Debate on the Address

Debate between Kevin Foster and Simon Hoare

Tuesday 7th November 2023 Commons Chamber

[Simon Hoare (North Dorset) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Cardiff South and Penarth (Stephen Doughty). As he will know, his is a part of the world that I know well, coming from the western part of the city, and having contested his seat back in the 2010 general election. I fought Cardiff South and Penarth, and Cardiff South and Penarth won! I was interested by the hon. Gentleman’s final remarks about the Greek Orthodox Church: my late maternal grandmother was married to a Greek so she knew that Church pretty well, and it was very nice to hear the hon. Gentleman mention it.

Let me begin by saying how much I agreed with the assessment of the right hon. Member for Ross, Skye and Lochaber (Ian Blackford) of the devastatingly sad situation in the middle east, and also with what was said by the hon. Member for Llanelli (Dame Nia Griffith) about the vital importance of maintaining domestic steel production. If we learned anything from the mad international scramble for personal protective equipment during the covid pandemic, it was the need for domestic production of materials that are often vital but are susceptible to fragilities in international supply chains. A country that cannot produce its own steel is not, I would suggest, an independent country in industrial terms. I should add that my right hon. Friend the Member for Epsom and Ewell (Chris Grayling)—along with others, including the hon. Member for Cardiff North (Anna McMorrin)—made some good points about forestry.

The hon. Member for Sunderland Central (Julie Elliott) made a telling observation about the sad moment it would have been for the Sovereign, who was delivering the King’s Speech only because his late mother the Queen had passed away. However, it is a pleasure for me to speak following the first Gracious Speech delivered by a male sovereign for 71 years. I always think that the key phrase in the Gracious Speech is

“Other measures will be laid before you.”

It is that great catch-all which means “Something on which we could not quite get agreement before it went to print can now be looked at.” It also means that people have suddenly said, “Well, we thought we did not have time to do this, but we find that we have”, and it means that when legislation is needed, opportunities can be addressed.

I would issue a caution about assessing a governmental programme, even at such a late stage in a Parliament, purely on the basis of the number of Bills involved. We are obsessed with quantity, deeming success to lie in having passed hundreds of Bills and thousands of statutory instruments, but we rarely think about quality. We rarely pause to ask ourselves whether stuff is on the statute book in any event but we are not drawing on it; we are always thinking that every problem is a new problem which requires new legislation.

Having said that, however, and without wishing to shoot my own argument down in flames if I go any further, I should emphasise that I was encouraged by what was said by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister during the final session of Prime Minister’s Questions before Prorogation, when I raised with him the need to continue the process of review and reform of the funding formulae for a number of key service delivery agencies—the Environment Agency, policing, local government and education—in the context of rural areas. We inherited funding formulae devised by the Labour party, which were tilted principally towards the urban and metropolitan at the expense of the rural. I am not advocating a system in which Peter must pay Paul, but we need greater equity, and an understanding of the difficulties of delivering rural services, in the formulae that are deployed in the making of funding decisions. Progress has been made, particularly in education and certainly in respect of the rural sparsity fund, but I am hopeful that within those “other measures”—that great catch-all—we may well see more changes.

Anyone who has read as well as listened to the Gracious Speech, as I am sure many of us will have done, may have been struck by what I thought was the most important sentence in it:

“That is why my Government’s priority is to make the difficult but necessary long-term decisions to change this country for the better.”

What could be more Conservative, more traditionally Tory, than that? Taking difficult decisions, not for party advantage but in the national interest: that is a golden thread that runs through my strand of “one nation” moderate conservatism, and I applaud it warmly while also cautioning Labour Members, all of whose speeches have indicated a preference for party interests rather than public service. They say, “Let us have a general election now, because all this will change after it”, as if that would help to solve any problems in the short to medium term. We on this side of the House will continue to govern in the national interest, taking those long-term and difficult decisions.

I have little or no doubt that North Dorset residents will welcome the proposals for education, and will be interested in seeing the details of the advanced British standard, which will merge technical and academic routes into a single qualification. My area has excellent high schools—my three daughters attend one of them—but we are continually trying to motivate our young to access the excellent local colleges in Weymouth, Salisbury and Yeovil and grasp the opportunities that they present, while also saying to parents that apprenticeships and non-academic education are important as well. It is long overdue, but His Majesty’s Government are right to assess the utility of some degree courses. I do not wish to reduce education to a utilitarian equation, but a lot of people are spending a lot of money on a lot of degree courses that will never recoup the expenditure, and I think we are right to look at that in order to secure a better future for our young people.

