Budget Resolutions and Economic Situation

Debate between Jim Shannon and Sammy Wilson

Wednesday 18th March 2015 Commons Chamber

[Sammy Wilson]

I shall come to that point. I am not suggesting that everything that the Chancellor has done is wrong. What I am trying to do is paint a picture of a country in which not every region and not every individual is walking tall. Not only some regions, but some groups of people, are still suffering and stooped under the burden of an ailing economy. Young people in my constituency are suffering as a result of youth unemployment; other people are in the lower wage brackets, or are in jobs in which there is uncertainty or the effect of the economic downturn has depressed wages the most. Those people are not experiencing the improved living standards that the Chancellor has described today.

I welcome the fact that, as of the last year, 542 fewer people are on the dole or on welfare in my constituency. Nearly every week, however, people come and talk to me about the effects of the recession and the way in which it has changed employment practices, Many are uncertain about their incomes. Some are earning the minimum wage, some have jobs that are insecure, and some are not always paid because of the nature of their contracts. The Chancellor has said today that the minimum wage will be lifted and that some people will be lifted out of taxation; nevertheless, that has to be set against the fact that, for many people, those gains by Government action are depressed by employment practices that are becoming more prevalent in parts of the economy. Banks may be selling shares, but some of that growth and improvement—this is certainly the case in Northern Ireland—is being achieved by banks quickly foreclosing on those to whom they recklessly lent and by suppressing businesses instead of giving them the chance to grow.

Although the economy may be walking tall in the Chancellor’s eyes, there are many obstacles along the road that could cause us yet to stumble. I hope we avoid them, but let us look at some of the information even in the Red Book. Productivity growth is weak, which of course makes it difficult for real living standards to increase—if productivity does not increase, there is not the same chance for wage increases. Exports have not been growing in the way that the Government anticipated; indeed, the fact that the balance of payments deficit is 6% of GDP will have a deflating impact on the economy. Despite what the Chancellor has said, his own figures show that he is still dependent for future growth primarily on consumer spending. In other words, we are still dependent on people taking on the very debt that we have said brought about some of the problems we are now experiencing.

At the same time, growth in investment is weak. Growth in private sector investment is going to go up. That is quite right; however, according to the OBR forecasts, over the period of the next Budget, public sector infrastructure investment will be reduced by 17% as a percentage of GDP. That is one of the problems I have with the current policy. While I understand and, in fact, probably have more sympathy with the arguments put by Government Members—about getting the deficit down and making sure that we do not have huge debt interest, that we have confidence in money markets and that we do not have to pay more for the debt we undertake—there are ways that the Government can stimulate the economy. One way that can be done is through infrastructure investment.

I cannot understand why the money markets are more confident about lending us money to pay for welfare benefits than they are about lending it to pay for infrastructure development. There have been infrastructure developments in my constituency, such as the new road from Carrickfergus to Belfast. The improved travel times have led to investment by companies already in the town, which was isolated because of the difficult roads. The return to the Northern Ireland economy from the Titanic project in Belfast, with £90 million of investment and the return in tourist numbers—nearly 1 million in the first year and a half, with the impact that has on local pubs, hotels, restaurants and so on—has been terrific. At a time when we need to stimulate the economy, I cannot understand why the Government are planning to reduce infrastructure investment, which could produce real returns.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

One way of helping, which was announced by the Chancellor today, is the plan for farmers to spread their profits and losses over five years. As my hon. Friend will know, in Northern Ireland the dairy industry in particular is having a difficult time. It had to reinvest because of the EU regulations on slurry retention and disposal and also deal with a clear problem with the price of milk. The Chancellor’s announcement will enable the farming industry at least to balance its books over a five-year period. Does my hon. Friend welcome that as a way forward for the farming industry in Northern Ireland and for those in my constituency and, indeed, his own?

