Fossil Fuels: Lobbying

Debate between Jim Shannon and Caroline Lucas

Tuesday 30th January 2024 Commons Chamber

[Caroline Lucas]

It will come as no surprise to the hon. Member that I completely agree with her. I do wonder what our own kids will think when the planet continues to heat still further, and what their kids, in turn, will think. What were we thinking of? What was the fossil fuel industry thinking of, certainly, beyond its profits? Apparently very little.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I commend the hon. Lady for bringing forward this debate. She has been assiduous in her commitment to these issues. Indeed, I would go as far as to say the hon. Lady has, on many occasions, been the conscience of this House on these issues. Does she agree that it is essential that votes cast and actions taken in this place are influenced by facts and reasoned opinion, and never by one individual or group? While there is a place for lobbying—let us be honest: it is through lobbying that we learn more; I understand that—it should be only a part of the consideration of any issue.

[Caroline Lucas]

I thank the hon. Member for both his comments, with which I agree, and his kind remarks. He is right: of course, lobbying happens, but a line gets crossed when money starts to change hands. There are perceptions—never mind what the reality is—of Members and groups potentially pursuing interests that are to their own advantage, rather than for the public good.

In June 2023, after sustained further lobbying meetings, letters and statements in the press, the Government introduced the price floor that OEUK had so assiduously lobbied for—surprise, surprise. To summarise: privileged access and meetings with Ministers, an opaque, official-looking lobbying group and an oil and gas fiscal forum advising the Treasury collectively resulted in significant changes to Government plans, which, in turn, resulted in a windfall tax that raised just half of what the Government had promised and saved corporations billions. All, of course, at a time of record fossil fuel company profits and a cost of living crisis for consumers. That is what happens when we let fossil fuels into every corner of our politics.

That is only the tip of the iceberg. Last year, it was reported that Gulf states pushing fossil fuels at COP28 had hired the now Lord Hammond and Lord Maude, along with former Prime Minister Tony Blair and other former leading politicians as “consultants”. As we know, it is incredibly easy for senior British politicians and civil servants to swap Government offices for consultancy retainers; they simply have to register with the Advisory Committee on Business Appointments—a body which even its chair, the former Conservative MP and now Lord Pickles, admits is toothless—if they take up any new paid or unpaid work within two years of leaving office. For example, ACOBA’s response to Lord Hammond working for Mohammed bin Salman’s regime was to note that his inside knowledge of the UK Government could be

“perceived to offer an unfair advantage”,

and then it went ahead and approved it all the same. When, in 2021, Lord Hammond’s advisory work was deemed by ACOBA to have breached the rules, the only sanction was a strongly worded letter.

I know and accept the convention not to criticise the conduct of individual MPs or peers, so I simply want to set out facts that are already in the public domain and on the public record. It is not just former Ministers going through the revolving door between parliamentarians and the fossil fuel industry to take up lucrative consultancy roles. Second jobs, placements, internships and sabbaticals are all different sides of the same coin, and all too often a lot of coins are made or exchanged.

Members of this House can benefit financially from the fossil fuel sector in other ways, too, as the right hon. Member for Chipping Barnet (Theresa Villiers) presumably did when she held £70,000 worth of shares in Shell for five years when she was Environment Secretary, as published in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests in August 2023. I have done the courtesy of alerting any Member to whom I am referring in this Chamber, by emailing them to let them know. The right hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Nadhim Zahawi) also did in the shape of payments from oil company clients to business advisory service Zahawi & Zahawi, pieced together in research carried out by journalists Jonathan Watts and Pamela Duncan for The Guardian, from his shareholdings in an oil and gas exploration and production company, and the £1 million worth of donations he received from fossil fuel companies, including a regular monthly payment of £30,000 that stopped only when he became a Minister.

The right hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Sir John Hayes)—who is in this place and with whom I have had a conversation to inform him that I am about to reference some of his interests—has been a Member of this place since 1997. He served as the Energy Minister under the now Foreign Secretary, and held down a second job for BB Energy, which trades more than 33 million metric tonnes of oil every year. As a strategic adviser, he was paid £50,000 per year for the equivalent of around 11 days’ work, according to his own Register of Members’ Financial Interests.

