Planning Reform

Debate between Simon Clarke and Jim Shannon

Wednesday 13th March 2024 Westminster Hall

[Sir Simon Clarke]

I think localism as a principle of good Government is very important. I am a strong believer in the mayoral devolution of the kind that the Government have introduced in recent years. I will come to the hon. Lady’s question about how we can best address the balance between local and national Government. Local government can be a very good thing, but it can also become an obstacle to actually building homes anywhere at all, which is something we need to try to balance.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

[Sir Simon Clarke]

Of course—it would not be a debate without the hon. Gentleman.

[Jim Shannon]

I commend the right hon. Gentleman for bringing this debate forward. Planning rules on the mainland are slightly different from those in Northern Ireland. The principles that he refers to are important, so I sympathise with his comments, particularly about the time that it takes for a planning application to be granted fully. I have a close relationship in my area with the local planners through the council and also with numerous developers and builders, because there is a tradition of building in my constituency. The frustration about timescales is understood. Does he agree that one of the most pivotal ways in which we could reform our planning system is by ensuring that councils are funded adequately to ensure a more robust planning approval process? Councils have a key role to play; let us make sure they are part of it.

[Sir Simon Clarke]

I totally agree. The hon. Gentleman is exactly right: councils need to have the planning departments to process the applications, and too often, as we know, good planners are poached by consultancies when they are needed in our local government system. The answer is to allow local authorities to capture more of the upside financially from new homes being built so that they can fund the requisite staff and expertise— I see the hon. Member for St Albans (Daisy Cooper) nodding—to do exactly what the hon. Gentleman refers to.

Mains Water Connections: Cost for Rural Communities

Debate between Simon Clarke and Jim Shannon

Tuesday 5th September 2023 Westminster Hall

[Sir Simon Clarke (Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland) (Con)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the cost of mains water connections for rural communities.

It is a real pleasure to have the chance to talk about this important issue in the House this afternoon, Ms Ali.

Water is life. That is a statement of fact as ancient as civilisation itself, but today I am here to talk about the lack of clean water affecting Aysdalegate, which is a row of cottages that forms part of my Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland constituency. Aysdalegate sits about two miles from Guisborough, the main market town in East Cleveland, just along the A171 road over the moors to Whitby. It is somewhat isolated, but it is not so remote that the problems I am about to relate can reasonably be anticipated. I find it astonishing, living as we do in an age of unparalleled technological advances, that there remain corners of England where something as simple as access to safe running drinking water should even have to be the subject of debate, but here we are.

For the residents of Aysdalegate, their days are marred by an issue that most of us would have thought resolved in the previous century, if not the century before that: their homes are not linked to the mains water network. Instead, they grapple daily with inadequate water quality from a private water supply, and they are told that the cost of connection, a figure that will almost certainly amount to hundreds of thousands of pounds, will fall upon them, should they seek to remedy the situation. This is not some multimillion new build vanity project that we are talking about, or some millionaire seeking to pull a fast one by getting public funds for improvements to a remote sporting lodge or a holiday home. This is a small hamlet in which very normal people are trying to live everyday lives. Aysdalegate represents hard-working families, the elderly and, in some cases, the disabled and the vulnerable.

We should be clear about the conditions my constituents are living in. Over the last decade, Redcar and Cleveland Borough Council has performed drinking water checks nine times at Aysdalegate. On each and every occasion, supplies have been judged unsatisfactory owing to bacterial contamination, including E. coli and enterococci. I am sure everybody is aware of the dangers posed by these organisms. E. coli, which is a bacteria that predominantly resides in the intestines of humans and animals, is a strong indication of recent faecal contamination. It can lead to severe gastrointestinal illness, kidney failure and, in severe cases, death.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I commend the right hon. Gentleman for securing this debate. He previously asked about this in Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs questions. The Minister also replied on that occasion, when I was happy to ask a supplementary question—I understand the issue very well. Does he agree that it is not just the quality of the water, but the cost factor for those who just want to live in the countryside? Does he also agree that sometimes the connections are prohibitive? In the Minister’s response to his question, she seemed to indicate a willingness to assist. Does he feel that the Government perhaps have an important role to play in improving the water quality and in making a connection at a price that is feasible and acceptable?

[Sir Simon Clarke]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question, which precisely anticipates the line of inquiry I am going to pursue, which is how we improve the quality of the water and address the cost of so doing.

