Intimidation in Public Life

Debate between Jim Shannon and Simon Hart

Tuesday 21st May 2019 Westminster Hall

[Simon Hart]

The hon. Lady is right. That is on my list of actions. I should say that we have probably all witnessed closer engagement and greater recognition of the dangers of such activity from the police and the CPS. My police force has been faultless in its attention to detail as far as I am concerned, and I know that the Met has been doing its best as a central co-ordinator. However, the reality is that, particularly during an intense, short election campaign, some of the issues in 2017 that might have had an impact on the outcome for individual colleagues were not addressed in that four or five-week period. It was too complicated, they were crimes that rarely come up and police officers did not necessarily have an immediate knowledge of them.

I had one case in the 2015 election where electoral offences were being committed. I went to the police and was told that it had to be referred to the serious crime unit in York. I asked how long that would take and was told, “It will take six weeks.” I said, “That’s not a lot of use to me, because there is an election in two,” so they said, “Okay, we will book him for a traffic offence, then. That should sort it out.” I think that is what the police did. The hon. Lady makes a good point, and rapid action is vital.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his contribution. I am ever mindful that when we in Northern Ireland take on the job of an MP, we take on the transparency of that job in meeting the general public and what comes with that. Many of us in Northern Ireland, including my hon. Friend the Member for East Londonderry (Mr Campbell) and me, have had direct threats on our lives because of the stand we take politically on issues, but—this is always at the back of my mind—public life does not mean signing up your spouses or children to be intimidated or bullied or threatened or murdered, whatever the case may be. Does the hon. Gentleman feel we need to raise the level to zero tolerance? Privacy for our families is important.

[Simon Hart]

The hon. Gentleman has more experience in this field than most, and I agree with him. We are ultimately attempting to avoid a situation where the gene pool from which our political representatives is drawn gets smaller and smaller. Whether that is for local authorities, a devolved Parliament or this Parliament, if we do not address this intimidation soon, for the reasons he points out, we will attract fewer and fewer people, and arguably the standard we expect of our politicians will go down and down, and the frustration of our electorate will go up and up. We therefore must deal with it now. It is not one for the slow burner, because whether we like it or not we could face a very angry electorate within months. I mentioned the Jo Cox Foundation, and I do not need to remind the House why it was created. We do not want to find ourselves in a position that gets anywhere close to the reason why that was set up.

The Government are taking a welcome step in the form of the “Online Harms” White Paper. I do not want to get into the detail of the relevance of that; we are all aware of it, and there is a huge responsibility on social media companies to play their part in ensuring that democratic engagement can continue without people feeling they are driven off social media or off the political stage altogether. The White Paper is a welcome step forward, and we hope it will be converted into legislation sooner rather than later. I heard a rumour—it must have been inaccurate—the other day that part of the reason we have not moved faster is down to insufficient parliamentary time. I do not know whether hon. Members agree, but I think we could possibly squeeze it in somewhere over the next few weeks.

We simply cannot allow this thuggish behaviour to intimidate the democratic rights of our voters, and we cannot allow the culture of fear to deter good people from stepping on to any political stage, whatever it might be. I leave the last words to the chairman of the Committee on Standards in Public Life, Lord Evans, who is the former head of the security services and therefore some expert on the corrosive impact of such behaviour on democracy. He said:

“If the decisions MPs make start to be altered as a result of threats and intimidation, that amounts to subversion of the democratic system and would be a dark day for our country.”

I agree with him implicitly.

Lead Shot

Debate between Jim Shannon and Simon Hart

Tuesday 23rd October 2012 Commons Chamber

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I appreciate the opportunity to speak on this issue, Mr Deputy Speaker. I did not expect to be called to speak so early, but the Whips of both main parties ensured that I was here on time.

I am country sports enthusiast and proud of it, as those who follow such issues will know. As we all know, Members of Parliament work in a stressful environment and it is essential that we have a release valve for that pressure. For me, that is country sports, and I take part whenever the opportunity arises. It does not arise as often as it did in the past, because I am in London. In my maiden speech, I said that the pheasants and ducks of my constituency would have two to three days a week when I would not be chasing them and they were probably more than gratified to learn that.

It is good to be out in the fields, pursuing country sports. That was how I grew up. I remember my cousin, Kenneth Smyth from County Tyrone in the west of the Province, giving a new meaning to the phrase “pigeon post”. When I was a young boy, he would send wood pigeons to me in the east of the Province in Ballywalter. They took two or three days in the post—they came first class—and although sometimes they were not palatable, they were okay when cooked. I survived. That is the truth, and “pigeon post” for me clearly meant a dead pigeon coming from the west of the Province to the east.