Three of the biggest donors to the Conservative party are funders or board members of the climate science sceptic think-tank the Global Warming Policy Foundation, or its spin-off Net Zero Watch. Companies from Cardiff Airport to ExxonMobil are handing out football tickets and passes for hospitality events to MPs across the political spectrum. In fact, I think I can safely say that there is probably only one UK-wide political party represented in Parliament that has not had some kind of handout from the fossil fuel industry, whether donations, expenses-paid trips, salaries or gifts. At this point, I give credit to the hon. Member for Coventry South (Zarah Sultana) for going public about the food hamper sent to her by staff at Heathrow in the hope it would secure her support for their third runway. They obviously did not know her very well.

Financial benefit cannot be divorced from conflict of interest or perceived conflict, It is worth noting that there is no requirement on Members of this House to declare any income from dividends or any income gained from the sale of shares. Given the seemingly routine way in which shares get moved into blind trusts when MPs become Ministers, as used by the current Prime Minister and Chancellor, or the £70,000 threshold at which we are supposed to publicly declare a shareholding stake, the idea that we have transparency around conflicts of interests is laughable.

The evidence suggests that Members of the other place are just as at risk of the perception, at least, that they are influenced by dirty fossil fuel money. A total of 43 peers have a significant stake in the industry according to 2021 data. There, the declaration threshold is lower at £50,000. It is lower again at the Senedd and Holyrood, but they are certainly not immune to fossil fuel influence. A lower threshold would clearly be an improvement, but we need to do more than just tinker with the existing rules. In the vast majority of these instances, nobody is doing anything that breaks the parliamentary rules. The Transparency of Lobbying, Non-Party Campaigning and Trade Union Administration Act 2014 only restricts about 5% of lobbyists—mostly trade unions representing workers, and charities. Meanwhile, corporations can pretty much do what they like, and consistently they do.

When we realise, as analysis by The Guardian clearly shows, that there is a direct link between fossil fuel money and the positions that MPs take in Parliament, it is self-evident that the rules cannot be fit for purpose. I believe that being an MP is about serving the public interest, not the interests of fossil fuel companies. In case anyone wants to suggest that they are working in the public interest, let me remind the House of the economic impact of continuing to extract and burn fossil fuels: public debt could rise to 289% of GDP by the end of the century if climate change is left unchecked, according to the Office for Budget Responsibility.

The climate impact is well known: if we want to be in with even a 50% chance of staying within the all-important 1.5° limit, we cannot open new fields, and we should be phasing out existing fossil fuel infrastructure in ways that will secure a just transition. That is not what these companies are using their influence to make happen, and they are frighteningly effective. Climate Action Tracker cites the Government’s doubling down on North sea oil and gas extraction as a key factor in the UK’s insufficient rating on compatibility with the Paris agreement and 1.5°. These companies’ dirty fingerprints can be seen all over our politics, and it is time to clean things up. What does that look like?

First, there would be a firewall between the industry and decision making—no lobbying meetings. If meetings are happening—for example, about the best way to secure the green transition—there must be full transparency, delivered in something approaching real time, not months after the event. At present, the Government publish details of some meetings every three months or so—often, it is every six months—but they are incomplete at best. I had to ask a series of formal parliamentary questions to expose a lunch that the then Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, the right hon. Member for Spelthorne (Kwasi Kwarteng), had with Saudi oil company Aramco. It was missing from his official declaration. First I was told that that was because it was a “social” occasion, and then that there had been an administrative oversight. All that happened months after the event—an event that, frankly, should never have happened in the first place.

It goes without saying that the behind-closed-doors cosy dinners, drinks events and so forth have to be dragged into the sunlight. There is no convenient line between social events and political business for Ministers or Ministers-in-waiting. If they have conversations about policy, either off or on the record, with someone from the oil and gas sector, or indeed another sector that stands to benefit, they should be required to make that public pretty much immediately.

A proper firewall means no industry representation on panels, Government research bodies, or expert or advisory bodies; no fossil fuel involvement in climate negotiations; no place on Government delegations to international negotiations or trade missions; no staff exchanges between the industry and Government Departments; far greater periods between leaving a ministerial role and Parliament, and consulting for an oil and gas firm, for example, with a complete ban on any sitting parliamentarians doing that kind of work, paid or otherwise; no implicit endorsements from politicians as a result of their speaking alongside industry representatives, or at events with which the industry has any kind of association; and certainly no fossil fuel company sponsorship of political party conferences.

Last year, Chevron co-hosted an event at Conservative party conference with the tagline:

“Can fossil fuel companies play a role in the energy transition?”

