Dangerous Dogs

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Thursday 7th July 2022 Commons Chamber

[Wayne David (Caerphilly) (Lab)]

Last November a 10-year-old boy, Jack Lis from Pen y Bryn, Penyrheol, in my Caerphilly constituency was killed by a vicious dog. The dog attacked and killed Jack in a neighbour’s home. The dog was an American XL Bully. In the trial, which concluded last month, one of the defendants, in whose home Jack died, was sentenced to three years. The other defendant, the owner of the dog, received a sentence of four and a half years in a youth offender institution. The dog, called Beast, had been bought on the internet only a few days earlier.

There can be no doubt that the dog had huge behavioural problems and was not going to be kept as a normal pet. Indeed, the previous owner of the dog stated that he was selling the dog because he could not cope with it anymore, and the dog was described as “aggressive” in its “For sale” advert. Moreover, CCTV recordings showed how the dog threatened and tried to attack people on the street. It is worth noting that during the course of the trial, the man who owned the dog breached his bail conditions in a blatant way.

It is the view of Jack’s mother, Emma, who has been incredibly brave, that the sentences given to the two defendants were far too lenient. That is also the view of the local community in Caerphilly, and it is my view, too. An e-petition has been launched by Jack’s mother, and it clearly expresses the view of so many people about the leniency of the sentences that have been handed down. In response to the representations that Emma has made to the Attorney General’s Office, she has been told that it is not possible to refer these sentences to the Court of Appeal. Although the Law Officers have the power to ask the Court of Appeal to review certain sentences that appear to be unduly lenient, the power does not apply to sentences under the piece of legislation applicable here. I understand, however, that the Secretary of State for Justice has the power to add legislation to the scheme where a review can take place. Will the Minister therefore speak to her colleagues in the Ministry of Justice so that they can give active consideration to the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 being included in the scheme?

It has to be said that even if the sentences in this case were referred to the Court of Appeal, the sentences of the two defendants could not be changed, as there could not be a retrospective change. It is nevertheless important that we learn the lessons from what has happened in this terrible situation when we look to the future. It follows from what I have said that the sentencing guidelines should be rewritten and strengthened in the light of this case.

Another important lesson from this terrible case is that the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 is woefully inadequate and inappropriate to deal with the issue of dangerous dogs. The attack on 10-year-old Jack Lis is truly tragic, but attacks by dangerous dogs are not a rare occurrence. In the past 10 years alone, more than 20 people have died after being attacked by a dog. Each year, some 200,000 people are attacked by dogs in England alone. In Wales there have been more than 200 incidents involving dangerous dogs during the last six months or so. In Gwent, which includes Caerphilly, between September 2021 and February 2022, 69 dog attacks were reported to Gwent police, three of which were on children aged 17 or under.

The main piece of relevant legislation is the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991, which applies to England, Scotland and Wales. It was under that law that the two defendants I referred to earlier were convicted and sentenced. They were found guilty of keeping or allowing a dog dangerously out of control where death is caused. As I said, the operation of that part of the Act could be significantly improved by strengthening the sentencing guidelines, but there also needs to be a fundamental rethink of the law as it applies to dangerous dogs.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for bringing forward this debate. He rightly says that the law is specific to England, Scotland and Wales; it is a devolved issue in Northern Ireland, but the situation is similar. For example, about six or seven weeks ago, a constituent of mine was out walking with their young dog, which was attacked by three or four other dogs. The dog had to be put down. That is another example of legislation that does not work. To address that issue, my constituent had to bring a private court case against the person, which added to the trauma.

I understand that the hon. Gentleman is trying to bring forward a change in the legislation, which hopefully the Minister can review and consider. When that is done, will he share the information with the Northern Ireland Assembly and the devolved Administrations, so that we can all have better legislation, not just for his constituents—I am sorry to hear their tragic story—but for all of us across this great United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland?

[Wayne David]

I thank the hon. Member for his support. Although the Act does not apply to Northern Ireland, there are arrangements in place. It is a serious issue in Northern Ireland, as it is in the rest of the United Kingdom. I will certainly liaise with him when I pursue the matter further.