I have been eating shot pigeon for years, and pheasant and duck, too, and it has never done me any harm. However, I am prepared to accept the lead shot ban and wait until all the information has come in and been assessed by the lead shot working group. Members might therefore be wondering why we are having this Adjournment debate, and I have secured it because we need to present a balanced view given how the issue is portrayed by certain papers and magazines across the country. There are those who have created a scare without waiting for the full results to come out and I wanted to ensure that the House heard both sides of the argument. I have therefore been in touch with shooting sports organisations as well as the Wildfowl and Wetlands Trust and I am prepared to give a balanced review of the issue. I state again that there is no final result yet, but we need balance in the debate and in the argument and we must ensure that all points of view are heard.

The use of lead shot is being considered because of issues that have been raised about environmental and human health effects. As they are in question, I support any investigation. I would not want to be like those doctors who backed cigarettes in the past, saying that they were good for people’s health when the reverse is patently true. However, neither would I like to be like those who jump in with two feet, causing a needless fuss and a scare. A balance should be struck between those two reactions and it is that balance that I seek to provide to the House today.

Regulations across most of Europe prevent lead from falling in wetlands and shooters support that. Some shooters were perhaps not all that pleased when lead shot was banned and they had to turn to steel, but they did it successfully, honestly and truthfully. Steel shot is now the preferred choice of many. Many bird watchers are also bird shooters and understand that sustaining a good environment is essential for both sports. I have been informed, however, that there is little evidence to suggest that lead, when used outside wetlands, causes any significant damage to bird populations.

The unique way that certain water birds feed means that some species are susceptible to ingesting lead if it is deposited in their feeding area and that has been highlighted as a source of poisoning for some wildfowl species, including several migratory birds. It important to consider all the factors that affect migratory birds, however, as the ingestion of lead might have happened not in this country but in other countries. To address that problem, the African-Eurasian water bird agreement, or AEWA, aimed to reduce the amount of lead ammunition used in wetland areas where such wildfowl feed. The feeding habits of non-wetland birds are very different, as they are not affected by lead in the silt layers of wetlands.

However, in order to comply with the AEWA, we have rightly prohibited the use of ammunition containing lead for the killing of certain species in specific areas. In England and Wales—we are here in the mother of Parliaments representing the four regions of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland—the use of lead shot is prohibited below the high water mark of ordinary spring tides, over specified sites of special scientific interest and for the shooting of the following species, regardless of where they occur. The species are mallard, widgeon, gadwall, shoveler, teal, pochard, pintail, tufted duck, and golden eye and the four species of goose—greylag, pink-footed, white-fronted and Canada—but also golden plover and coots and moorhen. In Scotland and Northern Ireland the use of lead shot is prohibited over wetlands, which are defined there as any areas of foreshore, marsh, fen, peatland with standing water, regularly or seasonally flooded fields and other water sources whether they be natural or manmade, static or flowing, fresh, brackish or salt. I am trying to make it clear that legislation exists to protect water birds from this very threat. Action has been taken here at Westminster and in the regions of Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.

Reading through the report, however, there appear to be many inconsistencies and inferences are made from the testing of a very small number of birds. Perhaps work has not been done on the large number of birds that would amount to true evidence for the case.

The Countryside Alliance would say that many of the wildfowl tested in the study are migratory species—that is its opinion; many of us would agree with that—and as such have travelled many miles from different locations. Although the Wildlife and Wetland Trust provides assurances that these birds ingested the lead in the UK, with respect, Mr Deputy Speaker, there is simply no way of proving that. Moreover, lead poisoning can come from many sources, as previous research has shown that birds from urban areas have higher levels of lead in their blood. Lead can be got from the water and from other things. This is not acknowledged, and perhaps it should have been.

For those species that are non-migratory, it must be asked how the birds, which were tested only from wildlife and wetland trust reserves, obtained the lead shot while resident on the reserves. As the reserves are not shot over, the most probable explanation is that the lead was dropped in those areas before any legislation was introduced.

Sir Peter Scott was the founder of the Wildlife and Wetland Trust and a very keen wildfowler—indeed, one of the greatest wildfowlers that we have ever had. I have read some of his books, and they are most interesting. A bust of Sir Peter Scott is displayed at Castle Espie in Comber in my constituency of Strangford. It was put there in recognition of his good work and his contribution. He would have used lead ammunition in his day, long before the legislation was changed and lead shot was banned. This is further evidenced by the fact that no evidence of any other shot type was found in the birds’ gizzards. After 10 years of use of steel shot, would there not be some steel shot in the gizzards of the birds? There does not seem to be, but given that alternatives have been widely used for more than 10 years, this would be expected, and it further confirms that birds obtained the shot from the reserves. However, the Countryside Alliance has informed me that it is upholding the ban and will read the final report in full before making any representations.

