Flooding

Debate between Laurence Robertson and Jim Shannon

Tuesday 6th February 2024 Westminster Hall

[Mr Laurence Robertson (Tewkesbury) (Con)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the matter of flooding.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Sharma. In 2007, Tewkesbury and many other areas of the country suffered the worst floods we can remember. Some areas that had previously never flooded were overcome by water from rivers and water running off from land. Houses and business premises were flooded. Ironically, water services were lost, as the Mythe waterworks were overcome by water. Electricity supplies were lost to many, as the Walham substation was overcome.

As a result, around 1,000 households were displaced in my constituency. People, including the elderly, the terminally ill and families, had to live in caravans. They were out of their homes for up to a year. Tewkesbury hospital had to be evacuated and, sadly, there was loss of life as a result of that flooding. King Charles—Prince Charles as he then was—and the then Duchess of Cornwall visited Priors Park to see the damage and lift spirits. In making that reference, I want to wish King Charles the very best.

That was 17 years ago and, although we have not suffered flooding to the same extent in my area, we do experience flooding on a regular basis, including a few weeks ago. In my area, that may be unavoidable to an extent, as Tewkesbury sits on the confluence of two main rivers—the Severn and the Avon—and other rivers are in the area. There is no surprise when the area floods, although the inevitability of it is no comfort to those whose homes are flooded.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for introducing the debate. He is right to outline the issues. He said the last time there was a massive flood was 17 years ago. In my constituency, floods that are supposed to happen every 100 years now happen every 10. Does he agree that policy and strategy must be not only for England but for the whole of the United Kingdom, when the floods are happening everywhere?

[Mr Robertson]

I am going to say why it is important to have both national and local strategies.

Support for Local Food Infrastructure

Debate between Laurence Robertson and Jim Shannon

Thursday 8th September 2022 Westminster Hall

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I thank you for giving me the chance to speak, Mr Robertson, and I particularly thank the hon. Member for Waveney (Peter Aldous) for raising the issue. He and I have many things in common, including that we represent coastal areas where there is fishing and farming. He has clearly illustrated his depth of knowledge on the subject matter, and we thank him for that.

My five-minute speech will focus not just on all the good things that Strangford has, because it would take more than five minutes to say them, but on the bigger story as well. Can I say how pleased I am to see the Minister in his place? I miss him as Leader of the House, but I am pleased to see him here to take up the cudgels on behalf of farming and fishing. I wish him well and know that we will be able to enjoy and take note of his knowledge of those areas.

The United Kingdom is largely self-sufficient in terms of our food and drink industry. The UK food supply represents some 6.8% of gross value added. It is worth £107 million and provides 4 million jobs, with around half a million people in farming and fishing. In Northern Ireland, food and drink is a £5.4 billion industry. As I was sitting here, I was thinking about beef and lamb because they are significant in my constituency. They are worth £1.3 billion. Some 5,000 staff are involved in processing beef and lamb, and 20,000 farmers are active in that industry. Also, we export 70% of that beef and lamb, because in Northern Ireland we produce more than we eat as the population is only 1.8 million. For us, the UK mainland is so important for our produce for export. Our success is down to pure and fresh manufacturing from local farmers and countryside, right through to our fishermen who provide the local seafood from Portavogie harbour in my constituency of Strangford and down as far as Annalong and Kilkeel in South Down.

Strangford is lucky enough to have numerous food infrastructure manufacturers. We have incredible vegetable suppliers in Willowbrook Foods, and Mash Direct and Rich Sauces. Strangford has one of Lakeland Dairies’ main factories—one of nine it has across Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland—which distributes dairy products across Northern Ireland and further afield. Newtownards high street has four butcheries, which are all very successful and have their own regulars who dare not go anywhere else. Those four butchers employ some 80 staff. They do a lot of work in their butchers’; it is not just a butcher’s front shop, but more than that.

A thriving food economy supports and brings benefits for local nature and habitats. Financing our rural communities is crucial to securing good food infrastructure. The International Institute for Sustainable Development said that those areas around the globe where people are suffering hunger are fairly rural areas, which lack basic services such as energy, due to a lack of infrastructure. Food security is a global effort—the Minister might wish to reply on that—and we must ensure that we commit our efforts to enabling others to prosper through trade and other food facilities.