[Sammy Wilson]

I do not want to be churlish about this Budget, because there are a number of things—my hon. Friend has led me on to them—that I welcome. Given the way that farming income changes, it is important that farmers should have the ability to look at their income and spread their profits and losses, and the tax they pay on them, over a five-year period rather than a two-year period. I welcome the announcement of a requirement to have a universal service obligation for broadband, although I see that there is no timing for it, so maybe the Minister can give us some indication of that. I know that in my constituency smaller businesses that want to set up in rural areas are held back because they do not have that easy means of communication.

Government Contracts (SMEs)

Debate between Jim Shannon and Sammy Wilson

Wednesday 28th January 2015 Westminster Hall

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

It is a pleasure to speak in the debate, Mr Davies. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for South Antrim (Dr McCrea) on setting the scene, which he did clearly and specifically with reference to his own area. I thank other hon. Members for their speeches. It is a pleasure to see the Minister in his place—I look forward to his response—as well as the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Wigan (Lisa Nandy). Yesterday some of us, in discussion with her, mentioned that there were 100 days to the general election, but she said she was more interested in the next 91 days, because in 91 days’ time something more important for her will happen. We wish her well for when that occasion arrives—congratulations.

This debate is about a topic central to economic progress, on which opportunities to speak are much sought after. SMEs are an area of great importance for Northern Ireland for many reasons. We each have numerous SMEs in our constituencies, and in Strangford they are vital to job creation. There are four or five that began from a small kernel or seed and now employ about 200 people. They are of the utmost importance, because they have been proved to be vital to rebuilding and strengthening the economy in times of much economic uncertainty, such as the past five years. Not only that, but they form the centre of any financial strategy for progress with sustainable regional and national growth. For those reasons we should in all ways promote and encourage entrepreneurship in SMEs. My concerns have to do with funding—its availability, information about it, and the ability of anyone to apply for it.

Another concern stems from the multi-level governance dimension. In the coming months much responsibility will fall to local government, with the reform of the Northern Ireland council structure. Additionally, there are concerns about forthcoming EU directives and their implications for SMEs and Government contracts. A particular European issue recently has been changes to how EU directives will affect SMEs. Figures I have been given suggest that perhaps 150 to 200 SMEs have been forced to close as a result. Perhaps the Minister will comment on that.

I cannot emphasise enough how important SMEs are to Northern Ireland’s economy; I hope that that is shown by Northern Ireland’s European entrepreneurial region status for 2015, which has a focus on SMEs. I congratulate agencies such as Invest NI, local councils and all the SMEs that contributed to achieving that status. A lot of effort went into striving for it, and that effort delivered. I thank everyone who made it a reality. It shows that we are already charging forward in investing in our people, their creativity and their innovation, all three of which are important. What has been achieved is a recognition that we need to put support for such endeavours at the top of our agenda for stimulating sustainable growth and development.

For one thing, local businesses in Northern Ireland were responsible for 90% of the employment increase since 2011. That figure should not be ignored; it represents an astounding one in seven of the working population being employed because of an SME. Invest NI support for local businesses has created or promoted 1,783 jobs from April to the end of November, through targets to assist in SME expansion. Arlene Foster, the Minister at the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Investment, and our friend and colleague in the Northern Ireland Assembly, has been active in that area, and has made it a priority. She is very photogenic and is regularly in the paper announcing the expansion of jobs. It is great when that happens on a regular basis in Northern Ireland.

All that should be celebrated, but there is still a long way to go before SMEs gain the clout that they need to compete against larger competitors, as my hon. Friend the Member for South Antrim suggested in his detailed and informative introduction. It is troubling that small businesses in Northern Ireland exported only 4.8% across the EU, while larger businesses exported 80%. There is clearly a gap in our efforts to assist smaller enterprises, which must be addressed with much haste, as my hon. Friend said.

[Sammy Wilson]

Although we are hearing about the downside to procurement and all the rest of it, there are encouraging signs in Northern Ireland. A small company that starts up in Northern Ireland will last 75% longer than a similar company anywhere else in the United Kingdom. We need to put out the message that start-ups are very successful and there is resilience.