I have been contacted by the Wildlife and Wetland Trust regarding its fears about the effects of lead on the animal and human body and, for the sake of parity I, like others, have carefully considered its point of view. It states:

“Lead is toxic to all animals including humans. Even low levels of exposure affect animals and no threshold has been identified below which the effects of lead cannot be seen. The vast majority of shot fired from shotguns falls into the environment, and thus, in the case of lead, causes long term cumulative contamination. Wildfowl, and other birds, ingest lead shot that has been deposited in their feeding areas (such as wetlands and terrestrial habitats including agricultural land), probably mistaken for grit or food.”

It is really nothing new, to be fair. Lead poisoning from shot ingestion has been known to kill wildfowl for more than a century. It has happened for more than 100 years and long before that. In Europe it has been estimated that approximately 1 million wildfowl from 17 species and just short of 9% of the wildfowl population could die every winter from eating the lead that is already in the seashore and the sea.

Although some of the information on which the estimate was based is old, and shot ingestion rates may now be higher or lower in some species, none the less mortality is high. Not only does lead poisoning cause considerable avoidable wildfowl suffering and mortality, concern has been expressed about its potential to contribute to the decline of certain common wildfowl species; for example, the pochard and the pintail, both of which are amber-listed. They are BOCC—birds of conservation concern—to use the correct terminology.

Lead poisoning is known to be a serious threat to certain globally threatened European wildfowl, in particular the white-headed duck. It also causes sub-lethal effects in many other birds and represents a significant welfare problem. We are not walking away from that; we are trying to address the issues and make a balanced argument.

In recent times, a body of evidence has been accumulated detailing lead poisoning in terrestrial birds, including upland game birds, which ingest spent lead shot when feeding in shot-over habitats, and the raptors that prey on or scavenge game species, thereby ingesting lead fragments from ammunition. Eight of the non-wildfowl species documented as ingesting lead or suffering lead poisoning from ammunition sources in the wild breed regularly in the United Kingdom, and are red or amber-listed as BOCC. Clearly it is important to avoid or reduce mortality in those species from all causes.

The negative human health impacts from lead are well established and have resulted in policies to reduce exposure, such as its removal from paint or petrol. The potential risks associated with consuming game shot with lead ammunition have received more attention recently, following an international conference held in the USA by the Peregrine Fund in 2008. As a small proportion of the lead from gunshot fragments is invisible to the human eye, consumers of game may inadvertently eat small lead shards or particles.

[Simon Hart (Carmarthen West and South Pembrokeshire) (Con)]

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that even in the most pessimistic estimations a normal human being would have to eat a colossal amount of game even to register in the danger zone? May I offer a crumb of comfort? I suspect I am one of the few Members of Parliament who actually carries 15 bits of lead in my left knee. It was shot there when I was 15 and does not seem to have had any ill effects on my health.

[Jim Shannon]

I read the hon. Gentleman’s excellent article in the Shooting Times and Country Magazine last week. It shows his commitment to country sports over the years. The lead in his leg has done him no harm, just as the lead in the pigeons, ducks and pheasants that I have eaten has done me no harm.

Research in the United Kingdom showed that a high proportion of the game sold for human consumption had lead concentrations exceeding the European Union maximum. We are well aware of the issue. The European Food Safety Authority expert on contaminants published a scientific opinion on lead in food and has stated that other animals in the food chain—sheep, pigs and poultry—carry lead too. The report details the potential health risks that may be associated with a diet rich in game, but people would need to eat a lot of pheasants or venison every year before they were affected, or in my case, a lot of wood pigeons. They would have to eat a dozen a day.

Outdoor Learning

Debate between Jim Shannon and Simon Hart

Wednesday 15th December 2010 Westminster Hall

[Simon Hart]

The hon. Gentleman makes a very good point. There are direct and indirect health benefits to be gained from this educational concept. The direct benefits are simply from getting people out of a windowless and joyless classroom environment into an environment that is more interesting and more demanding physically. That is a good thing, but outdoor education can also teach people about the value of a different and varied diet, the process of food production and the attractions of exercise and entertainment, in whatever form they might come, in open areas.

Of course that will have a positive effect. That used to be just conjecture on our part and on the part of the experts; there is now evidence to support the view that that is the case. That is what is encouraging: we are going beyond just speculating to being able genuinely to point to evidence that supports that view.

The Select Committee on Children, Schools and Families also came up trumps. It stated:

“Learning outside the classroom is important, and the Department must provide adequate funding to achieve maximum impact…there should be an individual entitlement within the National Curriculum to at least one out of school visit a term.”

