Campaign reply - “ Please, don't vote for the deal in my name.”

A number of constituents have sent me a campaign email entitled “ Please, don't vote for the deal in my name.”

It goes on to ask for a second referendum and to take no deal off the table adding “…As your constituent, I would like you to support any such proposal which seems like a fair and reasonable way to break the deadlock…”

What is fair and reasonable to all my constituents is that I honour what I said I would do at the referendum and at the last election. Thus I will do all I can to ensure brexit happens and that we leave the EU forthwith. I will not support anything that hinders Brexit, so undue delay, taking no deal off the table and a second referendum is out of the question.

Campaign response – Compulsory Relationships Education

The approval of the Statutory Instrument to bring in the Government’s proposals for a new Relationships and Sex Education curriculum in schools is a topic that has captured the attention of many parents in St Austell and Newquay, some of whom have written to me to express their concerns.

Parents are better placed than the State to educate their children on matters of sex, relationships and gender orientation in a wholesome and appropriate manner. Giving them the ability to request to opt out, as outlined in current proposals, is not the same as granting them the full right to opt out.

Furthermore, pupils in the last year of secondary education will be compelled to take part in the relationships and sex education, effectively limiting their parent’s rights to opt out.

This is an issue that I have pressed ministers on at a recent parliamentary debate by asking the Secretary of State for Education for an assurance that there is no intention in the new guidelines to usurp or undermine the rights and responsibilities of parents to educate their children in these matters, if that is what they choose to do.

I was glad to learn from the Minister that he recognises what schools do ought to complement what parents and that parents are in many ways the primary educators in do when it comes to teaching our children about matters to do with relationships.

While I fully appreciate good intentions of the government in introducing these new guidelines, because of my concerns about the potential erosion of the parent’s rights to decide what is best for their children I did not support the government’s proposals on Wednesday.

Though the proposals are now going to be implemented in schools, I will continue to press the Government on ensuring that the right of parents to decide what is best for their children is appropriately safeguarded, especially in matters of sex and relationships education.

Campaign reply - 'Message from Constituent xxxxxxx and then argues for a second referendum.'

A number of constituents have emailed with a campaign email entitled " Message from Constituent xxxxxxx and then argues for a second referendum.

What is most intriguing is the novel way found of asking the same question in a different way.

So to the latest email asking for a second referendum: The remix of the same old arguments on matters I have already covered is not going to invoke a different reply than those already given.

Further it should bring reassurance that the house has looked at a second referendum twice and both times it has been voted down. The idea has been examined and rejected twice over. There is no prospect as far as I can see that it will be looked at again - nor should it.

A search of my earlier blog posts will cover the matter and for the avoidance of doubt I will never support a second referendum.

Campaign response – Remove 'advancement of religion' as a charitable purpose

Recently some constituents have written to me to ask me to support the National Secular Society’s campaign to remove ‘the advancement of religion’ as a charitable purpose.

They say that the society finds that too many religious charities are receiving public funds without delivering wider public benefits and, in some instances, using public money to promote extremism and harmful practices.

I am aware of the strength of feeling that many have expressed when it comes to the issue of what role religious groups including charities should play in our society.

Like all charities, a small proportion of religious charities are misused by others and used in ways the public would not expect.

The Charity Commission has that said they have been made aware of the report and will review it carefully. They also gave this assurance: “The Commission deals with these issues robustly where they arise.”

Historically, in our country the concept of charity has often been closely linked with a religious sense of duty about helping others.

One of the reasons why the advancement of religion has been recognised as something that is for the public benefit is because of this connection between religion and charitable endeavour.

Religious belief and faith has, by its nature, both personal and public dimensions. In relation to public benefit, it is the public dimension that is of primary importance. Where religion helps to provide a moral and ethical framework for people to live by it can play an important part in building a better society.

Under the Charities Act of 2006, charities on the Charity Commission’s Register with aims that include advancing religion have to demonstrate the way in which they carry out their aims is for the public benefit, as per all other charities.

As a firm believer of the fundamental freedoms of practicing and expressing one’s religious beliefs, I support the right of religious charities to carry out their charitable work, insofar as they are deemed beneficial to the wider public good and abide by the rules that all charities including secular ones have to follow.

Newspaper column 27 March 2019 - Keeping Britain Tidy

As I write this the Brexit situation is still very fluid so rather than write a whole column about the latest series of developments, which I am sure I will cover in future articles, I thought I would step away from it for this week and look at some highlights from my work for you all last week.

