Cardiovascular Disease: Prevention

Debate between Jim Shannon and David Mundell

Thursday 13th February 2025 Westminster Hall

[David Mundell (in the Chair)]

Demonstrating my own multifunctionality, I am now going to chair but not participate in the next debate.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the prevention of cardiovascular disease.

I do not know where my functionality comes into it, Mr Mundell, but we are doing two debates in a row and it is lovely to serve under your chairship. As I explained in the last debate, I am my party’s health spokesperson. I have a lot of interest in this subject; I also declare an interest as chair of the all-party parliamentary group on respiratory health. Cardiovascular disease is one of the things that the group focuses on.

Back in 2019, the NHS long-term plan defined cardiovascular disease as the single biggest area where the NHS can save lives over the next 10 years. Six years on, that statement still rings true, but I am not sure whether we any closer to arriving at a conclusion. Over 7.6 million people are living with heart and circulatory diseases in the United Kingdom, and CVD is responsible for a quarter of all deaths here every year. It is one of the biggest killers.

I am very pleased to see the hon. Members here, and I thank them for coming. The Parliamentary Private Secretary, the hon. Member for Glasgow South West (Dr Ahmed), is here for the Minister, and I look forward to the Minister’s contribution. I am pleased to see the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Hinckley and Bosworth (Dr Evans); he and I seem to regularly share debates. I am also pleased to see the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for Mid Sussex (Alison Bennett).

According to predictions from the British Heart Foundation, by 2030 the prevalence of heart and circulatory conditions in the United Kingdom will have increased by 1 million. By 2040, it will rise by 2 million, due to a growing elderly population, the high prevalence of CVD risk factors and improved survival from major CVD events. Cardiovascular disease care in the United Kingdom is most certainly at a critical juncture. That was starkly illustrated by Lord Darzi’s recent independent investigation into the state of the NHS; I know that we are all aware of some of the key points of that. The investigation set out how nearly 50 years of progress to improve CVD outcomes has begun to reverse in recent years. That must not happen.

I seek reassurance from the Minister that we are out to stop that reversal. The number of people dying before the age of 75 with CVD has risen to its highest level since 2010, while the association between poor CVD outcomes and health inequalities has also increased, with people living in the most deprived parts of the country being twice as likely to die from CVD as those in the least deprived. Something is seriously wrong when those who just happen to live in a deprived area have a bigger risk of dying than those who do not. The slowing of progress is creating an enormous cost for the NHS and society as a whole, including £12 billion in total healthcare costs and £28 billion across the wider economy due to premature death, long-term care, disability and other informal costs.

A key challenge relates to the high prevalence of CVD risk factors such as high blood pressure, obesity, diabetes, limited physical activity, air pollution and smoking. I declare an interest as I have had type 2 diabetes for almost 20 years. Mine is controlled by medication and I thank God for that, but I understand the impact on others much worse off than I am.

Raised cholesterol is another significant risk factor, associated with one in five deaths from CVD. Just over half of all UK adults are living with raised cholesterol, significantly increasing their risk of heart attack and stroke. However, due to the lack of immediately obvious symptoms, high cholesterol levels often go undetected. There are concerns that without immediate action there could be a further tidal wave of CVD deaths due to the thousands of “missing patients” living with undetected and unmanaged heart and circulatory conditions.

There are similar challenges in Northern Ireland. I always give a Northern Ireland perspective, which I think replicates what happens here on the mainland; that is why I do it. An estimated 225,000 people are living with heart and circulatory diseases in Northern Ireland—remember that we have a population of 1.9 million; that gives you an idea of the proportions. Since the 1960s, significant progress has been made, with CVD death rates falling by three quarters. But that improvement has plateaued in recent years: some 4,227 people died from CVD in Northern Ireland last year, including 1,133 people under age 75. It is not just an elderly person’s disease. That has to be put on the record.

Annual NHS expenditure on CVD in Northern Ireland is some £290 million—a colossal amount—and CVD’s overall cost to the Northern Ireland economy equates to some £740 million each year. Those are massive figures. I know that we should not look at health from a purely financial point of view, but those figures tell us that if we were working better to combat CVD the impact on the economy and health service would be greatly reduced. Northern Ireland faces similar problems when it comes to identification and management of CVD risk factors, with around 400,000 people living with high blood pressure, including 110,000 who are undiagnosed. Some 45% of adults in Northern Ireland are not performing enough daily physical activity.

In my constituency of Strangford, the prevalence of hypertension, coronary heart disease and stroke is significantly higher than in the rest of Northern Ireland. The reason for that could well be that our population is elderly: people tend to retire to my constituency. Despite the dire figures, there are real opportunities, both in Northern Ireland and the United Kingdom as a whole, to reverse the trends and help the UK become a world leader in CVD, as at one stage it was clearly trying to do. To get there, however, we clearly have to start doing things rather differently. Recent years have seen a number of policy commitments from successive Governments, but those have not shifted the needle, focus or direction. Today’s debate is about highlighting that and seeking help to address the situation.