Only four specific breeds of dogs are banned in the Act: the pit bull terrier, the Japanese Tosa, the Dogo Argentino and the Fila Brasileiro. Incredible though it may seem to many, the dog that attacked Jack Lis, an American XL Bully, is not listed as a dangerous dog—but I am not calling for that particular breed simply to be added to the list. There are many types of dogs, including cross breeds, that people could argue ought to be on the list, but there are two fundamental problems with that approach. First, because there is more and more cross-breeding, it is virtually impossible to maintain any kind of legislation that contains an up-to-date list. Secondly, proscribing certain breeds of dogs gives the erroneous impression that only listed dogs are dangerous, and it does not take into account how a dog is kept and trained. It has been said that most dogs have the potential to be dangerous if they are not trained properly.

We need to fundamentally change our whole approach to so-called dangerous dogs. Rather than relying on breed-specific legislation, which is clearly inappropriate, the Government ought to bring forward legislation based on a totally different approach to the issue. I know that the Government have done a lot of work on it, and I contributed to a Westminster Hall debate on it only a few weeks ago. The response of the former Minister, the hon. Member for Bury St Edmunds (Jo Churchill), to that debate was encouraging, and I hope that the Minister will take us a bit further forward today.

The Government’s starting point has to be an acceptance that there is a lack of any real evidence to support a breed-specific approach to protecting the public. I believe that there is a large amount of independent research, funded by the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, which lays the basis for a quite different approach. It shows that simply looking at a dog’s breed is not an appropriate criterion for assessing that dog’s risk to people. I know that the Government are fully aware of the conclusions of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee inquiry, which states that the current dangerous dogs legislation fails to protect public safety and also harms animal welfare. This is also the view of a whole range of organisations that have come together under the dog control coalition. These organisations include the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, Dogs Trust and the Kennel Club.

It is now over 30 years since the Dangerous Dogs Act was passed, and going beyond this Act, it has to be said that the legal framework for dealing with dog bite incidents is very complex, with a number of different laws applicable depending on the circumstances surrounding the incident. However, the breed-specific legislation has another fundamental weakness, which is the fact that it is to a large extent reactive in character. I believe that it is better to approach this issue of public safety before harm is caused, rather than responding to the consequences. Prevention has to be the watchword. That is why I want a comprehensive and fundamentally different approach to the issue.

A number of years ago, there were dog licences. The Government really ought to examine the possibility of reintroducing dog licences, but this time we should not simply see them as an easy way for Government to have an additional source of revenue. The money received should be used for a whole range of initiatives, including tackling the behavioural problems of certain kinds of dogs that lead to dog bite incidents. Resources could also be provided for dealing with stray dogs and for helping to fund dog training. Let us not forget that, at the moment, dogs have to have microchips by the time they are eight weeks old. Licensing could be an extension of this and a significant elaboration of it.

I am pleased that the RSPCA Cymru agrees with the approach I have outlined. As animal welfare in Wales is devolved to the Welsh Senedd, I look forward to having a constructive dialogue on this issue with Hefin David, the Member of the Senedd for Caerphilly, and the Welsh Government. Crucially, however, I also believe that an effective assessment needs to be made of potential and actual owners of dogs. At the moment, anyone in any circumstances can purchase virtually any kind of dog. I believe that local authorities should have a key role to play here. Local authorities also ought to have the statutory responsibility for ensuring that dogs are kept and housed properly, and that their owners are ensuring that their dogs are correctly and appropriately trained.

In addition, there needs to be firm control on the buying and selling of dogs. To return to the tragic case of Jack Lis, the dog that killed him was purchased on Facebook not long before the attack. Such purchases cannot be allowed to continue. That is why I would urge the Government to prevent the sale and purchase of dogs in this way.

Today, many of my remarks have focused on the tragedy of Jack Lis, and I want to pay tribute to his family, especially his mother, Emma. She has been enormously brave during this whole difficult time. Nothing can bring Jack back, but all of us need to do our utmost to prevent similar tragedies in the future. I look forward to the Minister’s reply and I encourage her to be as positive as possible.