[Jim Shannon]

We all value my hon. Friend’s knowledge of business life in Northern Ireland, and he makes a valuable contribution to the debate. Some 30,000 micro-businesses accounted for 89% of local companies. We must emphasise the need to look at the barriers that prevent the rise of SMEs, especially with regard to Government contracts, and address them coherently and fully. Steps have already been taken to look at the accessibility of funding, to simplify the application process and to remove the red tape of bureaucracy that bumps up the costs of application and development in public procurement.

I sometimes wonder how anyone ever gets through the early stages of a business. Years ago, there was less bureaucracy, but today we seem to be entangled with it at almost every level. On the ground, SMEs still find it difficult, costly and sometimes unfeasible to compete with larger competitors.

I congratulate the councils, Invest NI, South East Economic Development and other agencies. Financing their endeavours is only the first of many hurdles faced by SMEs, and it is vital to their success. To have that stage of the process so well accounted for by those valuable agencies is paramount. Through the assistance of such agencies, bank loans to SMEs totalled £408 million in the second quarter of 2014, which represents a rise of 29% on the previous quarter.

Although that work has been important and successful, there is still a lack of clarity about how to identify and access the many sources of available support. I would reject any process that further impeded the accessibility of money through more and more layers of bureaucracy. As of 1 April, Northern Ireland will downsize to a new system of 11 regional super-councils, through which we will do our best to simplify the process and walk SMEs through the steps of accessing Government contracts and funding.

The Northern Ireland Members present are all former Members of the Northern Ireland Assembly. My hon. Friend the Member for Upper Bann (David Simpson) reminded me when we were preparing for the debate that the Northern Ireland Assembly insisted that Government contracts in Northern Ireland must include a 30-day payment scheme for those who had contracts, many of whom previously had to wait 90 days or longer for payment. It is absolutely ridiculous that small companies should have to wait so long. We can take some credit for moving forward that process in Northern Ireland.

I welcome the fact that the UK Government have pushed forward in their goal of awarding 25% of Government contracts to SMEs. Entrepreneurship will drive our economy forward through innovation and creativity. Therefore, we really need to make the leap of innovation—of becoming a successful endeavour—an attractive idea, given the risks of setting up and upholding an SME.

My hon. Friend the Member for North Antrim (Ian Paisley) referred to broadband, which is a problem not only in his constituency but in all our constituencies. I gather from my constituents that he has had some success in banging together the heads of those responsible, and making sure that the DETI and the NIE get together and achieve success. In my constituency, we have a similar problem, and those involved in online businesses have been prevented from expanding their businesses by the lack of broadband. That seems ludicrous. I cannot understand how the problem can be so prevalent in this age of modernisation. It seems simple to me to make the connection within 100 yards of a business to help it to progress, but we find layers of bureaucracy, obstacles, obstructions and reasons for not doing so. We need to act on that system in good faith and make it better if at all possible.

I have concerns about the EU directives and their implications for our ability to invest in our vital SMEs. I acknowledge that a range of positive measures has come from the EU, and not everything is negative. I know we have lots of problems with the EU, but there are positive aspects on a regional basis, such as the merging of funding into an accessible single portal, which includes the structural funds, with an emphasis on encouraging SMEs as a pivot of national economies. However, I am concerned about the upcoming enforcement of the EU public procurement directive. The directive states that

“for public contracts above a certain value, provisions should be drawn up coordinating national procurement procedures so as to ensure that those principles are given practical effect and public procurement is opened up to competition.”

I am concerned about the implications for local, regional and national SMEs, and about our obligations to protect SMEs on a national level, given that they have put so much back into our economy—not only in growth, but in lowering unemployment levels. What exactly will that mean for the distribution of Government contracts? Will the implementation of the directive create any obligations that will impinge on our goal of awarding 25% of Government contracts to SMEs?

