to change its Standing Orders so that UK MEPs can no longer vote on things to do with Schengen or the euro, because that is exactly the same principle at work? I ask Eurosceptics on the Government Benches whether they have fully considered their anti-European stance, with which I agree in many cases. There again we have those double standards. They think they can take that stance on Europe and not worry about it. We cannot have one rule for one, and something entirely different for another. That is simply not fair, and yet we try to base our society on that principle. We often boast that we in the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland are great promoters of fair play.

Most fundamentally and most concerning is that English votes for English laws gives English MPs a veto over English matters that the devolution settlement gives to neither the devolved bodies nor to the non-English MPs in their respective parts of the country. In other words, EVEL will allow English MPs to stop things happening in England in a way that MPs from the other regions of the UK cannot in their parts of the country. Parliament remains supreme over all three devolved bodies—and rightly so—but that inescapably means that English Members—all 85% of them in this place—remain supreme. They can tell us what to do in Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales. They can tell Stormont, Holyrood and Cardiff what they can do, but we will no longer be able to add our voices to what they can do in England. That is the theme. What is good for the goose is good for the gander—either we are all in it together or we are not. It really is as simple as that. As the Prime Minister has reminded us so many times before, we really are better together.

I speak as a proud Unionist of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. I implore everyone in this House to consider the implications of this proposal and to stall and change English votes for English laws. What we have seen tonight—the division and the adversarial opinions and attitudes—suggests that EVEL will be disastrous for the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.

Coastal Flood Risk

Debate between Edward Leigh and Jim Shannon

Tuesday 7th July 2015 Westminster Hall

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

It is a pleasure to speak in the debate, Sir Edward. I thank the hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Melanie Onn) for bringing the matter to the Chamber. The presence of so many hon. Members whose constituencies have requirements relevant to the debate shows its importance for the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. It is nice to see the shadow Minister the hon. Member for Brent North (Barry Gardiner) in his place; we always look forward to his speeches. I especially welcome the Minister and look forward to hearing how he will respond to our requests.

There will not be many in this place who have not heard me rave about the unrivalled beauty of my constituency, Strangford. Those who have been there will agree with me about it, and will want to return to visit it again. It is truly a gem in the crown of Northern Ireland. It has perhaps—no, not perhaps—the most beautiful, majestic and breathtaking landscapes and shorelines in the entire United Kingdom. That is a fact, and it is a pleasure to put it on record. However, to quote a superhero film that my boys love,

“With great power comes great responsibility”,

and the power of the sea off the Irish coast has brought coastal erosion, which has a great impact on homes and businesses along the coastline of Strangford. For that reason I am very thankful to the hon. Member for Great Grimsby for bringing the issue to the attention of hon. Members.

I want to outline the effect of coastal erosion in my constituency and to conclude by asking the Minister about the strategic response. The problem has risen to a head with massive storms and tides. I and some concerned councillors felt we had to hold a public meeting, at the community house in Ballyhalbert, a beautiful seaside village on the Ards peninsula. I highlighted the fact that it is beyond time for a strategic plan on coastal erosion and better co-ordination between Departments. The matter is devolved to Northern Ireland, but we have tried to consider a strategic response and a way to co-ordinate the response between the regions, as well as to co-operate with Europe. Also taking part in the meeting were Diane Dodds MEP, Michelle McIlveen MLA and Councillors Adair and Edmund, along with the chief executive of Ards and North Down Borough Council, Stephen Reid. All of them have been seeking action on the issue, as have I and the many constituents who took the time to attend the meeting on a wet, windy and inhospitable day. It was abundantly clear that the public need action. It is not too often that there is such co-operation between bodies in Northern Ireland, but it was good to see it, and it highlights how essential the issue is.

Hon. Members may not know the areas on which I am focusing, but it is the same general picture for all UK coastal areas. The storm of the winter before last meant extra costs of some £800,000 for the Department for Regional Development, or Transport NI as it is now called. The road replacement at Whitechurch Road in Ballywalter cost £280,000; the damage to the Shore Road in Ballyhalbert cost £36,000; Roddens Road cost £86,000; and road repairs were needed at Portaferry Road, Ards, Greyabbey and Kircubbin. The total was in excess of £800,000. What was a once-in-100-years flood became a once-in-20-years or once-in-18-years flood. The frequency then came down to once in three years; flooding now seems to happen with shocking regularity, and the need for money for repairs is building up.

