Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Philip Davies and Jake Berry

Monday 30th April 2018 Commons Chamber

[Jake Berry]

The hon. Gentleman is something of a Mystic Meg of the Labour party. Unlike him, I want the people of South Yorkshire to have their say in the elections next Thursday. The Conservative candidate, Ian Walker, has said:

“This is a golden opportunity to show what South Yorkshire can do.”

The Labour candidate thinks that it should be a part-time job, and the Labour authorities are fighting with each other so much that they cannot agree on what power or money the mayor of South Yorkshire should have.

[Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)]

As the Minister will know, Yorkshire is a massive county—by far the biggest in the country. What assessment has he made of the ability of one mayor to cover effectively the whole of such a big county? My dad had the privilege of being the Mayor of Doncaster for a while, and that was a pretty full-on job for him, so how on earth can one person do the job effectively and look after the interests of the whole of Yorkshire? What level of bureaucracy and cost would be incurred by a single mayoral office for the whole of Yorkshire?

[Jake Berry]

I would not like to be drawn on responding to the high-level proposals we have received, but I will say this: later this year, the city of Leeds will be the only core city in the north of England that has not benefited from devolution, and that is a terrible shame for everyone who lives in West Yorkshire.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Philip Davies and Jake Berry

Monday 17th July 2017 Commons Chamber

[Jake Berry]

No one could visit the scene of the disaster in New Ferry and talk to the residents without realising the seriousness of the explosion that took place some months ago. Following my meeting, I received a letter from Phil Davies. A response will be going out later today, dealing with the queries he raised.

[Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)]

Can the Secretary of State tell me what he will do to ensure that Bradford Council builds on the brownfield sites that it has identified before it starts concreting over and building on greenfield sites in the green belt in my constituency?

Commonwealth: Trade

Debate between Philip Davies and Jake Berry

Wednesday 22nd February 2017 Westminster Hall

[Jake Berry]

I agree wholeheartedly, and I hope the Minister will confirm that approach. The Government said in response to a parliamentary question that we would have to wait until 2019, but I hope that that is not the case. If we are leaving the EU, we should be negotiating with the Commonwealth and should not be as worried about what the EU has to say about it.

The issue of visas is a tricky one. I am sure the Minister is aware that 40 Conservative MPs signed a letter that was published in last week’s Sunday Telegraph asking for simple changes at our border to extend the hand of friendship to the Commonwealth nations. We are not calling for changes in visa restrictions; we are simply asking that border officials acknowledge the importance of the Commonwealth when people arrive here.

Finally, I call on the Minister to consider whether he could publish a White Paper on trade, and specifically on Commonwealth free trade, following the meeting in March. The Government published the last White Paper on trade in 2011. Clearly that was before Brexit, and it was produced under the coalition Government. A new White Paper on Commonwealth trade could set out a road map for Britain’s new relationship with our Commonwealth partners and, crucially, could focus bilateral meetings at CHOGM next year on trade and co-operation.

I hope that such a White Paper can cover, among other issues, what steps the Minister will take to increase the number of trade envoys deployed to Commonwealth countries; which Commonwealth countries the Department has prioritised for trade agreements; which Commonwealth nations have come forward seeking trade agreements post-Brexit; how many Departments’ new trade audits have been set up with Commonwealth countries; and what steps he is taking to improve exports to Commonwealth destinations.

As we have heard, the task is legion, but next month’s meeting is an important rallying call to the Minister and his Department. If Britain is truly back, it is time to demonstrate that the Government accept that the Commonwealth is a key trading partner for this country and that the distance between our nations is no barrier but a natural highway, over which we will see international trade flourish.

[Philip Davies (in the Chair)]

I must get to the Front-Bench spokesmen as close to 3.30 pm as possible. There are around 10 colleagues seeking to catch my eye, so I must impose a time limit. The most generous time limit to get everyone in equally is four minutes, but I must add that if people take interventions that will reduce the time left for people further down the line. However, if everyone sticks to four minutes without intervention, we should be okay.

Antarctic Bill

Debate between Philip Davies and Jake Berry

Friday 18th January 2013 Commons Chamber

[Philip Davies]

rose—

[Jake Berry (Rossendale and Darwen) (Con)]

rose—

--- Later in debate ---

[Jake Berry]

Earlier, my hon. Friend referred to the new clause including places such as the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man. Has he made any inquiries of the Government about whether the existing legislation would cover those? The Channel Islands and the Isle of Man are, of course, popular places to base holiday companies because of their beneficial tax status. He will be aware that in 1993, fewer than 9,000 people visited the Antarctic area on holiday. Now the figure is approaching 26,000. Does he think that the clause is necessary to pull in those holiday companies who are attempting to exploit the Antarctic for commercial gain?

[Philip Davies]

My hon. Friend makes a good point. That may well be an alternative explanation for why we need clause 5. My understanding is that those places are covered by the existing legislation, but my hon. Friend may well be right and I am sure we all wait with eager anticipation to hear what the Minister will tell us, so that we can all satisfy our curiosity on that point. I have no doubt that he has a good explanation.

Hon. Members may well conclude that because all these provisions are already covered, it does no harm to put them in again, because they are already in there anyway, and if this chivvies other countries along to fulfil their obligations, no harm will be done. That may well be the case. If that is the explanation, I would not have a problem with that; but it has not been made clear to us exactly why the clause is necessary, which is why I tabled my amendment.