As I was saying, the issue with E. coli and enterococci is really very serious. Enterococci—to follow on from what I was saying about E. coli—is also associated with faecal contamination. Although it is generally less harmful than E. coli, its presence in water can be a precursor to the existence of other, very dangerous pathogens. Repeated exposure to water tainted with these bacteria places residents, as a matter of certain medical fact, at risk of long-term medical harm.

As a result, Redcar and Cleveland council has served a regulation 18 notice specifying that the water needs to be boiled before it can be drunk, which has been in place permanently since December 2017. If only boiling the water solved the problem. Alas, residents have reported to me their disgust at finding tadpoles and evidence of rodents and other animal life in their drinking water. Tadpoles and rodents in their drinking water—let us pause for a moment and think about what that means. A parent will hesitate, even after boiling the water, because they wonder whether it is safe for a child. An elderly resident will, in their lifetime, have witnessed this nation advance enormously yet will still wonder why they are waiting for safe drinking water.

I will read out a response to a survey from Redcar and Cleveland council, which was completed by one of my constituents and forwarded to me. She writes as follows:

“I approached the council and joint meetings were held. Year on year we have been served ‘boil notices’—but I am disgusted by this notice”

and the lack of action. She continues:

“Redcar and Cleveland…are totally aware of the plight me and others have expressed assistance for and at each turn we have been left to it. No-one here has the financial capacity to do anything more than we are currently doing. We are treated appallingly.”

Explaining that she has contacted me as her Member of Parliament, my constituent continues:

“As you know we are now in negotiations over”

the

“successful prompts for Northumbrian Water to finally consider us as a whole row to be mains connected. Though funding has yet to be sourced to cover this cost, none of”

our group

“are holding our breath as this could yet again give us a false hope. I have also recruited the help of our local parish…and spoken to local councillors. I attend parish meetings where our water supply is raised constantly. We know the farm opposite us received grants to have their own private well…so animals, rightly, can be looked after with clean drinking water/bathing water…but we’re considered less than animals.”

My constituent spends “£70 a month” for

“bottled water to drink and cook in”,

and says that there are animals and

“rodents in our water system frequently”.

She says that her

“bath water is always brown/cloudy”

and the system

“has to be visited by trudging over a busy road”,

hiking up a hill and “through woodland.” She is spending hundreds of pounds a month on filtering the water that comes into her home.

We need to do better than this. Private supplies do not have to be below standard. In fact, last year, only 3.8% of tests from private water supplies across the UK were positive for faecal contamination, but where they are dangerous, we need to have viable options for mains water connection. When I raised the issue at DEFRA questions, as the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) mentioned, I was advised that

“it is right that the legislation allows a water company to charge for the cost of making a new connection, because otherwise it would impact on all customers’ bills.”—[Official Report, 6 July 2023; Vol. 735, c. 916.]

I simply do not see how that can be considered an acceptable response. According to the Government’s figures on our official development assistance, between 2020 and 2021, the UK spent £188 million to help provide clean water to disadvantaged people across the globe, and we should be very proud of that. However, our pride in our humanitarianism should be tempered when here at home we are telling a number of my constituents that, if they do not like boiling tadpole and rat-infested water, “That is just your problem and the bill’s on you”. DEFRA asserts that that is just how the system works. I am sorry, but the system clearly does not work, and it certainly does not work for the people of Aysdalegate.

Thankfully, it is not all bad news. Northumbrian Water’s process for exploratory work towards connecting communities to the mains network involves network assessments, evaluating existing infrastructure capacity and ensuring that new connections do not impact existing ones. All that obviously comes at a cost. I am glad to report that, after I had spoken to it, the company rose to the occasion by waiving its fees to quantify how to connect Aysdalegate to the water main and at what cost. That report is expected shortly, but informally, a cost of between £150,000 and £200,000 has been suggested to me. That is obviously a very large sum for a group of nine homes, many of which do not have significant household income.

I would have seen no route to resolution if it had not been for the exceptional action taken by Northumbrian Water, but we will shortly need a plan to deliver the requisite infrastructure. There can be only very few poor isolated communities such as these that fall into this category. I suspect that there are not many Aysdalegates in the UK in 2023. I believe DEFRA needs to consider a special fund to enable work of this nature to proceed in truly exceptional circumstances.

