Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Tuesday 3rd November 2015 Commons Chamber

[Dr Coffey]

I take those duties very seriously. I am sure that the wise words that have been expressed today will be listened to. Nevertheless, the convention on appointments that has been followed on multiple occasions has been followed in this case. There is nothing to suggest that there is anything disorderly about it. My understanding is that you, Mr Speaker, will present the names on behalf of Parliament to the Parliamentary Assembly.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I thank the hon. Member for Christchurch (Mr Chope) for bringing this matter to the House and allowing us all to make a contribution.

I agree that the groups should not only be made up of parliamentary representatives but be picked by the House. I share the concern expressed by the hon. Member for Ochil and South Perthshire (Ms Ahmed-Sheikh) about the Scottish National party’s exclusion from the Joint Committee on Human Rights. I would like my party to be involved in that Committee, too. Will the Deputy Leader of the House tell us what steps are being taken to ensure that the House itself will decide who the representatives will be, and that Members will make that decision rather than just one person?

[Dr Coffey]

I cannot give the hon. Gentleman any assurances about changes in procedure, because there have been no such changes in the past five years. He should be aware, however, that the right hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Mr Donaldson) has been appointed as a member of the Parliamentary Assembly. There are 27 Members of Parliament on the list, 10 of whom come from the 2015 intake. This is just about changing with the new set of MPs coming into the House.

Business of the House

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Thursday 15th October 2015 Commons Chamber

[Chris Grayling]

We will bring this issue before the House in due course. I appreciate that Scottish National party Members feel strongly about it. What I have never been quite able to understand is why, since the nuclear deterrent is such an important part of the Scottish economy, they want to see it go.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

rose—

[Mr Speaker]

I have been preserving the hon. Gentleman, who is a specialist delicacy in the House, to be savoured at the end.

[Jim Shannon]

Thank you, Mr Speaker.

One recent health issue has been the increase in type 1 diabetes. Many schemes have been put forward to address that, including dose adjustment for normal eating, which controls carbohydrates in tandem with physical exercise. Will the Leader of the House agree to a statement or a debate in the House on type 1 diabetes and how to address it?

[Chris Grayling]

That condition affects very large numbers of people, and we would wish health research to continue to try to alleviate the burden that people face. The subject is absolutely right for requesting an Adjournment debate or asking the Backbench Business Committee to bring forward a debate, and I encourage the hon. Gentleman to do so.

Business of the House

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Thursday 16th July 2015 Commons Chamber

[Chris Grayling]

By the sounds of it my hon. Friend is not going to be getting much sleep that week! I hope he finds that that experience is helpful to him and enables him to do what we as Members of Parliament should all do, which is to pay tribute to the work that volunteers do in our society. Our society is a better and stronger place because of their work, and every one of us will have examples in our constituencies of people who go more than the extra mile to do good work for the areas where they live. We should praise every single one of them and be grateful to them for what they do.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

The access to, and availability of, cancer drugs throughout the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland is an issue that concerns directly more than 50% of our population. The current cancer drugs strategy runs out in March 2016. Will the Leader of the House agree to a debate about this vital health matter in the autumn?

Summer Adjournment

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Thursday 16th July 2015 Commons Chamber

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

Madam Deputy Speaker, thank you for allowing me to participate in this end-of-term debate.

I wish first to put on the record my thanks to Mr Speaker and all the Deputy Speakers. As a Back Bencher with no thoughts of ever being anything else, it is good to have the opportunity, which they give us, to participate in debates and ask questions. I also wish to thank the staff of the House for their courtesy, kindness and assistance. We could not do our job without them. This is my second term in the House, and I have appreciated all their help over the past few years, as well as the guidance that the Speaker and Deputy Speakers provide.

I want to bring before the House an issue of importance to me and my constituency. I did a quick headcount before I got up to speak: about half those Members present were elected back in 2005 or before, and about half are first-time Members. Some of those present, therefore, will have heard me talk about the importance of country sports, which is a subject of particular interest to me. Particularly in the light of the postponement of the debate on the Hunting Act 2004, it is important that I at least put down this marker. I feel I must raise this topic, and I hope that many will agree on the importance that country sports play in our society.

Perhaps it is difficult to imagine the contribution of country sports when the subject is raised in this wonderful House, located, as it is, in the centre of the hustle and bustle of London. As we walk around this vast city, we are surrounded by busy suits hurrying to their next meeting, and the sheer noise of the cars and buses is often overwhelming—not to mention the often cramped and often pushy conditions of the rush-hour tubes. If Members will allow, I will transport them to my wonderful constituency of Strangford. I hope they will use their imagination so that we can focus on the importance of country sports.

I need not remind Members how beautiful is my constituency, as those who live there or have visited it will know. I am sure that many others feel they know it already. For those who have not had the pleasure of visiting, however, let me say that we are fortunate to have a happy mix of towns, villages and countryside, all in one. Right on doorsteps of the towns, and often just a short drive or walk away, are loughs, rolling green fields and beautiful forests and parks. There is no better constituency for country sports. Those who know me will be aware that I am a country sports enthusiast, particularly when it comes to shooting.