Bill of Rights

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Wednesday 22nd June 2022 Commons Chamber

[The Deputy Prime Minister]

I thank my hon. Friend for the way in which he expressed and articulated his point. He is absolutely right. People talk about the UK’s record and, of course, we have one of the highest levels of compliance with the ECHR compared with many of our European friends and partners. However, rarely but on occasion, there will be moments of mission creep where the goalposts shift. Prisoner voting was an example where we said, “Actually, that is not something that Parliament would accept.” I was the Justice Minister in 2015 who went to the Committee of Ministers and said, “We believe in staying in the European convention, but we feel that the ruling is wrong on principle. We are not going to give prisoners the vote.” We will maintain our high standards of compliance, but when it comes down to it, the final word must stay with this House on critical issues of national importance.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I thank the Secretary of State for his statement today. At present, for many Christians, the UK courts have dealt more harshly with cases such as that of wearing a cross in work than the rulings of Strasbourg. Can the Secretary of State confirm that the right to have a religion and freedom to live our belief, inasmuch as it is not harmful to others, will be protected in the Bill of Rights, and our right to speak the name of Jesus and respectfully preach the gospel will be upheld?

[The Deputy Prime Minister]

The hon. Gentleman is right. He alludes to the harm to others principle and the great John Stuart Mill tradition of liberty in this country, and that is precisely what has infused the Bill of Rights. I think he will see the principles that he has articulated reflected in the Bill of Rights, and I look forward to continuing to discuss the details with him over the weeks and months to follow.

Independent Adviser on Ministers’ Interests Resignation

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Thursday 16th June 2022 Commons Chamber

[Michael Ellis]

Of course, the Prime Minister maintains the highest standards in public life and will continue to do so. Despite all the scurrilous suggestions otherwise, the hon. Lady has given no evidence to indicate in what way she is referring to a lack of ethics.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

On TV this morning, the Secretary of State for Justice indicated that the resignation could be for confidential reasons, could be for security-related reasons that therefore cannot be disclosed, or indeed could be for other reasons. When will the appointment of Lord Geidt’s successor be made? How can the House be assured that the person who is appointed will have a permanent position and will stay the course?

[Michael Ellis]

I think the position may become a bit clearer when the letters are published very shortly, but on the point that the hon. Gentleman makes about the future arrangements, they will be under very careful consideration.

Oral Answers to Questions

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Wednesday 15th June 2022 Commons Chamber

[Alok Sharma]

As my hon. Friend points out, parking policy enforcement is devolved to local authorities. He certainly makes an interesting point and I encourage him to raise it with the Department for Transport. Local authorities can, under a traffic regulation order under the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984, implement parking restrictions, for example dedicated electric vehicle bays.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

On local government authorities, has consideration been given to a part-funded scheme allowing refuse vehicles coming near to end of life to be sourced as zero emission, with the cost offset to set the example for other businesses?

[Alok Sharma]

The hon. Gentleman makes an interesting point. Perhaps I can write to him or get a fellow Minister to do so on this issue.

Oral Answers to Questions

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Thursday 9th June 2022 Commons Chamber

[Steve Barclay]

One specific area is working with international partners as to how we get the grain out of Ukraine. There is a pressing timescale on that—a four-week window—so the matter is urgent. Indeed, when I met the US ambassador who has newly arrived in her post, that was one of the issues we discussed, as we do with other international partners.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

Bearing in mind the need to secure knowledgeable farmers—I am very fortunate in my constituency to have many—what discussions has the Minister had with counterparts in the area of skills and learning on fostering a supportive route to farming and diversification to secure our food supplies at home?

[Steve Barclay]

The hon. Gentleman raises an extremely important point. I suggest that he looks first at the approach we took in the autumn, when our supply chains were under pressure. We showed considerable flexibility and worked with industry leaders such as Sir Dave Lewis on how to adapt our approach. Obviously, there are schemes such as the seasonal agricultural workers scheme, which has a review mechanism that potentially allows an extra 10,000 workers if required. There is also the opportunity to invest in areas such as agri-tech, and policy from the Chancellor such as the super deduction facilitates that investment.

