Fishing Industry

Debate between Alistair Carmichael and Jim Shannon

Thursday 28th November 2024 Westminster Hall

[Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the fishing industry.

It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Mr Efford. I am grateful to members of the Backbench Business Committee for allowing time for this debate, and I am delighted to see such good geographic and political representation in this Chamber.

Before we come to the meat of the politics, as we enter Advent it is worth reflecting for a second or two that, in coastal and island communities right around our country, there will always be families with a sense of sadness because somebody will not be with them for Christmas. Last year, four people in the fishing industry lost their lives. That number goes up and down—in 2021, it was as high as 10. It is worth our remembering as we talk here in the safety, security and warmth of Westminster Hall that the way in which our fishers actually live and work is very different. They often take an enormous personal risk to put food on our table, and we should not forget that.

I will touch on four different areas. First, there are the year-end negotiations coming up between the UK, the EU and Norway. Looking ahead, we have the review of the trade and co-operation agreement and the transitional arrangements in 2026. There is also the ability of our fishing industry to access traditional fishing grounds and the extent to which it is being squeezed out of them. Finally, there is the availability of crew for many boats, especially those operating inside UK territorial waters, to whom the opportunity of visas through the transit visa regime is not available.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I commend the right hon. Gentleman on bringing forward this debate. I have spoken to him, and I apologise that I cannot be here for the rest of it—I think it will be the first fishing debate that I will ever miss in totality.

In the debate we had on 5 November, the Minister discussed the issue of positive outcomes that could be attained if these issues could be resolved. The ability to go to sea to catch fish is reliant on having the crews to man vessels. Despite automation projects being brought forward, the problem is in the ability to access crews and thereby survive long enough to bring the benefits of these opportunities into local communities. This is not just a Northern Irish problem. Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that some relatively minor tweaks to Home Office policy would enable the growth potential identified for Northern Ireland and all this great United Kingdom to be replicated in one form or another?

Space Sector: Government Support

Debate between Alistair Carmichael and Jim Shannon

Wednesday 4th September 2024 Westminster Hall

[Mr Carmichael]

I don’t think I ever was, actually.

Back in 2001, there was no such thing; the sector has emerged at a quite remarkable pace and has its roots in the early days of the coalition Government. Competitions were set up looking for opportunities to develop infrastructure in a UK space sector. That has led to a UK-wide space strategy, with interests in the north of Scotland, Cornwall, the Western Isles and other parts of the country. It is worth reflecting that the legacy of that competitive start-up has been a sense of competition between the different players in the sector. Now, as we approach maturity—we are perhaps months from the first vertical launch in the United Kingdom—a different picture is emerging. The success of any one of the different parts of the UK space industry can be only good for all parts.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on introducing this debate. I wholeheartedly agree with the point that he made and I will explain why. The space technology exploitation programme was introduced in Northern Ireland in 2023 through a pilot scheme

“to enhance UK space capability by developing new technologies…to overcome technology challenges and unlock new potential market opportunities.”

That pilot scheme concluded last year. Does he agree that additional funding is necessary for all the devolved nations, including his own and mine, to support them in contributing towards the roll-out of a potential national STEP programme that can help everybody in this great United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland?

[Mr Carmichael]

The hon. Gentleman anticipates the tack I will take. Of course, we are talking about support from the UK Government for our space sector, but the success story that we have seen thus far has been achieved with remarkably little public money. The support required goes beyond the financial, often to the political and the regulatory. Yes, he is almost certainly correct in saying that some money will be necessary, but there has to be more to ask for than simply financial support.

The space sector is widely recognised as an industry with both economic and strategic importance for the UK. I want to focus mainly on the vertical launch industry, but that is just one part of the sector and it is an industry in which the UK has a genuine advantage. There are currently only two licensed vertical space ports in western Europe: our neighbours in Norway have Andøya and we have SaxaVord spaceport in Shetland. With three ready launch pads in SaxaVord to Norway’s two, for the foreseeable future the United Kingdom, through Shetland, will contain 60% of western Europe’s vertical launch capacity. That is a significant opportunity for our economy and country as a whole, but it is an opportunity on which we must capitalise in the immediate term. With the nation’s finances being as they are, it is worth reflecting—as I have just said to the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon)—that we have got this far without excessive financial support from the Government, but what there has been is exceptionally welcome. SaxaVord spaceport is privately held, but recently secured a £10-million convertible loan from the Government, allowing the potential of a Government minority stake in the future. That Government investment was designed to attract interest and further investment from the private sector, and in that respect it has been successful. It has been taken as a vote of confidence for those involved.

SaxaVord is working closely with the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology and the UK Space Agency, and I am told it is in daily dialogue with the Civil Aviation Authority as the industry regulator. We are looking forward to seeing the Secretary of State for Scotland visiting the site in the not-too-distant future. Parenthetically, at this stage, I hope we might see better co-operation between the Scottish Government and the UK Government as we go ahead. There was, at least in the early days, a bit of a sour feeling as a consequence of people in Shetland feeling that other projects were being given a more favourable ride by the Scottish Government. The expression put to me was, “The thumb was being put on the scales to their favour.” However, I think we have passed that point and, again in the spirit of a positive and forward-looking joint strategy, we need to put those differences behind us, although we do not forget them.

There is no shortage of potential clients for SaxaVord; the demand for a UK site of this sort is clear, but the infrastructure needs to be completed in order to maximise the opportunity. I hope that the Minister will be alive to the potential cost-benefit of getting this one across the line. More Government engagement and assistance is welcome in order to speed up the process and ensure that SaxaVord continues to lead the way in Europe, in what is a highly competitive and fast-moving global industry.

Financial Conduct Authority: Accountability

Debate between Alistair Carmichael and Jim Shannon

Wednesday 1st May 2024 Westminster Hall

[Mr Carmichael]

I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend. In fact, as I hope will become clear as my remarks develop, the way that the FCA is going about its duties at the moment is working for nobody. It is clearly not working for the communities most directly involved, for the financial services sector or for members of the public such as my constituents, who have been left to beat their head against a brick wall for years in their dealings with the FCA.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I wholeheartedly endorse what the right hon. Gentleman has said. Does he agree that, for many of us who have brought constituents’ financial issues to the FCA over the years, the FCA often appears to be a barrier rather than a help for the ordinary man or woman? Let us be honest, that perception needs to be altered by a seismic shift in how the FCA engages. I know he feels the frustration that all hon. Members present feel.

[Mr Carmichael]

I am delighted and relieved to see the hon. Gentleman in his place; he is absolutely right. The engagement of the average constituent—I am legally qualified, but I include myself in that—with the financial services sector is often a matter of supreme consequence. Very often, they have to rely on the judgment and expertise of the people with whom they are dealing, who are regulated by the FCA. That is why this matters for all of us.

The parallels with the Post Office are unavoidable. It is the same situation time and again: a well-resourced public body decides to deny, deny, deny until eventually people have to give in. That worked for the Post Office, although we were able to break through it. That is just one of the most egregious examples. Lower down the food chain, where fewer people are affected, including my constituents, it is much more difficult for anybody to get justice.

That is how I became interested in the first place. As is often the case, when one starts to lift rocks, what is underneath takes one off in other directions. I am afraid that I have found little under any rock that I have lifted to make me think there is anything in the FCA at the moment about which we should be happy or optimistic.

The FCA is consulting on proposals to change its enforcement code. Essentially, it is talking about naming and shaming much earlier people who have become a subject of concern. That has to be viewed in the context of its performance: an average FCA investigation takes at least four years. In 65% of cases referred to it, no further action is taken. For such an industry, the reputational consequences of naming and shaming at such an early stage could be catastrophic. The people most directly affected are not the big City firms, because they are big enough to withstand the damage, but the small and medium-sized enterprises, for which the FCA does not demonstrate the level of concern that it should.

A report by Spotlight on Corruption in February showed that 90% of the value of fines against directors in the financial services sector was levelled against directors in SMEs, and only 2% against senior executives in large companies. It is part of the culture that the regulator seems to be staffed and driven by people in the big City firms, who seem to get a different level of service and, dare I say, protection than the SMEs. That matters in relation to the enforcement code changes because there is a real risk of undermining this country’s reputation for stable and predictable regulation. Given the importance of financial services to the economy as a whole, the wider national economic interest is clearly at play.

The culture also goes wrong when we look at the way in which the FCA runs itself. I have had the benefit of a briefing from Unite the Union, and will turn later to some questions it poses through me. Independently of that, I have spoken privately to a handful of people who work for the FCA. I am not going to tell the House what they told me, because even though what they told me was in general terms—just for my own background and understanding—they were concerned that if something I said allowed them to be identified within the organisation, it would be to their professional detriment. Just hold that thought for a second: they are so concerned, and the culture in the FCA is so poor, that they are not prepared, even anonymously, to speak to Members of Parliament. If anybody doubts that there is a cultural problem within the FCA, that should surely remove those doubts.

The morale among staff is pretty poor. I have to say, though, that the staff I met genuinely understand the importance of the work they do in the public interest; they value the role they play, but clearly feel undervalued by the senior executives and the people at the top—and, actually, they are undervalued. Sixty staff working at the FCA earn salaries of less than £29,500, which is the Joseph Rowntree Foundation’s minimum salary recommendation that is required for an acceptable living standard. In fact, that amount would not even allow someone to bring a spouse into the UK under immigration regulations these days.

Unite the Union has surveyed staff extensively and speaks about the toxic environment within the FCA for staff reps, who are given little assistance or support and minimal information. The FCA carries out a quite remarkable performance assessment framework, which is not a million miles removed from the one that I knew when I first became a civil servant at the start of my legal career 30 years ago. I thought we would have moved well away from that, because it was hopelessly inadequate—but no; it seems as if it is almost designed to encourage mediocrity. It is the sort of system that was used by a number of public sector and City companies for a long time, but I do not know of many companies that have used that sort of framework for the last 10 years. It has destroyed the collaborative working environment within the FCA, and 81% of respondents to the Unite survey identified it as being unfair to them.

Unite has posed some questions to me that I will read into the record. I do not expect the Minister to answer them all, but perhaps he could follow up in correspondence. Why does a public sector organisation that pays its chief executive over £450,000 a year find it acceptable to pay a large number of staff below the Joseph Rowntree Foundation’s minimum income standard? Why has the FCA not made any cost of living adjustments for its staff in the 2024 pay round, following a punishing cost of living crisis? Why has the FCA not delivered the resource and priority it has promised staff representation in the wake of recent failures? If the FCA is committed to “best in class” staff representation, as the FCA chair Ashley Alder told the Treasury Committee last year, why will it not recognise a trade union?

What are the Government doing to hold the FCA leadership to account for the problematic culture of fear and burnout, the high staff turnover and the sinking morale that Unite the Union has consistently reported over the years? Why has the FCA persisted with a severely outdated model of staff performance grading, long abandoned by the industry it regulates? Surely the FCA should be leading the sector as a role model, should it not? Finally, why has the FCA made no headway in its large disability pay gap? Unite the Union reports that staff with disabilities, neurodivergence or complex personal circumstances are simply getting poorer performance and pay outcomes than their peers.

The FCA as an organisation does massively important work in the public interest but as I said to my hon. Friend the Member for North East Fife (Wendy Chamberlain), it is surely clear that it is working for nobody. It is not working for members of the public who rely on the protection it might give them, as evidenced by my constituents and the impact they felt from the Midas Financial Solutions Ponzi scheme’s fraud. It is not working for the benefit of the sector that it regulates, as evidenced by its proposed changes to the enforcement code. It is not working for our communities, as evidenced by the work on access to cash referenced by my hon. Friend, and it is most certainly not working for the benefit of the people it employs.

It is apparent to me that the poor culture in the FCA is driven from the top and then bleeds into every aspect of its work. As an organisation, it has lost direction and lacks leadership from the top. However, we all remember why we have it and why it was set up. For the national economic interest of us all, it is too important to fail, but surely it is apparent that it is failing, and somebody needs to take control and change that.

Exclusive Economic Zone: Maritime Safety

Debate between Alistair Carmichael and Jim Shannon

Wednesday 17th April 2024 Westminster Hall

[Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered maritime safety breaches within the Exclusive Economic Zone.

It is a pleasure, as ever, to serve with you in the Chair, Mr Efford, and I welcome the Minister to his place. He knows that I hold him in high regard as a very effective and diligent Minister, so I hope he will not take it amiss if I say that I was a little disappointed to hear that I was not getting a reply from the Attorney General or one of her staff. In fact, when I think about it, that change highlights one of the problems we are dealing with: this is an issue in which many Government Departments have an interest but for which nobody has overall responsibility. One thing that I hope we take away from this debate is a determination that somebody takes charge of the issue.

Essentially, I want to bring the House’s attention to a matter that arises from an ongoing conflict between fishing boats that operate static gear and those that operate mobile gear. There can only be better ways of resolving those conflicts and tensions than the ones that I am about to describe for the House.

There are two particular, well-documented incidents that I want to place on the record for the benefit of the House and for the Minister’s consideration. The first took place on 11 June 2020, and involved the Shetland-registered whitefish boat the Alison Kay. Skippered by James Anderson, it was fishing 30 nautical miles to the west of Shetland. Mr Anderson describes the roots of what was about to happen thus:

“The incident occurred on the 11th of June and when the vessel in question shot his gear”—

that is the Pesorsa Dos, which is a Spanish-owned but German-registered vessel—

“in the area he knew we were fishing. He chose to put his gear at risk. What he decided to do was to shoot nets”—

those are gillnets of quite industrial magnitude—

“in an area known to be used by trawlers and then subsequently tell the trawlers they can’t fish here now because his gear is now there! This is simply unacceptable terms for us and we have no intention of moving away when we have every right to continue fishing.”

This is an area of sea that has been fished for decades, if not centuries, by Shetland fishermen, so we can understand Mr Anderson’s strength of feeling. The skipper of the Pesorsa Dos then proceeded to tow a rope tied to a float across the bow, which was a clear attempt to foul the Alison Kay’s propeller or steering gear. It was an act of the most incredible recklessness for which there can be no excuse. It could have led to injury or death, or the loss of either or both of the boats. Of course, it was avoided because the skipper of the Alison Kay took evasive action.

The Pesorsa Dos is a Spanish-owned gillnetter that is flagged in Germany through SeaMar, a company based in Schleswig-Holstein. The Maritime and Coastguard Agency was made aware of the incident but declined to investigate because it said that it happened outside the 12-mile limit, and the 12-mile limit is the extent of its jurisdiction. That takes us into that area of sea between the 12-mile limit and the extent of the 200-mile exclusive economic zone. Notwithstanding the MCA’s describing the incident as extremely “concerning” and saying that the

“consequences could have been extremely serious”,

it was declared that the responsibility lay with the German investigating authorities, as that was where the Pesorsa Dos was registered—Germany was the flag state.

We pursued this matter in correspondence with the German authorities but, bluntly, they were not interested, even though Germany is the flag state. Why would it be? This incident involved a conflict between a Spanish vessel and a Scottish vessel in waters hundreds of miles away from the closest point of German waters. I do not believe this sort of behaviour was ever anticipated when the United Nations convention on the law of the sea—the governing statute—was entered into, but this is the reality with which fishermen in Shetland and other parts of the United Kingdom are now having to deal.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

As the Minister knows, I represent the constituency of Strangford, which has a large fishing fleet. The right hon. Gentleman has secured a vital debate and clearly outlined the two incidents. Does he agree that the sovereign rights that exist for our fishing fleet mean that the standards we set in that zone apply to every fishing vessel, not just British ones, and that we must enforce on any vessel the appropriate safety measures rigorously and authoritatively, with extended powers if warranted by the Maritime and Coastguard Agency? In other words, all vessels are subject to the same laws.