We know that the only role that they want to play is one of delay and obfuscation, so why should they be able to pay to get privileged access to Ministers and potential Ministers?

Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Bill

Debate between Jim Shannon and Caroline Lucas

Report stage
Monday 20th November 2023 Commons Chamber

[Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green)]

When first announcing this Bill, the Prime Minister promised that it would clamp down on greenwashing and bring misleading environmental claims under the umbrella of consumer protection laws, but the reality seems to fall far short of that—something to which we should perhaps have become accustomed when contemplating the gap between this Government’s environmental rhetoric and their lack of concrete action. While the Bill allows for consumer redress if commercial practices result in their being misled, confused or misinformed, the measures it contains certainly do not amount to the robust action on greenwashing that the Prime Minister led us to believe would be forthcoming. I have therefore tabled two amendments that would go some way towards delivering on the promises that he made.

As a multibillion pound persuasion industry, advertising has an enormous influence on which companies we trust, on our lifestyle choices and on the purchases we all make.

We are all exposed to thousands of advertisements on a more or less daily basis. To protect consumers from misinformation and harm, advertising must be properly and fairly regulated. However, we currently have an advertising regulation system that is slow, opaque and, in short, failing. The UK’s Advertising Standards Authority is not an independent regulator; it is self-funded by the advertising industry. Any complaints that the ASA handles about misleading or harmful advertising is essentially therefore marking its own homework. The ASA’s motivation to fairly regulate is wholly undermined by its close proximity to the industry it should be holding accountable.

My amendment 208 seeks to address the regulatory gap as a matter of urgency. It would create a regulator that is independent, transparent and one that can take timely action, thus better protecting consumers from misleading messaging by polluters and other harmful commercial actors. I think consumers want action. They are increasingly concerned about the role of companies in producing waste, pollution and environmental harms, and ignoring human rights. Yet in response these same companies turn to advertising to try to clean up their image and shore up their social licence to operate. New evidence reported in the Financial Times shows that Shell, one of the world’s top polluters, is estimated to have spent £220 million on advertising in 2023. Much of that advertising is aimed at younger generations, who are perhaps more vulnerable to misleading claims.

Misleading green advertising and greenwashing is on the rise. The ASA’s response has been to update its minimal environmental guidance to advertisers and to rule against just a tiny number of adverts for Shell, HSBC and other high-carbon advertisers for making misleading green claims. Those rulings are often slow and are often made well after the damage has been done. Time-consuming complaints have largely been brought by civil society organisations concerned with the impact of advertising and greenwashing on consumer wellbeing and their rights, but it should not be left to those organisations to have to try to enforce misleading adverts and to ensure that those adverts do not go unchecked. We need a robust regulatory framework and it is disappointing that the Government did not use the opportunity afforded by the Bill to deliver one.

The ASA celebrates its slim count of investigations into polluter advertising while a whole sea of greenwash escapes its notice and seeps into consumer consciousness. Only 2.4% of adverts reported to the ASA over environmental concerns saw any formal action in 2022, while thousands go unreported and therefore see no action at all. This is a drop in the ocean. We simply cannot afford this lack of effective advertising regulation to continue. My amendment 208 is a small but essential step if we are to stop the most polluting adverts from promoting our own environmental demise.

My other amendment is 207. It is another small but essential step, this time towards tackling the way in which the adverts to which we are exposed to every day are themselves fuelling the climate crisis. The UK advertising industry was responsible for 208 million tonnes of carbon dioxide-equivalent emissions in 2022. To put that another way, advertising is responsible for the equivalent of just under a third of the carbon footprint of every single person in the UK. No wonder that, from the World Health Organisation and the House of Lords Environment and Climate Change Committee, to the UN’s environment programme and the Committee on Climate Change, there is universal agreement about the need to regulate the advertising of high-carbon products.

High carbon clearly means fossil fuels, flights and SUVs. I would argue that it also probably means fast fashion, most meat and dairy, and the banks funding the likes of BP and Shell. I therefore back the many campaigns for a ban on high-carbon advertising and for interim measures, such as car advertisements with mandatory content about the benefits of active travel and public travel, as has been done in France. In the meantime, and in the absence of a Government prepared to act in line with the climate science and other evidenced demands, my amendment 207 would bring consideration of net zero emissions by 2030 into the consumer protection regime envisaged by the Government. Let me say a few words about why that is 2030, rather than 2050.