I welcome any measures in the public procurement directive that aim to cut red tape and assist UK companies to make the most of the single market. I hope that the promised new regulations will benefit SMEs by encouraging buyers to break contracts into smaller lots and by reducing the cost of the bidding process. The European Commission claims that they may reduce that cost by as much as 60%. SMEs in my constituency and nationwide need reassurance that the process of obtaining Government contracts will not become more elaborate, confusing or inaccessible, and that their interests will not be compromised by the implementation of the directive. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for South Antrim for giving us all a chance to contribute, and I look forward to the shadow Minister’s contribution and the Minister’s reply.

Aerospace Industry

Debate between Jim Shannon and Sammy Wilson

Tuesday 2nd September 2014 Westminster Hall

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

It is always a pleasure, Mr Hollobone, to serve under your chairmanship. It is equally a pleasure to speak in this debate, and I thank the hon. Member for Mid Worcestershire (Sir Peter Luff) for securing it. He has outlined the case brilliantly, although he did not mention Northern Ireland, so I will do that and correct the balance. That is important, because we have an industrious and successful industry in Northern Ireland that creates many jobs, and I will outline that in my contribution.

As the Democratic Unionist party spokesman for transport, this subject interests me, not only because of its magnitude, but because it creates many jobs in my constituency, both directly and indirectly. It creates jobs directly in the companies, and indirectly through sub-contracting. Many companies come into the engineering sphere because of the good work done through the aerospace industry.

We should all feel immensely proud of the UK aerospace industry, and we have every right to be proud of it. We boast the largest aerospace sector in Europe and we are second globally only to the United States. We should shout our successes, not from the rooftops, because we are not on the rooftops, but in the Chamber. The importance of the continued partnership of the Government and the industry through the aerospace growth partnership cannot be underestimated, as the latest figures from the ADS, which represents the aerospace, defence, security and space industries, suggest. As of 28 August, there was a record backlog of more than 12,000 aircraft and 21,000 commercial aircraft engines orders. With the economy still only making a slow recovery and thousands of jobs not yet secure, that is fantastic news for the aerospace industry and for the United Kingdom overall, with estimates that the backlog will be worth between £135 billion and £155 billion over the next nine years. That is not a paltry sum and it indicates how much the aerospace industry contributes to the economy of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.

The aerospace industry is extremely positive. While everything else makes slow and steady progress, the industry has been growing at a pace 10 times quicker than the rest of the economy in the last three years, outstripping many employment sectors. That is another example of the importance of the Government’s partnership with the industry. I am sure that the Minister and the shadow Minister will underline that clearly in their responses. The new orders are simply part of long-term industry growth, with estimates of demand for more than 29,000 commercial airliners between now and 2032, which is in line with the airlines’ desire to carry more passengers and expand their fleets. The future looks positive, and it is positive because of the direct attitude the Government have adopted to the industry, but—as the hon. Member for Mid Worcestershire said—other things need to be done to keep us in a prominent position.

The situation certainly looks promising, and I must admit that I was keen to contribute to today’s debate not only in my capacity as my party’s spokesperson for transport, but also because of the massive contribution that Northern Ireland makes to the industry. The main factory in Northern Ireland is located in Newtownards in my constituency. I am pleased about that, of course, and I can boast of having one of the most technologically advanced and internationally focused aerospace industries in the world right in my constituency, giving job opportunities to many young people.

The hon. Gentleman referred to apprenticeships, as did the hon. Member for Burnley (Gordon Birtwistle), who has commented on the issue before in Adjournment debates and in Westminster Hall, and I am pleased to see such opportunities coming through for people in my area. Bombardier has more than 5,000 highly skilled employees across four sites in Northern Ireland. The site in Newtownards is the biggest, but there are others in Newtownabbey and Belfast. Bombardier promotes many job opportunities, and it is important to see that happening. With first-class capabilities, the site’s operation plays a pivotal role in all of Bombardier’s families of commercial and business aircraft. It also produces and sells components for Rolls-Royce, Airbus and General Electric. Bombardier’s CSeries aircraft has significant UK content, primarily through the advanced composite wings that were designed, and are manufactured, by Bombardier Aerospace in Belfast.

[Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)]

The hon. Member for Mid Worcestershire (Sir Peter Luff) emphasised the importance of research and development. One of the ways in which Bombardier has kept its place in the market and, in particular, kept production in Northern Ireland has been through the research and development money made available by the previous Government to ensure that the investment required in Northern Ireland to keep the competitive edge was made. Does my hon. Friend agree with the point made by the hon. Gentleman on the need to think about the long term, because the period of return is long term? It is important to think about long-term research and development incentives if the aerospace industry is to be maintained at its current standard in Northern Ireland and the United Kingdom.

[Jim Shannon]

I thank my hon. Friend for that valuable contribution. He is absolutely right. Sometimes you wonder, Mr Hollobone, whether people have looked at your notes before they make an intervention, because often they raise issues that you were going to come on to. The Northern Ireland Assembly has made a significant commitment to Bombardier—the Minister responsible for that is Arlene Foster—as have this Government and other Governments. We have a huge range of aerospace companies operating in Northern Ireland, including B/E Aerospace, Magellan Aerospace, Goodrich, RFD Beaufort and Thales, to name just a few, so it is perhaps not surprising that one in three of the world’s aircraft seats are manufactured in the village of Kilkeel in Northern Ireland. Look around the world and think of all the planes there are and remember that a third of those seats are manufactured in Kilkeel in Northern Ireland.

Even more good news for Northern Ireland and UK industry was the announcement—this relates to the intervention of my hon. Friend the Member for East Antrim (Sammy Wilson)—of a £6.8 million advanced engineering competence centre in Northern Ireland. That is a commitment to the future and to research and development. The centre will be based at the Northern Ireland Advanced Composites and Engineering Centre in Belfast and will focus on developing innovative solutions in the advanced engineering sector. In other words, it will look at the long-term progression of aerospace, not just in the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, but in Europe and the rest of the world.

The centre is tremendous news locally, as it will no doubt create more jobs, but it is also brilliant news for the UK aerospace industry as a whole. As opportunities in civil aerospace grow, the UK faces increasing competition from mature and emerging markets, so the new centre will, I hope, develop new approaches for advanced engineering, because being ahead of the competitive market is the only way we can ensure that we remain first in Europe and first in the world. That is the point I want to emphasise. We are aiming at short-term goals, but we are also trying to achieve a long-term strategy.

The figures I gave are testament to just how successful and important the aerospace industry is to the UK economy and our ability to compete globally. That is why I urge the Government to work alongside their partners, not just to encourage technological innovations, which are important, but to lead the way in cutting emissions, reducing fuel burning and increasing aircraft efficiency. Those are important issues that we cannot walk away from, and the aerospace industry is trying to address them. That can be done, and we must do our best in tackling them.

One thing that is close to my heart is my wish to see the Government encouraging students and young people to undertake the necessary courses at universities and technical colleges, as the hon. Member for Burnley said. We need not only aerospace engineers and technicians to replace the current generation—we have to look at that—but staff who can work with new technologies and materials. We need further education at universities and technical colleges to work alongside the industry to ensure that the bright brains of our young people are there to take on those jobs.

I am pleased to learn that almost 70% of UK aerospace companies employ apprentices and trainees. That is tremendous news. Each year we meet some of those trainees here in Westminster, as I did this summer. It was good to meet some of the young men and women who are interested in the industry and looking for opportunities. We have a commitment from Government, both here at Westminster and regionally, to ensure there are apprenticeship opportunities for both genders. This is exactly what the industry needs. Provided we continue to develop and innovate, I believe that the future of UK aerospace is very bright indeed.

Mesothelioma Bill [Lords]

Debate between Jim Shannon and Sammy Wilson

Tuesday 7th January 2014 Commons Chamber

[Sammy Wilson]

I thank my hon. Friend.