[Mr Carmichael]

The hon. Gentleman will not be surprised to hear that that is something with which I have no difficulty agreeing. The vessels are all subject to the same laws; the difficulty comes when we try to enforce them. In fact, the Irish Government have taken a rather more novel and, shall we say, direct approach from which we could probably learn some lessons.

The then Fisheries Minister, now the Attorney General, convened a Zoom call for me which had, while not exactly a cast of thousands, at least a dozen people on it. One by one, each of those people explained that although they understood the seriousness of the situation it was, in fact, always somebody else’s problem. At the end of the call, it was agreed that there would be further consideration and action would be taken, but I am afraid to say that, years later, we have heard effectively nothing since. It seems to just go from Department to Department, and is always too difficult for somebody to deal with.

For my constituents and for the fishermen working in Shetland’s waters, it continues to be a problem. On 16 October last year, the Defiant, a Lerwick-registered whitefish boat, skippered on that day by Magnus Polson, was working 18 miles east of Unst—again, within the area of water between 12 and 200 miles—when it experienced a similar incident, involving the Antonio Maria, a Spanish-owned but French-registered longliner. Mr Polson established where the long lines were and that he could operate safely without coming into conflict with the static gear, but 15 minutes later the skipper of the Antonio Maria altered his course on to a direct collision course with the Defiant. The longliner came dangerously close to the port side of the Defiant, whose crew saw two crewmen appear on the Antonio Maria and one throw a rope into water—designed, we presume, to foul the propeller. Mr Polson explained that

“due to close proximity and the endangered safety of our boat, I had no choice but to begin hauling back our gear to make room.”

A few weeks ago in Lerwick, I met the other skipper of the Defiant, Robbie Jamieson, who showed me the screen grab of the course that he had plotted in the wheelhouse of the Defiant. He also showed me where the long lines had been laid by the Antonio Maria. It was clear that the course along which the Defiant was going to tow its gear was not actually going to come into conflict with the long lines that had been set by the Antonio Maria, and would have moved somewhere to the south of them. When I raised this with the Fisheries Minister, the right hon. Member for Sherwood (Sir Mark Spencer), on 19 October, he described it as outrageous behaviour, and said he would certainly raise it with his ministerial colleagues. Again, we have heard precious little since. Everybody knows that it is mad, reckless and dangerous behaviour, but somehow nobody ever seems to have an answer for how to stop it.

The Maritime Coastguard Agency has forwarded its report to the French authorities for investigation. The incident happened in October, and we are now well into April and have had no response. The Shetland Fishermen’s Association has asked for the opportunity to have sight of what was sent by the MCA to the French authorities, but it has been told that it cannot have that. I wonder whether the Minister might raise that again with the MCA, because I do not see what the MCA would have to lose by publishing the report. Frankly, it would go a long way towards restoring some trust and confidence between the fishing fleet and the MCA.

Essentially, the difficulty lies in the terms of UNCLOS and the decision to vest authority for investigation and prosecution with the flag state. I do not believe this was something envisaged at the time UNCLOS was agreed, but it is now the reality with which my constituents have to live and deal. This will keep happening unless and until it is stopped. As I see it, it can stop only in one of two ways: there either has to be meaningful action to deal with it, or we wait until there is a fatality when a boat goes down and a life is lost. When that happens, all the people who come up with the good, worthy and complicated reasons as to why it is somebody else’s responsibility will be left looking pretty shame-faced and embarrassed. I do not want any one of them to turn around and say, “I wish somebody had told us about this.” They have been well warned by me today and on many previous occasions.

What can we do? There are a few quick and easy wins. The executive officer of the Shetland Fishermen’s Association said shortly after the Antonio Maria incident that there was a need for a streamlined process of reporting, with an individual designated within the MCA to receive reports. This sort of thing happens, nobody wants to know about it and fishermen get pushed from pillar to post. There needs to be a hotline—a dedicated number—that skippers can phone to report an incident. The sooner that some sort of action can be taken, the likelier it is that that action will then be effective.

I would like to see our Government pursuing the matter with a bit more vigour than they have done. We go through the motions—we tick the boxes, write the report and send it off to the German and French authorities—but then what happens? I call on the Minister to raise the issue at a diplomatic or ministerial level with his opposite numbers when such incidents happen, so that prosecuting authorities in the other flag states understand that it is something we see as being important.

We could also see much better co-operation between the MCA, which is an agency responsible to the Department for Transport here, and Scotland’s Marine Directorate, which is responsible for fisheries management issues and fishery protection in Scotland. They are the people who have boats in the water and who will be able to attend such incidents and gather the necessary evidence.

To come to the point made by the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), fishing boats operate in the exclusive economic zone under licence, as all boats do. Surely it could be a condition of the licence that if a boat is going to fish in our waters, it does so in a way that is safe and responsible. We may not be able to prosecute for safety breaches, but we could take action to remove the boats’ licences. That is something that would concentrate the mind.

It is worth comparing the treatment of the Pesorsa Dos in 2020 in Scottish waters, or British waters, with the treatment that it received in Irish waters. The Skipper’s website from January 2023 describes what happened to the Pesorsa Dos after it was detained by the Irish Naval Service for breaches of EU fishing regulations in Irish waters. The skipper, Juan Pablo Docal Rubido, was brought before a special sitting of Bandon District Court following the detention of the vessel for alleged fishing offences.

Mr Rubido, whose vessel is Spanish owned and fishes out of La Coruña but was detained at Castletownbere, was charged with a total of 12 fishing offences on various dates between 5 January and 24 January, while fishing within the exclusive fishing limits of the state. He was charged with two logbook offences: of failing to record the proper depth that his vessel was fishing at, and failing to record the proper soak times or times that he allowed his nets to stay in the water while fishing within Irish exclusive fishing limits. He was also charged with a total of nine separate offences of allowing his nets to exceed the permitted soak times of 72 hours allowed for the gear while fishing within the exclusive fishing limits of the state, contrary to section 14 of the Sea-Fisheries and Maritime Jurisdiction Act 2006.

The best part, though, is still to come. The boat was detained. It was kept in the quayside as a consequence of action taken to seize it by the Irish authorities. The skipper himself was allowed bail on production of a bond of €5,000. The period for which the detention was to be permitted was actually extended on the application of the Irish Government. These trawlers—these massive gillnetters—are big businesses, and they only make money when they are out at sea. That old American saying, “If you get them by their reproductive organs, their hearts and minds will follow”, really characterises the way in which these people have to be tackled. The presiding judge, Colm Roberts, granted bail on Mr Rubido’s own bond of €5,000. He said:

“We have to make sure people realise how serious these matters are.”

Well, amen to that.

We are dealing with an industry that is probably the most dangerous way to make a living. Everybody knows that when fisherman go to sea, they very often put their lives at risk, and the fishermen themselves know that better than anybody else. They understand that this is a contest that sets man against nature and its elements. That risk is acceptable and understood, but setting man against man in such a way cannot be understood or excused. We have an exclusive economic zone. I suggest to the Minister and his colleagues that it is about time we understood what it means to be exclusive and to exclude those who will not use it responsibly.

Groceries Code Adjudicator

Debate between Alistair Carmichael and Jim Shannon

Tuesday 5th March 2024 Commons Chamber

[Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)]

Having seen the House run through business at such a blistering pace, we can now all settle back and enjoy the next four hours and six minutes as we consider the matter of the Groceries Code Adjudicator. I assure the House that it is some years since I made my living by speaking for six-minute units in the legal profession, so we may manage to knock off the odd six minutes here or there. I remind the House of my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests.

Yesterday we were here in rather greater numbers for a wider debate on agriculture. I spoke then about the importance of food manufacture and processing to the local economy in the northern isles. Today we paint on a somewhat broader canvas with issues of wider concern, but what is important for the agricultural industries throughout the United Kingdom will always be important for us in the northern isles.

In recent years, farmers in my constituency and elsewhere have found themselves caught in a pincer. They have seen their input costs—particularly the costs of fuel and fertiliser—rise sharply, while the price that they are able to get for their produce at the farm gate has continued to be depressed by the operation of the market in which they are often required to operate. Farmers have, to put it bluntly, found themselves squeezed in the middle.

I think it worth reminding ourselves of how we came to this point. The genesis of the Groceries Code Adjudicator was an inquiry by what was then the Competition Commission—now, I guess, the Competition and Markets Authority. That inquiry took many years of pressure to be held, and its report led to the creation of the groceries supply code of practice, which was, in turn, followed by the Groceries Code Adjudicator Act 2013. It was a long, slow and painful process to get even to that stage. I remember the conversations that I had with colleagues in 2013, as a Minister in the coalition Government, about how the adjudicator would operate and whether it would be sufficient. I think we all knew that, at some point or other, we would need to revisit the matter, but we were certainly pragmatic about it, and took the view that what we were getting in 2013 was better than nothing.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I commend the right hon. Gentleman for securing this debate on a massive issue that affects us all. Hailing as I do from a farming constituency, I have a deep and intricate interest in the defence of farmers’ prices and income. My real fear is that the harder farmers struggle to eke out their pay, the less likely future generations will be to pursue farming, being isolated and working night and day for less than minimum wage. Does he agree that we need to defend the pay scales, through an enhanced adjudicator power, to secure the viability of the job as an occupation for the future?

[Mr Carmichael]

I do. I felt that a debate focused on the Groceries Code Adjudicator was timely and essential because the relationship between the producer and the retailer is critical. Unless we get that relationship right, there will be no future; many generations, one after the other, have made the decision to go into agriculture, but it will simply not be worth it. As many of our environmental objectives rely on agriculture, the reduction of agriculture and the change we are seeing in the countryside will ultimately be counterproductive to achieving those environmental gains.

I understand Governments’ reluctance and caution about interfering in the operation of a market—we all know that the law of unintended consequences is never far away—but 10 years since the adjudicator’s creation, it is surely obvious that the way in which it is working, measured by its outputs, is simply not good enough, and that reform is required. On the basis of the debate we had in the Chamber yesterday, the good news for the Government is that there is already a fairly broad consensus in the House, both from people representing rural seats and those representing urban seats, about what that reform should achieve.

The Competition Commission’s report identified what was essentially a dysfunctional market. On the one hand, we have a handful of behemoth purchasers: 95% of the food consumed in this country comes from 12 retail companies. On the other hand, we have thousands of small businesses—farmers, processers and others. We have all heard the stories over the years about the influence of the supermarkets. Of course, big food manufacturers such as Kraft Heinz can compete—they can engage with supermarkets on something like an equal footing—but for the farmers and processers in my constituency and those of other Members, it is a very different story.

The hard commercial fact is that farmers require access to supermarkets to grow their business, but once they have access to those supermarkets, the risk is that they become dependent on it. At that point, it is the supermarkets that can dictate the terms and conditions on which trade is done. Of course, that is a matter of contract, but as any lawyer could tell us, when it comes to taking action to enforce or arbitrate on the basis of a contract, that contract is only as good as the resources behind it. It seems that even 10 years after the creation of the adjudicator, it is still necessary for farmers and processers to say that supermarkets should be required to buy what they say they are going to buy, pay the price that they say they are going to pay, and pay it on time. The fact that we still hear that message is the simplest basis on which I can illustrate the need for reform.

At the moment, our farmers find themselves in a perfect storm. Leaving the European Union brought with it the repatriation of agricultural policy, as well as a number of trade deals with other countries in other parts of the world. The changes to agricultural support risk reducing the amount of food produced on the land; at the same time, we see land given over to other, non-food-producing purposes, such as the creation of renewable energy resources or the process of growing trees—rewilding. Those trade agreements open up our markets to imported food. If that food is not produced according to the same welfare and environmental standards that we expect our farmers to meet, it will inevitably lead to an imbalance in price, which makes it more difficult for our farmers to compete on price. At a time when we see huge pressure on family budgets as a consequence of a massive spike in the cost of living, consumers will increasingly buy on the basis of price. It seems to me that we are putting ourselves in a place where our own farmers are least able to compete on the basis that consumers are most likely to buy on.

If the Government are sincere in wanting to keep productive farming and a proper, functioning market, the relationship between the farmer and the retailer is absolutely critical—it is more important than ever. I was struck when listening to the debate yesterday how many of the participants spoke about subsidies for farmers. The hard truth of the matter is that these subsidies have never properly been subsidies for farmers; they have been subsidies for consumers, because they have allowed farmers to sell their produce at a price that simply would not be economic in any free market. The people who have benefited from these farm subsidies have ultimately been the consumers and the large corporates—the supermarkets—that have been supplying them.

The world is very different today from the one in which the adjudicator was created 10 years ago. There are changes that I would like to see, around which consensus was apparent yesterday. The first difficulty in the way in which the adjudicator’s functions and office were created is that the remit given to them misses out on the early parts of the supply chain. It does not cover producers who supply processers, or smaller retailers. As with the Groceries Code Adjudicator, the code of practice surely requires to be extended to include processers, hospitality and manufacturers.

As well as the remit given to the adjudicator, the resourcing of that office also requires to improve. It is difficult to see how we can possibly hope for an adjudicator to exercise meaningful control over the big supermarkets—who, incidentally, fund its operation through a levy—if the cost of a single investigation is greater than its annual budget. Remember also that when it comes to the dialogue between the regulator and the supermarkets, the supermarkets will not be under-resourced and they have every interest and every means to ensure that they put forward the most favourable case they can possibly create. Just as there is an inequality of arms between supermarkets and farmers, so there is an inequality of arms between the supermarkets and the regulator.

Also, the code applies only to direct suppliers, which are now the 14 largest retailers. There is no protection, as things are currently structured, for those who would be indirect suppliers, so any supermarkets or other large retailer that wishes to avoid enforcement or coming under the attention of the Groceries Code Adjudicator can do that quite simply by purchasing the goods through intermediaries.

The Agriculture Act 2020 allowed the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs to create statutory codes of conduct. I am aware that a consultation being carried out by the Government on contractual relationships in the fresh produce industry finished on 22 February. I expect that that is still being considered by Ministers, but I hope it will be possible to hear some indication from the Minister today of when we might see the outcome of that consultation. As we consider the reform of the adjudicator’s office, we must ask one simple question: is there an overall strategy at play? It seems to me that different avenues of influence are possible and that, as part of the review, the compatibility of the codes of conduct under the 2020 Act and the office of the adjudicator requires to be examined.

Bluntly, I do not care how we tackle this. The vehicle for change is irrelevant, as far as I am concerned. It is the outcome, the change that we are able to achieve, that matters to me. The concern that is most frequently expressed to me is a pretty fundamental one—namely, that the code does not cover pricing. Few things illustrate that better than the way in which the dairy industry has been affected by supermarket activities in recent years, but when we speak to producers in just about every sector, we get the same story every time.

The strands of Government policy that we have at the moment—the removal of support for production through the new agricultural policy for England, which, as I said yesterday, has a knock-on effect for agriculture in other parts of the United Kingdom, and the improvement of food security—will only both be achieved if British farmers receive a fair price for the food that they produce. If we do not achieve that, then removing the direct support for food production from our subsidy system will leave us with no option but to import ever more of our food. The carbon consequences of the production of that food—reference was made yesterday to its being produced in Central and South America in ground that would previously have been rainforest or whatever else—and its transportation would run counterproductive to other stated Government policies.