Recently, concerns have been voiced—which we all share—over the rise in food prices due to the cost of living. In 2020 to 2021, in the peak of the pandemic, 6% of all UK households were food-insecure. The Trussell Trust, whose first food bank ever in Northern Ireland was in my constituency of Strangford, provided 2.2 million three-day food packages during that period. That was echoed in my constituency, and our local food bank has seen a rise in the number of households getting assistance from the Trussell Trust and other charitable organisations. They tell me that the demand now is even higher than it was way back then; we worry about that. To secure the future of our food security and infrastructure, we must deal with those pressing issues, such as food poverty, which our constituents are facing daily.

In 2022, the national food strategy aims to secure the resilience of our food supply system, so that UK-wide consumers have a choice in accessing healthy and affordable food. Our constituents deserve a food industry that can provide for them. Moreover, we must ensure that access to the market is readily affordable and available, and that praise is given to those in the food and drink sector for assisting in providing decent food infrastructure.

The Government have a food infrastructure strategy for England. I encourage the Minister and his Department to ensure that food infrastructure is given nationwide consideration and that, most importantly, the effects of the Northern Ireland protocol do not have an impact on Northern Ireland’s contribution to the UK’s food security and infrastructure. The Minister at DEFRA has always had a close relationship with our Minister in the Northern Ireland Assembly, Edwin Poots. I have no doubt whatsoever that that will continue and it is important that it does. The sector provides so much for all of us, together. I always say this and I do not take away from it: we are always better together. The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, all the four regions together and working as one, and those exports, if we can all do them together, mean that we all benefit.

[Mr Laurence Robertson (in the Chair)]

I will impose a formal four-minute limit.

Covid-19: Impact on Social Work

Debate between Laurence Robertson and Jim Shannon

Wednesday 23rd March 2022 Westminster Hall

[Jim Shannon]

As my friend, the hon. Member for Glasgow East (David Linden), said—and as I am trying to say, in my broken words—people have to start somewhere in life; they have to start their job somewhere and learn about their role.

Social care organisations have revealed that 75% of social workers feel more negative about their work life in 2021 compared with in the first year of the pandemic. People come to us all the time with problems, and I like that because it is my job. Many people say, “I don’t know how you do your job, listening to people’s complaints and always solving their problems, and so on”, but I reply, “That’s what life is about. Life is about making lives better.” We need to be aware that social workers sometimes deal with complex and difficult issues. My question to the Minister is, has any assessment been done of the impact of the pandemic on social workers? If the figures are right—I understand that they are—that 75% of social workers feel more negative about their work life in 2021, we have a potential problem. I hope we do not, but we must at least consider that and respond.

This situation is down to the increasing pressures and challenges that the social work sector has faced. Referrals of children to social services in Northern Ireland have increased every month since February 2020. The highest figure was in April 2021, with 3,616 children being referred. That clearly indicates that parents are struggling to cope, and is a clear sign of the increasing pressure on our social workers, which the hon. Member for Lancaster and Fleetwood illustrated very well in her contribution, and as other Members have reported.

We must not forget the impact that the covid outbreak has had on the social sector in relation not just to children, but to the elderly and the vulnerable. The hon. Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner (David Simmonds) rightly referred to an issue that is on my mind as well: people who depend on family members to look after their financial affairs. I have dealt with a few of those cases, which are always difficult because there are often two sets of family members saying two different things—but there is a person in the middle who is losing out.

The BBC revealed in mid-2021 that almost 2,000 people in Northern Ireland are waiting for care packages, so that they can be supported to live in their own homes. Just this week, a very lovely man who I have known all my life—he is well into his 80s now—has been ill and had to go to hospital. Although he wants to come home, and would be able to, he needs a care package in place before he can come home because, due to the nature of his disability, his wife would be unable to provide the physical care that he needs. That is not the Minister’s responsibility; I am just illustrating the issue.

The wait for care packages could mean an increase of patients to residential care. My constituency of Strangford takes in the South Eastern Health and Social Care Trust, which has reported that 282 people were waiting from the end of August 2021. Social workers are a key part of making that a success story. The provision of home care is crucial in taking the additional pressure off of hospitals and care homes. We must ensure that our social workers have the capacity to deal with the increasing amount of care packages needed. I have never seen anything quite like it. I know that we are getting older—we are living longer and our bodies are breaking down, meaning that more people need care packages—but there has to be a strategy and a vision for how we deal with that, as has been pointed out in other contributions.

There is an increased risk of covid infection for those who work in the social work industry, as we have seen happen over and over. That is nobody’s fault; it is the nature of life. It cannot be helped when tests are positive and people must take time off work. However, that is where we can step in to ensure that there is a sustainable number of social workers to cope with the level of care needed by children, the elderly, the vulnerable and the disabled.