There was the NHS long-term plan of 2019, which set out ambitions to prevent 150,000 heart attacks, strokes and dementia cases over the following 10 years. Unfortunately, in my constituency and elsewhere there are high levels of dementia cases, strokes and heart attacks. In Northern Ireland the figures are unfortunately incredibly high.

Successive versions of the NHS annual planning guidance have encouraged local systems to prioritise CVD and address the significant inequalities associated with it. Although the previous Government’s major conditions strategy was not fully implemented, it set out a series of robust principles to improve CVD care, including personalised prevention, early diagnosis, effective management of multiple conditions, integration of physical and mental health services, and services tailored to individual needs. The previous Government’s strategy was clear. I think this Government’s strategy is equally clear, but we need to address some of the issues that I will come to as I go through my speech.

We are lacking a deeply embedded, system-wide approach to CVD prevention that moves care upstream, is backed by sustainable, long-term funding and deploys the latest technologies and innovations. The National Audit Office’s recent report, “Progress in preventing cardiovascular disease”, provided stark evidence that such an approach has been lacking. It focused on the delivery of the NHS health check, which is one of our main tools for enabling early intervention on heart disease. It concluded:

“there is currently no effective system for commissioning Health Checks, despite it being a statutory responsibility on local authorities. DHSC and local government have weak levers to encourage primary care or other services to deliver Health Checks.”

That will be one of my asks of the Minister, who I am pleased to see in his place. I wish him well, and I know I will not be disappointed by his response to our requests.

In 2023-24, only half of the eligible population attended a health check, and only 3% of local authorities covered their entire eligible populations. We have to change that, so my request is that local authorities, which have statutory responsibility, primary care and other services that deliver health checks increase the number of people who get checked.

We need an action plan. The NAO report said:

“This is not a satisfactory basis for delivering an important and potentially life-saving and money-saving contribution to population health.”

Major improvements are needed, and the Government must embed them in a policy environment that promotes prevention rather than treatment. I have always been a believer in prevention rather than treatment. We must diagnose early and prevent disease at an early stage to stop the whole thing going further.

The current approaches do not sufficiently take account of genetics and the role of inherited familial conditions such as familial hypercholesterolaemia and cardiomyopathy in increasing CVD risk. Children are not routinely screened, GPs often fail to take account of people’s family history, and many patients report difficulties in accessing genetic screening.

Patients and doctors need to be empowered to access genetic testing, secure diagnosis and take preventive measures, which will ensure better health for the future and save money in the NHS. I am pleased that the Government have committed an extra £26 billion to the NHS, because right across this great United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, we will all benefit from that.

Up to 80% of premature deaths from CVD are preventable—we cannot ignore that figure. Preventing those deaths must be our goal, so the importance of this issue cannot be overstated. The evidence shows that CVD prevention pays. Analysis from HEART UK estimates that merely improving the management of cholesterol, triglycerides and other lipids through increased uptake of NHS health checks and, by extension, increasing the number of patients on lipid-lowering therapies, could deliver more than £2 billion in annual savings for the NHS and wider society.

I will focus on lipid-lowering therapies, because that is a solution that I am keen to see the Government take on board. Although prevention spending is often deprioritised in favour of meeting short-term measures, that is the kind of investment that we need if we are to deliver on the Government’s pledge to shift from sickness to prevention. I welcome the Government’s commitment to do that; that is what my party and I want.

In recent discussions I have had with stakeholders on this area, they have agreed a number of key themes that will be crucial to delivering progress on CVD prevention. Those include securing dedicated and ringfenced funding for CVD prevention, to enable targeted prioritisation of preventive approaches; identifying at-risk patients through early detection and risk assessment strategies, including testing from birth and family cascade testing; developing comprehensive public awareness campaigns that empower patients to self-monitor—if we can have patients’ participation in this as we go forward, that will be much welcomed; increasing access to prevention services by moving them closer to home, including by delivering more community-based diagnostic services; and ensuring timely implementation and consistent application of evidence-based clinical guidelines.

There is growing recognition of the potentially transformative opportunity that can be realised through wider awareness and recognition of another key CVD risk factor: lipoprotein(a), or Lp(a), which is a large lipoprotein made by the liver. Lipoproteins are parcels made of fat and protein. Their job is to carry fats around the body in the blood. Elevated levels of Lp(a) in the blood are an independent, inherited and causal risk factor for CVD, due to its pro-atherogenic, pro-inflammatory and pro-thrombotic effects.

One in five people are estimated to have raised levels of Lp(a) in their blood. That equates to some 13,400,000 people in the United Kingdom—equivalent to filling every seat in Wembley stadium about 150 times. Lp(a) is associated with an increased risk of several life-threatening events and conditions, such as myocardial infarction, heart attack, stroke, coronary artery disease, peripheral arterial disease and heart failure. Sadly, those events are often premature, so we need a way of diagnosing, doing early prevention and doing things better. My ultimate request to the Minister will be that that happens.

In severe cases, which applies to about 12% of the population, raised Lp(a) contributes to a two to four times higher risk of heart attack, stroke and heart disease. The prevalence of raised Lp(a) is typically greater among African and south Asian populations—a trend that is likely exacerbating existing health inequalities even further.