I suppose it is no shock to anyone here that someone from Northern Ireland should be interested in shooting, but I have to say it is legitimate, legalised shooting, and I have a licence to prove it. For me, shooting is a way to relax, although with present commitments, I cannot pursue it as much as I would like. Some Members will remember my maiden speech in June 2005, when I said that the ducks and the pheasants of my constituency would be relieved to have two or three days a week when they did not have to worry about me chasing them, because I would be in this House.

Shooting and fishing contribute so much to society in terms of revenue, jobs and conservation. As a keen shooter, I find myself a dedicated conservationist. Back home on the family farm on the Ards peninsula, I am always thinking of new ways to conserve the natural habitat for animals and birds. I have planted on the farm some 3,000 trees, I have dug and excavated two duck ponds, and I always ensure the hedgerows are maintained and that land is set aside where wildlife and fauna can excel.

I am not alone in carrying out such conservation work. Anyone who enjoys shooting or fishing tends to do the same, and it is really great for wildlife. It not only preserves natural habitats, but encourages new habitats: in recent years, I have seen the return to our farm and district of the yellow bunting, which has been missing for many years. That they are back in numerical strength is an indication of the good work being done on our and our neighbours’ farms.

Birds of prey also abound, and I have no doubt that that is the result of good conservation work. Each year, I hold a few shoots on my land and on neighbours’ land, and it is proving to be a huge success, bringing together friends and relatives for a day of relaxation and good company—and hopefully a few birds at the end of the day for the purpose of the plate.

Conservation must go hand in hand with shooting; we must get the right balance between them. That means people who want to conserve can do so, and people who want to shoot can do so. However, for me, it is not possible to have one without the other.

In Strangford, we are inundated with places to fish and places to shoot. In fact, Northern Ireland is often described as one of the finest places in Europe to fish because all types of angler are catered for—whether it be coarse fishing, game fishing or sea fishing. My constituency has the largest coastline of all the Northern Ireland constituencies, with seawater access. Not only that, we are surrounded by various loughs and lakes that prove extremely popular with anglers. Just a couple of weeks ago, I attended a fly-fishing festival in Killyleagh in my constituency—and what a fantastic day it was! I was pleased to see so many people in attendance.

I am always keen to get more children and young people involved in country sports because of the potential for real family occasions. Shooting was passed down to me, and I have passed down my love for that sport to my own sons and my granddaughter, Katie-Lee, a six-year-old. I believe we have another generation of shooters coming through, even at that young age. There are many shooting estates and syndicates at Rosemount and Greyabbey, at Dunleath estate in Ballywalter, Carrowdore castle, Mount Stewart estate in Greyabbey, the Rademon in Crossgar, the Demesne in Saintfield and also at Portavo and Donaghadee.

[Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)]

I thank my very hon. and good Friend for giving way. I know him so well and am sure that he or someone else will eat every single thing he shoots—so there is a good purpose in shooting.

[Jim Shannon]

If it is edible, yes, I would probably have a go at it. I cannot say that I eat everything I shoot, because some things are not edible. There is nothing quite as tasty as “duck à l’orange”—for those who are unsure, that is duck in orange. Pheasant is good, but my favourite bird for eating is a pigeon. I have a great appetite for pigeons because when I was a wee boy in Ballywalter, my cousin, who shot up in West Tyrone in the ’60s and ’70s—this is a true story—used to send pigeons by post down to Ballywalter, which is from the west to the east of the Province. Sometimes they arrived at Ballywalter in the Ards peninsula—perhaps not in the best of condition, but we cooked them anyway. I had a love of pigeons, and I still have it today. Yes, pigeon is my favourite bird—two-legged ones, with wings!

Shooting plays a large part in the UK economy—worth £2 billion, and it supports the equivalent of 74,000 jobs. In these uncertain times, this sector is proving its popularity and its importance to its participants. On goods and services, it is estimated that shooters spend £2.5 billion each year, while shoot providers spend around £250 million each year on conservation. The Public and Corporate Economic Consultants estimate that shooting actually manages 10 times more land for conservation than the country’s nature reserves. Undoubtedly, then, for so many, country sports play an integral part in society.

Despite this issue being raised on a fairly regular basis here, I feel that we still need to raise awareness of country sports and show just how important they are—not just for the love of them, but for the money they generate, the jobs they provide and for the conservation that comes off the back of them. With more than 600,000 people across the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland participating in shooting sports alone, I do not feel this is something that can be ignored, and I would like to see more done to encourage people to get involved with local country sports clubs—perhaps at country fairs. I had the opportunity last month to open an event at Shane’s castle, one of the great country fairs of Ireland. There is one fair at Shane’s castle in Northern Ireland and one at Birr castle in the Republic. Such events provide an opportunity to bring together people from all communities and encourage them to participate, whatever their gender or age.