We must also take into consideration the impact of the pandemic on our social workers’ mental health. Some 55% of respondents to a survey said that they felt increased anxiety—in an already difficult job—given the risk that they posed to the vulnerable by potentially carrying covid. I am keen to hear the Minister’s thoughts on how we can better deal with that. One way would be to have extra staffing, as the hon. Member for Lancaster and Fleetwood mentioned earlier. Social workers are as prepared as they can be in terms of personal protective equipment, as the Government and the Minister have done extremely well in responding to that need, but the Government must step in when it comes to staffing and workload. Many social workers have stated that their casework load has increased by as much as 40% over the pandemic. They are working longer hours—I know that, because they tell me that and I see it—and those longer hours are probably for the same money. Overtime rates will never compensate for the loss of physical wellbeing and mental health.

The Department of Health and Social Care must have provisions in place to ensure that our social workers are not under the most extreme pressure. I very much look forward to the Minister’s response and the encouragement that she will give us. I urge her and her Department to consider the impact of that pressure not only in England, where her responsibility lies, but across the United Kingdom. I know that the Minister, like those in other Departments, regularly contacts her equivalent Minister in the devolved Administrations, be that in Scotland, Wales or, in my case, Northern Ireland, so I know that there is continuity between those Administrations. I say very gently to my two friends, the hon. Member for Glasgow East and the hon. Member for Linlithgow and East Falkirk, that I very much think that within this great United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, we are always better together; we can work together and exchange ideas, and we can all benefit from that. I say that gently to my friends in the SNP, because I know that they really do agree with me that we are better together.

[Mr Laurence Robertson (in the Chair)]

I call Martyn Day.

Levelling-up Agenda

Debate between Laurence Robertson and Jim Shannon

Wednesday 15th September 2021 Westminster Hall

[Dan Jarvis (Barnsley Central) (Lab)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the Government’s Levelling-up agenda.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Robertson. I am grateful to see Members and the Minister here today. I would completely understand it if the Minister wants to keep her phone on. I am sure we all wish her well with the reshuffle. We will see what the next hour or so brings.

I declare an interest: I am a metro Mayor. I have always supported the Prime Minister’s intention to level up the country, but it is outrageous that the UK has the worst regional inequality of any comparable developed nation. The gap is stark, from life expectancy to income, from unemployment to education, from productivity to health, and covid is making it worse. That is not a small thing. It is an injustice—a stain on our country—and tackling it should be a matter of raging and persistent urgency, not some optional extra in the national political agenda. I continue to want to work with the Government to do that, but as the Minister knows well, it is not words that count but action.

To be fair, it is not that the Government have done nothing. I acknowledge the help that we have had through the transforming cities fund and the getting building fund, among others. There have been some welcome policy shifts too, such as devolving adult education, reforming the Green Book and creating the UK Infrastructure Bank, but tackling deep-rooted inequality requires a special sort of intervention. It demands scope, endurance, resources, a national strategy and local leadership.

So far, the Government have fallen well short. First, transformative ambition needs transformative resources. Instead, we have old money relabelled as new and distributed with more concern for politics than progress. The flagship levelling-up fund, worth £1.3 billion a year on average, replaces a local growth fund that was worth 14% more, and half its budget this year is taken from the towns fund. Even worse, the levelling-up fund puts the Chancellor’s Richmondshire constituency, ranked 251 out of 317 in England’s deprivation index, in a higher category of need than my constituency of Barnsley, which is ranked 38. That is no one-off. A third of English areas due to get funds are not in the top third of the most deprived regions.

Likewise, the shared prosperity fund is supposed to match the historical EU support that it is designed to replace, but EU funds were due to increase sharply this year, so many areas, including my own, will miss out. I ask the Minister: will the Government compensate us for that? Almost a third of the English areas selected to receive money under the SPF’s precursor programme, the community renewal fund, are not among the most deprived local areas. Almost all of them are entirely represented by Conservative MPs. Meanwhile, of the 45 places receiving a share of the towns fund spending, 39 are represented by Conservative MPs. The Public Accounts Committee found that the fund’s earlier selection process was not impartial.

We are starting to see a pattern develop, and it gets worse when we consider that these politicised, fragmented and inadequate funds also come against a major backdrop of cuts elsewhere. As we saw in the Chamber this afternoon, the Government are intent on ending the £20 uplift in universal credit, cutting income for 5.5 million families by more than £1,000 a year and taking billions out of the economies of more deprived areas. That of course follows the £15 billion of cuts to local government in the past decade, which has fallen hardest on the poorest areas.