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change is clear that limiting global temperatures to 1.5° requires that the whole world reaches net zero by 2050, a deadline that has been directly translated into domestic targets. But the UN Secretary-General, for example, is among many who have called for developed countries to commit to net zero much sooner, by 2040. When we look at the UK’s own historic responsibility, and indeed our financial means, that puts us into the category of richer countries that, in the interests of fairness, should be going faster and further.

Given the rate at which we are eating through our remaining carbon budget for 1.5°—according to some scientists, 1% a month—further and faster in terms of the UK translates to us achieving zero emissions by much closer to 2030 or 2035, thereby giving countries in the global south longer to cut their emissions. This idea is actually enshrined in climate law around the idea of common but differentiated responsibility, but sadly it is more respected in the avoidance rather than in the implementation.

Of course, that timeframe is undoubtedly hugely challenging. It will require a scale of social and economic transformation far surpassing what we have seen to date—hence the need for action across the board, including in relation to the advertising industry and consumer laws. Specifically, amendment 207 would signal that achieving net zero by 2030 is in the collective interests of consumers and it would help protect consumers from any detrimental effects arising from commercial practices that do not fully reflect the need to stay within that limit.

Misleading advertising is unfairly influencing consumers who want to do the right thing to protect the environment. It is delaying climate action just when we need to shift consumption patterns towards lower carbon alternatives. It is further flooding consumers with adverts that normalise and glamourise high-carbon products and ways of living, something the regulator, with its limited remit, cannot currently act upon, and which the current limited understanding of consumer collective interest does not encompass.

The scale and urgency of the climate and nature crises are such that they should be factored into every single piece of legislation. My two amendments are designed to do exactly that by delivering on the promises the Prime Minister made about greenwashing, and by delivering on what every shred of evidence tells us about the impact of that advertising on our precious environment, and therefore on consumers’ long-term collective interests.

[Jim Shannon]

It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas). She is, if I may say so, the conscience of the Chamber in relation to net zero and environmental issues. She always gives us a helpful reminder of the importance of those issues for all of us across this United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.

It has been incredibly encouraging to hear the comments made thus far by all Members on all sides of the House. It is also great to see the intention of the Bill, which lies solely around the consumer, and consumer rights and protections. The Minister very helpfully set the scene in a way we can all adhere to and agree with. If the hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare (John Penrose) puts forward some of his amendments, maybe the Government will also support them. If they do, we will have no need to divide the House.

The new consumer protection measures in the Bill are intended to apply to the whole of the UK. Consumer protection policy is devolved to Northern Ireland, and reserved for Scotland and Wales. It is my understanding that, as a result, consent will be required for Northern Ireland. It would be helpful if the Minister could confirm what discussions he will have, or has had, with Northern Ireland Departments to ensure that they can be implemented as soon as possible. Reading through the Bill and the amendments and new clauses that have been tabled, I am ever mindful that the Government do have powers. In new clause 69, for instance, sectoral enactments are in place for the Water and Sewerage Services (Northern Ireland) Order 2006, the Gas (Northern Ireland) Order 1996 and the Electricity (Northern Ireland) Order 1992. There seems to be a methodology whereby decisions for Northern Ireland can be made. Again, as an Northern Ireland MP, I think it is important that we understand what the implications are and how the process will work for us.

I wish to refer to new clause 4 and also to new clause 29, which was tabled by the shadow Minister and which seems to be a perfectly amenable suggestion. I very much welcome the Minister’s commitment in his opening speech to address the issue of fuel prices. A number of right hon. and hon. Members have referred to that matter. Clearly, there is something wrong if the fuel price on one side of Newtownards in my constituency is different from that on the other side, but it is even more wrong if one of the major stores has a price at a certain level, yet further up the road that same store has a different price. It really is quite hard to comprehend how that can happen.

I wish to highlight the subscriptions issue, which many Members have referred to today. I have been made aware of two examples that I wish to put on the record in Hansard. I believe that these issues are being addressed. The Minister referred to that in his opening speech. The fact is that we are now living in an online world. I am afraid that I am not one of those who can do that—I make that admission here in this Chamber—but most people are involved in that world. It is a world where there is almost always an opportunity for subscription payments. Even newspapers now offer an online subscription service to get premium access to certain articles. These services are good if they are used correctly.

