Shellfish Aquaculture

Debate between Julie Elliott and Jim Shannon

Wednesday 15th March 2023 Westminster Hall

[Jim Shannon]

Yes, of course it is. The point I am making is that, very often—

[Julie Elliott (in the Chair)]

Order. I remind hon. Members that this debate is about shellfish aquaculture and not the EU.

[Jim Shannon]

I stand corrected, Ms Elliott. Thank you for reminding us all of the real reason for the debate. The thing is that shellfish aquaculture is restricted by EU bureaucracy. The trade has existed for many years—it existed when we were in the EU and it exists now that we are out of it—and nothing has materially altered. That is the issue. There is no reason for the trade not to continue as it was before. Again, that is part of the issue.

The hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr Sheerman) is right: if we could work together honestly, pragmatically and reasonably to try to find a solution, then I would say, “Yes, let’s do that.” But we will not find the UK Government causing any difficulties; we have to put the ball at the toe of the organisation that is responsible. The Shellfish Association of Great Britain highlights that DEFRA does not agree with the current EU interpretation of the regulations and has raised the issue at the sanitary and phytosanitary committee, but to no effect.

The Minister knows that I respect him greatly. He understands issues very clearly, and I know that he understands this one. I have no doubt that he will get behind the shellfish aquaculture sector, and the Shellfish Association, to ensure that a solution is found. This is not about negativity; it is all about solutions, and the Minister is a solution-led Minister.

I urge the Minister to progress this issue as a matter of urgency. We have the resource—when I say “we”, I mean this great United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland—and that can be used to the benefit of everyone in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, and in England—the mainland—as well. To realise that benefit, we must utilise the resource more effectively, and that can happen only if we can find a solution. Let us hope that the EU will give us that solution so that we in the United Kingdom can work alongside it.

Votes for 16 and 17-year-olds

Debate between Julie Elliott and Jim Shannon

Tuesday 18th December 2012 Westminster Hall

[Julie Elliott (Sunderland Central) (Lab)]

I am grateful for the opportunity to discuss this important issue, and I thank you, Mr Chope, for allowing me to open the debate, in which I will call for the voting age to be lowered to 16. It is a pleasure to do so under your chairmanship.

I am grateful to be granted this debate and to initiate discussion about an issue that many people across the country are currently considering. As Members know, the Scottish Government recently announced that, in the upcoming referendum of autumn 2014, 16 and 17-year-olds will be able to take part in the ballot. That decision to lower the voting age will enfranchise 8.2% of the UK’s 16 and 17-year-olds. The decision has reignited the issue of votes at 16 at a national level.

With that in mind, it seems the right time to reconsider lowering the voting age to 16 in all elections and referendums held in the UK. It would be wrong to send the message that it is right for some of the UK’s 16 and 17-year-olds to be deemed capable of voting while others are not. In July 2012, the devolved Welsh Assembly, in a debate on the issue, voted on a motion expressing support for lowering the voting age to 16 that had cross-party support.

The Minister will know that constitutional reform, including lowering the voting age, is not devolved and, therefore, the responsibility for making that happen still rests with the UK Government. For the sake of a more equal, inclusive political system across the whole UK, the Government and the Electoral Commission must consider extending the right to vote to 16 and 17-year-olds across the country. With recent developments, this seems the opportune time to start revisiting the issue.

In our society, we rightly demand respect from young people and often require them to act and behave like adults. At the same time, however, society should respect young people’s views and aspirations.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

Does the hon. Lady agree that allowing 16 and 17-year-olds to vote would enable engagement with younger people, by allowing the House to hear what they want us to do for them?

[Julie Elliott]

I could not agree more with that valuable point, which I will address.

Some 16 and 17-year-olds hold positions of great responsibility and already contribute much to our society, and they should be given the opportunity to influence key decisions that directly affect their lives and communities. We should ensure that they and their issues are represented.

In law, as a society, we already allow 16 and 17-year-olds to give full consent to medical treatment, to leave school and enter work or training, to pay income tax and national insurance, to obtain tax credits and welfare benefits in their own right, to consent to sexual relationships, to get married or enter a civil partnership, to change their name by deed poll, to become a director of a company, to join the armed forces and to become a member of a trade union or co-operative society. Granting them the vote would align their responsibilities with their rights as citizens. Surely, it cannot be right that we ask a young man or woman to serve their country bravely by joining the armed forces without recognising their contribution or giving them the choice to influence their future in return.

