Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Nia Griffith and Andrew Selous

Tuesday 11th November 2014 Commons Chamber

[Andrew Selous]

My hon. Friend has taken a long-standing and serious interest in this issue. Fixed-term recalls can be used only when the offender does not pose a risk of serious harm to the public. When recall prisoners are assessed to pose a risk of serious harm to the public, they are given standard recalls to serve the remainder of their sentence in prison, and will be released earlier only if it is safe to do so. Under the Criminal Justice and Courts Bill, offenders who do not comply with their licence and are highly likely to commit further breaches if released are deemed unsuitable for fixed-term recall. We therefore have measures either in place or in the pipeline to exclude high-risk and prolific offenders from fixed-term recalls.

[Nia Griffith (Llanelli) (Lab)]

12. What plans he has to legalise humanist marriages.

Zoos (Regional Economic Development)

Debate between Nia Griffith and Andrew Selous

Wednesday 14th December 2011 Westminster Hall

[Andrew Selous (South West Bedfordshire) (Con)]

I shall be as brief as possible, given that many other colleagues want to speak in this important and popular debate.

When people ask me where my constituency is, I often say that I am the Member for Whipsnade zoo, because it is easily the best known institution in my constituency. Although I represent three towns and 14 villages including many wonderful historic houses, thriving businesses, wonderful churches and so on, the best known part of my constituency is Whipsnade zoo, which has around 0.5 million visitors a year. In common with other Members, I cannot resist giving a little plug while I am on my feet, even though it is not the main focus of our debate.

Whipsnade is the United Kingdom’s largest zoo, with 600 acres and 2,500 animals—I must say that to my hon. Friend the Member for Bosworth (David Tredinnick). People can walk or drive around it, or take the safari bus or steam engine. A range of attractions include cheetah rock, the lions of the Serengeti—including reference to the Selous game reserve, the largest in the world—and the rhinos of Nepal, or someone can be in with the limas or in the chimpnasium. Daily shows include the “Sealion Splash”, where people who get too close are liable to get quite wet, but it is good fun, and the “Peckish Penguins”. So I can tell the hon. Member for Edinburgh West (Mike Crockart) that Bedfordshire, as well as Edinburgh, has penguins. In Bedfordshire we also have not only Whipsnade but, close by, Woburn, with its wonderful safari parks. Bedfordshire is certainly doing its bit for zoos and for tourism in our area.

The Minister will be interested to know that in spite of our difficult times, I am told by David Field, the excellent director of Whipsnade, that visits to the zoo are on the increase and that the number of visitors has been the highest in the past 37 years of the zoo being open. That is excellent news because zoos, as many Members have said this morning, are not only wonderful institutions, where we learn about conservation and protecting our wonderful threatened animals around the world, but thriving businesses. In the summer, Whipsnade can employ up to 300 people directly, and there are many other jobs associated with such a major tourist attraction.

As far as Whipsnade specifically is concerned, it could do even better and contribute more to our local and national economies if there were improved public transport. Unlike some other zoos, which are in the middle of towns, Whipsnade is quite isolated; it is in the beautiful Bedfordshire countryside, high up in the Chiltern hills outside Dunstable. If we had better bus links, perhaps even a direct bus from Luton station, we could get more visitors, contributing even more to the local economy. Forty thousand school children went round Whipsnade last year—a significant part of their education.

[Nia Griffith]

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that there is a gap between when visitors come as children and when they return to bring their own children or grandchildren? How does he suggest that we might deal with that gap in the middle—the teenage years, the early 20s and so on—when we do not seem to be drawing in the people we would like to be getting in?

[Andrew Selous]

One way would be an innovative membership scheme, with repeat visits at reduced prices, so that people go regularly to their local zoo. The hon. Lady is absolutely right; we do not want zoos to be places where people go once every couple of years, but places they visit regularly, without those huge gaps. Pricing schemes that are a little easier on the pocket could be one way of dealing with what she rightly suggests.

