National Scheme of Delegation of Planning Functions

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Wednesday 28th October 2026 Westminster Hall

[Wendy Morton (Aldridge-Brownhills) (Con)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the National Scheme of Delegation of Planning Functions.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Lewell. From Saturday, councillors across England will lose powers—powers to bring planning applications before elected committees. For communities like mine in Aldridge-Brownhills, which are already facing huge speculative development, this is a serious loss of accountability. My residents have faced an onslaught of applications in relation to green-belt sites, including York’s Bridge for 330 houses, Queslett Road East for 850, Barns Lane for 77, Longwood Lane for 78 and Bosty Lane for 550. Those are just some of them. These applications have brought the debate about the future of our countryside very close to people’s doors. These green spaces help to give our communities their identity. Residents want to know what development will mean for their already busy roads, school places and GP access. They are right to expect those questions to be properly considered before Ministers introduce sweeping changes, yet here we are, just days before the new rules take effect, still looking for answers.

It seems that of the outstanding applications for 2,350 homes across my constituency, 80% will be determined under the new rules and behind closed doors. Residents and councillors will not easily be able to ask questions of the developers or raise issues in open committee. Of course, we agree on the need for homes that local people can afford. I want brownfield sites brought back into use, with supporting infrastructure. As I have said time and again in this place and will probably keep saying, once agricultural land is built on, it is gone, and it is gone forever. I want to see planning consents built, not banked. That brings me to the current consultation on Walsall borough’s local plan.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I commend the right hon. Lady. I spoke to her beforehand, and I always look to be helpful by talking about what we do back home. In Northern Ireland, under section 31 of the Planning Act (Northern Ireland) 2011, each of our 11 district councils is legally mandated to operate its own bespoke scheme of delegation. Although that gives local authorities excellent democratic autonomy over local developments, it has at times led to the exact regional inconsistencies in application processing times that the new English model explicitly seeks to correct. Does the right hon. Lady agree that the learnings from Northern Ireland’s process should be shared to achieve best practice in planning and hopefully address some of the very issues that she is highlighting?

[Wendy Morton]

I am always grateful to the hon. Gentleman, because he always makes useful contributions in Westminster Hall that allow us to reflect on and share our different experiences. To me, the fundamental thing is making sure that our communities feel that their councillors have a voice, rather than the democratic deficit that we are faced with. I thank him for his intervention.

Our local plan consultation closes on Monday, and over the last six weeks I have been encouraging residents to respond. I have been holding public meetings, helping with objections and making it clear to them that their views, whatever they are, matter, including when the plan goes before an independent inspector. But what message are the new regulations sending? Residents take the time to go through the documents, attend the meetings and help shape their area’s future, while the Government restrict their councillors’ ability to secure full and public scrutiny when an application arrives. That is not democracy in action—it is neither scrutiny nor accountability—so what is the point of asking communities to invest their time in a local plan if contentious decisions about its application are then to be taken behind closed doors?

Civil Service Pensions

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Monday 26th October 2026 Commons Chamber

[Sally Jameson]

If my hon. Friend writes to me with the detail of those two cases, I will, of course, be happy to look at them. What he raises is just another example of the poor service that Capita has provided—an indictment of its incompetence.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I thank the Minister very much for her understanding of these issues and her perseverance in trying to deliver results. Everyone in the House can understand her annoyance. The facts are deeply concerning. While the Government and Capita point to putting in place specific milestones for what they count as “workable stock”, the hard data shows that hundreds of priority bereavement and death-in-service cases remain completely trapped, some over 100 days old. Given that the independent remedial adviser and technical audit reports are due this month, will the Minister outline exactly what robust commercial penalties or legal enforcement measures are being prepared against Capita if it fails to restore full contractual service levels immediately?

[Sally Jameson]

Some of Capita’s classifications for cases—“workable cases” and that sort of carry-on—are not something that the Government ever recognised; that classification was not in the contract, and it is something that Capita has made up. I was very clear when I first met the CEO of Capita that I do not recognise that. Capita said that those bereavement cases would be resolved by 1 September. If any of those have not been resolved, then frankly that is a missed deadline.

In relation to what further action we could take, as I have said, my predecessor already withheld £10 million in contractual payments. Capita is receiving 10% less each month on a voluntary basis while the service remains as poor as it is. The Government now have at our disposal the Procurement Act 2023, which allows us to take into account poor performance when regarding other contracts.

Church Appointments (Repeal of Discriminatory Provision) Bill

Jim Shannon Excerpts

2nd reading
Wednesday 21st October 2026 Commons Chamber

[Sir Edward Leigh]

My wife is a member of the Russian Orthodox Church. [Laughter.]