Despite the huge numbers at risk, few people know that they have a raised level of Lp(a). If they did, preventive measures might be taken: they could get a diagnosis, and we could ensure that their lives were better and longer, as well as reducing the cost to the NHS. The awareness of the role of Lp(a) in contributing to CVD risk is low among the general public and healthcare professionals, so there is a need to raise awareness. With that significant burden comes a huge opportunity to improve outcomes for a so far largely untreated and unserved patient population.

I want to mention my constituent, Dr Paul Hamilton, and also Gary Roulston. They are consultant chemical pathologists at Queen’s University Belfast and Belfast health and social care trust. They are leading pioneering work to proactively measure Lp(a) levels in patients who are at risk of CVD. I am always amazed—I always like to say this about Queen’s University, and it is right to do so—that when it comes to research and development, it is at the forefront, including on Lp(a). I encourage the Minister to interact with Queen’s University. The recent audit of its testing programme has revealed that early measuring of Lp(a) levels leads to a change in CVD management for a large number of patients. That demonstrates that Lp(a) testing and management can be implemented to improve population health and reduce the risk of CVD.

When we look at those things, we see something that can be done even better. Although there are currently no specific therapies for lowering Lp(a) levels, the taskforce believes that there is a clear and growing case for taking action now to incorporate Lp(a) testing and management within mainstream CVD prevention strategies. Several new therapies to lower Lp(a) are currently undergoing late-stage clinical trials, and could well be available in the near future, pending the outcome of those trials. That is a really exciting way forward, and an exciting way to save and improve lives. It is therefore vital that steps are taken to enable system readiness for those therapies and to ensure that the NHS is in the best possible position to maximise their anticipated benefits.

In the interim, there is a growing clinical consensus about the value of identifying patients with elevated Lp(a). In particular, knowing an individual’s Lp(a) can inform more intensive management of other cardiovascular risk factors, including blood pressure, lipids and glucose, and empower people to make a lifestyle change to reduce their overall CVD risk. It can also support cascade screening of family and close relatives—again, a positive way forward —given the genetic status of Lp(a). There is clearly a way to use technology and innovation to test more and to do more good for people. Tangible progress in that area could play a key role in supporting many of the key principles that have been identified as crucial to guaranteeing the future sustainability of the NHS, such as reducing pressure in the acute sector, delivering more personalised care and precision medicine, and capitalising on the pioneering innovation led by the UK’s life science sector.

More broadly, Lp(a) testing can support the Government’s ambitions right here in Westminster to get people back into work, by reducing the incidence of major CVD events, which can prevent people from participating in the labour market. Diagnosis and prevention can support people. To be fair, most people want to work; they want to have a normal life. The ones I speak to are not seeking benefits for any reason other than that they are unable to work.

Without formal recognition of Lp(a) in national policy, the only Lp(a) testing that takes place will be reliant on the work of proactive local clinicians. We need to make it the norm; we need to make it acceptable and the way forward. The regional variations are also not acceptable, and local systems need clear direction from the centre to encourage them to start thinking proactively about how Lp(a) testing and management could be incorporated into their local CVD prevention pathways.

What are we seeking? We are looking for a review of current CVD prevention and treatment pathways, for an assessment of where Lp(a) testing could be incorporated to deliver tangible benefits now—not later, but now—and to maximise the benefits of therapies that lower Lp(a), when those become available. We are also looking for engagement with local specialist lipid clinics and clinical laboratories to assess current levels of Lp(a) testing and whether it aligns with agreed best practice and to consider what will be needed to upscale activity in the coming years. We want to encourage local CVD champions to start thinking about the role of Lp(a) in contributing to CVD risk and to disseminate information about Lp(a) within their local networks.

In the taskforce’s call to action, it identified several system barriers that are holding back progress in this area; these are also applicable to the success of other health prevention strategies. They include National Institute for Health and Care Excellence procedures and methodology. NICE’s guideline methodology needs to take account of wider evidence criteria beyond the ones that apply to a specific treatment. In the case of Lp(a), although specific therapies to lower Lp(a) are not currently available, the taskforce believes that there is none the less a strong case for taking action now to proactively incorporate recommendations on Lp(a) testing and management in NICE guidance. If replicated across other disease areas, that more proactive and anticipatory approach from NICE would help to improve NHS system readiness for new innovations and treatments, encourage healthcare professionals to think more proactively about how a specific risk factor may be contributing to overall risk, and embed a more preventive mindset across the health system, reflecting the significant role of NICE in driving clinical behaviour. If it is possible to make those improvements—it is cost-effective, and early diagnosis will make things preventable—we really need to look at that.

Barriers also include the accuracy of health risk assessments. Risk assessment tools, particularly in CVD, play a crucial role in supporting health prevention strategies. An accurate assessment of an individual’s risk of experiencing a major CVD event can inform the most appropriate action to proactively manage and reduce that risk through a combination of treatment interventions and lifestyle changes—each of, us individually, has to play a part.