On the back of those third-party endorsements, I shall pose two more questions to the Minister. Will the Government reconsider plans to include an entitlement to outdoor learning for everyone in the curriculum? Also, can outdoor learning be included as part of the Ofsted inspection protocol? There is a feeling among members of the teaching profession with whom I have contact that if it is not inspected, it is not important. It is clearly important; Ofsted and the Select Committee have said that it is important. If it is important, let us include it in the inspection protocol, so that everyone knows that it is important and we can cement that in the minds of those responsible for outdoor learning projects.

I represent a seat in west Wales and should therefore like to consider for a moment how the Welsh Assembly Government view the issue. It is encouraging that they are a few lengths ahead of Westminster on this topic. I recognise that the matter is devolved, but we can learn lessons from the Welsh Assembly in this regard. The foundation phase is the Welsh Assembly Government’s approach to learning for children aged three to seven years. My own children have benefited from initiatives such as the Forest school. That involves a perfectly non-contentious regular monthly trip into the great outdoors of Wales, which benefits children from quite a young age in many different ways. The Welsh Assembly Government recognise that. Their framework states:

“The Foundation Phase environment should promote discovery and independence and a greater emphasis on using the outdoor environment as a resource for children’s learning.”

They say that they will aim to

“Provide opportunities for children to experience the outdoor learning environment and to become active learners through the play-based Foundation Phase curriculum.”

I say to the Minister that if that is good enough for the Welsh Assembly, surely it is good enough for the UK as a whole.

To conclude my short contribution on this important topic, I shall make these points. We can now prove that outdoor education improves health, education and social benefits for children, young people and society as a whole. We can increasingly prove that if we can obtain those benefits for children and young adults, the economic benefit for the taxpayer in the long term could also be huge and well worth the investment required now.

I want to finish with two case studies. In my last job, I was involved with a project called Fishing for Schools. We took people who often had severe disadvantages and just put them in an environment that they were not used to. We used to marvel at the way in which lives could be transformed as a consequence of that simple project. We had one pupil called Zach on that programme. His teacher wrote to us after the course had finished and said:

“Zach had been suffering from bullying and was often in trouble with regard to behaviour in school, but since the course he has worked hard, been positive, behaves well and is a more mature and sensible young man—wow, what a difference.”

Alex McBarnet, founder of The Bushcraft Company, came into the world of outdoor education as a result of difficulties that he had had in traditional education. Using his own get-up-and-go spirit and his own inspirational zeal, he started his own company. He said:

“Children who struggle a bit more in the classroom have an opportunity here to shine, and you can actually watch their self esteem grow by the day, which is fabulous.”

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that there are many outside bodies that can contribute to outdoor learning? One is the Countryside Alliance, which the hon. Gentleman might have an interest in. Does he see a role for such bodies, whether we are talking about the British Association for Shooting and Conservation or the Countryside Alliance, that could help to benefit young people?

[Simon Hart]

The hon. Gentleman makes a point that he knows I will approve of—and I had deliberately not been making it, for exactly that reason. I think that any way in which we can take young people into interesting, challenging, different and adventurous environments and teach them skills that they do not know and introduce them to ways of life, people and communities that they may not usually have any contact with, must be good.

The more of that we can do, the better. I do not say that just as someone who had a personal and professional interest in it, and to some extent still does. I say it because I have seen many examples of people who have benefited. They are not just rural or urban or suburban people, or people from poor backgrounds or rich backgrounds. Everyone who has had the fantastic privilege of coming into contact with the outside world, whether formally or informally, has come away feeling that they have gained something that traditional education could not provide to them. We all have a social responsibility to encourage youth in that respect, but we need help from central Government to break down the barriers that sometimes prevent us from being able to do that.

That leads nicely to my final question to the Minister. I and other hon. Members and organisations out there in the real world think that outdoor learning could bring benefits to the nation and benefits to people who sometimes struggle, through no fault of their own—and often through no fault of their local authority’s or the Government’s—to obtain benefits from the type of education system that we have.

We have a golden opportunity now to improve the lives of people in a number of communities through a few simple initiatives. Of course, that requires funding, but it does not require obscene levels of funding. In fact, it is not funding but an investment, because the downstream economic consequences of doing it will be profoundly beneficial to the nation. It will save us millions of pounds in the long term if we get it right.

I hope that the Minister will grant an audience with herself and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, not only for hon. Members who may be interested in the issue but for representatives of the wide range of outside bodies that have contributed to the debate and made strides in the right direction. If we could get together early in the new year to see whether we could convert what at the moment is a struggling dream into a deliverable reality, this debate will have been a worthwhile use of our Wednesday morning.