I want to record my thanks to the British Association for Shooting and Conservation, the Countryside Alliance and Game Conservancy USA for all the work that they do to help the shooting community, as well as farmers and landowners. They try to make young people’s involvement a reality, and they certainly have my support in that regard. However, I want to see more done for young people in schools. Most secondary schools in Northern Ireland offer a huge range of sports clubs, and, in many instances, equestrian clubs. However, rarely do I hear of fishing or shooting clubs, and, in the light of the figures provided by PACEC, I do not think that that is due to a lack of interest. I fear that it is due to the reputation that country sports often seem to carry. Because this is a devolved matter in Northern Ireland, we are changing the existing legislation to lower the minimum age at which people are allowed to shoot—under supervision, of course. That is good news, because it means that more young people can be introduced to shooting and enjoy it.

I hope that today’s debate will help to ensure that the general attitude to country sports is raised from toleration to celebration. We must do more to improve the situation in the years to come.

[Dr Tania Mathias (Twickenham) (Con)]

It was very interesting to listen to the speech of the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon). If the hon. Gentleman has not yet sorted out his holiday reading, I recommend the autobiography of Sir Peter Scott. He too was a shooter, but he put his rifle down to become of the world’s top conservationists. Who knows? The hon. Gentleman might change his mind.

[Jim Shannon]

I am quite well acquainted with the author to whom the hon. Lady refers. There is a bust of him in one of the wildfowling clubs in Comber, which is in my constituency. He started off as a shooting person, and he enjoyed that, but he became a conservationist in the end. I do not think I shall ever be like that. I shall continue to be a shooter.

[Dr Mathias]

I will lend the hon. Gentleman my copy of the book if he cannot find it. Sir Peter Scott talks of the thrill of conservation being equivalent to the thrill that he had achieved while shooting. That is what persuaded him to—literally—put down the gun. So the hon. Gentleman can always change.

I want to talk about a resident of my constituency, Wadih Chourey. He has lived in Twickenham for 18 years, but he is originally from Beirut. He also has a learning difficulty. His parents died in Lebanon in 2010, and he is being looked after by his brothers, who are also resident in Twickenham. I met one of them, Camil. They run a café and patisserie, and they are important members of the community. Wadih works in the café and patisserie as well. He has so many supporters that the petition asking for him to be allowed to remain in the United Kingdom has tens of thousands of signatures.

That petition came about because Wadih Chourey applied for leave to remain in the United Kingdom. His application was originally refused by the Home Office. Wadih then appealed, at some legal expense. The family were very stressed by the process, but the appeal was successful. The community—and, obviously, the Chourey family—were very happy. However, the Home Office then appealed against the successful appeal. The saga continued, with the family again having to invest in legal opinions, and more stress for the family and the community. The family then applied for permission to appeal against the Home Office’s appeal against their own original appeal. The situation right now is that we do not know whether Wadih can stay. His family has been granted permission to appeal, and the case might go to the Court of Appeal.

I urge the Deputy Leader of the House of Commons, my hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk Coastal (Dr Coffey) to raise this matter with the Home Office and to follow up my plea to the Home Office to stop this sorry saga. This is a family who are wanted in the community. Wadih is an important member of the community and we want him to stay. Please, please end all the horrible legal expense, as well as the stress for the family, for Wadih and for me by stopping this sorry saga.

English Votes for English Laws

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Wednesday 15th July 2015 Commons Chamber

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

It is a pleasure to speak in the debate. I wish I could say in all honesty that I had been looking forward to listening to all the views that have been put forward today. I hope that the House will be persuaded by the concerns that have been expressed by those on the Opposition Benches and that Members will not be reassured by the comments from across the Chamber. I have great respect for everyone in the House, and I do not seek controversy or try to fall out with people, but this is a debate that seeks to divide us, as has been illustrated by the comments that have been made so far.

I congratulate the hon. Member for Glasgow North East (Anne McLaughlin) on her contribution to the debate. It is always nice to hear the maiden speeches, as a Member travels through the highways and byways of their constituency and we learn a wee bit about it. That is always a pleasure that I have, and I know other Members have as well, and I wish the hon. Lady well in this House.

I hope I will leave this House in no doubt about the importance of ensuring that the changes introducing English votes for English laws are not passed by this great establishment—an establishment that represents each of the four regions of the United Kingdom and I hope will continue to do so. I fear, however, that if EVEL were to be passed by the Commons, this institution that binds us all together and enhances the integrity of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland will cease to represent each and every one of us, as we currently are—together. It would lead to a number of problems, with an extremely fractious House being just one of them. We have seen examples of that tonight—everybody seems to have an opinion and does not care what anybody else in the House thinks, and that disappoints me. This is going too far, too fast.