It is in the round that we see the importance of regulating properly this relationship, and it is now a matter of urgency. Recent research demonstrated that 49% of farmers in the United Kingdom fear they could be out of business next year, 61% identify supply chain unfairness as something that has an adverse effect on their mental health, and 23% of dairy farmers doubt that they will continue into 2025. Action needs to be taken. There is a willingness in this House to take meaningful action to deal properly with this relationship, which in itself will have a significant effect on the future economic and social viability of our rural communities producing good-quality food for people in all our communities to consume. Who would not want that?

Defined-Benefit Pension Schemes

Debate between Alistair Carmichael and Jim Shannon

Wednesday 17th January 2024 Westminster Hall

[Mr Carmichael]

It absolutely does. Representing a constituency that had the Sullom Voe oil terminal managed by BP for many years, I suspect that the reasons why the hon. Gentleman has Shell pensioners in his constituency and I have BP pensioners in mine are very similar.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I commend the right hon. Gentleman for bringing forward this debate. It is a critical issue, and it goes beyond the two pensions that he has referred to. Does he agree that the Government—I say this with great respect to them—have had adequate warning that we are heading towards a UK-wide pension crisis if we do not make changes to pension schemes soon? Will he join me in asking the Department for Work and Pensions to begin, today, to take adequate steps to rectify the precarious position we are currently in, on behalf of our constituents?

[Mr Carmichael]

The hon. Gentleman strikes at the reasons why I brought forward this debate. We might benefit from a wider and longer ventilation of the issues at some later stage, but we have 30 minutes today, so let us use it. I had the opportunity to discuss the issues yesterday with the Minister, and he is alive to the concerns.

When it comes to regulating pensions, and indeed other similar financial provisions, the law of unintended consequences is never far away. The Government are right to be cautious, but they have to be alive to the fact that this is an emerging crisis. What happens to the beneficiaries of the BP and Shell pension schemes today could happen to just about any pensioner the future. As those pension funds come to a point of greater maturity, the concern that we hear from BP, Shell and other pensioners is that decisions are being taken not in relation to their best interests, which is the primary fiduciary duty of the trustees, but because of other concerns. There is a significant number of significant issues for the Government to look at in relation to pension regulation, not least of which is the balance between the companies that have created these pension funds in the first place and the independence of the trustees.

Helicopter Search and Rescue Service

Debate between Alistair Carmichael and Jim Shannon

Wednesday 22nd November 2023 Westminster Hall

[Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the future design of the helicopter search and rescue service.

It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Dr Huq. I welcome the Minister to his new position. I know that this topic is not within his brief, but sits with his colleague in the other place, but I also know that he is a diligent Minister and will no doubt have full command of the facts for us today.

Dr Huq, if you were to stop anyone in Shetland and ask them what they thought of Oscar Charlie, you would get an almost universally positive response. If you were to test that in an opinion poll, Oscar Charlie would get the sort of approval ratings that I, you, the Minister and even the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) would bite a hand off for. It is our good fortune, then, that Oscar Charlie is not a politician, but the search and rescue helicopter based at Sumburgh airport in Shetland.

Oscar Charlie was the call sign originally, but then became the name by which the helicopter service is known. The original Oscar Charlie was actually taken out of service in 2007, but in 2013 the operator of the service, Bristow, bowing to the inevitable, renamed the current helicopter Oscar Charlie—I know that because I officiated at the naming ceremony.

I say all that to illustrate that, for people in the northern isles, the helicopter search and rescue service is not somehow detached from us; it is not an anonymous service. It is a service that we value massively, and it is every bit as much of a blue light service for us as the police, fire or ambulance services are for other communities.

When Shetland has needed the service, Oscar Charlie has been there. In 1993, at the grounding of the Braer, Oscar Charlie was in the thick of it. In 1997, at the loss of the Green Lily, which led to the tragic loss of Bill Deacon, the winchman on Oscar Charlie, it was absolutely central to the rescue effort. Just a few weeks ago, when the Stena Spey drilling rig in the North sea broke free during Storm Babet, it was Oscar Charlie that came to the rescue. It is also an invaluable support for air ambulance services in the northern isles. When the air ambulance proper is not able to serve us, Oscar Charlie and the search and rescue service step in.

News of a proposed change to the way in which the service is delivered has caused enormous concern in the local community. The change came to light on 5 October this year when a whistleblower delivered two pages of a document prepared by Bristow, headed “UKSAR2G”. It is from a memorandum issued to all UK SAR personnel dated 20 September 2023. I only have pages 1 and 2, but according to the document itself, it runs to seven pages. I have asked Bristow for a copy of the memo, but it says, no, it cannot give it to us and that it has to come from the Maritime and Coastguard Agency. I asked the MCA, and it said, “No, no, it is Bristow’s document, so it has to come from them.” So my first ask of the Minister is, can we please have this document put into the public domain? I know it is not his to control either, but I suspect he has a bit more influence than I do.

It is worth reading into the record what the document says about the new generation of the search and rescue service. Page 1 says:

“The UKSAR2G system is designed to deliver greater capability at a lower price”—

it is the “lower price” thing that concerns many people—

“than today’s Aerial Surveillance and Verification (ASv) and UKSAR contracts. The Rotary element will consist of: 12 bases, two more than the existing service provision...Create two new seasonal bases (Nevis and Lakes) to cover areas of high-density SAR activity”—

I am guessing that that would be for mountain rescue—and have

“18 aircraft: 9 AW189, 3 S-92, 6 AW139.”

It is on page 2 of the memorandum that we see the news that most concerns people in my constituency: it is anticipated that, under the new service, the readiness state for the helicopter based at Sumburgh, which is currently 15 minutes, is to be increased at the end of 2026 to 60 minutes. That is a significant increase in the readiness state.

Those who work in the sector and who know what they are talking about, including some who have worked in it and retired, tell me without any overstatement that this change could put lives at risk. That is why this issue must be dealt with properly; we cannot just rely on people making decisions about which the community has no prior knowledge and on which there is no meaningful consultation, and then find ourselves left without the service when we most need it.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I commend the right hon. Gentleman on bringing this matter forward. He rightly said that His Majesty’s Coastguard provides 24-hour maritime and coastal search and rescue across the United Kingdom. His Majesty’s Coastguard has helicopter bases in every part of the United Kingdom apart from Northern Ireland. Although I support the right hon. Gentleman in what he is calling for, given the concerns he has raised about the waiting times, does he agree that consideration should also be given to funding a helicopter base in Northern Ireland, to ensure that there is protection from potential mountain and water incidents back home? I support him, but I also seek his support.

[Mr Carmichael]

I think we can make a mutual support case here. As always, the hon. Gentleman makes a sensible point, and it is grounded in the understanding that where communities need this service and local industries rely on it—I know from my work in the main Chamber that the hon. Gentleman has a significant fishing and maritime presence in his constituency—everybody should be given the assistance they require and nobody should be left behind.

I say again that we can only have this discussion because we now know what is being planned. If the hon. Gentleman and others were invited in to help to shape the service—bringing in the fishing industry in his constituency and other maritime interests—all these concerns could be put out and would not have to be dealt with in this way.

When I saw the proposed change, my immediate question was, where is the risk assessment? I thought that for one particular reason. The Maritime and Coastguard Agency has some form in this regard. Three times in the last 13 years, it has tried to take away the emergency towing vessel stationed in my constituency. The most recent time it tried, it was asked, “Where is the risk assessment?” It turned out that no risk assessment had been done. Eventually, time was taken and the MCA had a proper independent risk assessment done, and its conclusion was that it was not an acceptable risk to remove the emergency towing vessel, which remains there to this day. Will the Minister find out from the MCA whether a risk assessment has been done? If one has been done, will it be published? If one has not been done, will he ensure that one is?

I have raised this matter at business questions and in correspondence with Ministers. I received a reply from the former Minister, Baroness Vere, on 31 October. She said:

“I have spoken with officials at the Maritime and Coastguard Agency…who confirm that the transition to the new Search and Rescue Second Generation contract…takes place over a period of two years with Inverness being the first base to go live in October 2024 and Sumburgh the final base to transition on 1 January 2027.”

It should not have been a long phone call, because the Department issued a press release to that effect on 21 July last year. That does, however, contradict the Bristow memo, which says that Stornoway will be the final base to transition, on 1 January 2027—I think Sumburgh is due to transition at the end of November 2026. Again, it would be enormously helpful if the Minister could clarify that when he replies.

Baroness Vere goes on to say:

“With regards the proposed changes to the readiness state at Sumburgh, internal information from our contractor Bristow was released in error and subsequently a redaction has been issued.”

I confess: the words are all identifiably English, but I have no idea what that sentence actually means. First, the information was not released in error. It was released, quite deliberately, by a whistleblower. It was not released by Bristow; and what

“a redaction has been issued”

is supposed to mean is anybody’s guess. It would be useful if the Minister explained what the Government’s position currently is with regard to this information, and if he could ensure that it is put into the public domain.

Baroness Vere concludes:

“The MCA is at the first stage of assessing any proposed changes, and discussions with the contractor are ongoing.”

The contract has been signed; why these discussions were not held before the contract was signed is anybody’s guess. It does not look like something that would particularly impress the Public Accounts Committee. On 10 November, I met in Shetland—in relation to other stuff—the Scotland director of the Maritime and Coastguard Agency. He confirmed that the issue was being looked at again, and that it could be reopened if necessary. This is a novel approach to contract negotiation but, frankly, if at the end of the day we get to a place where my constituents, and other coastal and island communities, have the service that they need and deserve, I am not going to make too many complaints about how we got there. So has that review been carried out and who will be making the final decision?

Briefly, there are a few issues of wider concern about the contract. It is difficult, at present, to understand exactly which helicopters are going to be in service under the new contract. The Bristow memo that I have referred to speaks—on page 2, part 3, in relation to training—of a transition from the AW189, which is currently in use, to the AW139. There are also three Sikorsky helicopters—S-92s. It is believed in the industry that they are likely to be withdrawn from service; Sikorsky has apparently closed the facility that currently produces them.

It looks to me, and this is the understanding of many who currently work in the service, as if, under this new and improved contract—and there are improvements: mountain rescue is an obvious one—we are going to be relying on one type of helicopter. The service’s current resilience is due to there being more than one type of helicopter. If we are indeed going to be left with one type of helicopter, then there needs to be a plan B. We all know that occasionally accidents happen, and unforeseen design issues arise with helicopters or aeroplanes. When that happens, they are all grounded. If at some future stage—and we hope this never happens—there were to be a grounding of the AW139, and that was the only helicopter in use, where would our entire nationwide search and rescue service be left? Where is the resilience? Where is the plan B? If we were able to have an open and outward-looking consultation in the first place, we might know the answer.

The issue is not just that what is proposed is bad and dangerous—we know that—but the way in which it has been handled. If I could ask one thing of the Minister, it would be that when he goes back to his ministerial colleague who does have responsibility for this, he starts with a blank sheet of paper and says, “This has not been handled well. It is too important to be done badly, so let us have another go—and this time, let us get it right.”

Inshore Industry Fishing Crews: Visas

Debate between Alistair Carmichael and Jim Shannon

Thursday 25th May 2023 Westminster Hall

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered visa arrangements for inshore industry fishing crew.

This is a massive issue for myself and all of us here. We have a deep interest in this subject, and we come once again with a request. As the Minister knows, in January this year I had the opportunity to meet him and discuss this issue. I brought along my hon. Friend the Member for Upper Bann (Carla Lockhart) and two reps from the fishing organisations in Northern Ireland, because we had some really deep concerns with where we are going and the importance of where we are about. I will outline the case for fishing and visas.

I thank all hon. Members for being here, and the Minister as well. He will know that when I put forward my case, I always try to do it in a constructive fashion and in a way that tries to get to a solution. I try to make everything I do solution focused and solution based; I know that other Members will try to do the same thing, but I want to make that point to start with.

The fishing industry in Northern Ireland supports about 1,400 jobs. It is the single biggest employer in the communities of Ardglass, Kilkeel and Portavogie, in my constituency of Strangford. I represent the fishermen in Ardglass and Kilkeel, even though they are not my constituents; their MP does not attend here because of the parliamentary oath, so they ask me to be their representative on matters through the fish producer organisations. Each of those communities relies on its fishing industry, and their fishing industry relies on access to Northern Ireland’s inshore waters.

My case will be specific to Northern Ireland, unlike the request that I will make—I will tell the Minister my request. The right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael) and I spoke this morning, and I think his request will be similar. I also discussed the matter with my friends and colleagues on the Government side before the debate, so I think that we will all ask for the same thing. We are not asking for anything really gigantic, but we are looking for a small, solution-based way forward that we feel may be just what we need to get us over the line.

Why are we in this crisis? Affordable food that is healthy and sustainable is a good thing for all of us. No one has enjoyed seeing the cost of the weekly shop rise, and it is to the benefit of all UK citizens to keep food costs low, but we cannot have everything. If that is to happen, the simple reality we must accept is that it will be harder to entice UK workers into food production. The fishing industry can testify to that, having seen its demographic change towards the increasing employment of foreign workers over the past 30 years.

I have been involved with the fishing sector all my political life, which is quite a long time. I started in 1985 as a councillor, representing the peninsula area where Portavogie is. All that time, my brother was involved in fishing, and many of my friends were as well. Over those 30-odd years, we have seen a greater dependence and reliance on foreign workers.

[Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)]

I anticipate that we will hear the same sort of thing from the Minister that we heard from him in the main Chamber today—namely, that we should be growing local labour. Does the hon. Gentleman hear from his own constituents, as I do, that that labour simply is not there, and that there are reasons why local young people, in particular, are not going into the fishing industry? That is basically because, for decades, they have been told that this is an industry in decline that has no future. We will not turn that perception around overnight when the problem that the boats have is in the here and now.

[Jim Shannon]

I thank my friend and colleague for that comment. I agree. I see it in Portavogie, in Ardglass and in Kilkeel. I will give an example: the Anglo-North Irish Fish Producers Organisation and the Irish Fish Producers Organisation put an advert out—when we were in the EU, by the way—to try to galvanise workers. Some 45 people inquired, five people responded to say that they would be interested in the job, and only one turned up. Whenever they did an advertisement across the whole EU, that was all the interest that there was, so there is an evidential base to prove the case that the right hon. Gentleman refers to.

I see in my constituency that people are not interested. Fishing is a hard job. It is one of the most dangerous jobs: more people are killed in the fishing sector than in many other sectors across the United Kingdom. People are going into other jobs, as it is a hard job. I remember going down into the bowels of one of those fishing boats in Portavogie one day. I said, “And where do you sleep?” The fisherman said, “In that wee place there.” We are born in a foetal position, and that is the way they sleep. It is impossible to know how anybody could ever sleep on a boat that is tossing about in the sea. The point is: it is a hard job.

Sub-postmasters and Sub-postmistresses: Remuneration

Debate between Alistair Carmichael and Jim Shannon

Tuesday 23rd May 2023 Westminster Hall

[Mr Carmichael]

I give way to the hon. Member.

[Jim Shannon]

I commend the right hon. Gentleman for bringing the debate forward. He is absolutely right, and the same thing applies in my Strangford constituency. The wages and remuneration have to reflect—they do not at this point—the hours committed, the staff employed, the contribution to the local community and the social engagement for people of a senior generation. Those things are critical, and they must be reflected accordingly in the money for wages.

[Mr Carmichael]

I give way to my hon. Friend.

Energy Support for Farms

Debate between Alistair Carmichael and Jim Shannon

Tuesday 21st March 2023 Westminster Hall

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

It is indeed a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Robertson, and an even greater pleasure to support my hon. Friend the Member for Upper Bann (Carla Lockhart). She has outlined very clearly the problems that her constituents in Upper Bann are having, and I want to reflect on those problems as well.