Going forward, it is vital that existing CVD risk assessment tools are updated to take account of Lp(a) and its known association with a range of life-threatening or life-changing cardiovascular events and conditions. That recognition will be essential to delivering a truly holistic assessment of an individual’s cardiovascular risk profile.

It is important to look at the standardisation of testing and reporting. The success of health prevention strategies also depends on the accuracy and consistency of diagnostic processes. In the case of Lp(a), testing should be conducted according to the best practice principles set out by HEART UK. Has the Minister had a chance to talk to HEART UK, which has some great ideas and positive ways forward? It is important to work in partnership to deliver therapies, diagnoses and prevention.

On emerging therapies, in particular, it is vital that there is a focus on encouraging greater diagnostic standardisation from the outset. Clinicians often get used to the numbers they first use, and it is important that they do not become entrenched in using the wrong, or indeed superseded, units. Without action in these areas, Lp(a) testing and management risks becoming another promising area of health innovation where the UK falls behind comparative systems.

We need to look further afield and to work with other countries; I met the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Hinckley and Bosworth, this morning and said the same thing to him. Prominent European and American guidelines, such as those from the American Heart Association, the National Lipid Association and the European Atherosclerosis Society, have set out the importance of considering Lp(a) screening as part of CVD prevention approaches. Some countries are even thinking practically about how universal Lp(a) screening could be introduced. The present approach therefore puts us at risk of missing a rare opportunity to save lives that may be cut short by CVD, and will be increasingly out of line with the Government’s focus on transforming prevention across the NHS.

The Lp(a) taskforce is a coalition of experts from across the cardiovascular, lipid and laboratory community, with members from all four nations of the United Kingdom. They have come together to help tackle the lack of awareness and to set out the value of testing for Lp(a) in routine clinical practice to improve CVD management. Chaired by HEART UK, the group published its calls for action in August 2023, and it has since been working with key stakeholders to set out the potentially transformative role that Lp(a) could play in the future and, more broadly, to help renew the UK’s status as a world leader. We can be the world leader in CVD prevention and care.

I have some questions for the Minister. Is there a willingness to meet me and representatives from the Lp(a) taskforce, as well as other Members here with an interest in the subject, to discuss the essential steps that need to be taken to ensure that the UK is in the best possible position to integrate Lp(a) testing and management as a core part of CVD prevention strategies? Further, will he commit to engaging with key system partners such as NICE, NHS England and the devolved Administrations to address policy barriers that could hold back progress? I am ever mindful that the Lp(a) taskforce already comprises the four nations of the United Kingdom.

The Government must take wider action through their forthcoming 10-year health plan to secure renewed focus on CVD prevention, underpinned by ringfenced funding, enhanced early detection, expanding community diagnostic capacity, the timely implementation of evidence-based guidelines, and comprehensive public awareness and patient empowerment programmes. Will the Minister explore the scope to develop a dedicated national strategy for cardiovascular disease? We had that in 2019; I believe we need it in 2025.

Reversing these worrying trends in CVD is one of the great healthcare challenges that we face in this Parliament, and it must be approached with the necessary focus and attention. The UK must be able to capitalise on new and emerging areas such as Lp(a), which will be crucial if it is to renew its status as a world leader in CVD prevention and care. Just as with cancer, one in two people in this Chamber today are likely to develop heart and circulatory conditions in their lifetime. Just like the cancer community, the CVD community would welcome a commitment from the Minister to publish a dedicated national CVD strategy. At the end of the day, that is what I am asking for.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jim Shannon]

I apologise, but at the end of my speech I asked for three things. I asked whether there would be a willingness to meet me and representatives from the Lp(a) taskforce to discuss the essential steps that are needed, and that—

[David Mundell (in the Chair)]

Mr Shannon, I remind you that these proceedings go on to 4.30 pm, so there is no need for you to try to speak in a very short period of time.

[Jim Shannon]

I will not test your patience by speaking till 4.30 pm, Mr Mundell—I would test everybody’s patience if I were to do that—but could I sum up, if that is okay?

[David Mundell (in the Chair)]

Yes. That is what I was saying, but I felt you were summing in a way that anticipated that we were concluding at 4 pm.

[Jim Shannon]

I would have asked to intervene, but the Minister had sat down.

First, I thank all Members for coming along. The hon. Member for Dudley (Sonia Kumar) set the scene incredibly well with her knowledge and experience through her work—I think the Minister also referred to real-world experience. I thank her for her contribution; she is certainly establishing a name for herself in the Chamber.

There is no better way of illustrating a point than by telling a personal story, as the hon. Member for Ilford South (Jas Athwal) did. It reminds me of one of my constituents who came to see me one day; he is a man I know very well, although he is in a different political party. I asked him how he was and he said, “Jim, I went to see my doctor; I thought I was okay, but before he finished the tests on me, he gave me a bit of paper. I said, ‘What’s that for?’ and he said, ‘You have to go hospital right now.’” He went and had a quadruple bypass—he thought he was perfectly healthy, and did not know that he was not. I thank the hon. Member for Ilford South for sharing his story earlier.