A key theme in the speech was security, and it was defined in a number of key areas. It is perfectly sensible to focus on national energy security, just as it is perfectly sensible to support the production of domestic steel, as we have heard. It is bonkers to be reliant on foreign energy production and products when we can produce them here, with not only employment and tax benefits but environmental benefits: if we are to use these products, it is much better to reduce the number of miles for which they have to travel, and also to monitor our very high standards, as deployed by the Environment Agency, the Health and Safety Executive and, of course, others.

I shall be particularly interested, as will many people in North Dorset, to see the details of the reform of grid connections. The problem of grid capacity and access to it is clearly hampering economic growth, as I know only too well from the situation in my part of Dorset and, indeed, throughout the county. I think I am correct in saying that there is still not a single business park in the county of Dorset that could be developed to its full potential, not through lack of interest on the part of potential employers but merely because there would not be enough electricity to serve those employers’ needs. That, one would have thought, is a fairly basic issue: just as access to clean water or to sewerage is important, access to electricity is key to growing businesses and creating jobs.

There was a huge amount of emphasis in the Gracious Speech on physical security as we usually define it—our armed forces and security sources—in an ever-changing and increasingly dangerous world. The first duty of the state, as we know, is to keep her people safe, and that, I think, will be at the heart of any legislation that the Government introduce. As for financial security, the light appears to be at the end of the tunnel, but we are not at the end of the tunnel yet—we are not out of the woods—so we must try to deliver as much financial security as possible for individuals, families and businesses through calm, competent, rational common-sense Treasury and Government decisions.

I think that those who are saying that the King’s Speech should have been much more full of Bills, and far more exciting and all the rest of it, miss the point. I think the electorate are broadly exhausted and actually just want to see a few things being done supremely well, rather than lots of headline-chasers being done incredibly badly. They just want a sensible Tory Government, and I know that my right hon. Friends the Prime Minister and the Chancellor will deliver that in spades.

My right hon. Friend the Member for North East Somerset (Sir Jacob Rees-Mogg) was right to reference the benefits of free trade to the world’s poorest and to our UK exporters. I agree with him on that, but I usually disagree with him on the issue of the race to the bottom with regard to standards and regulation. I do not detect a huge appetite in the House for a de minimis approach to regulation, particularly—I say this as one who represents a rural and farming constituency—with regard to agricultural standards. When my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister assumed that important office last year, he made it clear that parity of standards and regulation—the level playing field on which I tabled amendments to the Agriculture Bill, as did the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee—for our farmers on animal welfare, the use of chemicals and the like would be absolutely front and centre in future negotiations of free trade agreements, and I support that.

I speak as a Welshman who represents an English constituency and who chairs the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee—confused, Mr Deputy Speaker? You will be; I sometimes am. We are the Conservative and Unionist party and it does not take a great constitutional expert to realise that some of the threads and fabrics of the rich tapestry of our United Kingdom are under great stress and strain. We have seen it in the phenomenon of the rise of Scottish nationalism; my native Wales is starting to see a little bit more of it, and we have a nationalist First Minister designate in Northern Ireland.

I always make the point, and I hope that the Government will make it during this legislative year, that to be a Unionist, you do not have to be uniform. The strength of our Union is in the differences of the four nations that make up our kingdom: cultural, historical, political, linguistic in some areas, and musical—the whole kit and caboodle. But what unites us and makes us stronger, as was clearly demonstrated in our united response to the horrors of Ukraine and the middle east, are our shared values: freedom of speech; the rule of law; an independent judiciary; the ability of our military and overseas aid workers to do good in some of the most difficult and challenging parts of the globe; and the soft power reach of our language, the BBC, our armed forces and our diplomatic corps. All these things are drawn from the riches of the four quarters of this kingdom. We should never, ever lose sight of that fact and we should never dodge the opportunity to stress that across the four parts of the United Kingdom.

[Kevin Foster]

My hon. Friend is rightly passionate about the need to strengthen the Union, which was referenced in the King’s Speech. Does he agree that that has to be one of the founding principles of this Government as they take this legislative agenda forward?

[Simon Hoare]

I do agree, and I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that intervention.