The Oxford movement of the 1830s was established precisely because faithful Anglicans grew disturbed that a secularised, reformed Parliament that included non-Anglicans held absolute power over the doctrine and leadership of the Church of England. Indeed, the House of Commons historically had an enormous interest in the matter—there were huge debates in the 1920s over the nature of the prayer book, and these Benches were packed with people who were interested. What a pity that these wonderful debates do not attract similar attention. In his many reflections on the relationship between Church and state, Cardinal Newman, who was central to the Oxford movement during his time as an Anglican earlier in life, feared that the state would reduce the Church to nothing more than a Department of Government.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

We are now 200 years on from that time, and legislation is coming forward for Church appointments. Given what the House is trying to achieve through this Bill, we must reflect the changes in today’s society and its cultural and religious make-up. The fact is that the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland has changed greatly. That being the case, what the House is trying to achieve today is to be welcomed.

[Sir Edward Leigh]

We of course have to reflect changes in society.

I have made the point that this measure will make no practical difference, so I wonder why it is really necessary. My other point is that it would be extremely unwise and would dig up past controversies if any Catholic Prime Minister were to appoint an Anglican bishop. I hear what the hon. Member for East Wiltshire (Danny Kruger) says, but I do not think it makes sense for somebody who is an atheist, like Keir Starmer, or a Hindu or a Catholic to appoint an Anglican bishop. I just cannot see the logic in that. Frankly, the practice has been discontinued, and it will not happen again.

International Update

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Monday 12th October 2026 Commons Chamber

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

For the final question, I call Jim Shannon.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker—my legs are the strongest in the Chamber, without a doubt.

Closer alignment with Brussels has caused great alarm in Strangford and across Northern Ireland. If the Government’s idea of a reset with Europe involves further alignment, will the Prime Minister explicitly state today whether he intends permanently to lock Northern Ireland into foreign laws under an unelected European court, or will he finally take a hard line to fully restore the Acts of Union and the internal market of the United Kingdom, as we should have had from the start? “All together or not at all” must be the message.

Civil Service Pension Scheme

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Tuesday 15th September 2026 Westminster Hall

[Ian Byrne]

That excellent point is well made, and I will raise it in my speech.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

The civil service pension scheme is not delivering for the people who have put faith in their hard-earned income, as the hon. Gentleman said. When Capita took on the scheme, it was already facing a backlog of cases and was likely ill-equipped for the task. Serious questions must be asked about whether a sufficiently thorough assessment of Capita’s capability to take on such an important responsibility was undertaken before this transfer occurred. Should its capability to do the job it was tasked with not have been ascertained?

[Ian Byrne]

A point well made.

James Burke works for the Department for Work and Pensions in the Child Maintenance Service. James entered partial retirement, reducing his working week salary by about 20%, with his pension intended to replace the lost income and provide a lump sum. Neither has arrived. With his mortgage due for repayment on 30 July, his borrowing increased and his provider told him it could not offer a new product. James made nine calls to the helpline, sometimes waiting around two hours. He was promised resolution, then told payment was imminent before being informed that no timescale could be provided.

Oral Answers to Questions

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Thursday 10th September 2026 Commons Chamber

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

When it comes to lobbying, Northern Ireland has a peculiar circumstance where one party can be involved in politics in Northern Ireland and at the same time be involved in politics in the Republic of Ireland. When it comes to the accountability that the hon. Member for Kensington and Bayswater (Joe Powell) is calling for, can the Minister assure us in this House and in Northern Ireland that the rules that apply here will apply equally in Northern Ireland, including to those political parties that traverse the border between the north and the south?

[Mark Ferguson]

It would not be a first outing at the Dispatch Box without a contribution from the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), so I welcome his question. We will, of course, consider that in the response to the EIC.

Rewiring the State

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Wednesday 2nd September 2026 Commons Chamber

[Louise Haigh]

The Prime Minister has been clear that we do not want to impose anything centrally on areas that do not want to combine areas. I am sure that we can facilitate a meeting or discussion in No. 10 North to ensure that we get the right authority, powers and resources for the hon. Gentleman’s area.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I welcome the First Secretary to her new role and wish her well. The hon. Lady’s appointment comes at a critical time for the United Kingdom. She will know that the fundamental pillar of our Union is fairness, and right now the funding model for Northern Ireland is anything but fair. The current Barnett consequential framework is fundamentally broken. It fails to account for the unique, severe and acute objective needs of our public services, health sector and infrastructure in Northern Ireland. Does the hon. Lady, as the Minister for the Cabinet Office and co-ordinator of Government policy, agree that rewiring the funding formula must be treated as a priority cross-Cabinet issue, and will she commit to working across the Treasury and the Northern Ireland Office to replace the outdated mechanism with a needs-based funding floor?

[Louise Haigh]

As the Prime Minister said in Prime Minister’s questions earlier, the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland has opened a negotiation process with Stormont to look at funding and the funding pressures that have emerged. Fundamental to that negotiation will be reform of the decisions that Stormont makes and the way that the Executive have made decisions historically, which has repeatedly led to funding pressures. We need to ensure that these negotiations result in true reform, so we do not end up in this position again.