As I am sure I have mentioned on a number of occasions, and as is well known, I am unashamedly a Unionist. I passionately believe in this great institution in which we stand and in which I have the pleasure and privilege to be the Member for Strangford. I fervently believe in the integrity of the UK and I ardently believe that we are better together. At no other time have I feared so much for the future of the Union as I did last year and as I do in this debate today. Last year, the Union seemed to be at breaking point, but thankfully the Scottish people voted in the September 2014 referendum to stay within the Union. I know that my colleagues sitting to my left have a different opinion about that, but at that time the opinion was very clear and the Scottish people, along with others in Northern Ireland, Wales and England, rejoiced at that decision, because it is true that we are better together. They put their trust in Westminster, but I have no doubt that by passing EVEL Westminster would be portrayed as ensuring second-class citizenship for the rest of us who make up this great country—and where is the trust in that?

As my hon. Friend the Member for East Antrim (Sammy Wilson) said, this EVEL debate stokes the fires of division and everyone seems to be retreating into their own trenches and into their own opinions.

[Sir Edward Leigh]

The hon. Gentleman knows that I share many of his views. I admire his Unionism and I am as strong a Unionist as he is. Would he give credit to some Conservative Members who have at least ensured that this is not a total exclusion, but a sort of double veto? We have made some changes. May I assure him that whatever the SNP does to provoke English Members, for instance on hunting and on other issues, I for one will put the Union first? Many of us do not want this compromise to be changed; we do not want this to be a more extreme measure and we are listening to what he is saying.

[Jim Shannon]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. We agree on many things, but unfortunately I suspect that we will not agree on this. That will not stop us being friends outside this Chamber and fighting the battles on many other issues on which we very much agree.

Many hon. Members, including the hon. Member for Carmarthen East and Dinefwr (Jonathan Edwards), have talked about the Barnett consequentials, how that issue affects us, how decisions on that will be made and how those decisions would then have a financial impact on us. My hon. Friend the Member for East Antrim also referred to the impact on the Speaker or the Deputy Speaker of having to make difficult decisions that could lead to further complications. It would almost be a domino effect, with one thing hitting another, and it going on and on. Those are real concerns. We are all here to contribute towards this and to make our comments, and I hope that the Government will look at what they are putting forward, and stall or delay.

EVEL concerns me because it fractures relations in the House, but I also struggle to see the logic behind it. It seems simple enough in principle, but in reality it is quite the opposite. The implementation lacks clarity and so far we have not heard much that is clear from the Government. I say that with respect to them, because I cannot see where the logic is in this. It is interesting to remember what the Prime Minister has said in the past, which is that England must never be “overruled” again. If he wants EVEL to pass, surely the same principles must be extended to each constituent part of the UK. If Westminster is legislating on a reserved matter for just one part of the UK—be it Scotland, Wales or Northern Ireland—why should the MPs from those corners of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland not have exactly the same veto rights that my English colleagues will have under English votes for English laws? I know that the Conservatives, who form the biggest party here, might try to argue that the English should have more say, but creating a two or a three-tier Parliament will not improve our constitution, and that is the underlying fact of it all. It will cause more harm than good. I remind Members of the oft-quoted phrase, “If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.” That is how I see it. I see something that is okay.

One colleague said that, last year, 14 pieces of legislation affected English MPs only, but that other Members in the House had a chance to participate in them. Those laws still went through, so I do not understand why we need to push through this change. Clearly, there was not an issue in the last year of the previous Parliament.

I have sat on a number of Bill Committees that have considered matters relating to health. I sat with the Opposition and voted along with them on—I suspect—every one of the amendments that they tabled. About 10 or 12 clauses were applicable to Northern Ireland. Some Bills had more such clauses than others, but we still voted on all the issues because we felt that we had to protect those in Northern Ireland. Again, I say that we need to consider the full implications of this matter.

May I now transport the Members who are still in the Chamber to another great place—I say that with tongue in cheek—the European Parliament in Strasbourg. We are neither members of the eurozone—thank the Lord for that—nor adherents to the Schengen agreement. If members of the eurozone had to pay out £1 billion to help bail out Greece, there would have been implications. Do Members who support the proposed EVEL Standing Orders think that the European Parliament should be entitled to change its Standing Orders so that UK MEPs can no longer vote on things to do with Schengen or the euro, because that is exactly the same principle at work? I ask Eurosceptics on the Government Benches whether they have fully considered their anti-European stance, with which I agree in many cases. There again we have those double standards. They think they can take that stance on Europe and not worry about it. We cannot have one rule for one, and something entirely different for another. That is simply not fair, and yet we try to base our society on that principle. We often boast that we in the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland are great promoters of fair play.

Most fundamentally and most concerning is that English votes for English laws gives English MPs a veto over English matters that the devolution settlement gives to neither the devolved bodies nor to the non-English MPs in their respective parts of the country. In other words, EVEL will allow English MPs to stop things happening in England in a way that MPs from the other regions of the UK cannot in their parts of the country. Parliament remains supreme over all three devolved bodies—and rightly so—but that inescapably means that English Members—all 85% of them in this place—remain supreme. They can tell us what to do in Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales. They can tell Stormont, Holyrood and Cardiff what they can do, but we will no longer be able to add our voices to what they can do in England. That is the theme. What is good for the goose is good for the gander—either we are all in it together or we are not. It really is as simple as that. As the Prime Minister has reminded us so many times before, we really are better together.