As a parent I hugely welcome the renewed focus on vaping and its dangers. I do not think it is readily understood by parents, by teachers or indeed by teenagers themselves. In Gillingham in my constituency, we have two vape shops that are far too close to the high school for comfort. We can understand where the marketing goes. Which of us has not lost a loved one or family member to a smoking-related disease? I am sure that there will be some who argue about libertarian principles and the infringement of civil liberties in response to the Government’s proposals, but when we know that a product can do such enormous harm and that it has such huge costs to public health and to the taxpayer, what Government would not act to improve public health? This will be the equivalent of the Clean Air Act 1956, and I welcome it and give it my full support.

This is an exciting King’s Speech. There is plenty in it and it will keep us busy. There is lots to do and I look forward to it playing an important part in showing that my party is alive and kicking, full of ideas, committed to our country and able to govern us, both this year and in the future.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Kevin Foster and Simon Hoare

Monday 25th April 2022 Commons Chamber

[Kevin Foster]

I go back to the fact that we dealt with 1 million passport applications last month alone. To put that in context, we usually deal with 7 million in a whole year. Where there are compelling and compassionate circumstances, such as a funeral, applications can be expedited. For some time we have advised people to allow up to 10 weeks for an application to be processed. Last year we sent 4.7 million texts reminding people whose passports had expired to renew them. We have no intention of further extending the standard. We are processing most passports well within that time, but this is a virtually unprecedented surge in demand, and if people are planning to travel this summer, we advise them to get their application in as soon as possible.

[Simon Hoare (North Dorset) (Con)]

“Unprecedented” might be true, but the surge should absolutely have been foreseeable. I hear what the Minister says; my constituents tell me that in their experience, the process has been either very good or an absolute shambles. I agree with what the hon. Member for Easington (Grahame Morris) said: there needs to be a better interface between Members of Parliament and the Passport Office. Constituents going abroad for a family funeral, for a holiday or for business reasons are not getting through to the office, and are lied to by officials when they do. Something needs to be done to arrest that, and quickly.

[Kevin Foster]

I thank my hon. Friend for his comments. Early in January, we were processing about 60,000 passports a week, and by mid-March we had nearly trebled or even quadrupled the output of the service. I agree that we must review the performance of the hotline for MPs, particularly for instances where there are compelling or compassionate reasons for expediting an application.

Nationality and Borders Bill

Debate between Kevin Foster and Simon Hoare

Consideration of Lords amendments
Tuesday 22nd March 2022 Commons Chamber

[Simon Hoare]

It is to be welcomed that there will be no north-south border checks on the island of Ireland. The Minister will know that there is excellent intelligence sharing between the UK, the Police Service of Northern Ireland and the Irish authorities.

I understand what the Government are trying to do in the Bill, but I am afraid they again show a little bit of a lack of sensitivity or understanding with regard to how the all-island economy works, particularly when it comes to tourism, which is hugely important, as the hon. Member for North Down (Stephen Farry) said. In 2019, 2.245 million visitors came to the island of Ireland and spent £589 million. Such visitors maintain and support 70,800 jobs in Northern Ireland alone. There has been a 90% increase in the number of visitors to the island of Ireland from North America and 60% of all visitors to the island spend nights in both the Republic and the north of Ireland.

I understand what the Minister is trying to do, but he is using a misdirected sledgehammer to crack a non-existent nut, because we have seen no evidence to show that there is systemic abuse of the common travel area whereby people come from the south to the north and then over to GB. There is no evidence for that at all. I suggest the Government go away and have another think about the legislation. It seems to me to be sensible to exempt those who have established their right of residence in the Republic of Ireland from having to have an electronic travel authorisation. They do not need it. A lot of them will move between hospitals and doctors’ surgeries and dentists and between retail and hospitality and all the rest of it. Their bona fides have been recognised by the Republic, whether they were born in the Republic or elsewhere, and that should, through the usual intelligence sharing, be enough.

Visitors from the Irish diaspora of New Zealand, Australia, Canada or North America should be required to have an ETA only if they propose to move from the island of Ireland—irrespective of whether they have landed north or south of the border—to come to GB.

[Kevin Foster]

indicated dissent.

[Simon Hoare]

The Minister shakes his head and grimaces; I am not entirely sure why, because the idea is eminently workable. Tourism Ireland and Tourism NI are anxious that the legislation on ETAs will be an inhibitor for people who wish to visit the island of Ireland. They do not say, “I’m coming to the north” or “I’m coming to the south”—they say, “I’m going to Ireland.” They do not see the boundary as we know it and see it.

That is one way of dealing with the situation; there may be others. Our fear is that this measure would be damaging for tourism and for business confidence. Post covid, visitors should speedily be encouraged to come to the island of Ireland. Putting other impediments in their way would not be in the interests of the economy.