There is an old American saying: no taxation without representation. As a citizen benefiting from this country, 16 and 17-year-olds are expected to pay tax yet, by being excluded from the right to vote, they have no say on how that money is spent. With rights come responsibilities, but it should work both ways: with responsibilities should come rights.

Across the country, 16 and 17-year-olds are demonstrating that they can make such complex decisions and take on wide-ranging responsibilities. They are actively showing, in practice, their willingness to make a positive difference and contribution to our society. We should give them the chance to make a difference by empowering them further through recognising their right to influence decisions that will affect their future. That is also reflected in public opinion. In a recent poll carried out by The Daily Telegraph, 53% of the population said that they are in favour of lowering the voting age to 16.

I pay tribute to the fantastic work of the Votes at 16 coalition on promoting and raising awareness of the issue. The coalition is made up of more than 70 organisations, including the British Youth Council, the Children’s Rights Alliance for England, the Trades Union Congress, the Co-operative and the National Union of Students.

Lowering the voting age to 16 would further encourage youth democratic engagement. There are more than 1.5 million 16 and 17-year-olds in this country.

As the Member of Parliament for Sunderland Central, I often visit schools in my constituency to talk to students and young people about my job and what it means to represent them. The 16 and 17-year-olds I have met on such visits have shown that they are knowledgeable and interested in the world around them—from the Arab spring in the middle east and the effects of climate change to youth provisions in their own neighbourhoods. They are also passionate people: passionate to learn more and to participate. They have demonstrated to me that they are more than capable of engaging with the democratic system, as much as any other citizen.

Welfare Reform Bill

Debate between Julie Elliott and Jim Shannon

Wednesday 9th March 2011 Commons Chamber

[Julie Elliott]

No, not at the moment, although I might in a minute.

As I said earlier, I want to focus my remarks on the most vulnerable. Many of the extremely vulnerable people who have contacted me are suffering from mental health issues and autistic spectrum disorders. Autism is a spectrum condition, which means that, despite some common characteristics, it affects sufferers in different ways and to differing extents. ASDs, as they are commonly known, are largely “hidden” disorders that affect a sufferer’s ability to communicate with others, which means that the annual review will be a real problem. ASD sufferers span the whole disability spectrum. Some are able to live relatively independent lives; others need a lifetime of care or receipt of specialist support.

Approximately one in 100 children and 350,000 adults of working age suffer from ASDs. Of the latter group, only 15% are in full-time employment in the UK. The disability living allowance has been a key benefit, providing for these people the help and support that the additional costs of their disability require. The £1 billion cut over the next three years, when the DLA is replaced by the personal independence payment—

[Jim Shannon]

At the beginning of her remarks the hon. Lady said that reform is necessary, which we all accept. However, does she share my concern that a target to reduce by 20% the number of people in receipt of DLA is the wrong approach, and that the issue should be dealt with through reform alone?

[Julie Elliott]

I totally agree with the hon. Gentleman. Reform is about making the benefit fit the individual need. If the benefit needs to be paid and if it fits the need, it would not be wrong if it went up by 20%.

It is vital that the Bill does not disproportionately hit those with autism and other disabilities, who are all too often overlooked despite being among the most vulnerable in our society. The goal surely must be to support people with autism who cannot work, so that they can live a full and happy life. However, for those who are able to work, DLA has been crucial in helping them into the workplace. Without the DLA, people with autism would be socially isolated and more likely to suffer from poor mental health. The reform of DLA may lead to people with mental health problems missing out, which could have huge knock-on cost impacts on health and social care services. Surely this cannot be this Bill’s motivation—to give less support to people with autism and to increase the knock-on costs to other Government Departments. As it stands, that is what the Bill is in danger of doing. Its implications for people with autism could lead to confusion and frustration, which in turn could lead to more serious health problems. The Government must ensure that the needs of those with ASDs are taken into account.

The proposals for face-to-face assessments are in themselves creating great anxiety among people with autism and with mental health issues. ASDs are a very specialist area of medicine, and the doctors who deal with such disorders are the people who understand them and their implications. Many of the doctors undertaking the assessments will not have a full understanding of ASDs and the specific needs of the people who suffer from them. When a detailed assessment by a specialist has already been undertaken, what is the need for a further assessment, for benefit purposes, to be carried out by someone without that expertise?

As I said at the beginning of my speech, for a welfare reform Bill to work, it must be, as it says, a “reform” Bill that makes benefits easier to access and to understand.