It is also a pleasure to see the Minister in his place. He reminded me at 11 o’clock that this debate was on— I was already going to come, by the way. It is a real pleasure to be here. I think that he has already told me that whatever I ask for, he will respond in a positive fashion. I am not quite sure how that will work out, but perhaps my hon. Friend the Member for Upper Bann could give me a list of things to ask for. I say that in jest, by the way, but I know that the Minister will reply in a very positive fashion and I appreciate that.

My hon. Friend the Member for Upper Bann is truly an advocate, in every sense of the word, for her constituents. She is also—I say this respectfully—a credit to her constituency and to us as her colleagues. We are very pleased to have her here alongside us today and we are equally pleased to support her.

I declare an interest as a landowner and a farmer, and a member of the Ulster Farmers’ Union. As my hon. Friend and I both hail from rural constituencies, we are often of one mind and one voice. Everyone else present is also of that one voice because the issue raised by my hon. Friend affects many constituencies across this whole United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.

It is hard to know what more can be added to the comprehensive case that my hon. Friend has made today, but I will certainly do my best to contribute to this debate in a positive fashion. Farmers and farm businesses are heading towards crisis, which will not be a matter of a few “Closed” signs and a closed door; instead, it is a matter of food security, which is of the utmost importance to this House.

I chair the all-party parliamentary group on eggs, pigs and poultry. There is no better APPG to chair, by the way; I love telling people about it. Everybody says, “Well, you’ll have a good breakfast every morning”, and I probably do. I always have two eggs every morning; I do not always have bacon or sausages, but I always have my eggs.

In my constituency of Strangford, the eggs, pigs and poultry sectors have intensive businesses with high energy usage. They have been encouraged to produce more food over the years, and to invest to do so. They have done that. The old saying, “You need to speculate to accumulate”, only really works if someone can speculate in a way whereby they know they will get a return. The problem is that with energy costs being so high, that speculation is now looking rather doubtful for many farmers, which is why we worry.

In my constituency of Strangford, we have the world-famous Comber spud. There is no spud like it; there are no potatoes like it in the whole world. By the way, Europe recognised that and I have to say that I had a small role to play in getting the Comber spud recognised by Europe. My colleague at that time was Simon Hamilton. He and I pursued that objective and the Comber potato is now highly recognised and valued, not only right across the whole of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, but as far away as Europe.

The very famous Comber potato is produced by farmers in my area. They are immensely proud of that product, as they rightly should be. In my constituency of Strangford, we are blessed with precisely the right climate to be able to produce three crops of potatoes per year instead of the standard two. As I say, that is due to the climate, but it is also down to the soil. I would say, without fear of being contradicted, that there is no better soil in Northern Ireland to do that. And what a joy it is to represent that constituency, which has, as I say, the best soil there is.

The difficulty for the businesses in my constituency is that the cost of production has risen but the cost to the agrifood industry of converting potatoes into mash pots—which is where nearly all potatoes seem to go now—or whatever form they take, means that they cannot provide as much food as they potentially could. That is due to the rising energy costs.

[Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way and I remind the House of my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. He touches on the most important part of the debate. The issue is not just that farmers face increased energy costs, but that that is part of the overall package. They have labour shortages and are under the cosh in just about every way imaginable. Consequently, if they are not able to meet the demand, other food sources will come through trade deals, and once they fill that gap in the market, we will never get them out.

[Jim Shannon]

The right hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. I will refer to that shortly and give an example. There are many issues with workforce and the supply of products as well. We have had problems over the last year, before and after Christmas, and I wish to refer to them as well.

Over the years, Government have encouraged farms to diversify and modernise, providing grants for new equipment and technology. However, Government have not taken into account the fact that costs have quadrupled in the space of a year for many farmers, and grants and subsidies certainly do not meet those rising costs. When I speak to farmers in my constituency about the possibilities for renewable energy—there are quite a few who are trying to do it—I learn that, unfortunately, they have heard too many stories of fields being used for solar energy with only £100 being saved on the electricity bill. They would be better off renting out their field for a birthday party bouncy castle, which would bring in more revenue than £100. The numbers do not seem to add up for many and that is why we must now step in and sow solutions into the problem. Hopefully, the Minister will give us some ideas about what can be done to assist and help.

The lifeblood of this nation lies in self-sustainability. The right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael) referred to that. The UK does not produce enough fruit and vegetables for its population to get the recommended five portions a day. Even without taking waste into account, the United Kingdom would need to produce or import 9% more fruit and veg for everyone to be able to eat the recommended amount. That is not possible while farmers do not have the ability to produce and process in profit.

The recent debacle with the fruit and vegetable shortage highlighted a pertinent point: the UK depends on Morocco and Spain for vegetables during the winter. It does not have the workforce to sustain and gather all the fruit and veg in the summer. There are opportunities to do that better and to work ahead. Because of heavy rains and floods, suppliers have been hit by the problem of ferry cancellations, which has, in turn, affected lorry transport. At one stage, the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs had to reply in the House as to why food was so scarce. To be fair, it was not the Secretary of State’s fault, but ultimately the need to find a solution fell at her feet.

Supermarkets have also had shortages of broccoli and citrus fruits and we were left with rationing. I am not an avocado man, but my wife mentioned that they were in short supply as well. We never eat them, by the way, so I do not know why she told me that. I could not figure it out because it did not really make that much difference. However, farmers know they could fill the breach with other seasonable vegetables if they had the capacity to do so in a profit-making venture. If it comes to speculating, to accumulate we need to encourage the farmers to do just that.

Generations of farmers are prepared to carry on with the family farm and the back-breaking, morale-destroying and socially isolating nature of their work. We may not give farmers enough credit for all they do. They work away. I have always lived in the countryside, so I am aware of that from friends I went to school with and others I know quite well. Also, I live on a farm and my neighbours are all intensive farmers. But they cannot do this without support and the recent payment does not even make a dent in what is needed.

I back my hon. Friend the Member for Upper Bann in her calls for meaningful support. This is not only a matter of saving a job; this is about saving the nation’s ability to survive alone, and that is worth any investment in my eyes and hopefully in those of the Minister.

Relations with China: Xi Jinping Presidency

Debate between Alistair Carmichael and Jim Shannon

Thursday 16th March 2023 Westminster Hall

[Jim Shannon]

The hon. Lady is absolutely right. The disgraceful and quite illegal treatment of the Uyghurs in China has disturbed us and put a burden on our hearts for them. We cannot understand how any country that espouses freedom—as China likes to say it does whenever it does the very opposite—can act in that way. The forced sterilisation of women, the abuse of women, the imprisonment of millions of Uyghurs in camps and the taking away of their religious liberty and their right to express themselves concern us greatly, so the hon. Lady is right to highlight that matter and to ensure that we have the opportunity to understand it.

The crackdown in Hong Kong is another issue. We watched as we handed over Hong Kong to the Chinese. The Chinese made lots of assertions that they would ensure that freedom was maintained, and for a short period it was, but things have gone downhill over the past few years, and China is cracking down hard on any expression in Hong Kong.

[Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)]

On the question of Hong Kong, is it not obvious that one reason why the Chinese Government did not honour the terms of the joint declaration was that they were given lots of signals from this country that we did not really care that much about it and that we were quite glad to be shot of Hong Kong? Signals matter, and the signals that we send every time we prefer trade to human rights are entirely the wrong signals to be sending.

[Jim Shannon]

The right hon. Gentleman is truly wise in his words, and I fully agree with his comments. I had the same concern. When the deal was done, there seemed to be almost wishful thinking from the UK Government that things would be all right, when the reality should have told us—and the Government—that they definitely would not.

The issue of tying business and economic opportunities in with human rights is something I have espoused in Westminster Hall, but also in the main Chamber and through the APPG as well. We need to marry the two together; the one cannot succeed without the others’ interpretation.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jim Shannon]

It is certainly not balanced. The right hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. He has highlighted this point in the Chamber on numerous occasions. He consistently and regularly points directly out to the Government that this matter must be addressed. If we are going to do things right, and it is our job in this House to do so, that has to be addressed. If the United States can sanction more people than we could even consider—I understand the number is maybe two in our country—we have to and we must do more. I congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on all he does; we recognise his contribution.

The national security law is an arbitrary piece of legislation, the details of which were kept secret until after it was passed. It criminalises any act of disobedience or dissent, and any challenge to the Government can be swept up in the catch-all categories of secession, subversion, terrorism and, crucially, collusion with foreign or external forces. Rather than being used to protect people, the national security law is being used to silence—the very opposite. Newspaper and internet news outlets have been shut, journalists arrested and protesters detained—all accused of one or more of the four national security law charges.

The most infamous case of the law being used to crush media freedom in Hong Kong as that of Apple Daily, the most popular newspaper in Hong Kong, which is pro-democracy and openly called out Chinese Communist party activities. It was founded by a British citizen, Jimmy Lai, whose spent his 800th day in a Hong Kong prison last Friday 10 March. His national security law trial is repeatedly delayed, as the Hong Kong authorities scramble to find a new set of legal machinations just to keep him in prison. He is a British citizen. We should be doing more for him. I do not see that, and it disappoints me.

China has broken its promises to Britain and to the people of Hong Kong that the city would enjoy its way of life under the one country, two systems formula, which promised a high degree of autonomy for 50 years following the 1997 handover. Hong Kong is now a puppet state of China. The recent multimillion dollar campaign, “Hello Hong Kong”, called on the world to come to the reopened city. It fell flat, given that 47 democracy campaigners were put on trial the very next day. Welcome to Hong Kong—“If you come to Hong Kong, here is what happens to you.”

Across the world, China seems to be at the centre of multiple political and economic scandals, whether that is spy balloons over America or interference in Canada’s election. There seems to be an increasing sense that China has never been bolder in asserting itself around the world. The belt and road initiative, adopted by the Chinese Government in 2013, to invest in more than 150 countries and international organisations, is considered a centrepiece of Chinese leader Xi Jinping’s foreign policy.

We can see China’s tentacles across Africa and in countries around the world. The policy has been used to extend Chinese economic and political influence around the world. It has been used to secure votes at multinational organisations such as the United Nations, the Association of Southeast Asian Nations, and in many regional groupings across the world. It forces countries into debt economics. Even EU states now have ports, docks and infrastructure projects funded by the belt and road initiative, at a time when the EU should be shoring up its own defence, cyber and technological strategies. The initiative is causing splits inside the EU and creating division among Governments. That is great news for China and for other authoritarian states.

Here in the UK, we have seen the rise of China’s economic and political engagement. In 2022, more students came to the UK from China than anywhere else. Nearly one in four international students is from China—approximately 152,000 students. Of the 2,600 international students studying at Queen’s University in Belfast, we have a vibrant Chinese community of more than 1,200 students.

Along with that, we have seen the explosion of Confucius Institutes across the UK. The United Kingdom is host to 30 Confucius Institutes, more than any other country. Their ostensible purpose is to teach Mandarin and to promote Chinese culture, but in reality they are part of the above-ground arm of the Chinese Communist party’s United Front Work Department.

According to a 2022 report by the Henry Jackson Society and the Committee for Freedom in Hong Kong Foundation, those 30 institutes have been funded to the tune of as much as £46 million, mostly from the Chinese Government. Unlike the British Council, Confucius Institutes are formally part of the propaganda system of the Chinese Communist party, dependent on Chinese Government funding and, in general, subject to People’s Republic of China speech restrictions. Although Confucius Institutes are described as language and culture centres, the report confirms that only four of the 30 institutes stick solely to language and culture. Quite clearly, they do their own thing and ignore much of what is going on.

Operating from prestigious universities such as the University of Edinburgh and the London School of Economics, Confucius Institutes have been informing Government policy and politicians, offering consultancy services to business, promoting trade and co-operating with UK organisations that work with the United Front Work Department, the interference activities of which were recently highlighted by MI5 and reported prominently in the papers and media. That is not innocent language and cultural exchange.

In spite of the political attention paid to Confucius Institutes, and the press and academic attention during the last six years, the pattern has gone unnoticed, and its ramifications have been ignored—an issue that the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green brings to this House on many occasions. To combat those negative practices, the Government should consider the introduction of legislation to remove Confucius Institutes completely from UK universities. Will the Minister confirm whether the British Government will do just that? Further, it has been suggested that the Government should provide funding for UK universities to allocate to China studies and bolster knowledge regarding China’s presence in the UK. I believe that that merits consideration. It is not the direct responsibility of the Minister, but it is certainly one for Education Ministers.

Time is passing, but I should mention the fact that many believe that there is a notable level of political interference—from funding from Chinese nationals to Members of Parliament, to the beating of Bob Chan in Manchester last October. I am sure we all vividly remember this man, who was beaten by the Chinese consul general and other diplomats in full view of the public and cameras. The consul general then went on TV to admit to and justify his actions; he did not even feel ashamed or regretful. The appropriate action should have been taken, yet it appears that it was left to fade into the background. Eventually, two months later, China recalled the diplomats, and it appears that no steps whatever were taken by the British to send the message that that behaviour is not tolerated. Again, that is disappointing and regrettable. I always say things respectfully to the Ministers, but I want my Government and my Ministers to be strong when it comes to standing up for human rights and against things that are wrong across the world.

As a nation, we should be seeking constructive relationships with countries around the world. I understand that not all will be savoury, but we should be making human rights and good conduct cornerstones of our foreign relations—even, or especially, as the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland said, when it comes to trade and development. That is what sets our country apart from authoritarian ones such as China. There is no reason for the UK not to have a constructive relationship with China, but we should not be afraid on any occasion to say no and to show strength, and we need to do that more regularly and more courageously.

[Mr Carmichael]

The hon. Gentleman has given a comprehensive tour de raison of the issues. Considering it as a whole—I get a sense that he is coming to his peroration—does he think it reasonable or sensible that the integrated review refresh that we heard about on Monday now does not classify China as a threat?

[Jim Shannon]

That was a disappointment. The right hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. It is clear from my contribution, and will be clear from what others will say, that we do see China as a threat. We want to have a working relationship, but we have to recognise that China quite clearly does not.

Surely, if any lessons are to be learned from the relationship with Russia over the last 10 years, for example, it is that kowtowing, appeasing or ignoring will lead to only more egregious actions by the aggressor state—from Russia in the past, but from China in the future. China has been watching the war that Russia has inflicted on Ukraine, and it will have noted that while Russian troops are killing, raping and bombing Ukrainian citizens, Western states in some cases have been prevaricating and debating what to do in response. China is watching, and so is Taiwan. Sending weapons is good, but it could all have been avoided if the warning signs about Russia were heeded several years ago.

Genomics and National Security

Debate between Alistair Carmichael and Jim Shannon

Wednesday 8th March 2023 Westminster Hall

[Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered genomics and national security.

Alistair Campbell, of course, might be somebody who will wind up at some point. Notwithstanding that minor quibble, it is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Mr Davies, and to bring what might be seen by some as a slightly niche subject to the House. I am pleased to see the Minister in his place.

It is worth stating at the outset why I have initiated the debate and what I hope to achieve with it. Let me first accentuate the positives. Genomics is a great British success story and the opportunities for further advancement in the future are phenomenal. In 2003, two years ahead of schedule, the Human Genome Project successfully sequenced the human genome. Since then, genomic research has transformed healthcare. Numerous genomic applications, including non-invasive prenatal genetic testing, DNA-based forensics, genetic disease diagnostics and covid-19 surveillance are now commonplace. Indeed, covid exposed the importance of genomics in monitoring new variants and enabling targeted interventions at a community level. The industry is already worth billions and it will only grow.