Exiting the European Union (Consumer Protection)

Debate between Kevin Foster and Simon Hoare

Tuesday 2nd April 2019 Commons Chamber

[Kevin Foster]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his comments. We can all look back over the past three years and suggest that there were things that we might have done differently or changed.

“If? What? Could?” is great fun to play—hindsight has 20/20 vision—but the other 27 member states have their own red lines. The idea that if I or the hon. Gentleman had walked in as the UK Prime Minister, everyone would have said, “Ah, it’s you! What can we do for you? Let’s offer you a great deal” is for the birds. The other member states would still have had their own red lines.

As I said, the only things for which a negotiated deal is not necessary are a complete no deal and revoking and remaining—the latter for obvious reasons—but if we want a negotiated deal, we need the prism of a withdrawal agreement. There is a strong argument for saying that even if we did go down the no-deal route, we would find at some stage that if we wanted a free trade agreement, the first three items on the EU’s agenda would be: clarifying citizens’ rights, which is not particularly controversial across the House; a financial settlement—that might be where a debate comes in; and arrangements to keep the land border in Northern Ireland open. Whether under a withdrawal agreement now or a free trade agreement in the future, those three issues will almost certainly be the basis of any agreement, no matter which of the panoply of Brexit ideas we have been treated to over the last year or two the House, and ultimately the country, decides upon. Once the divorce process is complete, the second phase of negotiations and decision making in the House remain.

Great though it would be to settle Brexit this afternoon, it is time that I return to the substance of the SI: the geo-blocking regulation. [Interruption.] I hear shouts of joy from the shadow Front Bench. Geo-blocking sounds like something to do with a map—a rambler might find their geo-signal being blocked—but it is actually one part of making sure we have a single market online as we do for physical goods. Those of us who grew up in the late 1980s—I am not sure if my hon. Friend the Member for Solihull (Julian Knight) is old enough, and I am certain the Minister is not—will remember the debate about how much a particular CD or tape cost in the UK, the United States, Canada, Germany and other countries. Nine times out of 10 a CD produced in the same factory, with the same copyright and by the same company would be more expensive in certain countries—that excludes differing VAT rates, of course, because that could change the price in the shop; I am talking about the base cost excluding taxes.

The regulation tried to prevent different prices in different markets arising from differing charging and supply. Those of us who studied European law will know that the Commission tried to eliminate this grey market idea of trying to restrict or increase prices in particular markets across the EU single market—a single market that we will remain a part of during the implementation period, if the withdrawal agreement goes through. The regulation was about making sure the consumers had the full opportunities. Such regulations make a difference. It is eminently sensible that we revoke the regulation—I agree with the Minister’s reasoning, and, as I have said, it would be bizarre if British businesses were under an obligation that EU businesses were not but which EU businesses could enforce against us under our law—but having in place some other appropriate measure would make a difference.

I hope therefore that we could consider that in future trade agreements—and not just with the EU. I have just given the example of the US. With increasing online commerce and trading, we should look to open up to other jurisdictions that use the English language and have similar commercial standards, consumer protections and quality standards. Under future trade agreements, we should look to ensure that businesses large and small that are buying stuff in across our borders can benefit from free trade arrangements.

[Simon Hoare (North Dorset) (Con)]

rose—

[Kevin Foster]

I will give way in a moment.

We want to be able to benefit from a single market online, given that it does not matter if someone buys from Tewkesbury or Texas—or North Dorset, for that matter—if they are sitting at their computer, and as long as the delivery charges are there. It is about that principle of giving consumers access to be best prices possible.

[Simon Hoare]

My hon. Friend mentioned the English language. Does he share my concern that we often forget that it is a key part of our armoury? It is the international language. It is the language of the internet and the language of the skies, and it is now the lingua franca of the world. We should never forget that it is one of our great tools of soft power.

[Kevin Foster]

I hope that my hon. Friend will forgive me for turning my back on him while responding to his intervention. I need to address the House, rather than face him directly.

The English language is indeed one of our great tools. When we look at any regulations relating to online businesses, we should bear in mind that the base code of computers is effectively English, because of the history of computer developments between us and the United States. The first computer, as such, was of course developed here, following the amazing theoretical work done by Alan Turing, who, sadly, was treated abysmally by this nation after the second world war in connection with matters that were never a crime. He came up with the revolutionary 01, and set the philosophical basis that would result in the very trading systems that these regulations seek to address.