This seems to be a classic example of a case where the associated infrastructure cost needs to be socialised. Ultimately, doing that for a small number of homes would have a minimal impact on wider bill payers’ costs. Lest we forget, we live in a society where we talk proudly about having a universal service obligation for broadband; under the rural broadband scheme, we offer vouchers that, at points in recent years, have been worth up to £10,000 per household. How can we have less than that for clean drinking water?

I believe that my constituents’ experience proves the case for a comprehensive plan and, if necessary, a change to legislation, although I hope that the problem can be remedied by direct ministerial action. I ask the Minister to set out in her reply what the Government will do to ensure that the residents of Aysdalegate, and others like them across the country, can connect to the most basic of necessities and the most fundamental of resources: safe drinking water. Although they are few in number, their plight is very serious. We cannot apply to them a rule that feels better suited to isolated larger homes or farms, which are in a far better position to deal with the cost of connection than my constituents. They are effectively a marginalised and isolated handful of people who, through no fault of their own, live somewhere where even a reasonable quality of life is simply not possible. They cannot remedy their situation through their own means. I do not believe that the council has the funds to help them. I can see no recourse other than to the guarantor of last resort in our society: the Government. These people pay their taxes; they have a right to expect the Government to look after them.

We must accept in this House that for people to have to live without safe drinking water in 2023 is unconscionable. For people of normal means to be told they should foot an unaffordable bill, and for the Government to wash their hands of them now, would be unacceptable. I hope that this afternoon we can work out the genesis of a plan to ensure that when Northumbrian Water reports back with the cost of connection—as I said, it is likely to be a six-figure sum, but not a high six-figure sum—we can try to work out what recourse there can be to public funding to resolve this very dangerous and upsetting situation.

National Insurance Contributions (Increase of Thresholds) Bill

Debate between Simon Clarke and Jim Shannon

2nd reading
Thursday 24th March 2022 Commons Chamber

[Mr Clarke]

I thank my hon. Friend for her question. There is no doubt at all that we have targeted the action that we have taken at the people who need it the most. That is why this Bill is so important, as I will explain, but it is also why we have taken the action on fuel duty, universal credit, the household support fund and TV licences—all things that are designed to help people whose incomes are most stretched at what is a difficult time for families up and down the country.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I thank the Minister for the answers that he is giving. While I absolutely welcome the increase in the threshold for national insurance contributions to help those on the periphery, I say to him gently: does he not see that this should equally apply to child benefit and universal credit, and since it makes perfect sense for one, it must make perfect sense for all working families so as to take them away from the absolute poverty I have spoken about in the Chamber before that is so close to so many hard-working families?

[Mr Clarke]

The hon. Gentleman is a fantastic contributor to this place and he takes a keen interest in looking after people, including the most vulnerable people, in his constituency. I absolutely recognise that we want to make sure that families right across the income spectrum are supported. That is why, as I say, we have put in place a package of measures that has at its heart a desire to make sure that we have a strong safety net in place. We have to consider all the decisions we take in the round. To put it in some context, the United Kingdom spends £243 billion a year on our wider welfare spend, including pensions. This is a country where we do a huge amount to make sure that everyone is supported. We have to consider all our decisions in the context of both wider affordability and how the system operates. The welfare system always operates on the basis of an uprating in September for changes in the ensuing April. If there is high inflation during the course of 2022, as is forecast, that will be reflected in the uprating figures for April 2023, and the triple lock will be in place to protect families.

Budget: Pre-announcement of Provisions

Debate between Simon Clarke and Jim Shannon

Tuesday 26th October 2021 Commons Chamber

[Mr Clarke]

I really do not know what the hon. Gentleman is implying with his question, but clearly no impropriety has occurred. All announcements are made as usual through the normal Treasury and cross-Government processes to make sure that those announcements are released to the media.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

Does the Minister agree that being drip-fed Budget snippets from the press rather than in this House makes it more difficult for right hon. and hon. Members to fully consider the principles without the biased slant of the media? Is he prepared to consider allowing Members access to the Budget the night before, under strict embargo, to enable consideration of the documentation rather than media presentation?

[Mr Clarke]

I thank the hon. Gentleman, who is of course one of the most assiduous Members of this House. Clearly we all look to make sure that the Budget documentation is as full and as frank as possible—we have the work of the independent Office for Budget Responsibility as well—to make sure precisely that the Budget debate that follows can be as fully informed as possible as to the full implications of all the measures that are announced.