I speak as a proud Unionist of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. I implore everyone in this House to consider the implications of this proposal and to stall and change English votes for English laws. What we have seen tonight—the division and the adversarial opinions and attitudes—suggests that EVEL will be disastrous for the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.

--- Later in debate ---

[Graham Jones (Hyndburn) (Lab)]

I want to just make a couple of brief points on the notion of EVEL, particularly in relation to gambling and other issues that highlight the fallibilities of the concept the Government are bringing forward.

Gambling is a devolved matter in Northern Ireland, but it is not a devolved matter in Scotland, and even under the Scotland Bill it will be only somewhat devolved. At the minute, Great British Members vote on gambling issues, but Northern Ireland has its separate devolved responsibilities at Stormont. How will that fit with EVEL? How will we devise a system in which the Scots, English and Welsh vote on matters reserved for Northern Ireland? This is a dog’s breakfast. There is nothing in the proposals about how matters solely devolved to Northern Ireland, such as gambling, will be dealt with in the House.

[Jim Shannon]

A short time ago, certain legislative proposals on gambling passed through here that had some impact on Northern Ireland. I tabled an amendment that the Labour party supported, but which the Conservatives voted against. It went to the House of Lords, however, and came back amended in the way we wanted. Those proposals affected Northern Ireland, but were passed in this place, so there is some legislation passed here that affects Northern Ireland.

[Graham Jones]

I appreciate the detail that the hon. Gentleman brings to the debate. For Northern Ireland, some matters relating to gambling and other issues are reserved and others are devolved. That is also the case in Scotland. He has highlighted the fact that it is not even as simple as I have suggested. We have a Great Britain situation and a Northern Ireland situation that both seem unresolved. As he suggested, elements of gambling are devolved and elements are reserved. How will that affect voting in this place? How will it affect the parliamentary system? In Scotland, this is a reserved UK matter, so its Members are entitled to vote on these issues.

Where are Great British votes for Great British laws? That is a part of all this. It is ridiculous, it is a dog’s breakfast. As the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) has pointed out, we cannot even have Great British votes for Great British laws, because some elements of gambling are devolved to Northern Ireland and others are not. I use the example of gambling, but there are many other examples. What assessment have the Government made of areas that are solely devolved to Northern Ireland and areas that are partially devolved, and how will that fit with this proposal? It is absolute nonsense.

We are going to be sat in here not knowing who can vote on what. We are going to have English-only Committees. Are the Northern Irish MPs going to be allowed in? The Government do not seem to know what they are doing. How will this work with ping-pong when proposals come back from the Lords and we have to have a double majority? Will these wonderful iPads in the Lobby have a double majority function for Northern Ireland, so that they have one vote, but the Scottish MPs can vote twice? Is that how it works? This is really a mess.

What about the Smith commission proposals and the Government’s proposals in the Scotland Bill? We now plan to partially devolve to Scotland some of the gambling matters that are currently reserved, such as fixed odds betting terminals—it is an issue that I am interested in and is what alerted me to this matter. What happens when, following the Scotland Bill, we pack off some of the devolved responsibilities on gambling to Scotland and then bring some legislative proposals on gambling before the House? How will it work, when Northern Irish MPs do not know whether they are voting on some of the gambling elements, or whether they should have a double majority, or whether they should not be on the Committee, or whether they should be on the Committee, and when there is no procedure for setting up the Committee?

Then we have the Scots over there on their Benches. Some matters have been devolved to Scotland, but some matters are reserved. We have Scots who should be on the Committee, but should not be on the Committee, and who should be voting, but should not be voting. Then we have the Irish. This is a complete and utter shambles, and I do not think the Government have an answer. There is nothing in the literature to show what would happen where some matters are reserved for Northern Ireland and others are partially reserved for Northern Ireland, which makes it even more complicated. How is this going to work?

As we devolve more downstream to Scotland, or whichever way to Northern Ireland, we will just be faced with a plethora of problems. Will someone please explain to me how this will work with gambling legislation and where we are going to end up? Why have we not had Great British votes for Great British legislation? Why has this not been mentioned? We do have a Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and some matters are Great British and some have been devolved to Northern Ireland. I ask the Leader of the House once again what assessment he has made of legislation that is devolved, or partially devolved, to Northern Ireland and of how it will impact on the decisions and processes in this place? What will be the impact after the Scotland Bill on, for example, the issue of gambling, when some of the gambling responsibilities that are currently reserved are devolved up to Edinburgh? It is a real mess.

What happens when we get to an English-only Committee and somebody—clearly an English MP—tables an amendment that has Barnett consequentials? What happens when Scottish, Irish or Welsh MPs cannot speak on a matter that has Barnett consequentials? It is absolutely ridiculous; it is farcical. Those people will not be able to speak for themselves; they cannot turn up to the Public Bill Committee and speak because that is not within the procedures of this House.