The hon. Member for Mid Sussex (Alison Bennett) very clearly underlined the differential—that someone in Kensington and Chelsea can live for 20 years longer than someone in Blackpool. That has got to be wrong; we have to address those issues. She also mentioned the issue of obesity in children, and said that better food and school meals would improve public health and help to deliver more resilient people.

The shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Hinckley and Bosworth (Dr Evans), referred to genetic testing and to the cascading of those tests right down through families, which is one of the things that I asked for. He referred to the 10-year plan, of which the long-term condition of CVD needs to be a part. The aims of the Government seem to indicate that there will be a wish to do those things in relation to CVD, and we very much hope that the Minister can do them.

I thank the Minister for arriving—look, things happen in life. Sometimes I am late as well, which is probably my fault on most occasions and I take the blame. On this occasion, I asked the Minister for three things, and I will repeat them now. Is the Minister willing to meet me and representatives from the Lp(a) taskforce to discuss the essential steps that need to be taken now to ensure that the UK is in the best possible position to integrate Lp(a) testing? Will he commit to engaging with key system partners such as NICE, NHS England and the devolved Administrations to address relevant policy barriers that could hold back progress? I am ever mindful that the Lp(a) taskforce has already integrated the four nations of the United Kingdom in what it is doing. I always try to be positive—you know the person I am, Mr Mundell. My objective is not to catch anybody out; I only want positivity and a solution-based approach to what I am asking for. My last question was: will the Minister explore the scope to develop a dedicated national strategy for cardiovascular disease?

Those are my three requests, which I put forward genuinely, sincerely, honestly and kindly. I ask the Minister to let us all know his response and his policy, because I think that other Members, from all parties, would also like to know.

[David Mundell (in the Chair)]

I am sure the Minister will have heard the three points that Mr Shannon raised. On that basis, I will put the Question.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jim Shannon]

I am not quite sure what happened today, but I thank everyone—the Minister, all the hon. Members who made a contribution and the Backbench Business Committee for making this possible. We look forward to the delivery that the Government have indicated for the years ahead, on which all the nations of this great United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland can work together.

[David Mundell (in the Chair)]

It has been a little unconventional, but we got there in the end.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered the prevention of cardiovascular disease.

Creative Arts Education

Debate between Jim Shannon and David Mundell

Wednesday 18th December 2024 Westminster Hall

[Jim Shannon]

I have not brought my flute. I could whistle a tune, but I will not.

I always like to talk about something we have done in Northern Ireland. In late 2022—I know the Minister will be pleased to hear this, as an example of what can be done—the Arts Council of Northern Ireland, the Education Authority and the Urban Villages initiative announced funding for the continuation of the creative schools programme in 11 secondary schools, which was fantastic news for the education system across Northern Ireland.

The hon. Member for East Thanet (Ms Billington) referred to the importance of the arts. The arts are a vocation and many people need to recognise that. There are so many young people out there who see themselves going into the arts, film or the creative industries, so funding for our local schools through the Urban Villages initiative is good news. I have spoken before in Westminster Hall and the Chamber of the amazing talent that Northern Ireland has to offer, specifically in the film industry. We have made leaps and bounds in the film sector over the years.

I will give another example. I noticed recently in my constituency and neighbouring constituencies that controlled or commissioned graffiti is becoming massively popular within the creative arts industry. In Newtownards, which I represent, an Ulster Farmers’ Union building has historically always been subject to criminal graffiti, but now it has been transformed through the creative arts, and it looks fantastic. I have also seen many streets, alleys and walls completely changed by graffiti, and the work that goes into that should be respected and admired. Northern Ireland probably has a lot more graffiti than most, but we realised what could be done creatively with graffiti. At last, that is an indication of where we can go.

The creative schools programme initially launched as a pilot scheme in 2017 and so far 1,000 young boys and girls—men and women—have benefited from it. That is a fantastic number of people destined for stardom and progress. The programme places a focus on improving educational outcomes for children across a wide range of artistic sectors. It is not the Minister’s responsibility, but it is crucial that we continue to fund it in Northern Ireland, so that we truly give young people the opportunity to showcase the amazing talent that the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland has to offer.

[David Mundell (in the Chair)]

I call Munira Wilson, the Liberal Democrat spokesman, for five minutes.

Post-Brexit Fisheries Management

Debate between Jim Shannon and David Mundell

Thursday 13th October 2022 Westminster Hall

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

Over the years, I do not think there has been a fishing debate in which I have not been sat alongside the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael). I feel strongly in my heart about the issues that he has referred to, so it is a pleasure to come to Westminster Hall—I am here most often than most, but that is not the point—to discuss where we are on the Brexit opportunities for fisheries. I congratulate the right hon. Gentleman for setting the scene in introducing the debate.

I am pleased to see the Minister in his place, and very much look forward to working alongside him. I put on the record my thanks to the previous Minister for Fisheries, the hon. Member for Banbury (Victoria Prentis), who was incredibly helpful. There was not a fishing issue that I asked her to look into that she was not responsive to. We may not always have got the answers, but we always got a response, and we always felt that she always went the extra mile in trying to get us a pertinent answer.