Last week in Parliament I questioned the Space Minister in Parliament, secured his ongoing support for Cornwall Airport Newquay to become the UK’s first horizontal launch spaceport, as well as a visit from him in April.

I also chaired a round table conference with the tourist industry and local government in Parliament, was a keynote speaker at a conference on the future of our vital community pharmacies, as well as welcoming students from St Columb Major (ACE) Academy to Parliament.

In Mid-Cornwall on Friday I attended a St Austell Bay Chamber of Commerce event to discuss future plans for the area. On Saturday I was delighted to take part in a litter pick with local Councillors and residents around Bishop Bronescombe School as part of Keep Britain Tidy’s Great British Spring Clean.

Keep Britain Tidy’s Great British Spring Clean  aims to inspire around half a million people to join forces - in partnership with community organisations, businesses and councils - to collect and safely dispose of litter from our streets, parks and beaches, recycling as much as possible.

I regularly take part in litter picks and beach cleans across our beautiful constituency and it’s great to see this movement to love where we live picking up pace both in Cornwall and across the whole country.

In my capacity as Chair of the Ocean Conservation All Party Parliamentary Group I have also worked for years with a number of organisations to lobby the government to introduce a range of measures to cut down on single use plastics, and am pleased to see these also being acted on.

Saturday’s litter pick saw volunteers joined by helpful staff from Biffa to pick up a whole range of litter, including several traffic cones, road signs and even a whole toilet. This came at the same time as I welcomed confirmation by Cornwall Council that they will be allocating nearly £100,000 of government funding to enable community groups in Cornwall to have access to more equipment for litter picks and beach cleans.

Of course as well as providing funding to tackle the littering we already experience, it is also important to tackle the long term causes of these issues, which I remain committed to doing so with the Government’s long term environmental plan, which contains a whole raft of measures to cut down on single use plastic and live more sustainably.

My team and I are here to serve the whole constituency and work hard to make a real difference to the lives of everyone needing support. The office is open to the public Monday – Friday 10.00am – 4.00pm (no appointment necessary). If there is an issue you would like my assistance on then please, either visit the office or contact me on either 01726 829379 or office@stevedouble.org.uk. Additionally, I hold regular, appointment only, advice surgeries across the constituency. Dates of these can be found at: www.stevedouble.org.uk/events

Campaign reply - " Please vote against May’s Brexit Deal"

A number of you - not many - have written to me with a campaign email entitled " Please vote against May’s Brexit Deal"

I have made a statement on this and copy it below:

“My decision on last night’s vote was one I arrived at following much agonising and consideration. It was one of the hardest choices I have had to make as an MP.”

“As I said in my speech in the debate - we should not be in this position just 17 days before we are due to leave the EU when our exit is still not settled.”

“Last night's choice put before MPs was an unacceptable choice.”

“We were in a situation where it was a case of choosing essentially what is the least worst option.”

“To vote for the terrible deal on offer from the government or to vote against it and in my mind risk an extension beyond 29 March or even seeing further dilution or the loss of Brexit altogether.”

“Thus my reference in Parliament yesterday to this being ‘a turd of a deal’.”

“Last night’s vote was about the balance of risks. The least worst option.”

“I voted for the Withdrawal Agreement yesterday to try and save Brexit from possible oblivion or being kicked into the long grass.”

“With the Withdrawal Agreement voted down last night, we move onto further Brexit votes today and tomorrow.”

“Today I will be voting for us to leave as scheduled on 29th March, if necessary with no deal.”

“Tomorrow I will also be voting against any extension which would simply extend the uncertainty and prolong the debate without providing any answers to the deadlock we are in. I believe any extension would also provide the opportunity for those who wish to overturn Brexit altogether.”

“Another danger in the offing is that if Parliament votes to ask the EU for an extension, which I will vote against, it is most likely that as the price for an extension the EU will insist we enter into a permanent Customs union which is an even worse scenario than the deal I reluctantly supported last night.”

To see my speech on this from last night, follow the link here:

https://parliamentlive.tv/event/index/b6cf0fc5-ae6f-4672-b8e7-d89603fdf018?in=18:32:56

Campaign reply - “Brexit Votes this week.” - "Next steps on Brexit"

A number of constituents have written to me with a campaign email entitled “Brexit Votes this week.”

Happily I can agree with most of the sentiment set out.

I have issued a statement on 13 March covering the points raised and copy it here:

Wednesday, 13 March, 2019

“My decision on last night’s vote was one I arrived at following much agonising and consideration. It was one of the hardest choices I have had to make as an MP.”

“As I said in my speech in the debate - we should not be in this position just 17 days before we are due to leave the EU when our exit is still not settled.”