The Leader of the House has no answers to these questions. He should have looked into these matters before bringing this debate forward. Perhaps the reason we are allowed a debate but not a vote is that he does not know what he is doing. [Interruption.] Clearly, he does not know what he is doing because he has deferred the matter. Perhaps he can look into some of these issues before we next consider them. I will give way to him so that he can explain what happens when a Barnett consequential comes before an English-only Committee? I will give way to the Leader of the House if he has an answer. Does he want to step up and answer the question? No, he does not have an answer.

Oral Answers to Questions

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Thursday 9th July 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mr Whittingdale]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on his campaign to make Southend the city of culture. It was, of course, narrowly beaten by Hull, but nevertheless I am aware that Southend has many attractions. As a fellow Essex MP I am in favour of anything that will attract more visitors to our county.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

The fantastic tourism potential that lies in country sports is worth £1.6 billion to the economy, and some 480,000 shooters pursue their sport across the whole of the United Kingdom. What more can the Minister do to ensure that country sports and tourism can go forward together?

[Mr Whittingdale]

I believe that the matter of country sports will soon be subject to a debate in this House. It will be for every Member to make up their own mind about the value of that and whether we can continue to promote it.

Use of the Chamber (Youth Parliament)

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Tuesday 23rd June 2015 Commons Chamber

[Nic Dakin (Scunthorpe) (Lab)]

The hon. Member for Shipley (Philip Davies) is completely right to say that the quality of Youth Parliament debates in this Chamber continues to be exemplary. The hon. Member for South Antrim (Danny Kinahan) was also right to mention the inspiration given to the young people of the Youth Parliament by allowing them to come into this Chamber and debate.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I want to commend the member of the Youth Parliament for my constituency, Aaron Addidle, who attends Regent House school and has all the qualities of a potential MP or Member of the Legislative Assembly. He shows that today’s youth are interested. Sometimes people deride them, but today’s youth in my constituency have great qualities.

[Nic Dakin]

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right to commend that young person, and there are many similar young people up and down the land. School councils meet daily, weekly and monthly for debates and conversations. Indeed, I recently met the school councils of Lincoln Gardens and St Augustine Webster primary schools in my constituency. They are typical examples of what is going on.

The Deputy Leader of the House made a good point when she drew attention to the way in which issues have been raised for debate in the Youth Parliament. There have been regional meetings of young people across the country to discuss a variety of issues, and those issues have eventually been brought here. It is right and proper that the debates happen here as the pinnacle of all those activities, and that is why I am happy to support the motion.

[Tim Loughton (East Worthing and Shoreham) (Con)]

I did not think that we would be debating the motion this evening, so my apologies again for being late, Madam Deputy Speaker.

There is a sense of déjà vu all over again, because we have debated motions such as this several times in my 18 years in the House, and my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Philip Davies) has been entirely consistent in speaking against the motion and trotting out the same arguments every single time. I respect his consistency, but I absolutely take issue with the basis on which he has trotted out his view yet again. Indeed, I think it is patronising to young people. To hear comments such as he made may amuse us—it is good knockabout stuff—but there is a serious point. The young people who have made the commitment to put themselves in front of their peers and stand for election, just as he and I did a few weeks ago, have made a sacrifice, often at a very young age, and expect to be taken seriously. When they hear comments like his in this place, it can only serve to undermine their confidence. That is a great shame.

I speak as an absolutely unswerving supporter of the UK Youth Parliament. I was the Children’s Minister responsible for the UKYP, and the Government rescued it when there was a financial problem with it some years ago. It was taken on by the British Youth Council, under whose tutelage it has flourished ever since. I have sat on these Benches along with 400 members of the UKYP in their November sittings, and you have addressed those sittings yourself, Madam Deputy Speaker. It has always been a huge privilege, and we take great pride in what those young people do. We are cutting off our nose to spite our face, though, because when we come back on the Monday, Mr Speaker will remind us without fail how well behaved, well turned out, succinct and concise those young people were on the Friday, and how well they made their arguments. He inevitably says what a shame it is that the Members of Parliament assembled on the Monday cannot act and behave as well as them. They set quite an example.

The UKYP is not some random cluster of young, enthusiastic people who have some interest in politics. It was set up by one of our colleagues, Andrew Rowe, the former Member for Mid Kent, back in about 2000 or 2001. Some years ago, as my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley said, we granted it the use of this Chamber, which was recognition of just how important a body it had become.

One of the key things that I wanted to push in my time as Minister responsible for children and young people, and which I continue to push, was the expansion of youth engagement in this country’s political process. Whether or not we believe in votes at 16 or 17, we have a looming crisis, because the number of 18 to 24-year-olds who vote in elections is derisory. In 2010, something like 43% or 44% voted, and early indications suggest that the figure fell in the general election that we have just been through. We have a crisis of engagement among young people who are already entitled to vote, so we should support anything that we can do to encourage bodies such as the UKYP, which can act as a good example of how young people can be engaged in politics and be taken seriously by people in positions of power.