Portavogie in my constituency of Strangford is the second largest fishing village in the whole of Northern Ireland, second only to Kilkeel but slightly ahead of Ardglass, both of which are in the bordering constituency of South Down. The Anglo-North Irish Fish Producers Organisation and the Irish Fish Producers Organisation work closely together and represent people in those three villages, and when discussing something with them, we get the answers we need quickly and collectively.

I know that the Minister’s portfolio is wide ranging, but not only is commercial fishing is one of the most challenging sectors; it can be—if he gets it right—one of the most rewarding. There would be a lot of satisfaction in helping fishing villages across Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, and across all of England as well. I am proud to be a member of this great United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and to have a Minister who thinks likewise. When we talk about delivery, we mean delivery for us all. That is what I want to see.

Brexit provides us with an opportunity to grow the sector sustainably in remote parts of the United Kingdom. Our Northern Ireland fishing sector is eager to contribute to that growth and to the economy of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. I am pleased that my colleague and friend, the hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart), is here to represent Scotland and the Scottish National party, and I look forward to his contribution. His colleague, the hon. Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar (Angus Brendan MacNeil), the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland, the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (David Duguid) and I have had a number of meetings on the very issue raised by the right hon. Gentleman, which I will speak about again.

I wish to speak about four themes in respect of the commercial fishing fleet in Northern Ireland, particularly in Portavogie in my constituency: how the fleet can continue to fish, where it can fish, what it can fish, and the cost of fishing. To be fair, the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland has referred to those four themes. The first is critical, and I know that the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Cambridge (Daniel Zeichner), will reinforce that every bit as strongly as we will in our contributions.

How can the fleet continue to fish? Without a crew, a fishing vessel cannot harvest the seas. That seems obvious, but it is a matter of fact that crews are increasingly difficult to secure, as the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland said in his introduction. We did not consult each other on what we were going to speak about, but he led on this matter and I intend to do likewise because it is a major issue for fishing fleets in mine and neighbouring constituencies.

Recruiting fishing crew is not a new issue. I have attended fishing debates over many years and have raised the point many times. I have met Immigration Ministers, who have always been incredibly helpful; I genuinely believe they wish to find a route through the process. The utopia we aim for—a domestic fishing fleet crewed by a domestic crew—regretfully remains some distance away. That is the nature of the economics of it all. There is not the same tradition of working on fishing boats as there was in Portavogie. My brother worked on a fishing boat many times. Dads passed on boats to their families, which is how the tradition continued, but there is less of a wish to do so that now. To be fair, there are also more job opportunities. Why would people go out fishing in a boat that is tossed about in the greatest of storms when they could work in an engineering firm up the road, where there are plenty of opportunities?

There are particular pressures on fishing, such as competition from other sectors, and quayside prices that mean that fishermen are, more often than not, price takers. This all contributes to a scenario where a career in a fishing fleet is no longer the choice. For a growing proportion of the UK’s fleet, the option has been to recruit from overseas, and that has been pretty successful. In Portavogie, we have Ghanaians, Nigerians, many people from Estonia and Latvia, and even some from further east, such as Romania and Bulgaria.

The use of transit visas—the preferred route for bringing overseas crews to the UK—has become a grey area, and we need some clarification. I know it is not the Minister’s responsibility, but we would all be pleased if we could have some encouragement from the Department to help us get the matter sorted with the immigration department. The Home Office has made it clear that it wishes to see the points-based system being developed by fishing vessel owners to sponsor overseas crews. However, the sponsorship route was not developed for marine-based careers. Concessions for workers involved in the construction of offshore energy projects, as well as the boats used to transport salmon smolt between fish farms in west of Scotland waters—both within the UK’s 12-mile limit—are evidence of that. There is also evidence that where a sound case is made, the Home Office can facilitate short-term solutions as part of a longer-term plan. It would be encouraging to see a wee bit more of that.

At the same time, we should laud the majority of fishing vessels owners who do the right thing by their crews and are eager to develop a system that provides the necessary safeguards while assisting the Government to fulfil their immigration commitments. I understand that the Government have to control immigration flows, but we should be doing our best to help industries, sectors and parts of our economy in Northern Ireland, Scotland, Wales and across all of England that could do more to produce extra bonuses for the economy. The imminent launch of a pilot project in Northern Ireland that will deliver a grievance mechanism is an example of best practice, in compliance with international rules that Northern Ireland’s fishermen are working up. I cannot have the same knowledge of what is happening in Scotland and Wales, because my constituency is not in those areas, but I understand that all three regions are working together on these issues.