Oral Answers to Questions

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Wednesday 8th June 2022 Commons Chamber

[Kemi Badenoch]

I am proud of this Government’s achievements. The hon. Gentleman has been very selective in picking data that requires a different baseline of years. I am afraid to say that he is wrong. We have been levelling up the country, and, as we announced in the levelling up White Paper, the Government will continue to do so—for example using the £1.4 billion global Britain investment fund to attract major investments, such as the new £2 billion Britishvolt gigafactory in Northumberland. We are doing a lot across the country to level up and we will continue to do so.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I thank the Minister very much for her responses. When it comes to regional inequality in Northern Ireland, I have some concerns over the geographic pay gap to which she referred. In discussions with the Northern Ireland Assembly, what specifically can be done to ensure that the wages that ladies get here on the mainland are reflected in the wages offered to those in Northern Ireland?

Standards in Public Life

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Tuesday 7th June 2022 Commons Chamber

[Angela Rayner]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Not only does the Prime Minister not adhere to those principles; he deleted them from his own foreword to the ministerial code, which is pretty unbelievable.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

One way of moving on would be a public inquiry. Many commitments have been made to such an inquiry, but we have yet to be given a date. Is it not important for everyone who has lost loved ones—the 160,000 people who have died in the United Kingdom, including 4,000 who have died in Northern Ireland—to have an input, to ask questions and receive answers, so that they can move on?

[Angela Rayner]

I absolutely agree with the hon. Gentleman. I vividly remember the contributions he made as part of that debate and the way in which he passionately put forward what the public have been through and how they felt about that. That is why I say that the public are not ready to move on. While the Prime Minister remains in office, I do not think the public will ever move on from what they have been through, because it was a very traumatic time. There is not a family in the UK that was not affected by the pandemic, and every time a Minister tells the public to move on, all it does is make them more upset and angry. I absolutely agree with the hon. Gentleman.

Coming back to the ministerial code, this is not just about the foreword. Far from adopting the recommendations of the Committee on Standards in Public Life in a report that the Prime Minister did not even have the decency to respond to, the truth is that he cherry-picked the recommendations that suited him and discarded those he found inconvenient. Lord Evans, the chair of the committee, has said that the recommendations, which form the basis of this Opposition day debate today, were “designed as a package”. By casting aside cross-party proposals, the Prime Minister is trying to rig the rules and downgrade standards.

Let us take the introduction of tiered sanctions. That proposal is meaningful only if independence is granted to the adviser to open investigations. Without that, it is left to the whim of the Prime Minister. Lord Evans described these two changes as

“part of a mutually dependent package of reforms, designed to be taken together”.

As the Institute for Government says, the Prime Minister’s changes do not increase the adviser’s independence at all. In fact, the net effect of the changes is to weaken standards and concentrate power in his own hands. While the adviser on standards may have been granted a swanky new website and an office, he still fundamentally requires the Prime Minister’s permission to launch any investigation, making the Prime Minister the judge and jury in his very own personal courtroom. It is no wonder his own standards adviser has criticised him for his low ambition on standards.

The adviser was joined last week by Lord Evans, the chair of the committee, who outlined the dangers of cherry-picking changes to the ministerial code. While the Prime Minister maintains the power of veto over the independent adviser, there is an inherent risk that he will overrule his own adviser or tell him, “There’s nothing to see here. Now be a good chap and move on.” Well, we are not moving on when he is dragging our democracy into the gutter. Without having independence baked into the standards system, this new code flatters to deceive.

Address to Her Majesty: Platinum Jubilee

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Thursday 26th May 2022 Commons Chamber

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

Hear, hear.

[The Prime Minister]

I am sure the hon. Gentleman knows whereof he speaks. There have been times when I have been scrabbling to remember a historical date or the name of some African capital, and she has got there first. When it comes to some subjects—anything equestrian—I am simply nowhere.

I bet I speak for every Prime Minister who has ever had an audience with Her Majesty when I say that our conversations are always immensely comforting, because she has seen the sweep of it. She has seen the cycle from gloom to elation, and every time her country, under her, has gone forward from strength to strength. She has seen an empire transformed into a happy Commonwealth that countries are now bidding to join.