I would like the UKYP to have more powers in this place. You and I have talked, Madam Deputy Speaker, about the Youth Select Committee—I am proud to be one of those who set it up some years ago, and I was the first Minister to appear in front of it. It was the biggest grilling I have ever had in front of a Select Committee. I have appeared as a Minister in front of many Select Committees. None was better prepared, and not prepared to take rubbish for an answer and to be palmed off, than the Youth Select Committee, whose members really did their homework and produced an excellent report—in that case on transport for young people and, subsequently, on education for life and other subjects.

The big issue with those young people—to take issue with my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley—is that they are not random groups of young people; they have been elected. The turnout to elect UKYP members is rather impressive; in many parts of the country it is better than for Members of Parliament. Hundreds of thousands of young people have voted for members of the UK Youth Parliament and, locally, for youth councils, youth cabinets and, in some cases, the youth mayors that we have in different parts of the country.

[Jim Shannon]

Was the hon. Gentleman encouraged in his constituency, as I was in mine, by the young people who put their names forward for election and who were elected? The interest was phenomenal, and some of it spilled over into the elections to Westminster this year, when people voting for the first time introduced themselves to candidates. I am encouraged by that in my constituency. Is he encouraged by it in his?

[Tim Loughton]

I am hugely encouraged. It is a big ask, at the age of 13, 14 or 15, for someone to put their name forward, to stand up on a public stage in front of other young people and to strut their stuff—to put forward their manifesto and take questions. We take it for granted—we do it for a living; many of us have done it since we were anoraks in our teens—but doing it for the first time is a big ask. Coming to this place is hugely daunting. I have spoken to many young people, before they have come here and after they have spoken. What a huge privilege it is. They are not going to keep coming back and doing it every year; they get the opportunity only once to sit in this place. They will not have an opportunity again until they are over 18 and may then put themselves forward for public office, which they cannot do when they are under 18.

Select Committees

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Wednesday 3rd June 2015 Commons Chamber

[Pete Wishart]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that question, and yes we probably will, because there are massive issues to do with that, but I also say to the hon. Gentleman that we will not be looking for places on the Communities and Local Government Committee, which has nothing to do with Scotland.

One thing the Chief Whip and the Leader of the House can do when we are considering the arithmetical distribution of places across Select Committees is acknowledge that there are some Committees that we might not have an interest in. We will have an interest in the Health Committee, however, because there are big financial consequences to do with the Barnett formula. We will continue to take an interest in that, and it is only fair that we look at some of the financial issues in health measures passing through the House of Commons.

This is a problem, and it has to be addressed. We have been a victim of our own success—56 out of 59.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

On some of the Health Committees on which I served there were issues that were pertinent to Northern Ireland—10 or a dozen—and there will be things relating to the NHS that affect Scotland and its MPs.

[Pete Wishart]

Of course. We are a one nation Parliament, as the Prime Minister tells us, so let us accept that that is the case.

The Government are entitled to their arithmetical majority on the Scottish Affairs Committee, but the question they have to ask themselves in that regard is a legitimacy question, when almost all the Members for Scotland are from one party. I see that both the Chief Whip and Leader of the House are listening carefully to these remarks. There is an expectation in Scotland that this will happen—that there will be a majority of Scottish Members of Parliament on the Scottish Affairs Committee. Every other national Select Committee has such a majority of members, whether it is the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee or the Welsh Affairs Committee, and there has not been a Scottish Affairs Committee that has not had such a majority.

I ask the Leader of the House to address this point in his concluding remarks. Will he give us some comfort that he will at least look at this issue, and make a positive, progressive statement to ensure that we at least come close to, or get, a majority of Scottish Members on the Scottish Affairs Committee?

Business of the House

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Thursday 28th May 2015 Commons Chamber

[Chris Grayling]

I very much agree with my hon. Friend, particularly in relation to rural areas of Britain. Lincolnshire is a very spread-out county, and the loss of services from rural market towns can have a serious effect on communities. I commend him for his work in championing his area—and all the Members, and new Members, for Lincolnshire who I know will focus clearly on how we protect services in rural areas. I encourage my hon. Friend to request an Adjournment debate or to raise the matter during the debate on the Gracious Speech. The protection of services in rural areas remains a matter of the utmost importance and will continue to be so for the Government and for hon. Members.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

The increase in the number of kites, buzzards and other birds of prey and raptors across the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland has resulted in pigeon lofts being savaged and songbird numbers being decimated. As bird of prey numbers increase, other bird life decreases. I asked for a debate on this issue in the previous Parliament, so will the Leader of the House agree to a debate on it now, as it is very important for the future of all bird life across the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland?