“Last night's choice put before MPs was an unacceptable choice.”

“We were in a situation where it was a case of choosing essentially what is the least worst option.”

“To vote for the terrible deal on offer from the government or to vote against it and in my mind risk an extension beyond 29 March or even seeing further dilution or the loss of Brexit altogether.”

“Thus my reference in Parliament yesterday to this being ‘a turd of a deal’.”

“Last night’s vote was about the balance of risks. The least worst option.”

“I voted for the Withdrawal Agreement yesterday to try and save Brexit from possible oblivion or being kicked into the long grass.”

“With the Withdrawal Agreement voted down last night, we move onto further Brexit votes today and tomorrow.”

“Today I will be voting for us to leave as scheduled on 29th March, if necessary with no deal.”

“Tomorrow I will also be voting against any extension which would simply extend the uncertainty and prolong the debate without providing any answers to the deadlock we are in. I believe any extension would also provide the opportunity for those who wish to overturn Brexit altogether.”

“Another danger in the offing is that if Parliament votes to ask the EU for an extension, which I will vote against, it is most likely that as the price for an extension the EU will insist we enter into a permanent Customs union which is an even worse scenario than the deal I reluctantly supported last night.”

To see my speech on 12 march , follow the link here

Campaign response – Will you protect UK aid?

Recently some constituents have contacted me to say that they are “worried that some media outlets and politicians continue to call for this budget to be slashed” and would like to seek my support on maintaining our international aid budget and commitment to the supporting the poorest and  the most vulnerable in the international community.

I am proud of the UK’s commitment to spend 0.7% of our budget in international aid, which is helping to build a safer, healthier, more prosperous world for people in developing countries and in the UK.

British aid goes towards vaccinating children from preventable diseases, enabling them to go to school and helping people work their way out of poverty, as well as providing food, nutrition and medical care.

Foreign aid also provides added value to our security and trade policies. Foreign development assistance can often make an important contribution towards in supporting stability and sustainable development for the recipient country, leading to better foreign relations and prospect for a more preferential trade deal with them.

It is in our interest to maintain our foreign aid policy because it also helps to promote UK interests abroad and ensure our position as the world’s leading soft power nation is secure.

While it is important that we deliver value for money to taxpayers and I will continue to press ministers to make the necessary changes to ensure this happens, I would like to see the Government continue its commitment to international aid and will be speaking up for its ability to transform lives and tackle the root causes of global issues.

Campaign response – Home Office Questions

Brexit cannot be an excuse for MPs to ignore other pressing domestic and international matters. One of these issues that I have been keeping a close eye on is our future immigration system – what arrangements we ought to put in place in order that immigration would work better for businesses and communities than it current does.

I am glad that a number of concerned constituents have contacted me through 38 Degrees asking me to press ministers on the staffing needs of the NHS and Social Care at the upcoming Home Office Questions on 1 April. This is an issue I have repeatedly raised with ministers before. I hope constituents will be pleased to know that I will be attending Home Office Questions on 1 April to try to raise a question about this subject. I am also working closely with the parliamentary affairs team at 38 Degrees to look at how we can best shape the Immigration and Social Security Bill currently going through the Commons and the Home Office’s consultation on the Immigration White Paper in order that our future system can continue to meet the growing demand on our NHS and care services.

Campaign response - “Rescind article 50.”

A few constituents have contacted me with a campaign email entitled “Rescind article 50.”

It also suggests voting against the deal and against no deal.

In other words vote to remain in the EU.

As someone who not only represents a constituency which voted almost 2-1 to leave, but was also re-elected in 2017 on a very strong commitment to deliver Brexit. This is not something I would ever contemplate.

I respect that there are some who do not wish us to leave the EU but I believe that it is essential that we respect the view of the majority, both locally and nationally, and leave the EU

Campaign response – End Visa Fees for Commonwealth Armed Forces Personnel

Constituents concerned about the welfare and ability of Commonwealth UK Armed Forces personnel to settle into this country has written to me asking for me to support “Stop the Service Charge” campaign, which calls on the Government to remove visa charges for these military personnel and their family members when applying for Indefinite Leave to Remain.

This is clearly an issue that constituents feel very strongly about. I agree with them that we ought to do more to support our Commonwealth soldiers, who have served Queen and Country valiantly, to settle into this country smoothly as we owe them a great debt for strengthening the defence of our great nation.

As such I will be writing to Government ministers to address this issue directly and seek a response.

I will be in touch with constituents with information from the minister when I receive a reply.

Campaign reply - “Regarding the next vote on Brexit”.