This is one of our key goals. It is important that we have an effective and competent system of law relating to online transactions, because if we do not we will lose one of our biggest opportunities. My hon. Friend touched on that. Many people go online and happily access information, services and opportunities. They are able to compare prices in a way that would not have been possible before the internet era, because English is pretty much common currency on many internet platforms—although, given that the regulations relate to online shopping opportunities, it is worth noting that people can now interact with the vast majority of online retailers in the language of their choice. There are also the well-known providers’ translation services that we can now use. I used to have a bit of fun when a former Wales Minister texted to ask if I was here: I would reply in Welsh, courtesy of Google Translate.

I will move on, because I know that other Members wish to speak, and that the debate is time-limited. Some other issues on which the Minister may wish to reflect when she sums up relate to Ireland. We have had a great many discussions about the backstop and how we can keep the Northern Ireland land border open, but in these unique circumstances, someone purchasing online in, for example, County Fermanagh can be only a couple of miles away from the online business—or the business behind the online entity—which is based in, for example, County Donegal. There would of course be a different boundary, particularly in the no-deal scenario for which this measure is intended, and I should like to know how we can ensure that some sort of interaction remains. I think it is safe to say that it would be rather controversial if we did not give clear access to Irish websites.

That, in fact, makes eminent sense. There are businesses, cultural links, and supply chains and delivery networks that work across the border. One road crosses the border 15 times in two miles. If something that I had ordered online was being delivered using that road, the farmhouse involved might be in the United Kingdom and the hay barn in the Irish Republic. We need regulations that could deal with the unique situation near the Irish land border.

The Minister rightly referred to the consent of the Scottish Parliament and the Welsh Assembly, but Northern Ireland is beset by the fact its Assembly is not up and running and doing what those elected by the people of Northern Ireland should be doing. Although it is right that we are moving to ensure that Northern Ireland’s statute book is in order for a no-deal Brexit, it would be interesting to know what thought has been given to this aspect, given that the Northern Ireland Assembly is not working and that, sadly, it is unlikely to be up and running in the next couple of months, when we may see a no-deal exit. What thought is being given at Westminster to ensuring that there is appropriate legislation to cover online shopping and, bluntly, to ensure that legislation requires fairness between websites and fairness in online shopping between the Irish Republic and Northern Ireland?

Rating (Property in Common Occupation) and Council Tax (Empty Dwellings) Bill

Debate between Kevin Foster and Simon Hoare

Tuesday 16th October 2018 Commons Chamber

[Simon Hoare]

My hon. Friend strikes at the beating heart of my argument and the importance of that three-letter word “may”. The word is not “shall”, not “would” and not “must”, but “may”.

What is entirely proper—this was implicit in my hon. Friend’s contribution—is the discretion that local authorities, with their local knowledge, will have. It is not for the Minister and his bowler-hatted officials—I see all the bowler hats in the official Box—to be absolutely prescriptive. Local authorities will know some of the rogues and chancers in their area, and they will know if there is a difficulty in the planning process. They should—I have little or no doubt that, with the exhortation of our hon. Friend the Minister, they will—understand the vital importance of the word “may”.

[Kevin Foster (Torbay) (Con)]

I am very much enjoying my hon. Friend’s speech. A fire in Paignton on Thursday affected a number of residential properties, and does he agree that that is why the “may” is so vital? This cannot be just about people doing what they can to get the maximum revenue. It is about doing something to get a property back into use when someone is not taking the steps to do so, but not penalising those who clearly are making best efforts to ensure they get their property back into use.

[Simon Hoare]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. In drawing on his extensive local government experience, he hits upon the very salient phrase “best efforts”. Most people in a locality will be able to see through those who are not using their best endeavours but merely trying to play the system. He references properties damaged by fire, mentioning one in his constituency. I think that we will all have had properties in our constituencies damaged to varying degrees of intensity by fire. That can, of course, lead to incredibly delayed and complex insurance claims, with all the to-ing and fro-ing that cannot necessarily be dealt with particularly swiftly. I would hope that where there is a clear prima facie case that there were delays in the insurance process, those, too, will be taken into account.