Deportation of Foreign National Offenders

Debate between Simon Clarke and Jim Shannon

Tuesday 2nd February 2021 Commons Chamber

[Mr Simon Clarke (Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland) (Con)]

I would like to start by briefly placing on record my deep admiration for Captain Sir Tom Moore, after the sad news of his passing today. Like so many of his generation, he was an ordinary man who had extraordinary qualities, and our whole country is the worse for his being no longer with us. He was a remarkable figure; may he rest in peace.

Tonight I had hoped to raise a particular case concerning a constituent, but following the advice I received about the sub judice rules, I will allude to the issue in question in broad terms. I want to discuss the challenges concerning the deportation of foreign national offenders. As we know, under the terms of the UK Borders Act 2007, if someone is sentenced to 12 months or more, they are liable for automatic deportation. If they are sentenced to a term of imprisonment of four years or more, there is a very strong public interest in that deportation going ahead, other than in the most extraordinary circumstances. Clearly that is not happening in a number of cases. I can think of one instance that is very close to my own heart in which this has not been the case.

This leads to wider questions that concern the provisions of the Human Rights Act, and whether it is striking the right balance between the interests of the general public and the rights of defendants. Clearly this issue is going to become increasingly topical, because Home Office statistics show that in 2018—a typical recent year—455 appeals against deportation by foreign national offenders were successful. That was 25% of all such appeals lodged by those convicted criminals. Of the successful appeals, 172 relied on human rights grounds. Each and every week in 2018, therefore, three serious foreign national offenders were sidestepping the UK Borders Act 2007 based on human rights claims. I am afraid it stretches credulity to believe that all these claims were well founded. There must be a concern that instead, immigration lawyers are advising their clients precisely what the right buzzwords are to initiate a successful appeal against being removed from the United Kingdom. There is a pervasive sense that our own high legal standards are being deployed against us to the detriment of the public.

The provisions of the European convention on human rights should be there to protect the innocent against grave and exceptional threats.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on introducing the debate, and he has raised an important issue. Does he agree that for far too long the system has been used and abused, but with the end of our membership of Europe must also come the end to the abuse of the decent people of this country? Further, will he join me in asking the Minister to make it clear that the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland is a zero-tolerance nation for foreign criminals?

[Mr Clarke]

I will indeed join the hon. Gentleman in saying just that to the Minister. I know that the hon. Gentleman cares deeply about this issue; he is an assiduous attender at these debates, indeed the most assiduous attender in the whole House. It is fantastic to have his support in making these points this evening.

As I was saying, the European convention on human rights should be a bulwark against tyranny. It was designed against the backdrop of the crimes of Nazi Germany against millions of people across our continent. Genocide, torture, rape, mass displacement and theft were their hallmark, and our continent rightly came together to create a legal framework to outlaw them for all time. However, over the decades since, and with increasing voracity, rights creep in both the Strasbourg court and our domestic courts has distorted those noble goals beyond all recognition.

To quote the former Law Lord, Lord Hoffmann:

“The devil is in the detail: in the interpretation by the courts of the high-minded generalities of the written instrument. It is these interpretations, which often appear to people to bear little relation to the values that they think really important in the way our country is governed…Since the Convention rights were incorporated into UK law by the Human Rights Act 1998, the UK courts have followed in the wake of Strasbourg, loyally giving effect to its rulings and the principles (where discernible) laid down in its jurisprudence.”

The result is that the UK courts

“have reached decisions, sometimes with regret and sometimes with enthusiasm, which would have astonished those who agreed to our accession to the Convention in 1950.”

That is very relevant to article 3, which lies at the heart of many of these cases.

Article 3 has been progressively expanded by the Strasbourg court to encompass people’s living standards should they be returned. The 2011 case of M.S.S. v. Belgium and Greece was a turning point, with an Afghan asylum seeker able successfully to overturn being returned from Belgium to Greece, through which he had transited, on the basis of the poor living conditions he would face should he be returned there. To say that Greece is an unacceptable place to which to be returned goes so far beyond what the convention authors would have imagined as inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment as to be almost unbelievable, but it has established a principle and opened the doors still wider for those seeking to overturn deportation orders across the continent, including in this country.

The upshot of such decisions is that we have a human rights settlement that often seems to protect perpetrators far more effectively than victims and that repeatedly allows serious offenders to cite their rights to escape the consequences of their actions. I do not blame my hon. Friend the Minister for the impasse in a number of such cases, as he is exceptionally helpful and courteous and I know he and his colleagues always operate within the law as it stands. However, this whole issue leaves a bitter taste.