A number of constituents have written to me with an email entitled “Regarding the next vote on Brexit”.

It opens by stating “Please do not extend article 50.  It will serve little purpose and would be a complete betrayal. Even the Dutch Prime Minister said that there would be little point”.

I agree and would only countenance any extension if it were to accommodate an acceptable  and already agreed deal. Nothing else.

My view on the current deal is well known and my colloquial referencing to it caught the imagine of media across Europe and beyond.

My abiding focus and sole intention is to do all I can to see that we leave, on time, deal or no deal and that the result of the referendum is honoured. It includes the prospect of voting for the least worst option to ensure Brexit does not slip through our hands because of the way too many MPs and the Speaker seek to deny us the Brexit the majority voted for.

Campaign reply - 'Hey Steve...'

I have received a few campaign emails entitled "Hey Steve" with a rather pleasing emoji in the subject line.

I say "a few emails" because  they are nothing as compared with the thousands of emails I have received urging me to ensure we leave the EU. I intend to do all that I can to do just that and in line with the overwhelming wishes of constituents and my own view and promises made.

The notion of a second referendum is disingenuous and undermines the reasoning of being democratic it seeks to claim.

MPs have now voted on the prospect of a second referendum and it was heavily defeated.

Wild forecasts of the consequences of leaving the EU have an alarming similarity: they turn out to be wrong. Or wildly wrong.

Doing what is right for the UK is to honour Brexit and make sure we leave - I will not waver from the task.

Campaign reply - Asbestos in schools

I have recently been contacted by a number of constituents asking me to attend a debate in Parliament about asbestos in schools.

I regret I was unable to attend this debate due to prior Parliamentary commitments.

However I do meet regularly with local teachers and have long campaigned for parity in school funding in Cornwall, both in terms of funding received and the actual funding formula used itself, which we have seen some improvement on in recent years.

In the Spring Statement last week I did welcome the Chancellor saying that in the comprehensive spending review, which will set spending priorities for the coming years, education will be featured. Obviously I welcome this and along with my Cornish MP colleagues will certainly be lobbying for more funding for schools in our county.

Newspaper column 20 March 2019 - Brexit update

There are times in politics when you are faced with what seem impossible choices. When all the options available seem wrong but nevertheless you have to make a decision.

This was the situation those of us committed to respecting the EU referendum and ensuring we leave the EU as planned faced in Parliament last week.

The Prime Minister brought the EU Withdrawal Agreement back to Parliament last Tuesday. This was the first of what was likely to be three days of votes when if the ‘deal’ was voted down again Parliament would be given the option to refuse to leave without a deal and then to ask the EU for an extension to the Article 50 process and delay the date when we will leave.

It was clear to me that given the opportunity, a majority of MPs would vote to refuse leaving without a deal and would support delaying our date of departure.

For me neither of these are acceptable and would both undermine our ability to obtain further concessions from the EU to the Withdrawal Agreement and play into the hands of those who are looking for an opportunity to overturn the referendum result completely.

So, the choice before us was a flawed deal that risks us being stuck in a backstop or the risk of Parliament taking steps towards preventing Brexit completely by taking no deal off the table and delaying the leave date.

This was without doubt the hardest decision I have had to make in the fours years of being an MP.

I want us to leave the EU.

Not just because it is my personal view that it is the right way forward for our country but more importantly because it was the decision our country made in a democratic vote – our constituency voting by almost 2-1 in favour of leaving.

Last week’s decision was one we should never have been having to make – particularly so close to the date we are scheduled to be leaving. It is a failure of our politics that we are in this position and a direct result of those in Parliament who have consistently worked to undermine the process in the hope of preventing Brexit from ever happening.

I have been astounded by the way many MPs from all political parties have stated publicly that they ‘respect the result of the referendum’ and then done everything they can to delay, dilute or prevent it from happening.

In the end, with a very heavy heart, I voted for the Withdrawal Agreement. However, for me it was not an endorsement of the deal but a vote against the likely alternatives. As is now well known the vote was lost once again this time by 149 votes.

As the rest of the week unfolded my worst fears were confirmed. Parliament then voted to reject ever leaving without a deal and to extend Article 50 – possibly by a few months if a deal is agreed or for a longer period (possibly for up to 2 years) if we cannot agree a deal. I voted to keep ‘no deal’ on the table and against any delay to our leave date – alas I was in a minority.

One bright point was that when Parliament was asked to support a 2^nd Referendum it rejected this by 334 votes to 85. The Labour Party abstained on this vote which again shows their confused position on Brexit. It is worth noting that the 334 MPs who voted against a 2^nd Referendum represents a clear majority of the whole house, so even if Labour had voted against the vote would still have been lost.