Frustration reigns—and all hon. Members who have spoken have alluded to that. Transport NI, the Department of the Environment, the Northern Ireland Environment Agency, the Rivers Agency or the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development cannot or will not accept responsibility for damage to property or take action to prevent flooding. At the Saltwater Brig in Kircubbin in my constituency, high tides led to damage to many houses and business properties; and insurance claims for that small area were in excess of £100,000. The council had a small role to play, and had a small sum of money that it could give to those who made contact immediately. It was a small sum in relation to some of the insurance claims, but it gave people £1,000, which at least enabled them to find alternative accommodation at short notice.

It is now obvious that someone needs to take control. After discussions with the chief executive of Ards and North Down Borough Council, it is intended that the council will be the conduit to pull together all Departments and to address what is needed and what the council priorities should be. That is one of the things that we set about doing. No longer will we be using sticking plasters, or putting a finger in the dyke. As flooding caused by coastal erosion becomes regular and commonplace, we need longer term action, as otherwise flooding will have an impact on the life of the community, on the accessibility of the road network, and the potential of tourism to deliver more jobs and boost the economy; it would be a tragedy if coastal erosion were to hold that back.

I would like the Minister to talk about the role of Europe. I believe it has a strong role to play, and that is why we invited a Member of the European Parliament as well as councillors and a Member of the Legislative Assembly to the meeting that we held. We need a strategic response. The newly installed chief executive of Ards and North Down Borough Council has given a commitment to initiate a study on the impact of coastal erosion, and to prepare. Prevention is the correct policy; that will address the massive expenditure that has resulted from high tides and storms. That strategy must be implemented UK-wide with additional funding from and the co-operation of Europe. I hope that that will be the outcome of today’s debate—that it will be a look at how we can do things better.

Many residents have conveyed their concerns to me, and given that my constituency is bounded by the Irish sea and Strangford lough—it has the longest coastline in Northern Ireland, taking in almost three quarters of my constituency—that is no surprise. We need to highlight the seriousness of the situation, given the severe weather conditions that often hit our coastlines, and then take action to preserve our beautiful coastline and people’s homes, livelihoods and lives. We are attempting to take action locally, but today’s debate and the speeches from all parties and regions of the United Kingdom show that we need funds to enable us to address the issue adequately. We need a UK-wide strategy on coastal erosion, involving all regions, DEFRA, DARD and the European Union. Europe has a vital role to play and must be part of the solution.

[Sir Edward Leigh (in the Chair)]

I call Liz Saville Roberts. There is still another speaker after you, so it would be good if you could try to finish by roughly 10.20 am.

Finance Bill

Debate between Edward Leigh and Jim Shannon

Tuesday 2nd July 2013 Commons Chamber

[Jim Shannon]

Transferable allowances work by families claiming against them for the previous year. Thus this year’s Finance Bill makes provision for transferable allowances for the financial year 2014-15. People will not be able to claim against them until the financial year 2015-16. I will be seeking from the Government an assurance that that will be addressed this year so that it can happen.

[Sir Edward Leigh]

This is simply a matter of justice. There are 2 million families where one partner is working and the other is not. They are uniquely disadvantaged in the benefits system, and it is a matter of justice—let’s do it.

Finance Bill

Debate between Edward Leigh and Jim Shannon

Tuesday 28th June 2011 Commons Chamber

[Jim Shannon]

I can tell the House that when I married, I married for love. I am one of those old-fashioned boys; that is just the way I am.

[Mr Leigh]

In the light of the intervention from the hon. Member for Linlithgow and East Falkirk (Michael Connarty), it is important to point out that we are not trying to penalise single-parent families or families in which there are two earners. All we are trying to do is remove the severe penalty on families in which there is only one earner, because our system is totally out of step with most of the rest of the world in that regard.

[Jim Shannon]

I thank the hon. Member for his contribution and for providing a bit of focus to this debate.

Given that the agreement pertains to a full Parliament, one ordinarily would not be concerned at the failure to action a commitment in just over a year. What we need is for legislative change to be approved by the coalition Government, to move forward and perhaps see this legislation coming through in two years. The latest publication of the international tax comparison, CARE’s “The Taxation of Families 2009-10” puts things in a very different light. It demonstrates that we are now headed to a place where the tax burden on a married family with children with one earner on an average wage is growing so much that it will soon be more than 50% greater than the OECD average. That breaks new ground, taking us into territory that not even new Labour dreamt of occupying.

Some will no doubt respond by saying that this is a result of the tax burden having to increase on everyone in the context of the debt crisis. I understand that, but it is not exactly the case. Let me quote a director of an influential think-tank, who said:

“Given that it will take some time between changing the law and implementing the actual recognition of marriage in the tax system, it is important that the Government makes this a priority, takes swift action. The change, or at least a recognition of it, should be made”.

I very much hope that that report can be taken seriously, that the Government can look further at the issue and perhaps bring it forward in future legislation.