The Government trumpet their spending through the national infrastructure strategy, but it is unclear how much will go to deprived areas and when it will arrive. What we do know is that the Government are wobbling in their commitment to two of the biggest projects in the north: HS2’s eastern leg and Northern Powerhouse Rail. For them to be postponed or scaled back would make any claim of concern for levelling up utterly risible. I ask the Minister to assure us today of the Government’s commitment to those two huge projects.

When the debate concludes, I will hit “send” on South Yorkshire’s bid for £660 million of city region sustainable transport settlement funding. If the Government want to end the long-standing bias in transport investment towards more affluent areas, I hope that they will back that bid in full, and those of other relatively deprived areas such as mine.

It is not just how much money and where it goes that matters; it is how it is spent. It is alarming that the Select Committee on Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy described levelling-up policy and funding as

“lacking in any overall coherent strategic purpose”

with little clarity about who is responsible, how progress will be measured or, indeed, what the objectives are.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on bringing this forward. The Government’s policy of levelling up is to benefit all the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. Unfortunately, we do not see that coming our way in Northern Ireland. We believe that, if it is a levelling-up agenda, we should benefit as well. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that there should be projects across the whole of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, to benefit us all, whether they are specific projects, or businesses that can qualify for projects that are happening elsewhere in the United Kingdom?

[Mr Laurence Robertson (in the Chair)]

Order. Interventions need to be shorter. Mr Jarvis.

Integrated Activity Fund: Transparency

Debate between Laurence Robertson and Jim Shannon

Thursday 22nd October 2020 Westminster Hall

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

It is a pleasure to speak in the debate, Mr Efford. I am conscious that other Members have other places to go, so I will not dwell on my speech for too long. I thank the hon. Member for Glasgow East (David Linden) for setting the scene, as he always does. He and I might have a difference of opinion on one big issue, but we agree on a great many other things, which is important. I am always glad to see the Minister in his place as well. I declare an interest as chair of the all-party parliamentary group for international freedom of religion or belief.

I have long spoken in this House about the need to ensure that any funding for conflict zones should be traceable to relieving the effects of conflict on innocent victims, not to those who carry out the conflict. One example of that has been—I make no apology for this—the funding to the Palestinian Authority, who carry out campaigns against Israeli women and children, and who use education and propaganda to perpetuate hatred between the two nations. As the UK has not published a full list of the projects that the IAF supports, it is unclear whether we directly fund such textbooks. I seek clarification on that from the Minister, and receiving that today would be extremely useful.

The British Government have signed a memorandum of understanding with the Palestinian Authority. The text is regurgitated each time it is signed. Paragraph 2(i)i confirms that, to receive our support, the Palestinians must adhere to non-violence, yet they do not, but the money seems to keep rolling in. My concern lies in the fact that if the Government have difficulty in enforcing an agreement that sends tens of millions of pounds every year to people who endorse violence, what chance do they have of controlling and properly supervising the IAF, the budget of which is a fraction of the size? I have argued that we need more transparency, and I am very happy for this debate to take place today. No one should benefit from British aid who is not carrying out the most basic human rights obligations.

One such issue raised with me relates to Bahrain, which other Members have referred to. Freedom of information requests have demonstrated that IAF funding has supported religious organisations in Bahrain, and the Government have frequently praised Bahrain on its religious tolerance, stating on their website that:

“Bahrain maintained a positive record on freedom of religion or belief.”

However—there is always an however—it has been clearly illustrated that that is not what is happening.

The US Commission on International Religious Freedom has repeatedly raised concerns about systematic discrimination against Bahrain’s indigenous Shi’a population by the Sunni Government. Without full transparency about Government funding to the Gulf, how can taxpayers be sure that public money is not being used to underpin bodies involved in religious discrimination and the violent suppression of civil societies in the Gulf Co-operation Council? That is why we need transparency and why this debate is so important.

The Government have often pointed to Bahrain’s alternative sentencing legislation as an IAF success story. However, although an impressive number of individuals have been released on alternative sentences—that should be noted and congratulated—I have been made aware that there might be evidence to suggest that releases may have discriminated against political prisoners. At Jau prison, there are now reportedly entire cell blocks that exclusively house political prisoners, and those on criminal charges are granted alternative sentences.