Some of the representatives of zoos who are attending the debate have put it to me that it is not as easy for zoos to apply for lottery grants or heritage funds as it is for other organisations such as museums. Perhaps the Minister will kindly agree to look at that. We realise that money is tight, but the thrust of the debate, excellently started by my hon. Friend the Member for Romford (Andrew Rosindell), is that zoos are looking for dialogue with the Government and the Minister’s Department. They are having a positive effect on inward investment, creating more jobs and helping to get the economic growth that we need. The Minister is committed to leaving no stone unturned to promote economic growth in this country, so I am sure that he will want to see the zoo and aquarium sector playing the fullest possible part in the important job that he is undertaking for us.

Convention on Domestic Workers

Debate between Nia Griffith and Andrew Selous

Wednesday 29th June 2011 Westminster Hall

[Andrew Selous (South West Bedfordshire) (Con)]

I congratulate the hon. Member for Slough (Fiona Mactaggart) on securing this important debate. I, too, attended the launch of the Centre for Social Justice inquiry into modern-day slavery and human trafficking. When I first heard at that event that the United Kingdom had opted out of the convention, I must admit that I was worried. I did not know why we had done that. On the face of it, it sounded an odd thing to do and it concerned me greatly. However, I have to say to the hon. Lady and other hon. Members that, when I looked more deeply into the issue, I realised that there were reasons why the United Kingdom did so.

The hon. Lady concentrated heavily on the issue of human trafficking, which she and I have made common cause on and no doubt we will continue to do so. I point out to her that the United Kingdom has recently signed the European convention on human trafficking, and I am happy to admit that I was one of the Members who lobbied our Ministers heavily to do so because I thought it was the right thing to do. I join her in saying that slavery and human trafficking is a modern evil; it is a disgrace that it goes on in our age. Some 27 million people are in slavery around the world, not just in domestic labour, but in bonded labour in factories and in prostitution. She is right to be concerned about the issue.

From the hon. Lady’s remarks, hon. Members might have gained the impression that the ILO convention would have an impact purely on those evil employers who traffic people to be their domestic workers. In fact, the implications of the ILO convention are much wider than that. The United Kingdom already provides significant employment protection for domestic workers; in fact, in general, it makes no distinction between domestic and other workers. It is worth reminding hon. Members that domestic workers benefit from being paid the national minimum wage. They receive sick pay, paid annual leave and protection from unfair dismissal. That already exists in United Kingdom law. We do not need an ILO convention. Those are rights enshrined in law by this Parliament. What we need is greater enforcement. We need to seek out and identify employers who are behaving badly.

[Nia Griffith (Llanelli) (Lab)]

Is the hon. Gentleman saying that, if we have something that is better than an ILO convention, we should not sign up to it? That is what he seems to be implying. He is implying that, if we have something better, then we do not need it. Surely, if we have something better, it is not problematic to sign up to it.

[Andrew Selous]

If the hon. Lady will allow me to develop my argument a little further, she will understand what I am saying. I just wanted to make the point regarding the protections that all of us are rightly concerned about. I have taken to task many employers in my constituency and elsewhere who have not behaved properly towards their workers. We need to enforce the law that we already have. I am looking for reassurance from the Minister, as, I am sure, are many hon. Members. There is much in the text of the convention that he will be keen to apply. He will want to ensure that we root out evil employers who treat their domestic staff in the way described by the hon. Member for Slough. There is not one of us here, including me, who wants to see that continue.

There is much in the convention that is good, but there are one or two areas that are problematic. One problem in particular is that it applies to other groups of workers that the hon. Lady did not even mention in her remarks. She read out the list of countries that did not sign the convention, including the United Kingdom. What she did not tell us was that a number of countries did sign it, but then said that they were not going to ratify it.

The United Kingdom has, quite rightly, very high standards when it comes to international agreements. We are a country of our word. If we say that we are going to do something, we do it. We play cricket, we believe in the rules and we follow them. It is pretty dishonest of many other countries, which she did not name, to sign up to the convention and then say that they will not be ratifying this bit or that bit.