The fact is that the fishing fleet need to recruit new crews from overseas; that is a fact of life. There is manifest evidence of that. It is a matter of regret that DEFRA has to date excluded the fishing fleet from the independent review of labour shortages in the food supply chain—a review that includes fish processors. I invite the Minister to correct that anomaly. I am always more interested in trying to work constructively and move forwards collectively, so I would be grateful if the Minister could drive that for us. I applaud DEFRA and the Minister for their early intervention on this critical matter, which encouraged the Home Office to facilitate a breathing space to allow fishing vessel owners to resolve the matter. May I gently, kindly and with all respect suggest to the Minister and the Government that the breathing space be used wisely to meet and work with the industry and other stakeholders to devise a long-term resolution to the unique challenges for the fishing and marine sectors? We are all happy to work alongside the Minister to ensure that that happens.

Where can we fish? For fishermen, the marine space is increasingly squeezed. Crew transit visa rules mean that many fishing vessels have altered their fishing patterns to stay outside the UK’s 12-mile territorial limit. The squeeze is associated with marine protection, the development of offshore wind and the hard border in the Irish sea. I will not say too much about that, but I wanted to make a point about where we are.

As the Government engage on issues around the Northern Ireland protocol, through either the preferred route of direct and sincere negotiation with the EU or the Northern Ireland Protocol Bill, I implore the Minister and Government not to ignore the fact that a hard sea border already exists in the Irish sea. That prevents fishermen from Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland fishing in their traditional waters on each side of the sea border, as they have always done. To be fair, we would like to see it continue. There must be a way in which that can be concluded.

For many, the situation was an oversight created by the trade and co-operation agreement. As fishing industry representatives have recently reminded us, even with its many flaws, 40-foot lorries with lots of paperwork and admin can still trade back and forth across the land border, yet 40-foot fishing vessels cannot cross the sea border. That seems to be an anomaly that needs to be addressed.

It is a unique situation for Northern Ireland’s fishermen, and I invite the Minister to visit the fishing communities there to see for himself the impact that the measure is having. Unfortunately, because of the covid restrictions, the Minister’s predecessor, the hon. Member for Banbury, was not able to find the time to visit Northern Ireland. I extend the invitation to the Minister; we would be very glad to host him in Northern Ireland. I extend that on the record, and I hope it can be taken up. That invitation will, of course, extend not only to my constituency of Strangford and Portavogie but to Ardglass and Kilkeel, since the two fishing organisations cover the three ports.

What can we fish? Brexit has developed additional fishing opportunities or quotas for our fishermen. It is not as much as had been promised; nevertheless, we have had an increased share of the total allowable catches. Previous Ministers promised that no one would lose out from the Brexit quota dividend. However, what they did not say was that some would gain more than others, and Northern Ireland’s fishermen firmly believe that they fall into the “others” category.

Northern Ireland has a small maritime zone. It is about 5% of the UK’s but is equally important for the economic growth of Northern Ireland, and indeed of the United Kingdom as a whole. Our fishermen have traditionally been nomadic, fishing all around these islands. Yet, partly because of zonal attachment, Northern Ireland’s fishermen were penalised when it came to the apportionment of the additional quota.

It is precisely because of that penalty that I hope the Minister understands how nervous Northern Ireland’s fishermen are as a result of DEFRA’s most recent consultation on apportioning additional quotas in 2023 and beyond. Those are issues that we discussed with the previous Minister, the hon. Member for Banbury. I cannot overemphasise the fear that our fishermen and this sector have around that issue. If the Minister increases the element of the zonal attachment used in the quota apportionment equation, there can only be one set of losers—I seek the Minister’s help on this—and those are the fishermen from Northern Ireland.

With all the challenges in the Irish sea, including the hard sea border, any reduction in the share of the additional quota for Northern Ireland’s fishermen will be regarded as unjustified punishment by London. I know that the Minister is not keen to see that, and I am certainly not, so can we work together to address that? Their ask is simple: even with its flaws, keep the system agreed in 2021. We need the Minister’s help to ensure that happens. Again, we have thrown other things at him today, and I would love the opportunity to discuss them at length with him—or even for a short time; it does not have to be at length—to ensure that we get these things on record.

My last point is on the cost of fishing and fuel. The Government have announced help for businesses with energy costs. That is to be extended to Northern Ireland, and fishing businesses onshore should get some help. However, what about businesses that float? Fishing vessels incur a huge fuel bill. Fuel is second only to crew wages in a vessel’s expenses. As well as fuel, other expenses around fishing have increased significantly over the past 12 months. Recent surveys indicate that, within the UK, marine diesel is most expensive in Northern Ireland, returning this week to levels not seen since the early days of the Russian aggression against Ukraine.

I applaud DEFRA and the regional funding in Northern Ireland designed to examine and implement fuel efficiency measures. Those include retrofitting trawlers with equipment such as the Kort nozzles around propellors and the use of new fishing gear, which, as well as being easier to tow or pull through the water—therefore saving fuel—can help reduce unwanted catches. There is an eagerness in the Northern Ireland fishing sector to work with energy efficiencies, new ideas and innovations to make fishing more productive and safer.

Our sector has also been proactive in seeking to secure higher quayside prices. However, as we enter the winter months and a time of reduced catches, none of those measures provides the silver bullet for fuel costs. The Government have acknowledged the hardship for businesses based inland. I would urge the Minister to engage with industry representatives as soon as possible to extend that help to our fishing fleet. There have been a lot of asks today, and I ask that the Minister forgives me for that. However, it is important that we lay out the things with which we need the Minister’s help.