And then on Monday we saw the Speaker intervening to prevent the government from bringing back the vote on the Withdrawal Agreement unless it is materially different. Whilst the full implication of this is not clear at this stage I think we can take it that he was not seeking to be helpful to those of us committed to Brexit.

We now wait to see what the Prime Minister will do now but I suspect she will go to the EU Council later this week and seek both changes to the agreement to enable another vote in Parliament and also seek terms for both a short and extended delay to our leaving.

There are those who want to hold out in the hope we will leave without a deal by default. However, this would be a high stakes poker game. If I thought, there was a genuine chance that this could happen I would support that. But having now voted twice against a no deal Brexit it seems clear to me that there are more than enough MPs who will prevent this for happening and the Speaker will find a way to enable them to do so.

The only outcomes now open to us appear to be the Withdrawal Agreement or a long delay and the likelihood of giving those who want to stop Brexit the opportunity to prevent it or dilute the way we leave even further.

Ironically one hope we have is that the EU reject our request for an extension. I will wait and see what happens this week before deciding how I will vote and what the choices are – but as things stand it seems that the least worse option before us would be to support the deal. Regrettably it seems the choice is either vote for the deal or risk not having Brexit at all.

I fully appreciate that many will be disappointed with this – as am I. We should not be in this position.

The events of the last few weeks, including the Speaker’s actions this week, will confirm what many have feared – that we are in the midst of an establishment stitch up to prevent us from ever leaving the EU. The more time goes by the more this appears to be true. However, my commitment remains the same – I will work to deliver on the referendum result and do all I can to ensure that one way or another we leave the EU as the country voted.

Campaign reply - 'attend the debate in parliament during the morning of Thursday 21 March to mark World Autism Awareness Week.'

I have recently been contacted by a number of constituents asking me to attend the debate in parliament during the morning of Thursday 21 March to mark World Autism Awareness Week.

I am afraid I am unable to attend on this occasion due to previous commitments in Mid-Cornwall.

However I remain open to meeting with local people to find out more about autism and attending future events in Parliament in the future so please do let me know if any more occur.

Campaign reply - “Do you like chocolate Mr Double?”

A few constituents have written to me with a campaign email “Do you like chocolate Mr Double?”

Yes I do! Besides that and more importantly, this issue has immediately caught my attention as I have a long term interest in developing and third world countries.  Before becoming an MP I  travelled abroad many times in my pursuit of help and support for such nations.

I am also on the Petitions Committee and note the progress made thus far of those signing the petition. Should the matter come before the committee for consideration for debate I will be sure to support any such proposal. Westminster hall debates where selected petitions are held is an excellent way to raise the profile of causes and also obliges government ministers to take note and respond.

It seems entirely reasonable to me that a relatively wealthy nation like the UK should lead the way in ensuring that it pays a fair price for raw materials such as cocoa.

Campaign reply - “Mandatory Gambling Levy.”

I have received a few emails entitled “Mandatory Gambling Levy.”

Gambling addiction is a serious problem that has regrettably ruined far too many lives.

It is in everyone’s interest to have a healthy gambling industry that contributes to the economy, but also one that does all it can to protect players and their families, as well as the wider communities, from harm.

Whilst a levy might appear to be a golden bullet solution, before any legislation is introduced it would be appropriate to hear the views of all interested parties. It is also important to recognise that as with any addiction, no levy or law can resolve matters and I am concerned that banning or taxing or seeking undue control can be counterproductive.

It is worth noting the government’s action with the new £2 maximum stake on highly addictive betting machines – fixed odd betting terminals (FOBTs) will be implemented in April 2020. FOBTs are a type of electronic slot machine normally found in betting shops. 

Each machine accepts bets for amounts up to a pre-set maximum and pays out according to fixed odds on the simulated outcomes of games. It is possible to lose large amounts of money in a very short period of time while using FOBTs, and research have shown that the machines have a causal role in problem gambling. I welcome this move.

However I also recognise that any new industry regulation requires meaningful engagement between government officials and stakeholders. Betting shops need to be fully prepared and be given sufficient time to implement and complete the technological changes brought about by the change.

The betting industry has acted already and  expressed concern on problem gambling with one prominent company showing some support for legislation. I will raise these issues with ministers when I see them.

Campaign reply - "TV licence concession for over 75's"

A few constituents have written to me with a campaign email entitled "TV licence concession for over 75's".