But we all know that where there are opportunities, there are also risks—and that is where I want to take the Minister’s attention today. I have been a Minister; he has been a Minister. We all understand that although government can do many great things, it is often clunky and finds difficulties responding when science and technology bring change at a quite bewildering pace, which is exactly what is happening here.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for securing this debate; he is right to underline the issue of risk. Not so long ago I read an article that highlighted the previous existing ties between UK universities and Chinese state-linked companies, about which the US National Security Commission on Artificial Intelligence had issued a warning. It referred to a

“global collection mechanism for Chinese government genetic databases.”

Does the right hon. Member agree that although it is important to encourage the use of genomics for early intervention and prevention, the national security of information gathered is also of utmost—and perhaps even greater—importance?

[Mr Carmichael]

Absolutely, and the question of the work in our universities and other research institutions is one to which I will turn in some detail later. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving me the opportunity to highlight its importance in this debate.

Consider, though, what happened in recent years in relation to data protection. Regulation of data use was essentially analogue in a world that had gone digital, and it was therefore possible for a company such as Cambridge Analytica to take advantage of poor regulation and to build a business model that was all about the manipulation of opinion.

Genomics is a subject that is often poorly understood outside its own walls. A few years ago, we would have said exactly the same thing about data protection and mass data capture; we simply did not understand the significance of data capture through social media. Well, we understand that better now, and as a consequence we are having to scramble to catch up. If the Minister wants a bit of entertaining bedtime reading in this subject, I recommend Chris Wylie’s book—forgive the vulgarity, but this is the title—“Mindf*ck”. It is about the creation of the Cambridge Analytica model, which used data captured from social media. If we do not learn the lessons of data capture and data protection, we risk the same things happening in genomics and national security.

As a country, we need to ensure that we have a suitable regulatory environment that will protect the gains we have made in the genomics space. That regulation has to protect individual data privacy rights and our national security and economic interests. I believe that our regime falls short in the latter aspect, and it must be made fit for purpose.

We know the positive applications of genomics, and in the coming decade genomics research could lead to breakthrough therapies for hundreds of genetic diseases. It could also create a truly personalised approach to healthcare and enable us to predict the risk of disease at a population level. However, there are also enormously dangerous applications of the technology. Genomic research could be, and in some cases already is being, deployed to widen global health inequalities, curtail human rights, and threaten global peace and stability. There is a spectrum of threat involved, which can range from population engineering to improve “population quality” to genetic extinction technologies in bioweapons.

Genomics is the next frontier in surveillance for repressive regimes such as China, and in 2022, the Citizen Lab found that since 2016 the Chinese Government had been conducting mass DNA campaigns in Tibet and in Xinjiang, as well as a police-led national programme of male DNA collection, to intensify state repression and control.

How are we in the UK mitigating those threats? From Watson and Crick to John Sulston’s vision to map the human genome, applying technology developed by Fred Sanger, the UK has long led the world in this vital research. Still today, our world-leading universities and thriving genomics ecosystem, combined with our continued role in the western alliance, mean that the UK can lead the way in ensuring that genomics is used for the right reasons and in the right way. However, that will continue only if the right decisions are taken now.

More than half our research is a product of international partnerships, and those partnerships need to be based on shared values over the protection of human rights and on reciprocity. The Centre for the Protection of National Infrastructure already does important work to protect the integrity of international research collaboration, but we must be more proactive. Our institutions need to get the most out of international scientific collaboration while protecting intellectual property, sensitive research, personal information and, ultimately, our national defence.

Already, it is evidenced that questionable actors are finding a way into the space left by poor regulation, and we risk finding ourselves a few years down the line in the situation we were in some years ago when we had to remove Huawei from the roll-out of the 5G network. Had we acted earlier on Huawei, we would not have had to engineer it out later.

In the field of genomics, more attention needs to be paid to the work of the Chinese gene giant, the BGI Group. BGI is one of a large number of Chinese state-linked companies that have been implicated in the repression of Uyghurs and the forced collection of genetic data. It has a lengthy history of collaboration with the People’s Liberation Army, and is just one example of a company that should not be operating without constraint within our institutions.

The UK relies on the general data protection regulation to regulate the work of groups such as BGI and hopes that genomics firms such as BGI will follow GDPR, rather than the Chinese national security law, but I genuinely question just how likely that is. As the Minister will know, article 7 of the national security law states that

“organisations and citizens shall support, assist, and cooperate with national intelligence efforts”.

That is a law to which BGI is subject. The BGI Group does not submit itself to independent data security or cyber-security audits, and essentially, we are prepared to take BGI on trust. To me, that feels a little naive.

The US National Security Commission on Artificial Intelligence noted:

“BGI may be serving…as a global collection mechanism for Chinese government genetic databases”.

It also said that BGI

“poses similar threats in the biotechnology sector as Huawei does in the communications sector.”

In 2020, the US Department of Commerce added Xinjiang Silk Road BGI and Beijing Liuhe BGI—two BGI subsidiaries—to an export blacklist for

“conducting genetic analyses used to further the repression of Uyghurs and other Muslim minorities”.

If that is the conclusion of some of our most trusted allies’ agencies, why is the United Kingdom so determined to take a different approach? I fear it may be that we are already further down the road of reliance on companies such as BGI than many in the Government are prepared to acknowledge and admit.

On a point made by the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), a recent Times investigation found that no fewer than 42 universities in the United Kingdom that have links with Chinese institutions connected to the repression of the Uyghurs, espionage, nuclear weapons research or hacking. Many of them have had links with Chinese universities carrying out military work. Twenty-one universities, including Cambridge, Sheffield, Leeds and Queen Mary University of London, are partnered with what is termed “very high-risk Chinese institutions”.

The reach of BGI into key areas of healthcare and scientific research should be of particular concern. Let me contrast the view of the National Counterintelligence and Security Centre in the USA with the answer given recently to a written parliamentary question asked by the hon. Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Catherine West), in which Ministers stated that

“the genomics industry is not designated as critical national infrastructure in the UK”.

The truth of the matter is that genomics is playing a role not just in the advancement of science but in economic competition between the UK and our allies on the one hand and competitor states on the other. It is a new front in the defence of the realm.

As far as I am able to tell, there have been no cross-departmental discussions at Cabinet level about the involvement of China and its state-linked companies in the UK genomics and bionomics sector. That has got to change. We need much more proactive work, both within the Government and among the Government, industry and academia. We need to identify potential issues and put in place structures that will protect data privacy and ensure the proper use of genomic research.

If companies such as BGI are not prepared to submit to meaningful compliance audits, we have to stop treating them as if they are trusted partners. At the risk of stating the totally blindingly obvious, once data is shared, we cannot get it back. Although I welcome the Government’s moves last year, including the Trusted Research campaign, led by the CPNI, and the launch of the research collaboration advice team in the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, those bodies need to be properly resourced and given proactive mandates to advise and support universities and others engaged in research in this area.

How do we start to turn this situation round within the limits of what is currently available to us? Other things can probably be done with the legislation that is currently going through the House, but what can we do with what is currently available? I suggest to the Minister that the most important step we can take is to bring the genomics industry within the definition of critical national infrastructure. That is defined as:

“Those critical elements of infrastructure (assets, facilities, systems, networks, or processes, and the essential workers who operate and facilitate them), the loss or compromise of which could result in (a) major detrimental impact and the availability, integrity, or delivery of essential services, including those services where integrity, if compromised, could result in significant loss of life or casualties—taking into account significant economic or social impacts; and/or (b) significant impact on national security, national defence, or the functioning of the state.”

It defies belief that genomics is not already included in that definition, and that the Government have apparently not even considered putting it in.

We need to start to scrutinise the work of Chinese genomics firms that are involved in the UK’s health and research sector in the same way that we currently scrutinise firms in areas such as defence technology, telecoms and CCTV surveillance. There must be no trade-off between research success and the promotion of our democratic values and adherence to standards of human rights. Just as the UK Government eventually opted not to allow Huawei access to our 5G critical infrastructure, they must now consider the threats to our national security of allowing BGI and other companies linked to competitor or hostile Governments to access our genomic data.

This is not the sexiest subject that we are going to find, and I suspect that it will not be raised on many doorsteps yet, but consider how the previous exercise in relation to data capture worked out, whereby people understood too late what they had been part of, and the concerns that that raised. This is an opportunity for the Government, just for once, to get ahead of the curve. I would like to hear from the Minister that he understands that and that work is going on within the Government to do exactly that.

Strangford Lough: Tidal Wave Energy

Debate between Alistair Carmichael and Jim Shannon

Tuesday 10th January 2023 Commons Chamber

[Jim Shannon]

That is the sort of support I am always looking for. I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention, and the other Members for their interventions too.

I am pleased to introduce a matter that is of some interest to myself and, I suspect, should also be of some interest to those across the west coast of Scotland, England and Wales. For us in Northern Ireland, and specifically the constituency of Strangford, to have the opportunity to be involved in tidal energy would be a key development.

I thank Mr Speaker for granting me this Adjournment debate. I know that the Minister will be aware of the energy crisis we are in, but I will give a bit of background. I look forward to hearing from the Minister, who is always very kind; his response was very helpful in the debate we had in Westminster Hall, and this debate carries on from that. I am aware that some of the current crisis is due to the war in Ukraine, and we all understand the difficulties that has caused to supply and price. I just make these comments to introduce the debate on tidal wave energy for Strangford lough.

I know that every representative in this House will share my experience of people ringing up for referrals to food banks and, increasingly, people asking for help with gas and electricity. While I welcome the help for households, which is months behind in delivery in Northern Ireland, by the way, I have real concern that every energy payment arriving in people’s accounts may be used for other things.

To give a bit of background to why this debate is important, someone in Northern Ireland who pays for their gas can top up by only £49 at a time, which means 12 individual trips plus booking a taxi. Added together, that underlines why Parliament is debating tidal energy in Strangford tonight and why we must make the long-term consideration of our secure energy supply a priority.

My office was fortunate to have a wonderful conversation with Professor Roger Falconer, emeritus professor of water and environmental engineering at the Hydro-environmental Research Centre of Cardiff University. He helped us by clearly putting forward some relevant information, so the conversation was illuminating and incredibly informative. He powerfully underlined that, if we invest long term in our facilities, our energy security can be home-sourced through the wonderful natural resources that God has blessed this country with. I have long believed that, so it is nothing new—I have always supported the idea of tidal wave energy in Strangford lough—yet the professor succinctly showed that the potential that I wish to highlight in Strangford and the Province applies UK-wide, including on the west coast of Scotland, England and Wales. It can be a clean energy solution, which we all know is the end goal.

As I have said in the House previously, we can depend on the sun rising and setting, so we can depend on the tides. The tidal potential of Strangford lough is incredible, as it is on the entire west coast of the United Kingdom. I am pleased to see that the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael) is present, because he always brings knowledge to such debates. I am sure that he will intervene at some stage and give us his thoughts on the way forward for the islands.

[Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)]

Go on then—the hon. Gentleman knows that we have a shared interest. Does he agree that, essentially, the exciting prospect of tidal power is that it offers an opportunity to get a baseload of renewable energy, not just because of the predictability, but because when it ebbs somewhere, it flows somewhere else? It does not suffer from the intermittency of other renewables.

[Jim Shannon]

How wise and true those words are. The right hon. Gentleman sets the scene for what I will say next.

Wind turbines are popping up as a quick fix. Undoubtedly, when the wind is blowing, that is tremendous, but we cannot tell in advance when the wind will be blowing. We can pinpoint the tide for decades in advance, however, as the right hon. Gentleman said. The ebb and flow of the tides at the mouth of Strangford lough is stronger than many on the west coast of Scotland and certainly the best in the Province. Professor Falconer highlighted in a lovely way that the highest energy use in Wales comes at half time when the England and Wales rugby teams meet. His view is that the peak tidal time could determine match times to subsequently make use of energy usage planning, which is imperative.

For that to happen, however, the Government must decide to invest, and that is my call today. They should invest not simply in Strangford’s potential, to which the title of the debate refers, but in the UK-wide tidal potential to which the right hon. Gentleman referred. The ability to plan decades in the future is attractive in any policy, which is why I once again draw the Minister’s attention to the need for long-term investment in a clean, sustainable energy source that is not affected by goings on around the world.

There are two types of tidal energy: tidal turbines or streams, and tidal ranges. With a current of more than 2.5 metres per second, Strangford lough has obvious potential for a tidal stream, which is why there was a trial there with the 2008 SeaGen project. I was a Member of the Northern Ireland Assembly then, as were some of my hon. Friends, and a member of Ards Borough Council. It was an incredibly successful pilot scheme, but it never seemed to go anywhere. Energy prices have risen, however, which makes the scheme more possible and acceptable.

The trial was commissioned by Marine Current Turbines, a subsidiary of British tidal energy company Siemens. It was an investment at that time of some £12 million. The project involved the installation of two 600 kW turbines producing 150 kW of electricity to the grid in July 2008. SeaGen generated electricity at its maximum capacity for the first time in December 2008. Without doubt, the scheme has produced 5 GWh of tidal power since its commissioning, which is equivalent to the annual power consumption of 1,500 households.

I am given to believe that the mouth of Strangford lough, with the ebb and flow of the tides in the narrows, could reliably hold up to 20 turbines. I am not saying that it should hold 20 turbines, but it could do so because of the flow of the tides there. That is enough energy for half the households in Northern Ireland to be cleanly supplied, and it is worth looking at. Indeed, I believe it cannot be ignored as the potential is truly enormous.

We know that wind turbines are easy to install once planning is passed, but they provide very moderate energy, and the density of water means that tidal energy is infinitely preferable. In my opinion, the tide in Strangford lough must take its place in the long-term provision of energy, and for this it needs investment. We need money put not simply into short-term wind turbines, but into engineering in the sea that can and will meet needs in the long term.

The second type of energy is tidal range, with a dam being built in tidal lagoons and suchlike. One example is the west Somerset lagoon, which has been strategically located on the southern coast of the Bristol channel basin between Minehead and Watchet to take advantage of the world’s second highest tidal range. It can generate the maximum energy possible while minimising the environmental, economic and visual disturbance, in that it provides coastal protection against storms and sea level rises, and has other environmental protections.

The West Somerset lagoon can generate 6.5 TWh per year of energy, which is equivalent to the energy needs of over 2 million medium consumption homes, according to Ofgem. Again, this shows what can be done, and if it can be done there, I believe it can be done elsewhere. Such a scheme could deliver continuous power with tidal phasing as well. This could, with short-term storage added to the scheme, deliver firm, continuous power. Here we have something that has been proven to be successful in the West Somerset lagoon, that the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland believes to be successful in his constituency and that I believe could be extremely successful in Strangford lough in my own constituency.

It is my considered opinion that tidal range and tidal streams complement each other, and we should look holistically at our tidal regions to determine the best use of tides in such areas. To this end, my ask to the Minister —as he knows from the debate we had in Westminster Hall, but I will ask him again—is to consider putting in place a tidal taskforce to adequately evaluate not only our potential, but how we can practically begin the process of harnessing this power in co-ordination with marine conservation. We can do it, and it has been proven it can be done, and if it can be done in Strangford lough, I believe we can deliver the green energy that can supply many homes across Northern Ireland—not just in my constituency of Strangford, but indeed across the whole Province.

Talking about this in the House is necessary, but setting up a stand-alone dedicated taskforce to deal with this is just as vital as the funding stream that needs to be given to projects including Strangford lough and wider UK concerns. While tidal streams can be built quickly and the energy produced quickly—and this is tremendous for Strangford lough—the potential of the tidal range in Strangford lough and other areas will take greater planning and long-term strategy. Now more than ever, we have the wake-up call that we must fix this in the short term, but also invest in the long term. The time for planning the new Hinkley C was 10 years ago, and I do not want to wait 10 years for this House to be looking back and asking why we did not invest in tidal range, which has the potential to provide the same amount of energy output in a much safer way.