Oral Answers to Questions

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Wednesday 2nd September 2026 Commons Chamber

[Stephen Kinnock]

I agree with my hon. Friend that co-operation between the UK and Welsh Governments is essential for addressing child poverty in Wales. The UK Government worked closely with the previous Welsh Labour Government on the design of the child poverty strategy, which will lift 550,000 children out of poverty across the UK by 2030, delivering the largest expected reduction in child poverty since records began.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

The Secretary of State is right to recognise the reduction of child poverty in Wales, but of course the Government here took the decision to reduce child poverty not just in Wales but in Scotland, England and Northern Ireland as well. Does he agree that when it comes to recognising the good work the Government have done in reducing child poverty, the whole House should come together and say thank you to the Labour party for doing that, taking 60,000 families out of poverty in Northern Ireland?

[Stephen Kinnock]

I absolutely agree with the sentiment of the hon. Member’s question. Let us look at what the Welsh Labour Government delivered: breakfast clubs offering free, healthy breakfasts for children in primary schools; baby bundles; more than 50 million meals served since the introduction of universal primary free school meals; an expanded childcare offer; free prescriptions; and hospital parking to help with family finances. That is the difference a Labour Government make.

EU Membership Referendum: Impact on the UK

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Wednesday 2nd September 2026 Westminster Hall

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Butler. I thank the hon. Gentleman for Perth and Kinross-shire (Pete Wishart) for securing this debate. He and I know that we will not agree on this subject, but we are good friends and Gaelic cousins. I appreciate his point of view; my point of view will be very different.

Ten years ago, the people of the United Kingdom made a historic sovereign decision to leave the European Union. They voted to take back control of our laws, borders and cash, but as a proud Unionist and staunch Brexiteer, I stand here to declare that the impact of the referendum is uncertain because the job is not yet finished. There is still work to be done.

I will outline some of the issues in Northern Ireland. The Windsor framework does not fix the problem; it institutionalises it. It leaves a border in the Irish sea, dividing us from our biggest market and tearing at the economic and constitutional fabric of our country. How can we say we have fully left the EU when Northern Ireland is still subject to laws that it has no say in making and that are judged by a foreign court? How can we say that we have taken back control when our hard-working farmers face losing half their vital veterinary medicines simply because Brussels dictates what can and cannot cross the Irish sea? That is a fundamental denial of democracy.

How can we talk about the result of the vote when it is a constitutional outrage that our own Government’s ability to support British businesses in Northern Ireland is legally handcuffed by European competition courts through a ban on state aid? How can we talk about the vote and the UK when every time a consumer in my Strangford constituency picks up a pint of milk stamped with “Not for the EU” they are looking at a badge of foreign interference in our internal UK market?

True Brexit means Brexit for the whole of the United Kingdom, not just for the mainland of Great Britain. We have been trapped in a dynamic alignment. If the mainland innovates and cuts red tape, Northern Ireland is legally forbidden from joining them because we are chained to the EU customs code. That is not the best of both worlds; it is economic partition.

[Mr Gregory Campbell]

Does my hon. Friend agree that a classic example of that, which we had some time ago, was when companies selling plants and seeds in Great Britain could not supply them to Northern Ireland, but people could buy them here and take them over on a plane? That was all down to the Windsor framework and the subsequent hash that Governments have made of the Brexit vote.

[Jim Shannon]

I absolutely agree. I was going to come on to that issue, but he has done it for me so I will leave it at that.

The hon. Member for Perth and Kinross-shire is a friend of mine, but we fundamentally cannot agree on this issue. I believe in accepting a democratic vote, not ignoring it. When we believe that we know better than the people, it is no longer a democracy; it is a dictatorship. Hon. Members are allowed to hate that result, but they are not allowed to overrule it without due process. We need to finish the job that the people voted for in 2016. That means removing the Windsor framework, stripping away the remaining vestiges of EU interference and fully restoring the internal market of the United Kingdom.

We must solidify our precious Union. We are undeniably stronger together; I am sure my friends in the SNP and Plaid Cymru will take note of that. Our economic, cultural and political bonds are what makes this nation great. Our focus must be on strengthening the ties between Belfast, Edinburgh, Cardiff and London, not managing an artificial barrier forced on us by Brussels. Let us stand firm, deliver on the full promise of 2016 and secure a truly United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland for generations to come. We are always better together.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Bernard Jenkin (Harwich and North Essex) (Con)]

As a rather lone voice in this debate, I do not complain that it is not going to be a balanced debate, but somebody has to make the case.

[Jim Shannon]

There are four of us.