As a principle I never sign early day motions as they very rarely achieve anything whilst at the same time running up costs to the tax payer.

The BBC agreed a funding settlement with the then Chancellor, George Osborne. The BBC expressed their satisfaction and agreement and it was considered by many including me as very generous.

Part of that agreement was that it would take on in due course the funding of TV licences for the elderly. They readily agreed.

It is not acceptable for the BBC to reap the benefits of a generous settlement and then go back on a key part of it, particularly as it impacts those in later years.

I am very concerned that the BBC might seek to renege on that agreement and as such I will be raising the matter with ministers.

Campaign reply - asthma medication

I have recently been contacted by constituents regarding prescription charges for asthma medication.

I do understand your concerns but agree with the current policy of the Government on this.

People on working age and with low income in receipt of income-related benefits already get free prescriptions.

These benefits include:

the Guarantee Credit part of Pension Credit

Income Support

income-based Jobseeker’s Allowance

income-related Employment and Support Allowance

Working Tax Credit or Child Tax Credit (in some circumstances)

Universal Credit.

If you don’t receive any of these benefits, but have a low income, you may still get some help with health costs through the NHS Low Income Scheme.

Everyone aged over 60 gets free prescriptions and eye tests, but you may be entitled to help with other NHS health costs too, depending on your circumstances.

So if you’re aged over 60, you should always ask your dentist, optician or hospital staff for advice on whether you’re eligible for help with costs before paying for any medical treatment.

If you're under 60 and not on a low income, you can save money on prescriptions by buying prescription prepayment certificates from the NHS for 3 months or 12 months. This covers all your prescriptions for that period, regardless of how many you need.

You can also get a Prescription Prepayment Certificate (PPC), which would save you a lot of money if you are getting two or more prescriptions every month. For more information see the link below:

https://www.nhs.uk/using-the-nhs/help-with-health-costs/save-money-with-a-prescription-prepayment-certificate-ppc/

The devolved Governments for Wales and Scotland have made the decision to make all of the prescriptions free, but I believe if we made prescriptions free we would have to take the money away from other important areas of the NHS.

I hope this outlines my position on this matter and the information I have provided is helpful.

Campaign response - Act now to stop the probate stealth tax

Some constituents have written to me expressing their concerns on the Non-Contentious Probate (Fees) Order 2018 and to asking me to vote against this measure when it is brought to a vote in the House of Commons.

This is an issue that has previously been brought to my attention and because I agree with constituents that it is indeed concerning, I have decided to write directly to the Justice Secretary David Gauke, drawing his attention to what constituents have said and for him to set forward the position of the Government on the matter and the reasoning behind this proposal.

I will be in touch with constituents with information from the minister when I receive a reply.

Campaign response – Please respect devolution

Following the women’s march in London to demand changes to abortion laws in Northern Ireland, a number of concerned constituents have written to me to ask if I would make representations to The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, Karen Bradley MP, calling on the Government to oppose any moves to override the devolution settlement and focus their efforts on the re-establishment of the Northern Ireland Assembly.

These constituents will be glad to learn that with regards to abortion, I am on their side of the argument.

My views on abortion are well known: I am a pro-life MP and I stand firmly against any measures to impose the liberalisation of the abortion laws on Northern Ireland.

When a number of measures were proposed to liberalise abortion and impose abortion on Northern Ireland, I am encouraged to learn of my constituents’ support for my vote against Diana Johnson’s Ten Minute Rule Motion on Abortion and Stella Creasy’s amendment to the Northern Ireland Bill.

I will continue to oppose any proposals that seek to undermine the ability of the people of Northern Ireland to determine their own affairs under the devolution settment, and as a pro-life MP I will continue to speak up for the sanctity of life and support legislations that will protect women and their unborn babies.

I do not often see the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland but I will be sure to make the strength of feeling expressed by constituents on this issue clear to her when I next see her.

Campaign response – Departmental questions

With the Department for International Trade due to answer parliamentary questions before the House on Thursday 14 March, some constituents have got in touch with me to ask me to raise a question about making sure our NHS is not included in future trade deals after Brexit.

I regret to inform them that as I will be away on official parliamentary business that day, I will not be in the House to raise a question.  

However, as a vocal supporter of our NHS, I will continue to speak up for our nurses and doctors and ensure that our excellent public servants do not become bargaining chips on the table as we negotiate our leaving of the EU.

Campaign response - APPG for Ancient Woodland and Veteran Trees.

A few have written to me with a campaign email  about the APPG for Ancient Woodland and Veteran Trees.