I briefly want to touch on the new clause tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Bury North. I certainly do not intend to talk about amendment 1, which he went through in considerable detail; his expertise on that clearly exceeds mine. It seemed to be a rather technical matter, and certainly above my knowledge level. But I do want to discuss new clause 1, which would require a cost-benefit analysis.

There are issues, which emerged during my hon. Friend’s speech, about what we mean by a cost-benefit analysis. Would such an analysis reflect the Government’s costs and benefits? Would the costs of individuals from the UK be covered? Should it be more internationally based? There might be a negative cost-benefit analysis to the UK, but a different result might be produced if everyone else’s costs and benefits were taken into account. Although there are issues about that, I do not believe they are insurmountable. I felt that my hon. Friend the Member for North East Somerset was uncharacteristically defeatist in thinking that the cost-benefit analysis could become so bureaucratic that it would need its own cost-benefit analysis in order to be justified.

I think my hon. Friend the Member for Bury North is on to something, because what the Bill sets out clearly, and the reason for this legislation, is that the Government know exactly what they are trying to achieve, so it is not unreasonable for someone to review it a few years down the line. My hon. Friend said three years—I do not know whether that was an arbitrary figure, or whether there was any science behind that choice. I took his point that if there is a flaw in the legislation, it is better to know sooner rather than later. I thought that was a fair point. I do not know whether every three years might have been a better amendment in the sense of the ongoing point that my hon. Friend the Member for Rossendale and Darwen (Jake Berry) made, which I think was fair. Anyway, it should not be beyond the wit of people to take a look—it need not be bureaucratic or expensive—at whether the Bill’s aims and objectives have been met, and without prohibitive cost. That would be perfectly reasonable, and I do not think it should be confined to the legislation before us. The Bill might set a trend for conducting that level of post-legislative scrutiny.

[Jake Berry]

My hon. Friend is talking about a cost-benefit analysis. Would it not be better to talk about a benefit analysis? The shadow Minister asked, “How can you put a price on protecting the most pristine, unspoilt environment we have?” I think that is a valid point; I do not think that we can. But my hon. Friend the Member for Bury North (Mr Nuttall) said that the 1994 Act had not done what it set out to do, which was to protect historic monuments. Should we not focus on the benefit test, rather than pricing up environmental protection, which I do not think is possible?

[Philip Davies]

That is a fair point. I do not have a strong view. I do not see the harm in doing a cost-benefit analysis. It may well be that people wish to focus on the benefit part; I would not have a problem with that. But that is not my point. My point is that if we are passing legislation for a specific purpose, there should be a duty on the Government to review it at some point in the future; whether it is three years, as my hon. Friend the Member for Bury North suggests in his new clause, or whether it is a different time scale is a matter for debate, opinion and judgment. I would prefer to talk about the principle, which is that when the Government pass legislation and tell the House that its purpose is to do such-and-such and this is why it is important and so necessary, there should be a mechanism to see at a future date whether they were accurate in their analysis—whether it has done what it said. I know that Ronseal is a topical metaphor to use at the moment, but Governments should check more often whether the legislation does what it says on the tin. I see no great harm in that. I do not see why the Government should rail against it.

--- Later in debate ---

[Philip Davies]

My hon. Friend makes a good point. There are different ways of doing these things. Perhaps there should be a combination of both. The Scrap Metal Dealers Bill, which passed through this House not long ago, had both, owing to an amendment that I tabled. It had a review that took place after three years; it also incorporates a sunset clause whereby, after five years, the Act would expire and would have to be brought back again if it was seen to be worth while. So I think my hon. Friend is on to something. But of course, it would be difficult to justify a sunset clause without a cost-benefit analysis to help us decide whether we wished to extend the legislation or wished it to expire.

[Jake Berry]

May I caution my hon. Friend against overuse of the Ronseal test? Of course, Ronseal is based in the Deputy Prime Minister’s city of Sheffield. May I remind him that we have Crown Paints in Darwen in my constituency, which are more than capable of doing what they say on the tin? So there is not just Ronseal; other paint types are available.

[Philip Davies]

As a south Yorkshire boy originally, my allegiance is more to Sheffield than it ever would be to Lancashire. The wars of the roses never ended, in my book. I am afraid my hon. Friend is on a loser with me on that point, but I give him every credit for plugging his own constituency. It is not his fault that it is on the wrong side of the Pennines.

I know that we are coming up to the statement and I do not want be cut off in my prime by the Prime Minister, who has to come to the House on a more sombre matter to go through something that is far more serious and important. Our hearts go out to everybody who has been affected by that incident.

There are some legitimate points for my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud or the Minister to take on board and respond to. I urge them both to set out why clause 5 is necessary. They may say that it is not necessary but it does no harm, which I will accept, but if their point is that clause 5 simply does no harm, perhaps they could explain what harm would be done by encouraging a cost-benefit analysis to be carried out, as requested by my hon. Friend the Member for Bury North in new clause 1. Either these things are harmful or they are not. If they are not harmful, let us do them both, and if neither is necessary, let us do neither. It would not be right for the Government to cherry-pick one and say, “Let’s do it because it does no harm,” but also to say, “We won’t do the other one that does no harm because it is not necessary.” That would be a contradictory step for the Government to take.

On that note I conclude my remarks. I hope I have reassured people about the motives behind my amendment. It is not to seek to destroy the nature or detail of the Bill, but to question in a probing fashion why it is necessary. I expect the Minister will be able to reassure me so that I am able to withdraw my amendment.