While the cost of tidal energy may be similar to other massive energy products, such as Hinkley, its safety is much greater. Indeed, for long-term investment, the life span of a project such as the one I am suggesting to the Minister is double that of Hinkley at 120 years, with the turbines being replaced after 60 years. I know that long-term investment is needed, but I believe that our children will thank us for it, as they will have sustainable energy for generations to come. I honestly do believe that now is the time to make this investment. I am aware, as I am sure the Minister will be, that there is international interest in Strangford lough, with Canadian companies looking into this possibility. Now is the time for this House to show willingness to put investment and commitment where our mouth is, and to invest in long-term projects with a guaranteed return.

I want to pay special thanks to the Queen’s University biology station at Portaferry, which is much involved in this idea. I met it way back in the summer to discuss it. It has many pilot schemes for energising and taking advantage of the ebb and flow of the narrows in the water of Strangford lough. It has many ideas, but we keep coming back to the SeaGen pilot scheme of 2008. Its findings clearly show that the project is financially sustainable.

There is also interest in this matter from Minister Gordon Lyons at the Department for the Economy. He understands the issue and has been keen to move it forward, and his civil servants have been actively involved. There is some concern that when it comes to money from Westminster, Scotland and Wales seem to have had some advantage while Northern Ireland has not. There is now an opportunity to ensure that Strangford lough and its tidal wave energy are financially supported.

I know that if Strangford lough were eligible for the second round of tidal energy and tidal lagoons, the project would not be delivered in my time in this House, but we have to start somewhere and tonight is a good time to start. The longevity of the project would be a legacy, not of Jim Shannon because Jim Shannon does not count—

Baha’i Community in Iran

Debate between Alistair Carmichael and Jim Shannon

Tuesday 11th October 2022 Westminster Hall

[Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the treatment of the Baha’i community in Iran.

It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Mr Betts. I welcome the Minister to her position, and I am grateful that there are a number of other colleagues in the Chamber. I chair the all-party parliamentary group on the Baha’i faith; in that regard, before I come to the meat of what I want to say, let me place on the record the appreciation that I feel, and I know my predecessors felt, for the work of the UK Baha’i Office of Public Affairs. Dan Wheatley, in particular, and his various colleagues over the years have been of enormous service to us all, and to the Baha’i community in my constituency. Orkney and Shetland are home to two small but very effective, warm and welcoming Baha’i communities, which have demonstrated great fellowship to me and my family over the years, for which I have always been enormously grateful.

Persecution of the Baha’i community in Iran is hardly new; it has been a feature of life for Baha’is in Iran since the 1979 revolution. However, over the summer, we saw a sharp increase in the number of innocent Baha’is facing persecution by the Iranian state. It is unfortunate—it grieves me—that we have to bring this matter to the House today, but I hope that those who are suffering that persecution will take some comfort from hearing reference made to it in this House. The people whose names I will mention should understand that their suffering and persecution are seen, and that they will not be ignored by those of us who care about human rights for everyone.

Iran does not have a good record on human rights; I think that is an uncontroversial statement across the Chamber. However, rather than getting to grips with it, the country has in recent years stepped up the oppression of its own people. From the arbitrary detention of protesters to the persecution of the LGBTQ+ community and the second highest number of executions in the world, there is a great deal about which we should worry in the state of human rights and freedom in Iran. I do not want to touch on it at any great length, but it would be remiss of me if I were not to mention what we have seen in recent weeks in Iran. In particular, we should mourn the loss of the 22-year-old Kurdish woman Mahsa Amini, who tragically died in police custody after being detained for alleged violations of Iran’s strict dress code.

It is in this context—that of a brutal regime—that we come to Iran’s repression of the Baha’i community inside its own borders. Iran’s religious minorities have suffered for too long at the hands of the state. The Baha’i community of Iran has an estimated 350,000 believers, who have long faced systematic oppression orchestrated by the Government. That alone merits discussion, but the alarming increase in persecutions of the Baha’i community in recent months further shows the need to shine a spotlight on the issue. This year, over the summer in particular, Baha’is in Iran have faced what The New York Times characterised as a “sweeping crackdown” on their community. That new wave of suppression by Iran’s Ministry of Intelligence has included unwarranted arrests of believers and faith leaders, a deeply concerning rise in the confiscation and destruction of property, and accusations that followers of the Baha’i faith have acted as spies for Israel.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I commend the right hon. Gentleman for securing the debate and on the hard work he does for the Baha’i community. I share his concern for that community in Iran. I believe that Iran’s treatment of the Baha’i community serves as a litmus test for Iran’s commitment to freedom of religion or belief. Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that more should be done to stop the arbitrary arrest of Baha’is on spurious allegations? That is one of many ways in which the religious freedom of Baha’is is violated, along with their other fundamental human rights.

[Mr Carmichael]

Indeed I do, and I pay tribute to the hon. Gentleman for the work he does to promote freedom of religion or belief around the world. He makes a very good point, and I hope to give some context in reference to the situation in which the Baha’is in Iran find themselves.

Midas Financial Solutions Collapse

Debate between Alistair Carmichael and Jim Shannon

Tuesday 22nd March 2022 Westminster Hall

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

Thank you, Mr Stringer, for allowing me to speak on this issue. I congratulate the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael) on bringing it forward. As always, he set the scene very well for his constituents, who have lost out, and he was passionate in asking for answers to the questions he put forward. It is pleasing to see the Minister in his place. He always comes with a positive attitude to these issues. He understands them well and we look forward to his response. Hopefully, he can address some of the issues we have.

It is also a pleasure to see the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Hampstead and Kilburn (Tulip Siddiq), in her place. Like others, I want to put on record my thanks to her for her hard work and endeavours to bring home her constituent, Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe, and others. That campaign has been marvellous. We all admire the hon. Lady very much, and we see her perseverance. If she is adding her weight to this debate, I am sure that will be enough to push it over the line— no pressure on the Minister. Again, I thank her so much.

The case of Midas Financial Solutions is disturbing to the extreme. My heart goes out to all those hard-working people who trusted a financial adviser and have lost their money. That was very well illustrated by the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland. From a 22-year-old to two people who have died, there appear to be almost 200 victims. Some of them lost a few thousand, but that was all they had. Those people invested thinking that it would make their money last for their old age. Unfortunately, it did not. Others lost almost £500,000. I have a number of questions for the Minister, but one is whether the families of those who died get compensation?

The sheer scale of the Ponzi scheme is mind-boggling, yet the shortcomings and the evidential base are well documented. People are out of pocket. In debates on other issues, the Minister has tried hard to respond, but we need to ensure that the investors who are most out of pocket—I think 95 is the final figure—can be reimbursed. What can be done to ensure that lessons are learned from what we are bringing to the attention of the Minister and the Government?

When I read the background to the case, one thing became glaringly obvious: the FCA managed to wash its hands of the entire scheme until a judge in the civil case underlined the fact that this was truly an investment scheme and therefore should be accepted into the Financial Services Compensation Scheme. Why did it take a civil case to bring this within the FCA scheme remit? What steps do we need to take to ensure that this does not happen to anyone else and that people can access the scheme, which is designed to help, without having to fund a civil case? It is not always possible for ordinary folk who have already lost the bulk or all of their moneys to pursue a legal case. They must feel frustration; they look to the Government and the system to protect them and to ensure that their investments are okay, ever mindful that there are some in this world who would take advantage of people trying to build something for their future.

My next point runs on from that. It is grossly unfair that those 95 people must pay from their limited recoup to cover legal fees of £1.5 million—or perhaps £2 million, as the right hon. Gentleman said.

[Mr Carmichael]

I can actually give the hon. Gentleman the figure now: it is £1,903,619.92.

[Jim Shannon]

There we have it. The hon. Member for Hampstead and Kilburn and I now know that the figure is £1.9-odd million in legal fees. They will pay that out of the same amount as those who did not pay into the court case will receive. We can understand the frustration of those who paid for these things to be chased up, given that others have the advantage of not having paid. There is an anomaly. Some lost out, but the legal fees then follow. Surely, the public purse should have paid, rather than people who have already lost every penny of their savings.

The head of a regulated company unscrupulously and fraudulently stole millions of pounds to furnish his lavish lifestyle. His own wife has been instrumental in helping the victims, and that is one of the good things that has come out of this, but her husband stole from his customers. Why has the body set up specifically to look into these things been so behind the door in fulfilling its role? How can we ensure that this loophole is removed so that people have full help and assistance in future? There are lessons to be learned that we can use for the future. We need to ensure that people who invest in these pension schemes do not find themselves out of pocket when the time comes.

The background article I read in The Courier highlighted the fact that the warning signals regarding this man were ignored or overlooked by the FCA. If they had not been, that may have prevented more people from being duped. What is being done to prevent these things from ever being overlooked again? People want the assurance and the confidence when they invest that the company they are dealing with is safe and secure. What has been learned by the Government and the Minister? What legal measures will be put in place to ensure this does not happen again?

I conclude by thanking the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland for bringing the debate forward. It is important that these issues are debated in Westminster Hall or the main Chamber. The right hon. Gentleman has been involved in these issues on behalf of others in the past, and we have spoken in many debates together. Our job is always to illustrate examples where, unfortunately, things have gone wrong, but I respectfully say to the Minister that his job and that of the Government is to ensure that these things do not happen again.

Through the debate, we are seeking not only to get justice for the right hon. Gentleman’s constituents and hundreds of others who have lost out, but to ensure the Government close the gaps in support for victims and in the regulation of the system. What has been done legislatively to ensure this does not happen again? This failing has ruined the lives of hundreds of people, when it could have been prevented. It is turning some people’s comfortable retirement into purgatory, and we must address that now.

Post Office Historical Shortfall Scheme

Debate between Alistair Carmichael and Jim Shannon

Tuesday 14th December 2021 Westminster Hall

[Mr Carmichael]

Yes, of course, although there would not be a cost to the Post Office, because there is only one shareholder—the Secretary of State—so it would ultimately come to the taxpayer. I will touch on that in a few minutes.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

[Mr Carmichael]

Very briefly. This debate is for just half an hour.

[Jim Shannon]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for giving way. It was not just the fact that the system let people down. It was the mental and physical health issues that people suffered as a result. Some of them ended their lives early, experienced illness or depression, or lost all they had. The implications of all this go far beyond the system.

[Mr Carmichael]

Absolutely. Indeed, as I will come to in a few minutes, my constituent Elena Kimmett, who was for many years the sub-postmistress in Stromness, illustrates truth better than anyone else I can think of.

I thought the question about culture was perhaps just me being a grumpy guy after a bad meeting, as I can occasionally be, but I had a recent lengthy discussion with the National Federation of SubPostmasters. In correspondence to me, the federation put it in the following terms:

“The culture of the Post Office of today and tomorrow must be significantly different to that of the past. In a recent survey of Postmasters conducted by the NFSP, only 29% believe they are being listened to by Post Office today. In terms of resetting the relationship between Post Office and the network, Postmasters gave Post Office a score of 5 out of 10 for their progress so far.”

The executive director with responsibility for the historical shortfall scheme, Declan Salter, was left in a position in July this year where the Post Office board did not renew his contract, and it has still not been renewed. I would like to hear about that from the Minister, either today or in due course in correspondence. It has left the administration of the scheme rudderless. We need to know the intentions of the board. If it is not going to renew the contract of the person it put in charge of the scheme, it should at least come forward and tell us what it intends to do instead.

Throughout this whole sorry affair, the strategy of the Post Office has been to use public money to outgun the sub-postmasters. The settlement with the sub-postmasters was forced on them by the Post Office. That is in the context of the Post Office knowing, by 2013 at the latest, that many of the convictions were unsafe.

UK-EU Fisheries Allocations

Debate between Alistair Carmichael and Jim Shannon

Tuesday 30th November 2021 Westminster Hall

[Jim Shannon]

My hope will always be that that committee will come up with workable solutions, so that we can solve some of these problems. However, this has gone on for so long that we are now getting to the stage where, if we do not do something quickly, we are going to have really serious problems.

Her Majesty’s Government have agreed that this is absurd. We were told that the matter would be resolved through the Joint Committee, but that did not happen. We read with interest the latest proposal from the European Commission to resolve the impasse, but there was nothing there. Over the past few weeks and months, representatives from the Northern Ireland Fishermen’s Federation have met officials in London and the Minister, and I am really looking forward to her giving us an update in her response. I know that she has already had discussions with Minister Edwin Poots at the Department of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs, so I would be keen to get some idea of what is happening there as well. We have engaged with the fisheries Minister in Dublin on issues such as the designation of landing ports there, a subject in which the UK Minister understandably took a very keen interest recently. The sense they have is that commitments were made but that those were empty promises that have not materialised. To make another pun, actions speak louder than words, and we do not need words today, but actions.

Northern Ireland’s fishing industry is a problem child for some. The analogy is that Northern Ireland’s parents, London and Dublin, have gone through a divorce and the details are still being worked through. Unfortunately, it seems that neither of the parents actually wants us—I am sure the Minister will confirm that she wants us, and we will be greatly encouraged by that when we find it to be the case. In the meantime, the fishing fleet is in survival mode.

The covid pandemic has complicated the scene further, and markets have yet to recover to pre-pandemic levels against a background of increasing overhead costs. Northern Ireland’s fishermen have faced challenges before—worse challenges, some would suggest—and having represented the village of Portavogie at three levels for some 36 years, as a councillor, in the Northern Ireland Assembly and as its MP, I have a deep interest in fishing in Portavogie. My brother used to fish in those boats; I know many people who also fish in Portavogie, and we have regular contact with them. They are resilient, but for many, that resilience is running thin. There are potential solutions to the protocol-related issues, but they require meaningful engagement. I am seeking that meaningful engagement: I am seeking solutions, as the hon. Member for Totnes (Anthony Mangnall) referred to in his intervention, not what the fishermen regard as a lack of interest from London and the begrudging approach by Dublin.

Seamless trade? Ask the processors who face expenses and disruption on a daily basis as they struggle with added bureaucracy when they move seafood from GB into Northern Ireland for processing, as the right hon. Member for Scarborough and Whitby referred to, before it is all shipped back to GB. We were immersed in red tape and bureaucracy when we were in the EU; now we are out of the EU, we are still immersed in it, so there has to be a change in how we do this.

The Government are committed to the levelling-up process. I have welcomed that, and will continue to welcome it in all places, but ask a Northern Ireland fisherman who has seen their share of the new Brexit quota diluted, and quota currencies such as North sea sandeels wiped out because of decisions taken by Ministers here at Westminster, about levelling up. My constituents have been left worse off than their GB colleagues. Despite the recommendation of the Migration Advisory Committee that fishermen be added to the list of skilled occupations, allowing managed recruitment from overseas, the Government have not yet fully addressed that recommendation. However, we did get some concessions on it, which I welcome.

[Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)]

I congratulate the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) on securing this debate. On the question of crew from outwith the European economic area, does he agree that the problem is that the level of language competence demanded in order to meet the skilled migrant profile will not actually be applicable to many of those seeking to come and work on these boats, and that for as long as that remains the case, the problem will be unresolved.

[Jim Shannon]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for a very useful, honest and helpful intervention. Many of us think that the standards set are too high to be achieved. That is an issue that comes up whenever I do my constituency surgeries in Portavogie.

The Government have told us that we should wait until we see the impact on the labour market from the covid pandemic. Last week the Prime Minister confirmed that more people are in employment in the UK than ever before. The right hon. Gentleman is right to suggest that we need standards that are achievable, so that we can let people in and fill the vacant spaces in the fishing sector.