This is a worthy and most interesting APPG and my understanding is that the it has generated significant interest in Parliament and beyond with these important matters capturing the attention of the media. There is more to be done of course.

Whilst I have already have the details in my diary there are a number of pre-arranged events and meetings that clash. I will endeavour to attend if only for part of the meeting and on any account will be sure to send a member of my Westminster staff along so that I can receive a report.

Newspaper Column 13 March 2019 - The Stronger Towns Fund

As I write this the news of the concessions the Prime Minister has secured on the EU Withdrawal Agreement has just been announced. Whilst I will wait to see the detail and importantly the legal advice, this does sound like a big step in the right direction to address the concerns I and many others have on the backstop.

The key for me is that these concessions are legal binding and allow us to exit the backstop should we need to, as well as ensuring that the backstop does not become the template for our future relationship with the EU. If I am assured on these matters then there is every chance I will be able to back the Withdrawal Agreement in order for us to leave the EU at the end of the month.

Last week’s news was dominated locally by the Government’s announcement of the new £1.6bn Stronger Towns Fund.

The Government said the Stronger Towns Fund will be targeted at places that have not shared in the proceeds of growth in the same way as more prosperous parts of the country. It will be used to create new jobs, help train local people and boost economic activity – with communities having a say on how the money is spent.

However on reading the detail of the announcement, I was concerned that despite having some of the lowest wages and highest levels of deprivation in the country, Cornwall has been grouped with the south west and as such will be receiving a relatively small amount of the £1.6bn fund (£33m) compared to other areas, according to initial figures given.

However we should not make this into something more than it is.

It is clear that this is an attempt by the Prime Minister to seek to influence Labour MPs in the North to back her Brexit deal.

The allocation has been targeted at large towns (over 30k population) - we don't have any large towns like this in Cornwall.

However as pointed out by the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, James Brokenshire when I questioned him on this in Parliament last Monday, there will be a pot of £600m from this fund that is available for smaller towns to bid into. In response to my question the Secretary of State also stated he wants Cornish Towns to bid into this fund.

Some have sought to make a connection between this and the replacement for European Regional Development Fund funding once we leave the European Union.

Those seeking to make this connection either do not understand what this fund is, or sadly understand but are choosing to deliberately misrepresent this for political purposes.  It is interesting that all those doing so are those opposed to Brexit.

The Secretary of State made clear in his response to my question that there is no connection between this fund and the future Shared Prosperity Fund.

While I think the Prime Minister has made a mistake in using this fund to influence MPs in the North to back her deal whilst upsetting her own MPs in the South West, I also think we need to see through the slightly pathetic attempts of those opposed go Brexit to turn this into something it is not.

I am confident that the government will continue to support the Cornish economy after Brexit through the Shared Prosperity Fund and I will continue to press at all levels of Government for more details of this fund to be brought forward.

My team and I are here to serve the whole constituency and work hard to make a real difference to the lives of everyone needing support. The office is open to the public Monday – Friday 10.00am – 4.00pm (no appointment necessary). If there is an issue you would like my assistance on then please, either visit the office or contact me on either 01726 829379 or office@stevedouble.org.uk. Additionally, I hold regular, appointment only, advice surgeries across the constituency. Dates of these can be found at: www.stevedouble.org.uk/events

Campaign reply - Britain's future is in your hands

A number of constituents have written to me with a campaign email “Britain's Future is in your hands”.

Key to the success on any proposed deal that comes before the house is that it must honour the result of the referendum. It must fulfil promises made in a meaningful way. That is why the earlier deal was so heavily defeated as it would have trapped us inside the EU with no escape other than on terms set by the EU. Never!

A deal that honours the referendum and gives us a clear passage out of the EU following transition will I am confident get support in the house.

Once we leave we will be free to negotiate our future relationship with the EU and countries globally.

These are difficult days and many have written expressing concern. I will do all I can as a backbencher to ensure we have Brexit that paves the route to the UK becoming an independent nation again.

Campaign reply - Horrific warfare experiments on animals must stop - please sign EDM 2113.

A few constituents have written to me with a campaign email entitled Horrific warfare experiments on animals must stop - please sign EDM 2113.

As a principle I never sign early day motions as they very rarely achieve anything whilst at the same time running up costs to the tax payer.

I am not in a position to verify the claims made by Animal Aid however that is not to say I do not have considerable concern with the matters raised. As such I will be taking up these matters with ministers and their officials when I see them.

Newspaper column 6 March 2019 - Brexit update

Next week sees a number of important votes on Brexit, which as things stand is now less than a month away. Ahead of these votes I thought I would set out my own position on what has recently happened and what will be happening soon.