In the thousand-year history of this place, no monarch has seen such an increase in the longevity, prosperity or opportunity—or the freedom—of the British people. No monarch has seen such technical advances, in many of which British scientists have played a leading part, from the dawn of the internet to the use of the world’s first approved covid vaccine. No monarch, by their efforts, dedication and achievement, better deserves the attribute of greatness. For me, she is already Elizabeth the Great.

While she remains resolutely supported by the Prince of Wales, the Duke of Cambridge and other members of the royal family, we know that these celebrations will be tinged with sadness for Her Majesty by the absence of the Duke of Edinburgh, her strength and stay. And so I hope that in the coming days, we can together further comfort and reassure her, and show with every bonfire, every concert and street party, and every aerobatic display a love and devotion to reciprocate the love, devotion and leadership she has shown to the whole country over seven decades.

On behalf of the whole House, let me say, as the scholars of Westminster cried out from the abbey’s triforium on coronation day 70 years ago, “Vivat Regina Elizabetha!”—God save Queen Elizabeth.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

You threw me off there, Mr Deputy Speaker—I do not often get called so early in the debate. I am pleased to be called, and thank you for giving me the opportunity to participate.

It has been an honour to be an MP serving Her Majesty during her platinum jubilee year. It was my honour as a much younger man to serve her in uniform, and to do so for 14 and a half years. I do not take serving in this House for granted and feel incredibly privileged and humbled to be here today.

I have many titles: husband, dad, granda, James to my mother and Jim to everybody that has known me since I was 18 years old, hon. Friend, Unionist, loyalist and, more aptly today, royalist. I was raised in Northern Ireland at a time when most houses had either a photo of the Queen or a photo of the Pope; I was raised with a photograph of the Queen. That will not be a surprise to anybody, but that was the Northern Ireland that we lived in. I had great respect for her from my family’s teaching, and that respect has only grown as I have watched Her Majesty over the years and been impacted by her unparalleled service, her matchless dignity, her peerless dedication and her unrivalled work ethic. That was an ethic that that generation, my parents’ generation, clearly had.

To watch her composed face as she sat alone at Prince Philip’s funeral, refusing to ask for special consideration and in solidarity with the notion that she had not been the only person grieved and that she would do what her subjects were being asked to do, even at the very advanced age of 95, reaffirmed all I knew of the character of my Queen. The memory of her alone in that chapel touched many of us and encouraged us through the most heartrending example of her display of duty and quiet dignity with which Queen Elizabeth II is synonymous.

The right hon. Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh) is no longer here, but he mentioned her Christian faith and I want to refer to that too, as it is so important. I pray for many people in this House, but I pray for Her Majesty and the royal family every day. In recent years, I have been further inspired by the quiet faith that she holds so dear and that informs each aspect of her life. It has been wonderfully and reverently included in her annual Christmas speeches. As one newspaper said:

“As Britain has become more secular, the Queen’s messages have followed the opposite trajectory…for the past 17 years, her messages have taken on a different tone, with the Queen explaining her own personal faith”.

I want to quote what she said on one of those occasions, in 2014:

“For me, the life of Jesus Christ, the Prince of Peace, whose birth we celebrate today, is an inspiration and an anchor in my life. A role-model of reconciliation and forgiveness, he stretched out his hands in love, acceptance and healing. Christ’s example has taught me to seek to respect and value all people of whatever faith or none.”

She also said:

“Billions of people now follow Christ’s teaching and find in him the guiding light for their lives. I am one of them because Christ’s example helps me see the value of doing small things with great love”.

How much Her Majesty’s words have encouraged me to live my faith in a respectful, personal yet open way, attempting at all times to speak the truth in love. I know that many of us who love this institution—this House, this wonderful tradition we have here—will also love the lady herself and will be concerned that the Queen’s mobility recently is a sign of greater concerns. I take great comfort, however, from the measured way in which her heirs, the Prince of Wales and the Duke of Cambridge, are coming forward with a steady hand.