A notable example of discrimination relates to the prisoners known as the Bahrain 13—the leaders of Bahrain’s political opposition, jailed for their role in the 2011 pro-democracy uprising. Four of those men—Sheikh Mirza al-Mahroos, Mohammad Hassan Jawwad, Mohammad Ali Ridha Isma’il, and Sheikh Abdul-Hadi Abdullah Hassan al-Mukhodher—have completed nine years of their 15-year sentences, making them eligible for alternative sentences. However, despite their advanced age—some of them are over 70—all have been excluded from recent prisoner releases, while individuals convicted of violent criminal offences have been released ahead of them. When International Activities Fund-backed legislation is applied in such a discriminatory manner, without any transparency in how the IAF money was spent supporting this initiative, how can the public, the British taxpayer and we as elected representatives be confident that our taxes are promoting genuine reform in Bahrain and the wider GCC?

Mohammed Ramadhan and Hussain Moosa are Bahraini political prisoners who have been sentenced to death for his participation in pro-democracy protests and are at risk of imminent execution. The hon. Member for Hammersmith (Andy Slaughter) referred to them. It is clear that they were tortured, sexually assaulted and forced to sign false confessions, which acted as the basis of their capital convictions. As a matter of principle, the UK opposes the use of the death penalty in all circumstances, and I welcome that. However, the use of executions has risen in Bahrain by a factor of more than 10 since 2017, in spite of IAF assistance to strengthen the rule of law.

The Special Investigations Unit is an IAF beneficiary—it sounds very dramatic and it has lots of power. The results of its so-called investigation were criticised for being flawed, failing to comply with the Istanbul protocol and leading directly to the re-imposition of the death sentences, so that review and investigation led nowhere. Amnesty International has found that IAF beneficiary oversight bodies that are responsible for investigating allegations of torture and abuse

“continually contribute to a pervasive culture of impunity in Bahrain through their failure to independently carry out their mandates.”

In the light of those well-documented and well-known failures, will the FCDO freeze funding until an independent review has been conducted?

Naji Fateel, a prominent Bahraini human rights defender, is currently serving a combined sentence of 25 years and six months for his human rights activism—something that we all subscribe to and speak about. He has now been away from his five children for more than seven years. When he was arrested, he was severely beaten and officers stomped on his head. During interrogation, Naji was severely tortured: he was kicked, forced to stand for long hours, suspended from the ceiling for long periods of time and electrocuted grievously on his genital area. His torture was so severe that he lost consciousness multiple times and had to be rushed to the hospital. There are publicly available pictures of the resulting scars on his body and he has suffered long-term consequences from this torture. Although Fateel now requires specific medication and surgery for his various injuries, the Jau prison authorities routinely deny him such treatment and have cancelled surgical appointments numerous times. Again, are we helping those people financially through the International Activities Fund, and are they then disregarding human rights, as they seem to?

After Naji made complaints to a human rights oversight body, the National Institute for Human Rights, it merely reviewed his medical records and swiftly closed his case, concluding he has

“his rights related to access to healthcare”

without a proper investigation or any action to remedy his situation. If the National Institute for Human Rights cannot do that job fairly, impartially or in a way that we can be satisfied about, it is time to do something about it.

[Mr Laurence Robertson in the Chair]

To conclude—it is good to see you in the Chair, Mr Robertson—will the Government make their funding streams to the GCC transparent, so that Naji and the British taxpayer can be sure that money is not going to, in effect, the institutions that cover up abuse?

Those are just a few examples of why the so-called secret package of funding must be transparent. Let us see where it goes, so that we can hold people accountable and allow for scrutiny. We must have dialogue with those we are helping, to ensure that human rights protections are not just a talking point, but a reality. Those examples show why we need it.

[Mr Laurence Robertson (in the Chair)]

We now come to the Front-Bench speeches. Please remember that we need to leave two minutes at the end for Mr Linden to wind up.

Non-stun Slaughter of Animals

Debate between Laurence Robertson and Jim Shannon

Wednesday 3rd April 2019 Westminster Hall

[Mr Robertson]

I agree with my right hon. Friend on both of those points. I will come on to say more about the former point; I suspect that I will be called out of order if I go too far down the latter.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

Like the hon. Gentleman, I eat red meat regularly and I am also an animal lover. However, I do believe we can accommodate people. If we had the labelling to indicate whether stunning was used, people would have the opportunity to choose whether to buy that meat.

[Mr Robertson]

I agree with the hon. Gentleman’s comments.

Pre-stunning renders animals immediately unconscious and insensible to pain before they are slaughtered. In the absence of stunning, animals can feel the pain of the neck cut, experience a delay to loss of consciousness and experience the pain and distress of aspirating blood into the respiratory tract. While there is no nice way to end an animal’s life, many would agree that that is a particularly distressing account of the last moments of an animal’s life.