I heard a story from one of my members of staff. One of her subscriptions was with an online clothing company, which charged £50 a month for her to get access to clothes at a significantly cheaper rate. At the start of the month, for four days only, there is an opportunity to skip the month and not pay the £50 payment. The issue, quite simply, is that if people forget to skip the month, they are charged that £50. There is something wrong with that. No reminder is sent by the company, so this is a smart way for companies to make more money, as being forgetful is a human error. Again, I am keen to get the Minister’s ideas on whether this legislation address that issue.

Renters (Reform) Bill

Debate between Jim Shannon and Caroline Lucas

2nd reading
Monday 23rd October 2023 Commons Chamber

[Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green)]

rose—

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

rose—

Solar Rooftop Installations

Debate between Jim Shannon and Caroline Lucas

Wednesday 22nd March 2023 Westminster Hall

[Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the matter of solar rooftop installations.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Sharma. I am glad to have secured this debate about solar rooftop installations. Monday’s report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change left us in no doubt about the urgency of tackling the accelerating climate emergency, and one of the fastest, most effective ways of doing so here in the UK is to step up plans to decarbonise our housing stock. In this short debate, I want to focus on rooftop solar in particular.

There is no doubt that the number of solar rooftop installations has soared in the last decade or so, and I applaud that achievement. I am also happy to applaud this Government’s ambition to increase solar from its current capacity of around 15 GW all the way up to 50 GW by 2030 and then 70 GW by 2035. I am sure we are all united in recognising that achieving and, indeed, surpassing that target is vital.

Solar Energy UK estimates that, of the 15 GW of solar power capacity currently in place, around two thirds is on the ground, and the remainder is on residential and commercial roofs. This morning, I want to make the case for the installation of solar panels on all suitable new-build homes to be made mandatory and to explore how to overcome some of the obstacles to domestic solar.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I commend the hon. Lady for raising this issue. In my constituency, we are very keen to endorse this. Does she agree that solar roof panels can enhance the value of a property and that, for large families who use lots of hot water, the savings generated and the benefit to the environment can make the up-front cost worth while?

[Caroline Lucas]

The hon. Member makes my point beautifully. This is a win-win policy: it is good for householders and good for the environment, and it is good to get people’s bills down too. I thank him for that intervention, with which I entirely agree.

Some 80% of the buildings that we will have in 2050 have already been built, and we must work hard to retrofit them with renewables, but the remaining 20% have still to be built, and maximising the deployment of on-site solar generation in new-build homes could be a real game changer. If we are serious about continuing and accelerating what has been achieved to date and generating a successful rooftop revolution, we should be mandating that all suitable new homes come with solar panels as standard. The Government have an opportunity to do that with the new future homes standard.

I echo the recommendation made by the right hon. Member for Kingswood (Chris Skidmore) in his net zero review that things be put in train to ensure that there are no delays to delivery by 2025. However, I would go further and argue that we do not need another consultation on whether to introduce a requirement for new homes to be built with solar, because we know that the British public are already behind the idea. A YouGov poll just a few months ago found that 80% of people across the UK would support the Government in making regulations to ensure that solar panels are the default on appropriate new-build houses. Only 9% were against that idea.

Action on Climate Change and Decarbonisation

Debate between Jim Shannon and Caroline Lucas

Tuesday 5th July 2022 Commons Chamber

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

rose—

[Caroline Lucas]

rose—

[Chris Skidmore]

I will give way to the hon. Gentleman and then to the hon. Lady, but after that I must get on, because I do not want use up all my time with interventions.

COP26: Limiting Global Temperature Rises

Debate between Jim Shannon and Caroline Lucas

Thursday 21st October 2021 Commons Chamber

[Caroline Lucas]

I have no problem in praising the Government’s targets. What I have problems with is looking at the fact that there is a dearth of actual actions to meet those targets. That is what we see again and again. The Climate Change Committee has itself said that there are no real plans to deliver the targets that are set. Frankly, the climate cares very little for targets. What it wants are the concrete policies to meet them.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I commend the hon. Lady for everything she has done in bringing these issues to the House for our attention. The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, as host of this year’s conference, must be vocal and committed in relation to our net zero emissions, and thereby pose as role models for others to follow. Does the hon. Lady agree?

[Caroline Lucas]

Absolutely. Leading by example is crucial: we have to walk the talk.

Support for Self-employed and Freelance Workers

Debate between Jim Shannon and Caroline Lucas

Thursday 17th September 2020 Commons Chamber

[Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered support for the self-employed and freelance workers during the covid-19 outbreak.