The hon. Member for Alyn and Deeside (Mark Tami) referred to people who are selling a house but deliberately set the bar too high so that they make it unaffordable. Of course, there are people who, because of historical claims for fire or flooding, will find it difficult to secure insurance and a mortgage so that they can buy a property. That is not a fault of the purchaser and it is certainly not a fault of the vendor. I recently saw a house for sale in my constituency on which, because of the materials with which it was built, a mortgage cannot be secured. That is not the fault of the vendor, who has been trying to sell it for a considerable period of time. It would, I suggest, be an entirely unforeseen and unjustified consequence if that person were saddled with an onerously high council tax bill at a time when they were legitimately trying to dispose of an asset, but could not do so because nobody could afford to buy because they could not arrange a mortgage for it.

I hope that local authorities will not put into the “too difficult to deal with” box the civil law matter of a family that is rowing among themselves about who actually inherits a house, who has the right to sell it and who wants to inhabit it. We all know that where there is a will there is an argument and that sometimes where there is no will there can be a real cause for concern. Those are the areas of flexibility that our local authority officers and councillors need to be alert to and flexible about. I hope that the Minister can assure me that guidance highlighting the “may” and the need for flexibility and discretion will be pointed out to our local authorities.

Lords amendment 1 agreed to, with Commons financial privileges waived.

Defence Industry and Shipbuilding

Debate between Kevin Foster and Simon Hoare

Wednesday 11th July 2018 Commons Chamber

[Kevin Foster (Torbay) (Con)]

Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker—it makes quite a change to be called early in a debate. It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Glasgow South (Stewart Malcolm McDonald).

Some people will be wondering, “Why is the MP for Torbay rushing to speak in a shipbuilding debate? Surely the south-west is just about tourists, fishing, farmers and a few other bits.” Well, I know that the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport (Luke Pollard) will be talking about the huge importance of the Devonport naval base. If we look at the figures from the House of Commons Library on employees in shipbuilding in 2016, we see that there are 12,000 in the south-west—even more than in Scotland or the north-west, which we might traditionally associate this industry with.

It is wonderful to note the new-found enthusiasm of the leader of the Labour party for the defence industry in the UK. I will leave those comments there, because I would rather we had a more positive debate, but it is certainly a contrast with some of the views he has expressed over the last three decades.

[Simon Hoare]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[Kevin Foster]

I will not, because I am conscious that there is quite a queue of Members wishing to speak. While this is an Opposition day debate, there are many Members with significant constituency interests who would like to speak.

In terms of the investment, it is welcome to see the new carriers coming into the fleet and the new Dreadnought-class submarines already under construction, which will hopefully be refitted in Devonport in the years to come, when they have entered the main service of the fleet. It is good to hear about other investment projects. We are seeing our Royal Navy become more competent and capable, with even more of a global reach. It is welcome to see that we are back in the South China seas, looking seriously at the British national interest out in the Pacific region.

While I have some sympathy with one or two parts of the motion, which I will come to, we have to think coherently about what we are saying. If we keep saying that these contracts—contracts that are not internationally recognised as something that should be national only—should be UK-only, we start to go down the path of the nonsense arguments that have been used in the steel industry in the United States. Donald Trump has used a nonsense argument about national security to put tariffs on Canadian and European steel. Let us be quite candid: Canada and the UK are some of the strongest allies of the United States. We share the most sensitive intelligence with one another, so it is an absolute nonsense to suggest that there is a national security angle to who sells steel from this country to the United States. That is where I part company with some of the Labour party’s arguments.

The part of the motion on procurement criteria is perfectly reasonable, and I will come to that, but if we keep saying that certain contracts must be UK-only, we begin a trend of protectionism. We cannot on the one hand rightly say that Donald Trump is talking absolute nonsense about steel, but on the other adopt a policy like that ourselves, potentially against foreign—

Pavement Parking (Protection of Vulnerable Pedestrians) Bill

Debate between Kevin Foster and Simon Hoare

Friday 4th December 2015 Commons Chamber

[Simon Hoare]

Heaven rejoices when a sinner repenteth. I am certain that my hon. Friend’s confession, in perhaps the most public place to make a confession, will have the angels tuning their harps even as we speak.

[Kevin Foster (Torbay) (Con)]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[Simon Hoare]

It is not another confession, is it?

[Kevin Foster]

No, thankfully not. Does my hon. Friend agree that the intervention from our hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Beckenham (Bob Stewart) raises an important point about the confusion in the current legislation? In my constituency and that of my hon. Friend, there is one set of parking legislation, which is hard to enforce, even where communities have chosen to ban it, while in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston and Surbiton (James Berry), there applies the sort of legislation we are trying to introduce here. Would it not be fairer to motorists and communities to have consistency across England?