Unhealthy Housing: Cost to the NHS

Debate between Laurence Robertson and Jim Shannon

Tuesday 26th February 2019 Westminster Hall

[Mr Laurence Robertson (in the Chair)]

I would not want to miss anything that the hon. Gentleman said; that is the point.

[Jim Shannon]

I thank the hon. Member for Huddersfield for intervening again. It is always good to have him adding his words of wisdom to any debate, at any time, in this Chamber or in the main Chamber. The issue is clear: too often, the homes that we live in are, in many ways, causing or aggravating health problems. That cannot be ignored. Given the plethora of health issues that I have identified as caused by unhealthy homes, and given the cost to the NHS, it is time to ask who in Government is responsible and accountable. We look to the Minister for answers.

Racehorse Protection

Debate between Laurence Robertson and Jim Shannon

Monday 15th October 2018 Westminster Hall

[Mr Laurence Robertson (Tewkesbury) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Wilson. I declare my registered interests, in that I receive hospitality from racecourses and racing bodies from time to time, and I am co-chairman, with the hon. Member for St Helens North (Conor McGinn), of the all-party parliamentary racing and bloodstock industries group. I very much welcome this debate, which gives us the opportunity to discuss how to improve the welfare of racehorses in the United Kingdom, because I am also the proud Member of Parliament for Tewkesbury, which includes the Cheltenham racecourse—one of the greatest in the world. It generates a lot of income, which helps the whole area. Tewkesbury is a rural area, and horses are very much part of the rural scene. The petition attracted 313 signatories from Tewkesbury, demonstrating that there is a love of horses there and a concern that they should be properly looked after.

I have a personal interest in this issue: my wife owns horses and has done so all her life. She trains them and competes, not in racing but in other sports. I am an animal lover—we keep farm animals as pets, and we have had pets all our lives—so I want to see what we can do to build on the good work that has already been done to ensure that racehorses are well cared for, not only during their racing careers but afterwards.

It will be heartwarming to the BHA, as I do not always agree with it on everything, to hear me say that I believe it is doing a good and improving job of looking after the welfare of racehorses. Although it is involved in racing, it is independent of racecourses, jockeys, owners and the other racing bodies. It does work on the fixture list, the integrity of the sport—it makes sure it is clean—and welfare. It has a board of 10 members. One comes from racecourses and one from another body connected to racing, but the majority are independent of those bodies, so they can carry out their work completely without bias. They investigate jockeys and trainers, and sometimes come down very hard on them. They have demonstrated their ability to do that as well as their independence.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

As the hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mike Hill) mentioned, the Irish racehorse sector already has self-regulated through law. Does the hon. Member for Tewkesbury (Mr Robertson) feel that, to safeguard the lucrative racehorse sector in the United Kingdom, it is vital that we follow the Republic of Ireland’s lead?

[Mr Robertson]

I will come to that issue in a minute, but the hon. Gentleman makes a very good point. Everybody in racing wants horses to be protected, largely because they love them. Owners pay a lot of money for racehorses, and training fees are some £20,000 a year, so purely from a financial point of view the last thing they want is for anything bad to happen to their horses. That is not what motivates them, but they put an awful lot of money into the sport.

The hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mike Hill) said that racing is a rich industry, but those of us who know it know that it is impoverished. The top 1% are rich, but lots of trainers and jockeys earn very little. Owners get back an average of 23% of the total cost. That is not a return—they lose 77% of everything they put in. They do it for the love of the sport, and it costs them a lot of money, so the last thing they want is for horses to be treated badly on the racecourse or in the stables. They simply would not allow that to happen.

A number of charities care for racehorses, some of which might have been involved in motivating this petition, and the all-party parliamentary group, which I have co-chaired for a number of years, raises money for some of them at a charity dinner in the House of Commons. Retraining of Racehorses, which is not one that we raise money for, does an excellent job of looking after racehorses after they have finished their racing careers. Greatwood—from memory, I think we raised about £50,000 for it in this place a few years ago—does great work in bringing retired racehorses together with disadvantaged young people. It is unfortunate that that work is not recognised as often as it should be.

Even people who are not as into racing as me are captured by the excitement, particularly that of the big race meetings. I mentioned the Cheltenham festival, but there is also the Grand National, Royal Ascot and the Derby. Those races capture the imagination of people not just in this country but across the world, who take a great interest in it. I have travelled the world to watch racing—I was in France just the other week—and, without question, British racing is the best in the world, although Irish racing is also extremely good. In this country, racing contributes some £3.5 billion to the economy and £275 million in tax. Some 17,400 people are directly employed in the industry full time, and another 85,000 are indirectly employed. It really does do a lot for this country, particularly in rural areas.