We know in many ways that it is only the tip of the iceberg. Last December, the Henry Jackson Society published an excellent report by Dr Rakib Ehsan looking at the issue from the perspective of foreign national terrorist offenders. It identified 45 convicted Islamist terrorists whom we have been unable to deport on human rights grounds since 1998, largely driven by article 3 and article 8, the latter being the right to a family life. Our inability to deport in the way we would like leaves us unable to rid ourselves of people who are a genuine threat to our society, and I have a number of questions for my hon. Friend the Minister that I hope he can address in his reply.

The first question is whether the Minister has considered extending the principle of deportation with assurances to all cases involving foreign national offenders, as opposed to simply those concerning individuals suspected of terrorism. It seems to me that this is a concept well worth exploring. If we can secure appropriate guarantees from other Governments that they will not mistreat criminals we deport back to them, that ought to suffice.

Secondly, as part of the fair borders legislation being delivered by my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, which I warmly welcome, will the Government act to tighten relevant legal definitions, such as “inhuman” and “degrading”, to strengthen the Home Office’s defence against judicial activism? As I have set out, the steady extension through case law of what those definitions can encompass is clearly interfering with the deportation of foreign national offenders, particularly on the grounds of article 3 of the ECHR, which is of great relevance to a number of cases.

Thirdly, what wider work is ongoing within Government to assess how we can reform our human rights settlement, so as to ensure that we have effective deportation options at our disposal, and that our citizens are protected properly from those who ought to be removed under the provisions of the UK Borders Act? I believe we need a root-and-branch reconsideration of those issues. The case for a dedicated British Bill of Rights feels ever stronger, as it would allow us to incorporate core convention rights into our domestic law, define them sensibly in a way that mitigates the accumulated legacy of Strasbourg’s judicial activism, and make the whole settlement accountable to our Parliament and our courts.

As things stand, I do not believe that justice is served in a large number of cases. None of us can be confident that some of the perpetrators will not go on to cause further havoc and harm, and this issue requires our prompt attention. We may have settled a number of issues concerning our relationship with Europe through our recent decision to exit the European Union, but none of that bears on our ongoing challenges regarding our interaction with the European Court of Human Rights and the European convention on human rights. Its goals are noble, but its interpretation in a number of cases is flawed. It is time for action in the course of this Parliament.

Private Car Parks

Debate between Simon Clarke and Jim Shannon

Tuesday 2nd June 2020 Commons Chamber

[The Minister of State, Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (Mr Simon Clarke)]

I thank my right hon. Friend the Member for Romsey and Southampton North (Caroline Nokes) for raising this issue and I congratulate her on securing this much-delayed debate. I also want to thank her and indeed, hon. Members across the House because this is an issue that I receive a lot of representations about on a daily basis. It is something that I am keenly aware needs resolving, and Members across the House are firm in their view that action is necessary on the regulation of the private parking industry.

Too often, our constituents are treated poorly at the hands of parking firms, and I know that many of my constituents in Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland feel the same. The clear cross-party support for the Parking (Code Of Practice) Act 2019 was therefore hugely encouraging, and I am pleased that, through the Act the Government are giving motorists greater protection against bogus parking fines and clamping down on rogue operators.

Self-regulation in the private parking sector has led to some undesirable practices, including misleading or confusing signage, aggressive debt collection, spiralling fees and opaque appeals services, and we heard some of that in the case of my right hon. Friend’s constituent, Mr Hindle. Members see in our postbags the effect that these poor practices have on people in our communities. They include the motorist who made a genuine and minor error entering their vehicle registration number into a machine and received £100 fine in the post; the driver who entered a car park on a busy day and could not park due to lack of spaces but got a ticket regardless because the camera assumed they had parked; the car park with signs that are impossible to read, subject to terms and conditions which are difficult to understand or which change without proper notice. Letters from motorists and even from MPs have gone unanswered by parking companies, although it does sound as though the hon. Lady has a staffer who will not be defeated by such tactics.

These practices are unfair and not good enough. The private parking industry plays a crucial role in our transport infrastructure, from facilitating commutes every morning to making our high streets accessible for shoppers and those accessing vital services. It employs thousands of people and serves millions of customers every day in normal times. We understand its importance, and that is why this Government are taking action to crack down on rogue firms, protect motorists and raise standards across the sector. With that in mind, I am pleased to update Members on the progress of our action after the passing of the Parking (Code Of Practice) Act, which was introduced thanks to the hard work of my right hon. Friend the Member for East Yorkshire (Sir Greg Knight), and we are actively delivering on our 2017 manifesto commitment to tackle rogue parking operators.