I am grateful to the Backbench Business Committee for granting time for this important debate, which affects so many of our constituents. The job retention and self-employment income support schemes have provided a lifeline for many, and they have undoubtedly provided a degree of security for those who were eligible. But there’s the rub: far too many people have been ruled ineligible.

Today’s debate takes place just as the six-month period that the self-employment scheme was intended to cover draws to a close. I intend to make the case that the scheme should be continued where it is needed and, crucially, that it should be extended and backdated for all those people who have been unfairly left without support over the last six months through absolutely no fault of their own, and who have endured intense hardship as a result.

Many cannot pay their bills. They are losing their homes, they are drowning in debt and they need our support. Today’s debate is a sorely needed opportunity to set out how the self-employment scheme has fallen short. It has fallen short by failing to recognise the reality of what self-employment looks like in Britain today—by failing to understand that self-employment is significant across the breadth and depth of our economy. The self-employed are beauticians and barristers; charity and construction workers; dentists and decorators; many in marketing, events, arts and hospitality, and many more. This is a chance for us to explain loudly and clearly why self-employed people need justice and why they need support as we go forward.

As it stands, as I am sure all hon. Members know—although, frankly, I am less sure that Treasury Ministers know—the Government scheme penalises a wide range of people. They include those who combine self-employment with pay-as-you-earn work, or PAYE freelancers. They include new start-ups and the recently self-employed. They include women who have taken time out for maternity leave and childcare. They include anyone earning over £50,000. They include those earning less than 50% of their income from self-employment. They include limited company directors who take their income in the form of dividends.

There have been endless requests for the Treasury to meet MPs and those affected by the scheme’s failings to discuss those gaps. Frankly, the exchange between the Chancellor and the hon. Member for Batley and Spen (Tracy Brabin) during Treasury oral questions earlier this week underscored how urgently such a meeting is needed. I am not sure whether the Chancellor just does not understand his own scheme or whether he was deliberately being economical with the truth, but when he asserted that the only group of people excluded from the self-employment scheme is those earning more than £50,000, and that their average median salary is apparently £200,000, I did not know whether to laugh or cry. He is completely and utterly wrong. He does not understand his own policy, and we urge him again to meet us so that we can set out the problem.

At this point, I would like to pay tribute to the brilliant campaigns, including ExcludedUK, ForgottenPAYE, ForgottenLtd and many others, and individuals such as Amanda Evans and Ellie Phillips who have helped the self-employed find such a powerful and united voice. I also thank the various hon. Members from right across the House who joined me, campaigners and the money saving expert Martin Lewis at the end of July to symbolically deliver petitions to the Treasury. They were signed by more than 348,000 people and demanded that the gaps in the scheme be urgently closed.

Those campaigns and many individuals have sent copious correspondence to the Chancellor, detailing the various groups of people who are not eligible for income support. His refusal to honestly engage with those suffering as a result of his policies is frankly shameful. The Treasury has met all requests for dialogue with either deafening silence or meaningless stock responses. I am sorry, but that is not good enough.

It is not good enough for my Brighton constituent who was working full time with the BBC as a PAYE freelancer, so he is ineligible for either furlough or self-employment support and, having come relatively recently from Ireland especially to take on the role at the BBC, he is not eligible for universal credit either. He says that how he has been treated during this crisis has financially ruined him. It is not good enough for Deniz Turan, a sole trader who has gone, in her own words, from being a successful businesswoman to being homeless and feeling suicidal every day in the blink of an eye, simply because she was a start-up who took her income in dividend payments. And it is not good enough for Mark, another small limited company director, who says that the strain of getting no income support on his marriage, his household, his mental health, his physical health and his finances is literally unbearable.

The self-employed have been failed by the Chancellor and the Prime Minister, and it is not just me making that argument. As hon. Members will know, an all-party parliamentary group has recently been formed. I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Jamie Stone) for setting up the APPG, which represents those who have not been protected by the various Government packages. It is I think one of the fastest growing APPGs in parliamentary history. It currently has around 260 MPs from all sides of the House, including 79 from the Government Benches, while 15 Conservative MPs added their names to the application for this debate to take place.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

One of the forgotten sectors is music teachers who teach our young people. Many of them—including some in my constituency, as well as throughout the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland—do not have any income whatever. They are one of the forgotten groups as well.