I am concerned to ensure that we do the absolute best for racehorses, so I am not instinctively against having an extra body to look after them, but I wonder if it is the best way forward. As I have said, the BHA, which is independent of other bodies in racing, is doing a good and improving job. One of the problems in racing is that there are already too many bodies. As well as the BHA, there is the Horsemen’s Group, the Racecourse Association, the Racehorse Owners Association, the Professional Jockeys Association, the National Trainers Federation, racecourse groups and probably a few other organisations that I have not remembered. I am not convinced therefore that bringing in another body would help and I am not sure to whom it would report or how independent it would actually be.

That goes back to the point raised by the right hon. Member for Warley (John Spellar), who asked whether it is not better for people with long-standing expertise in racing and caring for horses to carry out that overview and supervise the work with racehorses. I am persuaded that that is probably the best way to continue, but that is not to say that improvements cannot be made. They have been made over the past few years: the number of fallers has, on average, been reduced, the fatality rate has thankfully been reduced, and there have been changes to the layout of racecourses, to the fences, and to whip regulations. Although those big improvements have been made, I emphasise that I am not satisfied with where we are. We must continue to move forward and I certainly want to continue working with the BHA in order to help it to do so, but that is the best way forward rather than creating another body.

Cheltenham spends hundreds of thousands of pounds a year on veterinary and welfare fees, and other racecourses spend an awful lot of money ensuring that the horses are properly checked and fit to run and that there are no problems. I accept that there is some way to go, but I think that racing is a very clean sport in this country. There are very few examples of drugs being given to horses, of any wrongdoing in betting, or of race fixing—they all happen very rarely. It is a good and clean sport but one that can and should improve, and I believe that it is doing so.

I should like to hear the Minister’s opinion. My view is that the BHA should take the issue forward and, perhaps, its structure could be altered or it could report more to the Government. I am not saying that changes are not needed in that respect, but I think that is the way forward. I am very grateful to the hon. Member for Hartlepool for introducing the debate in the way that he did, and I look forward to hearing what other hon. Members have to say.

Northern Ireland (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill

Debate between Laurence Robertson and Jim Shannon

Tuesday 9th July 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Laurence Robertson]

It is a pleasure to follow all the right hon. and hon. Members who have spoken so far. I intend to make only a brief contribution to the debate, as many of the points have already been raised. I note that amendment 2, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Amber Valley (Nigel Mills), uses the word “may”, rather than “shall”, which is in keeping with the rest of the clause that he is seeking to amend. The Select Committee feels that we should move forward in this respect, and that we should try to normalise politics in Northern Ireland. I know that that was the ambition of the previous Secretary of State and the previous Minister, and it is fair to say that it is also the ambition of the current holders of those positions. It has been our guiding principle. Each and every political party that the Committee spoke to during the course of the inquiry approved of moving towards greater transparency.

Everyone on the Committee, myself included, recognises that there is a different security situation in Northern Ireland. The Committee has had a sufficient number of meetings, and paid a sufficient number of visits to Northern Ireland, to understand that fact. Further to my earlier intervention on the right hon. Member for Belfast North (Mr Dodds), a question that has frequently been asked is: why should the arrangements be different for donors and for those who participate in the elections? The right hon. Gentleman gave an explanation for why people might want to be donors but not candidates, and I understand that, but I am still not clear why a donor should be at greater risk or under a greater threat than someone who is standing for office for a political party. I would have thought that it was the other way round. People who support a candidate, largely by signing nomination papers, would surely expose themselves to the same risk.

It has been pointed out that if a business makes a donation, it could put them at a commercial disadvantage, but it is up to the business to make that decision. There is a Co-operative store close to my office in Tewkesbury. The Co-op has supported the Labour party for many years, and I have to make the decision whether to go and buy a carton of milk and a newspaper from that shop. It happens to be close to my office and very convenient, so I do that. I do not think that businesses should be able to hide behind the argument of a security risk in order to protect their business interests. If they make a donation to a particular party in Northern Ireland or elsewhere in Great Britain, they should take that commercial risk. That should be part of the normal run of politics.

I am somewhat intrigued by the substantive clause inasmuch as it allows the Secretary of State to increase transparency, but does not allow her to reduce it. Having looked very closely at the provisions, I am still slightly confused on this point. If the Secretary of State increases transparency, can she reduce it at some later date? In other words, she cannot reduce transparency from where it stands now, but can she reduce it if she has increased it in the future?