[Sir Bernard Jenkin]

Indeed, there are a few of us, but what we are hearing is a group of aggrieved remain supporters who have never come to terms with their grief and remain ideologically committed to rejoining. To anybody who wants to have another referendum, I do not say, “Bring it on,” because that is the last thing the public want, but I say that we would win again. When it comes down to the crunch, the British public do not want to hand back control of our laws to the European Union, and all the polls show that. If we ask them in a poll, “Do you want Westminster or Brussels to control farming policy?”, or whatever policy it is, people always vote for Westminster to maintain control.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Minister for Intergovernmental Relations and European Relations (Mr Hamish Falconer)]

It is an honour to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Butler. I extend gratitude to the hon. Member for Perth and Kinross-shire (Pete Wishart) for providing a rich opportunity on our second day back. Much history has been discussed: two referendums and what should have been in our manifesto. I was disappointed to see colleagues from the right unwilling to enter into greater detail of the debate about Maastricht and John Major. I must confess that I suspect our constituents are slightly less interested in going through the entrails of the history. It is important to focus on the future.

I will quickly say three things about my overall position regarding the negotiations to come. I will also try to answer some of the specifics raised. Some hon. Members may wish to intervene, which they are welcome to do, but I will try to cover a little ground initially. First, I want to pay an enormous tribute to my predecessor, who did incredibly important work in resetting our relationship with the European Union. In the spirit of unity, I will resist the temptation to respond to the accusation from the hon. Member for Kingswinford and South Staffordshire (Mike Wood) that I am providing “a masterclass in the art of the bad deal.” My predecessor faced a true masterclass of a bad deal left to him by the previous Government, and he did incredible work on a reset.

I want to be clear on three points. First, I want to go even further and faster than my predecessor. There is great urgency to address the shortcomings in our arrangements. Secondly, there are challenges facing Europe of security, defence and the economy. I discussed those challenges with my European counterparts in Austria this week. Thirdly, Britain is part of Europe. We are Europeans. European security is British security. We must be a close partner with our European friends in dealing with shared challenges.

[Jim Shannon]

First of all I thank the Minister, who always tries to answer our questions. In my contribution, which was specific to Northern Ireland, I asked him whether he had had an opportunity to consider the issues and the impact of the Windsor framework on Northern Ireland and how it affects our trading with the United Kingdom and Europe. Also, I thank him for coming back from his honeymoon to his new position.

[Mr Falconer]

I am glad that someone is grateful for my coming back, and I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman’s courteous tone. Of course, the Windsor framework is important. As he and many people across this House know, it is an incredibly complex arrangement that seeks to preserve the delicate balance in Northern Ireland. I have heard comments from all sides of the debate. I look forward to visiting Northern Ireland soon. It is vital that the people of Northern Ireland get the benefits of both. I understand the criticisms that he made during his remarks, but at the moment it is the one part of the UK that benefits from both, and I want to see that benefit maximised to the absolute fullest.

I was saying a little about European challenges. As the Prime Minister was clear yesterday, there are challenges for our economy, as there are for other European economies—I discussed that during my time in Austria, and the Foreign Secretary will discuss it with his counterparts. There are of course real conversations to be had with our European friends on the whole range of issues that have been discussed.

I want to confirm a few things. First, to colleagues who spoke up for their farmers, I understand the pressures on British farmers. I understand the support that I have heard this morning for concluding an SPS deal. I intend to do so with British farmers’ interests at its very heart. I heard some of the specifics, including the barriers and costs that have accrued when seeking to export. I do not like to disagree with my hon. Friend the Member for Stourbridge (Cat Eccles), but there was a suggestion that sausages were not the most important thing. As a Lincolnshire MP, I would like to say that they are, and their easy export is a priority for me and would benefit not just Lincolnshire and Europe, but the whole of the UK.

I also heard the other important points that were made. I will again try to strike a brief moment of unity with the Opposition: we have great strengths in services. Many European firms look to the UK for those strengths. It is a shame that those arrangements and services remain as immature as they are. That was a frustration before 2016 and it remains a frustration afterwards. It is in the whole of Europe’s interest to free up the services trade within Europe. I discussed that with my counterparts just this week.

Sovereign Grant

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Tuesday 1st September 2026 Commons Chamber

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I thank the Minister for his introduction, and for setting the scene for the motion. Clarification is needed, and the Minister has provided that in a way that I think is transparent. The nation needs to know as well.

Do the Minister and this House agree that although we must always ensure absolute value for money for every single taxpayer in my constituency and right across the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, the monarchy provides an immeasurable service, stability and global prestige that far outweighs the costs?

Looking at the figures, we see that the Treasury is rightly acting to reduce the overall sovereign grant to £99.9 million for the 2027-28 financial year. Will the Minister acknowledge that that demonstrates a clear commitment from the palace to be transparent and to tighten its belt alongside the public, and that it will ensure that the continuous maintenance of our historic national heritage can continue?