Last week we saw the Labour Party officially back calls for a second referendum. This is something which their Leader has previously opposed. However, he has now given into the pressure from many of his own London based MP and party members to back another referendum.

My own views on a second referendum are well known and I will not rehash them here. Suffice to say it is the last thing our country needs at this time. It would do nothing more than prolong the period of uncertainty we are currently in. I can clearly state that I would never back a second referendum on our membership of the European Union.

Next Tuesday will see another vote on the Prime Minister’s Withdrawal Agreement – ‘The Deal’. The Prime Minister has said she will go to Brussels and attempt to secure legally binding changes to the Northern Ireland backstop, the mechanism that as it stands could keep us indefinitely tied to the EU with no say over it. When this deal was put before Parliament in January I voted against it, and unless there is meaningful changes to this deal I will be voting against it again.

Between now and then, the Attorney General, Geoffrey Cox MP, an experienced QC who I have a lot of respect for, will be scrutinising the revised Withdrawal Agreement and then giving legal advice to Parliament. As I have said before, the removal of the backstop or a clause that allows us to unilaterally remove it ourselves would bring me closer to supporting the Withdrawal Agreement than I currently am.

If the Withdrawal Agreement does not pass, there will then be a vote in Parliament on whether we should go ahead and leave on 29^th March without a ‘deal’. It remains to be seen how Parliament will vote on this but I believe it is important we keep faith with our previous commitments and leave on schedule even if that means leaving without a deal. Therefore, if this vote comes to the House I will be voting to leave at the end of this month with ‘no deal’. Although we have to be realistic and note that previously Parliament has voted to reject leaving without a deal.

If this happens there will then be a vote to extend Article 50 beyond 29 March – the Prime Minister has suggested until the end of June. Again, this is not something I can support as it would just mean extending more of the same uncertainty for weeks or months. What is needed is not more time to talk but the political will and courage from both sides of the channel to find an acceptable deal or walk away. We have not been able to achieve this in 2 years so I am not sure what a few more weeks will achieve.

Additionally there is no guarantee that the EU would agree to a short extension or what terms that would demand for an extension. It would see us going cap in hand asking for their agreement at a time when we need to be in a strong negotiating position to determine our future relationship. This is not something I believe would be in our national interest and is only being promoted by those who wish to stop Brexit altogether.

We should also be clear that extending the Article 50 period in this way does not prevent us leaving without a deal at a later date. It is very likely we will find ourselves in the same position as we are now at the end of June. The only argument for this that I can see is that we will then have had more time to prepare for a no deal Brexit.

Finally, I would like to pay tribute to my Cornish colleague George Eustice, who resigned as Minister for Farming and Fishing last week because of his concerns about any potential delay of Brexit. A lot of what he has since said resonates with me and many voters from Mid-Cornwall. I regularly spend time knocking on doors around Mid-Cornwall and I have only seen our resolve to leave the EU deepen, with no deal if that is what is needed. As a country we are the fifth largest economy in the world and one with a potentially bright and bold international future outside of EU. Parliament must listen to the whole country rather than just the Westminster, London or liberal elite bubble and have the courage to enact the positive Brexit that Mid-Cornwall and the country voted for in 2016.

Campaign reply - “Make Amazon pay their fair share.”

A number of you have written to me with a campaign email “Make Amazon pay their fair share.”

A recent petition on this matter has received widespread support and I think most people can see why – it is only right that profits generated in the UK should be taxed appropriately.

Technology giants will be forced to pay tax on the sales they generate in the UK, under new plans announced in the Budget.

Chancellor Philip Hammond made it clear in the last budget that he plans  to introduce a digital services tax from April 2020. There will be a consultation period. He commented that the EU had been "painfully slow" in making progress on this and so once we leave the EU we can make progress on this tax reform.

The Chancellor is on record as saying, "It is clearly not sustainable or fair that digital platform businesses can generate substantial value in the UK without paying tax here." I agree.

Many of us now enjoy the convenience of running much of our lives from online sources and facilities and whilst the internet is here to stay and the likely uptake of web reliance will continue it is only right that our tax laws be updated to take into account the rapid changes taking place.

Campaign reply - Versus Arthritis’ drop-in on aids and adaptations on 20th March.

A number of constituents have contacted me as part of a campaign asking me to attend Versus Arthritis’ drop-in on aids and adaptations on 20th March.

This is an area I have an interest in, with an increasingly aging population in Cornwall, and so I will endeavour to attend this event, Parliamentary business allowing, in order to find out more.