I make that point because if she cannot reduce it, where have we got to? What would be the difference from what my hon. Friend the Member for Amber Valley proposes? Let us say that the Secretary of State increases transparency, but in the year after that, the security situation—heaven forbid—got worse, so that she had to come back to introduce primary legislation to change that position. In those circumstances, I do not really see what would be any different from my hon. Friend’s proposal.

The Select Committee and I would certainly be against the publication of any information retrospectively when donors have made donations in the belief that that would not be the case. I am slightly concerned about the wording in clause 1, however, which it states:

“Such information may be disclosed if the Commission believe, on reasonable grounds, that…the relevant person has consented”.

We tried to strengthen that provision, saying that there had to be evidence that the person had consented. The Government response was that if they adopted our proposal, it would create an absolute offence and a mistake could be made. I am not completely persuaded by that argument. I think that the clause does need strengthening to ensure that a mistake cannot be made in this respect and that there has to be a clear indication from the person or organisation that made the donation that permission has been given for any such disclosure. I thus seek clarification from the Minister on those points.

[Jim Shannon]

I would like to say a few quick words on amendment 2, as proposed by the hon. Member for Amber Valley (Nigel Mills), and to put a different perspective on it. First, however, I wish to say that I have had a number of discussions with the hon. Gentleman and that we have served in the Finance Bill Committee together, as we have on Delegated Legislation Committees. I know that his interest is sincerely held and it is one that I respect. I was nevertheless struck as I read the briefing for this debate by its tone, and I would suggest that there is a reason for caution—anything further being an exaggeration.

My party, the Democratic Unionist party, is very much in favour of openness and transparency. We are also well aware of the security situation in Northern Ireland and of the fact that the dissidents are still very much on operations, which means that we cannot have one-size-fits-all legislation. It cannot happen; it is not like for like. Those who say that the people should stand up to intimidation show only the fact that they do not care or perhaps do not understand that people in Northern Ireland still live a life that carries a degree of anxiety—not just in historical cases, but in issues that are still ongoing today for communities across the whole of Northern Ireland. I accept that it is not to the same extent as in the past, but none the less there are still threats in my constituency and in others across Northern Ireland.

As someone who, like others, works within the community, I understand the real fear that people experience and I do not believe that it can be so easily dismissed as some people have suggested. Our security situation cannot be regulated to a date, as dissidents certainly do not respond to deadlines. Although I fully understand and agree with the necessity for transparency that has been put forward, this cannot be put before the security concerns of people and businesses, which are real and justified. To suggest otherwise would be to hope naively for the best, which is a good thing in principle, but not when people’s lives are at stake.

I have to say—I hate to say it, as well—that extortion of a sectarian nature is not a thing of the past when it comes to Northern Ireland. It still happens today; incidents are taking place. There is a very real possibility that if a business is seen to be donating to political parties, it might come under pressure to donate to other groups, perhaps those of an unsavoury nature. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Belfast North (Mr Dodds) said to the Committee, businesses can feel that they have been boycotted by customers whom they have had for years. There is a real issue for those people; it is not an exaggeration or a remote ideal. Is this what is intended by the legislation before us tonight? I do not believe so. I do not believe that the Bill is intended to scare off people who wish to contribute to a party. However, that will be a side-effect of it. People will fear that their homes, their businesses or, indeed, their families will be at risk, and that cannot be ignored by any Member in any part of the House.

Northern Ireland (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill

Debate between Laurence Robertson and Jim Shannon

Monday 24th June 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Robertson]

I agree entirely. It is sometimes a case of two steps forward and one step back. I was in Belfast this morning and the newspapers were full of that incident in which a person was injured. Two weeks ago, members of the Committee visited Washington and spoke to a number of people. There was an overwhelming feeling that much had been sorted out in Northern Ireland, but the incident at the weekend, flag protests and the murder of Mr David Black last November do nothing to attract investment. They deter investment, and that is a tragedy. I hope we can move forward more smoothly.

We made a great deal of progress in attracting Sinn Fein to give evidence to the Committee. I would go further and say, as we did at the time, that it is time that members of that party took their seats in this Parliament so that they can come and make their case here. They claim they do the job anyway, but they do not. They do a job, but they do not do the job of parliamentarians, even though they accept the expenses and allowances that go with it. We ought to be able to move forward a little more in that respect.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I am sure the hon. Gentleman shares the concern of many of us on these Benches and in the Province that the onus is on elected representatives not only to obey the law, but to do so in public. What we saw at the weekend was a travesty of the law: two elected representatives, one of whom sits on the policing board, clearly flouted the law. Does the hon. Gentleman feel that there is an onus on elected representatives from Sinn Fein to be more observant of the law?