The Act provided for the creation of an independent code of practice for private parking companies and a one-stop shop for parking appeals, and our new code will ensure that enforcement and appeal processes are fair and proportionate. It will bring consistency, creating a level playing field across the industry, and it will benefit motorists, operators and landowners alike. If a parking company were to repeatedly break the code, its access to DVLA data could be blocked, and this data includes information on the vehicle keeper, so a company blocked from accessing it would be effectively unable to pursue parking charges. Blocking rogue operators in this manner will grant motorists greater protection against companies not delivering the standards that the Government and the public would expect.

We have taken steps to ensure that the code is not only reflective of the issues that we want to address but is informed by outside experts. On 3 November last year, the Government announced that the British Standards Institution would write the code in consultation with consumer and industry groups and carry out a full consultation once the draft was ready. The BSI is widely regarded as expert in regulatory delivery and has a proven track record of working with Government. Developing the code of practice as a British standard is thus a guarantee that the new regulation will be robust and of the highest quality, and the Government’s choice of BSI also delivers on our promise to listen to industry and consumers and involve them in the design of the new regulation. BSI’s process for developing new British standards involves reaching a consensus for a range of key stakeholders and seeking a wide array of views through a full public consultation. That will help to ensure that the code is entirely comprehensive.

I assure my right hon. Friend that, working in conjunction with the BSI, it is a priority to ensure that this code addresses the most significant and recurring issues that consumers deal with.

[Jim Shannon]

I welcome what the Minister has outlined for the right hon. Lady. I think it is exactly what we want to hear in this House, but when it comes to monitoring and checking, will the changes in the pipeline be enforced by locals councils, the police or another independent body?

[Mr Clarke]

It would not be an Adjournment debate without an intervention from the hon. Gentleman. In this case, he raises a really significant point. We need to make sure that these regulations have teeth. The deterrent lies in the fact that repeat offenders will find themselves unable to access the DVLA database and so it will in effect be self-policing.

In November, we announced that the Government would propose that the code considers a mandatory requirement to give all drivers the 10 minute grace period, which my right hon. Friend referred to, after their tickets expire. This will be a common-sense measure to ensure that drivers are not unfairly penalised for trying to do the right thing.

Beer and Pub Taxation

Debate between Simon Clarke and Jim Shannon

Wednesday 5th February 2020 Westminster Hall

[Mr Clarke]

I could not agree more, and that is the spirit of Brexit. We need to take advantage of opportunities to drive exports. It is something that we want to do across the piece to ensure that we deliver a successful economy, have a competitive business tax regime and support businesses large and small. That is what the Government have been intent on doing. Our employment allowance changes reduced national insurance contributions by up to £3,000 for over 1 million employers. We have cut corporation tax and frozen or cut beer duty in six of the last seven Budgets, which means that beer duty is now at its lowest level in real terms for over 30 years, and we have repeatedly given support to pubs through the business rates system.

[Jim Shannon]

UKHospitality has said that these businesses represent 10% of UK employment and generate £39 billion of tax for the Exchequer. Does the Minister agree that engaging with the sector would help businesses to survive and to grow?

[Mr Clarke]

The hon. Member is an assiduous attender of Westminster Hall debates, and I am absolutely delighted to say that his persistence will be rewarded. My officials and I will always be glad to engage with the sector.

One of the most important issues that came up in the debate was raised by the hon. Member for St Albans (Daisy Cooper) and my hon. Friends the Members for Devizes (Danny Kruger) and for North West Durham (Mr Holden): the impact of business rates and the associated challenges. Since 1 April 2019, eligible pubs with a rateable value below £51,000 have received a one-third discount on their business rates bills. As my hon. Friend the Member for Totnes (Anthony Mangnall) rightly pointed out in his excellent speech, they will receive even greater support from 1 April as we increase the discount from one third to 50% and introduce a new £1,000-worth of relief for pubs with a rateable value below £100,000. Eligible pubs will be able to claim both reliefs.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Simon Clarke and Jim Shannon

Tuesday 1st October 2019 Commons Chamber

[Mr Clarke]

My right hon. Friend is of course absolutely right that broadband connectivity lies at the heart of a modern economy. It was so welcome to hear my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer yesterday set out how £5 billion of investment is going to be devoted to making sure that we can deliver on the Prime Minister’s pledge to ensure full fibre broadband access by 2025.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

Will the Minister outline whether he has considered tax incentives for businesses to take on apprentice staff in administrative roles, with special reference to young people from learning-difficulty backgrounds, who take more time and patience to train? There are simply not enough places available; will the Minister undertake to make places available?