When we look at the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge with their modernised approach, soundly built on the historic foundation laid by Her Majesty, it is crystal clear that our monarchy will continue as an example of selfless duty and service. Back in 2012, I had occasion to bring my mother and father over to the garden party —it was the first and only time they were ever there. My mum was 81 and my dad was 83, so the people at the garden party were very kind and managed to find chairs. There were plenty of chairs about, but they went and got chairs for mum and dad to sit in as Prince Philip and the Queen came round. That was probably one of the best occasions of my parents’ life. They were absolutely thrilled. My mum was really interested in all the vol-au-vents, wee small cakes and sweet stuff, while my dad was interested in the garden, so the two of them had an absolutely fantastic time and they talked about that garden party for many years after. I know they did not get to meet the Queen and Prince Philip directly, but when the Queen came around, I think she saw them sitting down and made it her business to acknowledge them, which of course made my mum and dad’s day.

My constituency of Strangford is full of royalists—I was going to say loyalists, and they are loyalists too—and there will be dozens of platinum jubilee parties and events taking place the weekend after next. It will be of no surprise to the House to learn that my office is full of royalists as well. My parliamentary aide was beside herself when she was able to attend the Queen’s garden party just two weeks ago, after 18 years of working with me. I take joy in seeing my two younger staff members in their 20s excited about what the Duchess of Cambridge is up to and talking of their respect for her grace and dignity in the face of adversity. It bodes well for the future, and we should be encouraged that Her Majesty is leading the royal family in a way that will continue in the future.

Not only do I admire Her Majesty for who she is, but I admire her steady hand on the legacy she is leaving with Prince Charles, Prince William and even little Prince George, who has a special place in all our hearts. In a world of celebrity motivated by the number of likes on a tweet, empty sermonising and self-service hailed as worthy of admiration, we can look at the pledge she made at her coronation and see the epitome of a promise fulfilled. The hon. Member for North West Cambridgeshire (Shailesh Vara) referred to it, and I want to refer to it, too. I have often thought about those words, because they are good words for each of us. She said:

“I declare before you all that my whole life whether it be long or short shall be devoted to your service”.

Her Majesty has done that and more in every one of those 70 years. She is a lady of refinement, grace, selfless dedication to duty and service, diligence, intelligence, humour, wit and faith. I could not be prouder to be British—I am always very pleased to say I am British—and proclaim her as my Queen. Long may she continue to reign over us. God save the Queen.

Sue Gray Report

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Wednesday 25th May 2022 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

I thank the hon. Lady. Of course I appreciate the suffering of those on whose behalf she speaks, but I do believe that it is the duty of the Government to get on as fast as we can with sorting out the priorities of the people now.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I thank Sue Gray for the publication of her report. It is good to see the final article. We all recognise that there are many lessons to be learned from the handling of the pandemic for all levels of government, as the report states. Can the Prime Minister, working alongside devolved Administrations, give an indication as to when he will be launching the public inquiry on covid-19 that he promised? The general public have questions to ask, and answers must be given. When will the general public have their say?

[The Prime Minister]

As the hon. Gentleman knows, Baroness Hallett—Heather Hallett—has been appointed to head the inquiry, and he can expect developments soon.

Foreign Lobbying

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Wednesday 25th May 2022 Westminster Hall

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

Thank you, Dame Angela. It is a special privilege to speak in this debate. I thank the hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Bob Seely) for bringing this important issue to our attention and for his knowledge. It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant), who has a deep interest in this matter. Both he and the hon. Member for Isle of Wight bring real knowledge to the debate.

I am someone who sees the benefits of lobbying, as referred to by the hon. Member for Rhondda, in certain circumstances in this place. Lobbying for the right reasons has changed my opinion and opened my eyes to many issues. It has helped to increase my knowledge and better understand subjects, and has provided me with information as a Member of this House.

Seeking to unduly influence a Member changes that. While we must all hold ourselves accountable for decisions, there is a role for restrictions or protections—a term that I would rather see used—to be put in place in this House, which should not point the finger.

On several occasions over the past few years, we have seen the impact that foreign lobbying can have on a democracy and the undue influence of some lobbying, which many Members have highlighted, that probably has its roots in Chinese or Russian politics. While the impact of some of that lobbying may inevitably have been over-emphasised, there is a root of truth that this House has not been untouched by Chinese and Russian influence.