Environment Bill

Debate between Alistair Carmichael and Jim Shannon

Report stage & Report stage: House of Commons
Tuesday 26th January 2021 Commons Chamber

[Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD) [V]]

This Bill has had an exceptionally long gestation, and it is a matter of great regret to me and to my party that, unfortunately, we have learned today that it is to be delayed even further. This should be an area where there is an easy consensus to be built. Surely, in the year when we are due to host COP26, this should be a matter that brings all parties together to achieve meaningful advance. It is a matter of infinite regret that we are not able to do so.

My first plea to the Minister and the Government is this. If we are to have further delay, can we please use the time a bit better than we have so far? Can we ensure that when we host COP26 later this year, we can point to a significant achievement as an instance where we are leading the world, rather than being pulled along in this area of vital importance to all future generations?

I worked regularly with the Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, the hon. Member for Taunton Deane (Rebecca Pow), on the subject of plastic pollution when she was on the Back Benches. It pains me to say that in that respect, the Bill is a major disappointment. We realise that as a consequence of many of the short-term changes that were necessary to tackle the pandemic, the progress that we had been making on the use of single-use plastic has been put on the back burner. That is regrettable, and possibly necessary, but a concerted effort by the Government is required. The pandemic and the restrictions under which we are living will not last forever, but it feels as though the plastic pollution that we are generating now will do so. It will certainly be with us for decades. That is why we must look to the lessons of how we constructed the Climate Change Act 2008, for example, and get on with the business of setting meaningful targets and having meaningful ways of holding the Government to account for meeting them.

The Minister has new clause 11, from her colleague the hon. Member for West Dorset (Chris Loder). Surely that could be given greater impetus now that more time is to be put into the management of this Bill. When she was on the Back Benches, the Minister worked well on the subject with people from across the House. Will she carry on doing that work as a Minister on the Front Bench?

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP) [V]]

I welcome the opportunity to speak to the Government amendments that were made in Committee to clarify the enforcement powers in England of the Office for Environmental Protection, and particularly the fact that further amendments will be made to ensure that they remain aligned with the OEP functions in Northern Ireland. Perhaps the Minister will confirm that that will be the case. I am aware that there has been co-operation with Northern Ireland Ministers, who have requested that these amendments also be made in relation to Northern Ireland, but I welcome their inclusion and this alignment. If only we could see something similar in all aspects of our governance, such as trade, we would be in a much healthier position, with full shelves—but perhaps that is another debate for another day.

I endorse the comments of the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael) about plastic pollution, and I request, as he did, that Ministers and Government make a concerted effort to maintain the reduction of plastic pollution. Although we have seen a lot of reduction, we still need more. Enforceability is always a concern of mine. It is right and proper that we introduce greater, more effective legislation, but it is no use unless there is no doubt about the interpretation of the OEP enforcement provisions and the courts’ ability to grant remedies. Many of us would like to ensure that there is no doubt that the courts can and will enforce the Bill’s provisions.

I am a country sports enthusiast, as I am sure the Minister knows, and part of my being a country sports enthusiast is a dedication and commitment to conservation. That is why the Bill is important; it is an essential component of our moving forward, and that is what I always seek to ensure. It is right and proper that there is a legislative obligation to think about environmental principles and I welcome this addition.

However, some constituents have made it clear that they believe the Bill does not go far enough. I seek further clarification from the Minister. Would she be so kind, during her summing up, to outline the rationale behind excluding defence and procurement from these obligations? Every Government Department should play its part. Whilst it should not be the priority of Defence to think of the economy first—the safety of the nation is first—my constituents believe there could still be an obligation to give consideration to the impact within the process of reaching decisions.

I speak as chair of the all-party parliamentary group for healthy homes and buildings. When it comes to the environment, we believe that more could be done to ensure that Government works with developers to help ensure that new projects are much more sustainable. For example, instead of a developer being responsible for the full price of sewer works, and putting in the least that can be expected to enable them to turn a profit, surely Government or local council assistance to put in long-term environmentally sustainable, more costly infrastructure will benefit us all. I also want to put in a word for the importance of air quality, insulation, heating and play areas—the improvement of all buildings in the future.

I am conscious that the Minister has a lot on her plate—a lot of questions to answer—but I thank her for the time and hope she can take these points on board.

Marine Renewables: Government Support for Commercial Roll-out

Debate between Alistair Carmichael and Jim Shannon

Tuesday 8th December 2020 Westminster Hall

[Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered Government support for the commercial roll-out of marine renewables.

It is a pleasure to be here in Westminster Hall—not least because somebody thought it would be a good idea to turn off the heating in Portcullis House today—and to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Cummins. This debate is both timely and—for a half hour Adjournment debate in Westminster Hall—very well attended. I thank all right hon. and hon. Members present.

I say timely because it follows hot on the heels of the speech by the Prime Minister last week, where he announced plans for a green industrial revolution creating 250,000 jobs. That has the potential to be a highly significant milestone on the road to net zero carbon emissions by 2050. The speech included many laudable goals, and it is my experience from many years in the House that where ambitious targets are made and married to genuine political commitment, that building cross-party consensus in the House for them is not a difficult process; I do hope that we will be able to do so.

If what we got from the Prime Minister last week was the strategy, then today I want to focus the attention of the House and the Minister on one very important tactic: marine energy. The generation of electricity using wave and tidal power is an industrial sector in which the UK has the ability to lead the world. Much of what I want to discuss today will not be new to the Minister. It follows on from a briefing he had in the House from leading industrial developers in the sector earlier in the year, organised by the all-party parliamentary group on marine energy and tidal lagoons.

What is needed now is the finely tuned support mechanisms from Government to turn technical feasibility into commercial application. I declare a very obvious and particular constituency interest. Living in an island community, one is acutely aware of the power of the sea and never far away from it. It can affect just about every aspect of life. Orkney is home to the European Marine Energy Centre, the undisputed world leader in testing wave and tidal devices, both domestic and international. Others envy that status, but it will not last for ever without the positive signals of support that I seek to get from the Minister today.

The Minister will be aware that the EU is already looking at ways to ramp up its efforts to exploit the opportunities that marine renewables present. History tells us that, although we have an advantage having done the groundbreaking research and development work, there are plenty of other places in the world where that could be deployed commercially, as happened with the development of onshore wind.

Although my constituency is currently central to this emerging technology, even now this is not an industry confined to any one constituency, region or nation of the United Kingdom. Work is ongoing in engineering workshops and university research centres throughout the country, from Strangford lough to the Isle of Wight, from the Pentland firth to the south-west of England, this is a truly UK-wide industry. Of course, on the mention of Strangford lough, I give way to the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon).

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

As an Orangeman, there is only one green revolution that I will support, and it is this one. Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that the movement of the tide is as sure as the sun rising and setting? Projects such as the tidal energy generator in Strangford lough, which is a pilot scheme, has given my constituency a glimpse into tidal potential that should be further explored.

[Mr Carmichael]

I absolutely agree, and I would add to that list of tides and sunsets the attendance of the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) at Adjournment debates in the Chamber and Westminster Hall. I think the chairman of the APPG wished to intervene.

Covert Human Intelligence Sources (Criminal Conduct) Bill

Debate between Alistair Carmichael and Jim Shannon

Committee stage & 3rd reading & 3rd reading: House of Commons & Committee: 1st sitting & Committee: 1st sitting: House of Commons & Report stage & Report stage: House of Commons
Thursday 15th October 2020 Commons Chamber

[Mr Carmichael]

Indeed, and the guidance is important. It is helpful to have that published, but of course, guidance is guidance, and it can be changed much more easily than an Act of Parliament. The concern that I and many Members have is that there is little by way of meaningful limits and protections in the Bill, which is where they really require to be.

I will now address the amendments that I have tabled, and I shall seek to do so as swiftly as possible, because I realise that we are under a degree of time pressure. Amendments 20 and 21 cover the question of civil redress. The Government’s proposition is that, essentially, this is a statutory embodiment of existing practice and guidelines. In fact, the truth of the matter is that the Bill goes much further than the MI5’s current guidelines. The guidelines from 2011 state that

“An authorisation of the use of a participating agent has no legal effect and does not confer on either the agent or those involved in the authorisation process any immunity from prosecution”,

and that authorisation

“may form the basis of representations by the Service to the prosecuting authorities that prosecution is not in the public interest.”

The Bill goes much further than that. It states, in effect, that authorised crimes are lawful for all purposes, which means not only that an agent would be exempt from prosecution but that victims would be barred from seeking redress in the civil courts. Cases where civil claims have arisen from the use of covert activities in relation to the animal rights movement, for example, would not have any legal redress in the courts under the Bill. Essentially, the thinking behind amendments 20, 21 and others is that the independent oversight in the Bill simply is not there. We all know—it is human nature, as much as anything else—that if people are left to mark their own homework, they will always give themselves an A*. Frankly, for matters as important as this, we need something a bit more substantial.

The test for authorising criminal conduct in clause 1 is currently that the person authorising the conduct must believe that it is “necessary” and “proportionate” to do so. Amendment 14 is a very modest amendment that would mean it should be not just believed but “reasonably” believed that it is necessary and proportionate. That is not the most significant bar that will have to be crossed, but the fact that it is not there illustrates just how widely the Bill is drawn.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I suspect that the right hon. Gentleman and I have slightly different opinions on the Bill. My party and I broadly support it, perhaps with some amendments that we consider appropriate. Does he agree that, whatever the outcome of today’s proceedings, it is important for those involved to have the resources and staffing necessary to ensure that the objectives set by the Bill can be achieved?

[Mr Carmichael]

The hon. Gentleman makes an important point; it is not perhaps germane to the legislation, but it is important. As we saw on Second Reading, there is a wide understanding across the House of the very difficult, complex and nuanced nature of the decisions that are taken and then the activities that are undertaken as a consequence of these authorisations. This absolutely should be properly resourced and staffed; that should go without saying. The payback for that resourcing is that these people should also be accountable, with some measure of independent oversight of their activities.

UK Foreign Policy: China and Hong Kong

Debate between Alistair Carmichael and Jim Shannon

Monday 10th June 2019 Commons Chamber

[Mr Carmichael]

I differ from the hon. Gentleman only in the smallest grammatical sense, in that as a member of all those various international bodies, the Chinese Government ought to believe in, adhere to and demonstrate respect for international law. In this particular care, they are manifestly failing to do that.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

The one country, two systems agreement between China and Britain is under threat. Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that the real need to balance our global human rights obligations with the need to secure a trade deal does not mean that we forget those obligations? Furthermore, does he agree that we can attempt to use our influence and trade to seek the better understanding of acceptable human rights standards throughout the world, and that the two can and must go hand in hand?

[Mr Carmichael]

I absolutely agree with that. I am a strong advocate of human rights and often preach the gospel of their universality, but I am not starry-eyed about it, especially when it comes to working with countries that do not reach or have not yet reached the standards that we adhere to in this country. I will always engage with countries where I think there is an opportunity for improvement, but we have to see that improvement. As far as the People’s Republic of China is concerned, we are not seeing an improvement. In fact, if anything, we are going backwards: I think of the treatment of the Uyghur Muslims in the Xinjiang province; I think of the treatment of the people of Tibet; and I think of the treatment of religious minorities right across the People’s Republic of China and of the people of Hong Kong.

As I have said, I had anticipated that our debate tonight would rehearse a number of the areas that we have spoken about in the past. I was thinking about the treatment of the Umbrella Movement protesters; the closure of political parties; the expulsion of the Financial Times journalist, Victor Mallet; the creation of the new offence of insulting China’s national anthem without any effort to define what that insult might be and how it would be constituted; and the abduction of booksellers. In fact, when we consider all these things, it is impossible now, especially given the demonstration of support that we saw in Hong Kong at the weekend, to consider any of these things without considering the position in relation to the extradition arrangements and the Bill, which is currently coming towards the Legislative Council. These issues all tie in to this question of extradition.

You spoke earlier, Mr Speaker, about our mutual friend Benedict Rogers. In fact, in preparing for my debate tonight, I had recourse to an opinion piece that he had recently published. I want to read just a bit of it for the benefit of the House, because it illustrates perfectly how the position of the booksellers in particular and the other causes that I have mentioned all tie into this question of the extradition legislation. He wrote:

“‘If the extradition law is passed, it is a death sentence for Hong Kong,’ said Lam Wing-kee in a crowded coffee shop in Taipei. ‘Beijing will use this law to control Hong Kong completely. Freedom of speech will be lost. In the past, the regime kidnapped its critics like me illegally. With this law, they will abduct their critics legally.’

Yet Lam Wing-kee, 63, knows from first-hand experience what the consequences of this change to the extradition law could be, and how the Chinese Communist party behaves. On 24 October 2015, Lam, who managed a bookshop and publishing business in Causeway Bay that sold books critical of China’s leadership, was arrested as he crossed the border into mainland China in Shenzhen. There then followed an eight-month nightmare in which he was first imprisoned in Ningbo and then moved to Shaoguan, a small mountain town in Guangdong province where he was assigned to work in a library—better off than in prison, but still not free and completely cut off from the outside world.

‘I was not physically tortured, but mentally I was threatened and subjected to brainwashing,’ he said.

When he was first arrested, Lam was forced to sign two statements: surrendering his right to inform his family of his whereabouts and his right to a lawyer. Over the eight months he was held in China, he was forced to write confessions more than 20 times. Several times he was filmed, with an interrogator behind him whom he could not see, and these were then broadcast on national television—one of many forced televised confessions that have become a feature of Xi Jinping’s regime.

‘I didn’t write what they wanted me to write, they would write it for me,’ Lam said. ‘If my confession was not satisfactory, they would tell me what to write.’”

That is the reality of the criminal justice system to which we now countenance, or see Hong Kong countenancing, returning people from Hong Kong. That is exactly why it was decided, back at the time of the creation of the joint declaration, that matters such as this should be excluded from it, and that surely is why it is now wrong that we should sit back and just watch the People’s Republic of China ride roughshod over that agreement and the legal obligations into which it entered in 1984.

This afternoon, I was privileged to speak by telephone to Dennis Kwok from the Hong Kong Legislative Council, and he said to me that the Second Reading of this Bill will be on Wednesday—the Minister knows that. He accepts that the remaining stages will be done over the course of possibly the next two weeks at most. When I asked the Minister today what that would mean for the consultation to which our Government aspired, he declined to answer—unsurprisingly, perhaps—so let me ask him again. If the Hong Kong Executive go down this road and the Bill passes all its stages by, say, a week or a fortnight on Wednesday, what is the Government’s position going to be? How on earth will they possibly get the wider, longer, more meaningful consultation on which they have pinned so many hopes thus far? I just do not see it happening.

If the Minister will not answer that question, will he at least give the House some assurance that there is a plan B, that we are taking steps and that the message is going to the Chinese Government now that if that situation comes to pass, our Government will not just sit by and watch this tragedy—that is exactly what it would be—unfolding? Our Government need to do more. We need to assert the rights of the people of Hong Kong that we undertook to guarantee when we left in 1997.

UK Fishing Industry: Non-EEA Visas

Debate between Alistair Carmichael and Jim Shannon

Monday 8th April 2019 Commons Chamber

[Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)]

We are considering the matter of visas for non-European economic area citizens working in the UK fishing industry—sadly, not for the first time. In fact, I last brought this matter before the House on 11 July. Others have led Adjournment debates on the same topic on different occasions. It has been raised on multiple occasions at Home Office questions, most recently by me. Sadly, now, here at the beginning of April, we are no further forward.