[Chris Grayling]

It is important that we ensure good environmental stewardship; some of the more controversial countryside issues in recent years have been about that. The hon. Gentleman makes an important point. People only have to drive through parts of the home counties to see the extraordinary number of red kites in the skies, bearing in mind that a few years ago they were almost extinct across most of the United Kingdom. I am sure that his points will be picked up by my colleagues in the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, and I encourage him to draw attention to the issue in this Parliament, both at questions and through the system of Adjournment debates.

House of Lords Reform

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Wednesday 14th January 2015 Westminster Hall

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

Thank you for giving me the chance to speak, Mr Howarth. I am very conscious of the time, so I will try to be succinct in my comments. I thank the hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart) for setting the scene, and I apologise for not being here at the beginning of his comments. I had to make a contribution at a Committee meeting before I came down to this debate.

I am pleased to have the opportunity to contribute in the short time available. House of Lords reform has divided many of us—not just MPs, but members of the general public. Outside Parliament, it is a topic for debate. The reform of the House of Lords is not a recent matter, nor is it a 21st century matter. It dates back to the Parliament Act 1911, which was the last serious reform of the Lords. The importance of the debate cannot be ignored. The matter will have to be dealt with at some time—perhaps not here in Westminster Hall today, but certainly in the next Parliament. We look forward to that.

All Members who have spoken, and who will speak, are aware of the main issue, which is the immensity of the numbers in the House of Lords and their workability. The draft Bill of 2011 referred to 300 Members of the House of Lords, which puts things into perspective, as currently there are 900 Members. Although parties are divided, even among themselves, it would seem that if and when Lords reform comes up again—I believe it will—a reduction in numbers will be agreed fairly quickly. That is the key message. The figures could match the number of Commons Members, although others will suggest different figures.

Another issue that has been raised is whether to completely abolish hereditary peers, whether to reduce them or whether to leave them as they are. I confess that, although reducing them is a possibility, I am one for tradition. The hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mark Field) referred to the tradition of the House. Whenever visitors come here, they acknowledge the tradition of the House and how it works. I adhere to and love that tradition, as do my constituents, and it is important that there is some reflection of that tradition in the balance of the House of Lords, possibly including hereditaries. Tradition is extremely important. We want to maintain our great institutions, and although it is important to modernise, it is important not to forget where we come from. It is important to give institutions and their traditions their place.

Once a month we have a holy communion in St Margaret’s church, as we did this morning. It is an opportunity for MPs and peers to come together for a time of reflection before we start the day’s business. Today, our speaker was what is referred to as one of the Lords Spiritual—one of the Members from the Church of England. His contribution, qualities, experiences and knowledge enable debates in the House of Lords to be fuller, more detailed and more informational. When it comes to making policy and legislating, it is so important to have that. With that in mind, I am conscious of the role and the position of those who are placed in the House of Lords as Lords Spiritual.

Although we might want to consider some elected representatives for the upper Chamber, either by appointment or election, we do not want to end up with the Lords having more power or control than the Commons. That has been debated over the years and concerns many. It simply would not work out and would stop the Government working efficiently. Of course, while the Lords considers legislation, it might be a good idea to elect a number of peers, although what that number would be is something for another debate.

Let me give an example of legislation from my short time here as the hon. Member for Strangford. I tabled an amendment to the Gambling (Licensing and Advertising) Act 2014 in the House of Commons. The Opposition and the Democratic Unionist party supported it. We pressed it to a Division but lost by about 52 votes. However, Opposition Members, including those in the Labour party and others, spoke eloquently on the amendment’s behalf. That put a marker down. My colleagues in the House of Lords took up the cudgels, so to speak, and pursued amendments there. The reform package came back to the House of Commons and the Minister accepted it. We should not take away the role that the House of Lords can play in shaping legislation. If the Bill had gone through the Commons as it originally was, that is what we would have had. The Minister at that time indicated that she was not prepared to accept the amendment, but the House of Lords changed it.

The hon. Member for Foyle (Mark Durkan), who I have the utmost respect for, mentioned the changes that would happen from a nationalist point of view and that he would have to prepare for. For the record, I can say to him that he does not have to worry about that, because a national opinion poll last year indicated that only 21% of nationalists wanted a united Ireland. The issue of a united Ireland is a dream rather than a realisation. We can cast our minds back to the referendum as well. The hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire will know that not every Scottish nationalist voted in favour in the referendum. We should consider that.

We want to ensure that the general public feel that they can put their trust in Government, and that includes being accountable. Although measures have been put in place in recent years to ensure that MPs are held accountable for their actions, we must let the public know that their peers are also accountable. That is why having a mixture of hereditary, elected and appointed peers is important. As I have said, it would have to be balanced in a way that does not undermine the work of the Commons, because the Commons has to have pre-eminence over the House of Lords. We have seen legislative change that was started in the House of Commons, perfected by the House of Lords, and then endorsed by the House of Commons. That is what we are about—we are about balance. This debate has been useful, and I thank the hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire for giving hon. Members the chance to contribute.