To finish, I repeat my invitation for the Minister to visit Portavogie and Northern Ireland’s other fishing communities in Ardglass and Kilkeel. Combined, Northern Ireland’s fishing fleet might make up a small part of the UK industry, but dynamism, innovation and a wish to make fishing sustainable for the future have been shown by all of our sector. The Minister should be assured of a warm welcome in County Down. I look forward to his reply and I am sure others will extend the same invitation. County Down welcomes the Minister in advance.

[David Mundell (in the Chair)]

Of course, Mr David Duguid, the Member for Banff and Buchan, whom the hon. Gentleman referenced in his contribution, has recently been made a Minister and therefore would not be able to participate in the debate as a Back-Bench Member.

Animal Welfare

Debate between Jim Shannon and David Mundell

Monday 7th June 2021 Westminster Hall

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I certainly will do that, Mr Mundell; thank you for that clarification.

It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Pontypridd (Alex Davies-Jones) and everyone else who has spoken. I thank the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Elliot Colburn) for presenting the case.

My hon. Friend the Member for Belfast East (Gavin Robinson), who has just left the Chamber, referred to the Assisi Animal Sanctuary, where my wife has been a dedicated volunteer for many years; indeed, many of the animals in our own home are animals that have been rescued. They now rule the roost.

My comments today will largely focus on the puppy issue. The facts are clear—there has been an absolutely massive increase in demand for puppies during the pandemic. People who are spending more time at home have realised that a wee dog may be something that can complete their family; that is lovely and it should be the case. However, my wife has highlighted to me that often after peaks of demand such as this one there will be a devastating peak of abandoned dogs, when owners realise the huge responsibility that comes with a cute little puppy, as the hon. Member for Southend West (Sir David Amess) has said.

Dogs are a lot of work. In my opinion, as someone who has had dogs all his life, they are worth every second. The fact is that dogs will always love their owner and will always wag their tail. The springer spaniel that we have—Autumn—probably came from a home where it was abused. It was certainly nervous and unsure. Now, it is confident; it is now my hunting dog and also my guard dog.

I first realised the scale of the problem when one of my staff members told me that she had been approached during lockdown while she was out on a walk with a two-year-old Dachshund by a man who offered to buy her dog. She laughed it off by saying that she would rather sell her husband before she would sell her dog—there is a thought for us. My goodness me, that was not a nice thing to say and it was not my wife who said it. Perhaps my wife did not hear—there we are.

Here is the story. My staff member was met with a stern expression and the man saying, “I will give you £1,000. I can’t source Dachshunds anywhere.” She had paid £550 for the dog to a local lady who had invited her into her home. When she saw the dog’s mum and dad, and the papers, she was happy that all was well; that is the way it should be done. This type of dog is now listed as costing over £2,000, so it is little wonder that she was approached like that. We are now seeing people who are capitalising on people’s isolation and loneliness, and when there is a demand the unscrupulous will do whatever it takes to try and meet it.

Therefore, despite Lucy’s law, the unscrupulous are exploiting the loopholes in order to exploit animals and make a quick buck. The problem is that these animals are not checked against rigorous standards and the results can be dire. There can be health risks for both pups and unsuspecting new owners; families in the UK could get infectious diseases. We must be aware of them: parvovirus; e-coli; brucellosis; parasitic infestations of ticks; tapeworms; rabies; and other problems that are endemic. Those are diseases that we cannot ignore. These are serious issues. Indeed, I read an article recently that outlined an increasing fear of diseases that cross the human-animal divide. In some cases, those diseases have an impact upon human beings as well.

At present, puppies must be at least 15 weeks old to enter the UK legally. It is virtually impossible to establish the age of a 15-week-old puppy accurately by its teeth or appearance alone. Documents, including certification and animal passports, are commonly forged and microchip numbers can be falsified, thus compromising both traceability and accountability.

I will finish with this point. The suggestion has been made that the import age must be raised to six months. I understand that some people may be less inclined to get a dog that is older and therefore harder to train. At the same time, I have had many older dogs over the years, so I can testify that a gentle hand and love can teach any old dog the basics. Six months may affect the cuteness factor of a dog that is being bought, but it certainly will not affect its training.

In conclusion, I will ask the Minister a question. The Republic of Ireland is seen as a place where puppy farming can happen, and dogs can be trafficked from the Republic into the UK, and vice versa. What discussions has the Minister had with Ministers in the Republic of Ireland to ensure that laws are used right across the whole of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland so that that does not happen? Loopholes exist. We must work to close them as soon as possible and to prevent the abuse of this system, which translates into the abuse of animals and can pose a danger to families throughout this UK. I think that was just about four minutes.

[David Mundell (in the Chair)]

Excellent; thank you very much, Mr Shannon. I will now call Dr Lisa Cameron, followed by Luke Pollard and the Minister. If they could each stick to speaking for about nine minutes, that will allow Mr Colburn some moments to conclude the debate.