It is a crucial that the UK has a platform to introduce safe lobbying, as there is nothing wrong with lobbying as long as it is done correctly and does not put our democratic process at risk. Democracy is the heart of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, so it is great to be here and to discuss how we can strengthen that in a positive fashion.

I thank the hon. Member for Isle of Wight for putting together his briefing on foreign interference. It had much detail and was powerfully put. It provides a real insight into the steps we can take to regulate our lobbying. Lobbying is a key characteristic of politics, domestically and internationally, for foreign agents. The issue lies in lobbying being part of the operation of foreign agents to undermine political institutions. That has been seen many times, not only in relation to China and Russia, but to other countries as well.

Countries such as Australia and the United States of America want to adopt legislation, such as FARA and the Foreign Influence Transparency Scheme Act, that aims to regulate foreign lobbying. It will mean that foreign agents and their proxies will be legally obliged to register themselves and make their activities public knowledge. I look to the Minister for her response about our future plans. Do the Government intend to do something similar to what Australia and the USA have done?

The UK and its respective devolved Administrations are also at risk of foreign interference. We are a leading democracy and, as the hon. Member for Isle of Wight stated in his report,

“a centre for the international finance, legal and media worlds”.

We are very much a kernel—a core—for that. The briefing notes accompanying the 2019 Queen’s Speech stated that the UK would work to

“reduce the threat posed by Hostile State Activity”.

We have seen attempts to manipulate devolution, which the Government confirmed in its own information relating to the Scottish referendum. It is my responsibility to ensure that Northern Ireland is protected against any foreign threat through illegitimate lobbying. Attention must be given to the four Governments within the UK, not just our Westminster Government. I return to my original question to the Minister and ask what action will be taken to ensure that the devolved Administrations —the Northern Ireland Assembly in my case—can have direct contact with the Minister in order to ensure that we can protect and rebuff the groups that are unduly lobbying?

Alongside the debate about lobbying is the issue around social media, which has never been more prominent in political life. Covert digital influence campaigns increase the scope for misleading information when it comes to election time, when foreign influences may pay an instrumental amount of money to portray false information. There are lots of false stories, and the media must address that as well.

Oligarchs, in particular those from Russia and other authoritarian regimes, act in the shadows with no regulation. As the UK is an open society with no legislation to check such things, that leaves us vulnerable to outside interference and cyber-attacks. Russia has used both state and non-state entities to partake in unauthorised activity in the UK. These have been described by the Chief of Defence Staff as the “grey area” between peace and war—how true that is.

Many tools involve military influence, but we must not forget political, economic and social influences as well. Owing to the UK’s lack of legislation, there is little transparency about what is actually illegal and worthy of punishment. The 2014 lobbying Act is narrow and out of date. Does the Minister intend to address that? If so, perhaps a timescale for consultation and ultimate legislative change would be helpful. That should allow for fuller discussion of the steps we can take to protect and preserve the political institutions of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.

In conclusion, I welcome ideas for the reform of foreign lobbying in the UK—particularly a law that compels individuals and entities lobbying in the UK on behalf of hostile and authoritarian states to record their activities on a national register so that we know who they are and so the protections that we need and desire can be delivered. The British public have a right to feel protected and deserve to know the full extent of foreign influence in the UK and the devolved institutions of Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales.

This debate has been helpful, Dame Angela. I thank the hon. Member for Isle of Wight for bringing it forward, and thank others for their contributions. I very much look forward to what the Minister has to say and, indeed, to the shadow Minister’s contribution too.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mrs Wheeler]

It is both.

Members have taken so much interest in the debate, and I appreciate the level and depth of information that they have brought to it.

[Jim Shannon]

I asked a question about contact with the regional devolved Administrations, in particular the Northern Ireland Assembly, regarding those in privileged positions, to ensure that the protocol and protections that will happen here can filter out to the regional devolved Administrations.

[Mrs Wheeler]

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. We must work in close conjunction with the devolved Assemblies on anything that happens in the UK Parliament.