[Mr Clarke]

Again, that is a unifying principle to bring to the House. The Government have done an awful lot to try to promote the uptake of apprentices—we have seen action on things such as national insurance to try to make it more affordable for businesses to employ young people. The Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy is very interested in all the work that goes on around supporting access into work for disabled people and people with learning disabilities, and would be interested to hear more from the hon. Gentleman about those ideas.

European Union (Withdrawal) Act

Debate between Simon Clarke and Jim Shannon

Thursday 6th December 2018 Commons Chamber

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

It is always a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for York Central (Rachael Maskell).

Members will have noted during this week’s business a most sincere and clear lack of pleasure from the Democratic Unionist party in what is happening. I was not pleased to learn that the legal opinion of the Attorney General was not to be made public; I was not pleased to learn that the Attorney General shares my concerns about the undesirable features of the backstop; and I had no pleasure in the vindication of our demand for the legal opinion, as it backed up my biggest fears.

The legal opinion is clear that the protocol is

“binding on the United Kingdom and the European Union in international law… NI remains in the EU’s Customs Union, and will apply the whole of the EU’s customs acquis… Northern Ireland will remain in the EU’s Single Market for Goods and the EU’s customs regime, and will be required to apply and to comply with the relevant rules and standards.”

It is little wonder that constituents in my fishing village of Portavogie have always been clear that they want fewer restrictions and they want to be less encumbered and less prevented from fishing in their own waters. In Portavogie, Ardglass and Kilkeel we have been on the frontline of EU aggression and bureaucracy.

About the insurance policy, Ministers have told us, “We don’t want it and they don’t want it.” Well, if none of us really wants it, why is it there? That is the question I ask myself.

[Mr Simon Clarke]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Jim Shannon]

No, I will not give way.

Why is the insurance policy almost the only thing that has been agreed? If it will not be necessary, why have we spent 18 months discussing this and little else? I am not a fisherman by nature, but I know codswallop when I see it, and that is what this is. And for good measure there is the £40 billion. My goodness, who in their right mind would do that? It is unbelievable.

What rational person would think that Europe, which has fought so hard for this and which has pinned all its bargaining and all its red lines on this one insurance policy to ensure there is no legal form of leaving this international treaty unilaterally without consent, will ever decide to allow us to walk away when there is no mechanism legally to compel it to come to an agreement? Not me and, let us be honest, not anyone in this House. Please forgive me for expressing some disgust in a promise made by some in this House that has then been denied us—those Members, and the Government, know exactly who I am referring to.

We are small but we are part of this wonderful United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. I sincerely believe that we can and will survive the Brexit process, but only if we stand together. The Belfast agreement clearly says that Northern Ireland remains in the UK until a majority vote to leave is plain. It states:

“Northern Ireland in its entirety remains part of the United Kingdom and shall not cease to be so without the consent of a majority”.

Yet the Attorney General clearly states that we are now a third country. So can that be legally acceptable? I say no.

The red line that my party has—I have heard Members referring to this—is not in red pen; it is in the blood of family members, people such as my cousin Kenneth Smith, of neighbours, of colleagues and of constituents—of your constituents and mine. They have shed blood to defend the right to democracy and to determine that nothing can enforce a united Ireland other than the will of the people. The Government have created the potential for an all-Ireland. Members must be very clear about what I am saying here, as I mean this. They must see the mistrust I have for the Government at this moment in time. They have drawn a dust sheet over the lines drawn in the precious blood of so many I loved. This Government are proposing to allow my beloved Northern Ireland to become a violated, voiceless, vetoless victim of Europe’s desperate grasp for control over our UK.

So next Tuesday, I am going to stand up for my people, and I urge others to do the same. I will stand up for our own nation and for our own good. I urge the Government to go back to Europe with the courage of their conviction that this UK will be no one’s vassal state and that Northern Ireland’s blood-bought birthright is not for sale.