I will not rehearse the arguments around the necessity for our fishing skippers to be able to employ crew from outside the European Union or the EEA. I suspect that that has been done to death. If we were going to win the argument by raising the issues, we would have won it long ago.

Tonight, I will gently remind the Minister of a couple of things that she told the House in July. I invite her, when she speaks, to give us something of a progress report. I will then consider the content of the Migration Advisory Committee report from September of last year which, according to the Minister when I last raised this with her, is now the basis on which the Government seek to resist the fairly sensible and, I would have thought, uncontroversial measures that we seek to have introduced.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I commend the right hon. Gentleman for his fortitude in this issue. The Minister, too, knows the reasons why we are discussing it. Does the right hon. Gentleman not agree that highly skilled fishermen from the Philippines, for example, and other countries must have streamlined access to this incredibly dangerous profession? Does he agree that the future of our fishing sector depends on it?

[Mr Carmichael]

I do agree, and I thank the hon. Gentleman not only for his assiduous attendance at these debates and at other meetings but for his use of the term “highly skilled” fishing crews. Those who go to sea to bring the fish home to put on our plates are highly skilled. The root of the problem is in essence one of attitude, which somehow classes those brave, hard-working men as low skilled. Yes, I agree with him.

Modern Farming and the Environment

Debate between Alistair Carmichael and Jim Shannon

Tuesday 12th March 2019 Westminster Hall

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I can be many things, but I can never be Rebecca Pow—or Rebecca “Kerpow!”, as we call her.

It is a pleasure to speak in this debate. I congratulate the hon. Member for Gordon (Colin Clark) on setting the scene. I declare an interest as a member of the Ulster Farmers Union and as a landowner as well. For the record, I understand the interdependence of modern farming and the environment. On our farm we have retained the hedgerows, created two ponds and planted 3,500 trees. We have seen the return of the yellowhammer, which was missing for many years on farmland where I and other farmers live. We have seen the return of birds of prey and hares as well. Lots of things have happened because of our commitment to our farm and diversity and the environment.

I hail from a rural constituency. In Strangford, the farming and food industry is a massive employer. Indeed, as the Countryside Alliance has said:

“The food and farming industry is nationally important, generating over £108 billion a year for the UK economy and underpinning our food security. It is particularly important for our most rural areas where farming is often central to the economic and social life of the community, as well as playing a vital role in conservation.”

[Mr Carmichael]

May I take the hon. Gentleman back to the point made by the hon. Member for Gordon (Colin Clark) about getting younger people back into the industry? I speak as the 53-year-old son of an 87-year-old farmer. The hon. Gentleman will be pleased to hear that I have never been tempted to enter the industry. If we can get this right, we can create opportunities right across our agricultural and rural communities, and get children into schools, keep post offices and shops open and keep public transport running in rural areas.

[Jim Shannon]

The right hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. Bringing all those things together is key for rural communities. We need to encourage young people. I will quickly speak about sons and daughters taking over farms. In my constituency we have been fortunate over the years that that has happened. Some sons and daughters do not want to take farms on, but the ones who have are still there, so we have seen a progression of farmers’ sons or daughters taking over. Farming communities are not employees of the land, but caretakers of the land for future generations. I read in Shooting Times magazine that the wildlife of today is not ours to dispose of as we want. We hold it in trust for those who come after. That is a fact. That is what we do, and the right hon. Gentleman is absolutely right.

Unless we recognise the dual role of farmers as food producers and conservationists, we risk turning farmers into environmental contractors, which we do not want to do. We want them to have an incentive to continue farming. A farmer does not farm to become rich—that is the case in my neck of the woods, anyway. A farmer farms because it is in his blood and it is his calling. I recently highlighted an important point in my local press, and I want to make the point here before the debate ends. The latest figures show that some farmers, especially younger farmers in my constituency, have had very high levels of depression. Strangford has a large rural community and many farmers have handed over the reins of their farms to their sons and daughters, but there are levels of EU bureaucracy—I do not want to bring in the dreaded Brexit word again—and red tape that have almost strangled the farmers, and they are sick to the back teeth of it. They understand that regulations are necessary to bring food up to standard, but they do not need all of the extra paperwork that goes with it.

Tourism Industry: VAT Reduction

Debate between Alistair Carmichael and Jim Shannon

Wednesday 21st November 2018 Commons Chamber

[Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)]

I am delighted to have obtained this Adjournment debate, albeit slightly postponed. I am grateful to the hon. Members who have remained in their place this evening to take part and to demonstrate that the question of a reduced rate of value added tax for the tourism sector is one that commands cross-party interest and support.

Tourism is the fourth largest sector of the UK economy today and, unlike most sectors, it has a reach across our economy and geography that is hard to equal. Certainly, it is a massively important, and increasingly important, industry in my constituency in the northern isles.

We have previously heard talk of voodoo economics, and tourism is a sector that allows us to apply a little judo economics—that is to say we can use the force of those things that would normally work against us to our favour. In Orkney and Shetland, we have a number of disadvantages due to our geography and the size and sparsity of our population, which are all things that, when it comes to tourism, make us an attractive destination. They are the things that make people want to come to see us in the northern isles. For us, tourism is an enormously important industry, and it is one that has grown massively in recent years.

Tourism also complements many indigenous traditional local industries. For years we have told our fishermen, our farmers and our crofters that they have to diversify or die, and they have taken that message to heart. This does not quite come within what I have to declare as an interest, but my parents’ family farm on Islay, off the west coast, is now in the region of 800 or 900 acres, and it not only supports cattle and sheep, as it has always done. Now, between my sister and my parents, the farm supports four individual self-catering units, which is a good example of how a traditional farming unit has been diversified to take significant income from tourism.

Obviously, tourism fits well with the profile of many communities such as ours, because it allows seasonal and part-time employment, which are both important in communities where people perhaps do not have just one job working 9 to 5, Monday to Friday. People are looking for a range of different income sources—as evidenced by the recent growth in the number of people working as tour guides in both Orkney and Shetland—and such employment offers that sort of opportunity.

In establishing the importance of tourism as an industry, in communities like mine right the way through to where I stand in one of the best-known tourism destinations in the country, the question arises of how we can best seek to allow the industry to grow itself.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on securing this Adjournment debate. He has mentioned the attractiveness of his constituency to tourists. A VAT reduction would definitely benefit tourism in Northern Ireland. In 2017, some 2.6 million out-of-state visitors and more than 2 million Northern Ireland residents took an overnight trip in Northern Ireland, and during 2017 visitors from all markets combined to spend £926 million in Northern Ireland, up £76 million on the previous year. Does he agree that lowering VAT can only encourage more people to make the trip to Northern Ireland or to his constituency, luring people away from the Republic of Ireland by providing unrivalled beauty and attractions with unrivalled pricing? Indeed, the same could be said of the whole United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.

[Mr Carmichael]

The hon. Gentleman makes the point well. I am aware that Northern Ireland has a particular issue as it shares a land border, a fact that is fairly well discussed at the moment, with the Republic of Ireland. The Republic is one of those countries that in 2011—I will doubtless be corrected if I am wrong—cut their rate of VAT on tourism services to 9%. There is a particular sensitivity about the cross-border issues there, which may assist the hon. Gentleman in making the case, because there is a good working example on his own doorstop of the opportunities that are presented.

I know it is counter-intuitive in the Treasury to suggest that cutting taxes will bring an increased return in revenue, but there is good objective evidence to support that very proposition. I was a member of the Cabinet in 2015 when the Budget cut the rate of spirits duty by 2%. We did that expecting it would result in a reduced return of about £600 million, but we felt it was an important thing to do. In fact, the revenue return as a whole was significantly increased. So having taken the expected hit, we got a better return at the end of the day. This is the same thinking that underpins the Government’s reductions in corporation tax in recent years.

Detention of Vulnerable Persons

Debate between Alistair Carmichael and Jim Shannon

Tuesday 14th March 2017 Westminster Hall

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I congratulate the hon. Member for Glasgow North East (Anne McLaughlin) on setting out the issues so well. May I say at the outset that I would be very pleased to see our Scottish hon. Members remaining as part of the United Kingdom? As I always say, we are better together in relation to the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, so we do not want to see them go. They make a valuable contribution, and today’s debate is an example. I thank the hon. Lady for that, and I thank also the hon. Member for East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow (Dr Cameron), who will shortly make an equally valuable contribution.

I am concerned about this issue. As my party’s spokesperson on human rights, I believe it is right and proper that this issue is raised and that the Department responds by saying how far the recommendations have been implemented. It is clear that change is needed. I was shocked to find that in 2015, the number of suicide attempts in UK detention centres averaged more than one every day, with 393 people trying to take their lives—a record high. If that is a record high, there has to be a change of direction or a change of attitude in how we stop that. The hon. Member for Glasgow Central (Alison Thewliss) referred in her intervention to some of the suicide attempts. I am sure it has much to do with the fact that people are not allowed to stay in the UK—it cannot simply be how they are treated in detention centres—and their dread of going back home. It is also clear that the recommendations in the Shaw report need to be implemented, which is why we are here to ensure that treatment does not exacerbate the problems that people already face.

I completely agree with the statement by our Prime Minster—she is our Prime Minster, whether or not we are in government with her—from when, in her former hat, she was Home Secretary. The fact is that we have asylum criteria for a reason. We have to have criteria to work to, and the Minister knows that. How the criteria work and affect people’s lives is the reason we are having this debate. We cannot sustain an influx of people from other nations. No country can do that—or, indeed, does.

We always have examples from people who work for us or from people who call in and regale us with their stories. My parliamentary aide went to South Africa with her entire family—some 20 of them in total—and they decided to spend a few days in Mozambique. The trouble that the family had to go to just to get a visa for three days was extreme and very costly. It was some £1,000 for the family to get the visa and documentation. The process is there for a reason. Although the hoops that the family had to go through to get access to their resort were extreme, they felt that the benefits outweighed the hassle. It is the same for our immigration process. The process is difficult, but it is so for a reason. We must protect our citizens first, and the immigration process does this.

Not everyone who wants to come here has a right to be here. That is a fact that must be accepted. The system and the process are there to ensure that the right people have the opportunity to come here. I support the Government’s ability to make that decision. However, it should also be accepted that people who come here but have to go home must be treated well. The hon. Member for Glasgow North East outlined that well.

The Prime Minister said in a written statement when she was Home Secretary:

“The Government believe that those with no right to be in the UK should return to their home country and we will help those who wish to leave voluntarily. However, when people refuse to do so, we will seek to enforce their removal, which may involve detaining people for a period of time. But the wellbeing of those in our care is always a high priority and we are committed to treating all detainees with dignity and respect.”—[Official Report, 9 February 2015; Vol. 592, c. 29WS.]

However, the suicide figures perhaps do not reflect that. I ask the Minister to take that on board.

[Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)]

The question of treating people with dignity is particularly important when it comes to the detention of children. Does the hon. Gentleman share my concern about the closure of the Cedars centre, which was not easy to set up or cheap to run but was about exactly that—treating people with dignity? Is he concerned that, unlike Cedars, the new arrangement has not had the active participation of Barnardo’s?

[Jim Shannon]

I wholeheartedly agree with the right hon. Gentleman, as I think does everyone in the Chamber. What he has described shows the issue we face: changes happen, but are they for the better? In the present case I believe they are not.

I would like to know how, in the Government’s view, dignity and respect have been upheld since the Prime Minister’s statement was made just over two years ago. I understand that the recommendations in part 4 of the Shaw report, which addressed the concept of vulnerability, have largely been accepted by the Government. However, there are examples, including the one outlined by the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael), that do not show that acceptance in action. There was a recommendation that the presumption against detention be extended to include victims of rape and other sexual or gender-based violence, including female genital mutilation, as well as people with a diagnosis of PTSD or with mental health issues and, as other hon. Members have mentioned, transsexual people and people with learning disabilities. Those are clear and specific categories where there are issues that need to be addressed. The presumptive exclusion of pregnant women should be replaced by an absolute exclusion, and the phrase

“which cannot be satisfactorily managed in detention”

should be removed from the section of the guidance covering those suffering from serious mental illness.

It is always good to read the newspapers, although whether we believe them or not is another thing. However, a reputable newspaper that I read contained an article stating:

“In June last year, the Home Office published new guidance that says women on suicide watch in detention should never be watched by male guards. In July, it introduced a 72-hour time limit on the detention of pregnant women—a measure which I particularly welcomed as it was clear that detention was often harmful for pregnant women. And in September, the Home Office also published guidance which states that survivors of sexual and other-gender based violence should not be detained.”

If the Government are pressing ahead with such measures and protection for pregnant women, that is good news; if they are not providing them with protection, they should be. I tabled some questions on this matter some time ago, and I am keen to hear how the Minister responds to the debate. It is good that the Government action described in the newspaper report is happening, but more needs to be done. What more is scheduled to happen? I should like to hear the Minister’s thoughts on the protection of pregnant women in detention and whether the change to a 72-hour time limit has been effective. Is it working, and is it enough?

I have read reports suggesting other ways of dealing with asylum seekers, which we could explore, in countries such as Sweden. Sweden sets examples to the world of how to do many things. We can learn from each other. While we have the current system, we must ensure that procedures are followed and the Government send those who have no right to be here back home; but while they are here, their needs should be catered to in the most humane way. I know that that is the intention of the Minister and the Government but perhaps we need to see it more in action than in words. I offer support, but I ask that our procedures be carried out in a humane, compassionate and effective way.

Tax Credits

Debate between Alistair Carmichael and Jim Shannon

Tuesday 15th September 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)]

It is unfortunate that we have only 90 minutes to debate the regulations, but it is absolutely right that we should debate them on the Floor of the House. The right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Frank Field) has done us a great service in bringing this matter to the Floor of the House. It is worth reflecting, however, that the reason why there is not more public outrage about the proposed changes is a reflection of the sheer complexity of our tax and benefit system. That will have to be addressed—not in this way—in the medium to long term.

There was a lot in the Minister’s speech with which I could agree quite easily. When he spoke about the importance of raising the personal tax allowance, the very welcome increases to the minimum wage and the importance of providing better childcare provision, those are all things with which I could have no difficulty. The difficulty I have with the regulations is that at a stroke they negate the benefits the Minister outlined. It ought surely to be a matter of common consensus in all parts of the House that the best route out of poverty is through work, but what the Government are doing today is giving with one hand and taking away with the other.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

[Mr Carmichael]

I am sorry, but I am short of time.

The average household in social housing could lose up to £1,700 a year under the changes. That means for every extra £1 earned, they will lose up to 93p in benefits. That is why the Government are not true to their stated intent to encourage people off welfare and into work by bringing forward changes of this sort.

To understand why today’s statutory instrument is the wrong measure at the wrong time, it is worth reflecting on what happened to people’s employment circumstances after the 2008 crash. We expected steep rises in unemployment, and sure enough it went up, but not to the extent we expected, because employers kept people in work. However, their wages were frozen or reduced and those in part-time employment saw their hours cut. We can now see the light at the end of the tunnel—at last, we are seeing some wage inflation—but surely at this moment the Government should be encouraging people to take more hours, not removing the incentives to do so.

The hon. Member for Waveney (Peter Aldous) made a characteristically thoughtful contribution, and one of the most significant. He said the Government’s proposals were strategically correct. He might well be right about that, but what he said thereafter in the rest of his contribution indicated they were tactically inept. I address myself to him and other Government Members who share his concerns, because they are part of the most powerful group in the House: Government Back Benchers. The Government have a majority of 12, so it needs only six of them to vote with us to take this down and make them think again. I say to him, because I know he is a genuine man, that if he has not had his assurances and compensations before the vote, he will not get them after it.