Let me deal with the two amendments that deal with whether the compensation level is acceptable. For 28 years, I represented east Belfast—the inner part within the shadow of the shipyard—on Belfast city council, and I saw and represented, at disability living allowance tribunals and so forth, many people who had suffered as a result of exposure to asbestos in the shipyard. I have seen the suffering that they went through. I have gone into their houses and seen people who could hardly walk across a 12-foot wide living room, who could not climb the stairs and who knew that they were in for a horrible and painful death. Those are the sort of people we are talking about, and that is the outcome of the exposure to which they have been subjected. That is what we are dealing with.

I must say that I find it grossly offensive that people who qualify for 75% compensation under this scheme will have 100% of their benefits taken from them, yet that will be paid back to the insurance companies to try to “relieve the burden” on companies that already have the money to cover the costs. We should bear that in mind when we look at amendments 1 and 4, which provide for increasing the level of compensation.

[Jim Shannon]

We are very much focusing on what happened to the individuals who had the disease, but perhaps we have not focused enough on the ripple effect on the families that comes out of that. Does my hon. Friend agree that it is not just individuals, but families and wider family circles that are involved, and that because of that, the squeeze should be put on the insurance companies to ensure that they pay more? Should not the Minister do that as well?

[Sammy Wilson]

We should, of course, bear in mind what it is like for any wife, husband or child who sees their father, mother or son going through the sort of agonies they have to endure when they die from this disease.

Let me deal with the issue of the cut-off date. I understand that cut-off dates are difficult: how should we choose them? No matter what is chosen, some people are going to feel aggrieved or short-changed. The proposer of the amendment spoke about a range of cut-off dates, going right back to before the war when people first knew that exposure to asbestos led to a terrible disease and death. However, there must be some logic to the cut-off dates that we set, and, in seeking that logic, we should be asking how we can apply it to encompass as many people as possible.

Although I am not particularly happy with it, there is logic in the argument for a cut-off date of 2010, when expectations were first raised and the insurance industry was first notified, and when preparations for the payment of compensation could begin. The Minister said that setting a date of 2010 would add £80 million to the cost of the Bill, but I should like him to explain how he arrived at that figure. Given the 75%, the cost of payments will be £343 million over the next 10 years. It has been accepted—and I saw the Minister nod on a number of occasions when this was mentioned—that the bulk of cases will arise in future years. How can we have a figure of £343 million for the next 10 years, during which we expect the bulk of cases to arise, and a figure of £80 million for the two years preceding 2012? Those figures simply do not add up. I should be happy to hear the Minister’s explanation now, or, if he prefers, when he sums up the debate, but I suspect that the figure has been over-inflated and gold-plated in an attempt to establish arguments for not setting a date of 2010, presumably because the insurance companies will ensure that that does not happen.

European Union

Debate between Jim Shannon and Sammy Wilson

Tuesday 13th December 2011 Commons Chamber

[Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)]

It is a great joy to sum up in what has been a timely debate, touching on an issue that concerns millions of people across the United Kingdom, not only because their attention has been focused on last weekend’s events in Europe, but because of the continuing drift that we have seen. As my hon. Friend the Member for Upper Bann (David Simpson) said, on everything from foreign policy and macro-economic policy right down to the basic things that affect people’s lives every day, people are more and more concerned about the impact that Europe has on them.

A number of matters have been discussed in a good debate. Those who have opposed the motion have raised a number of issues, which I would like to go through quickly. The first is the damage done to the United Kingdom by the Prime Minister’s stance. This was epitomised by the comments of the hon. Member for Wolverhampton North East (Emma Reynolds) as shadow Minister when she said that the Prime Minister had left us on the outer fringes of the EU and that it was bizarre for us to wish to commend him for that.

[Jim Shannon]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[Sammy Wilson]

Of course, but I want to develop this point first.

There is nothing new in this. The chattering classes have all come together to condemn the Prime Minister for standing up for Britain and for our interests in Europe. There is nothing new in those who see the European project being attacked using that tactic in debates such as this. In fact, a leader of the Liberal Democrats said, as revealed by Hansard:

“There will be a second-tier Europe”—[Official Report, 24 September 1992; Vol. 212, c. 34.]

in which we will be led into “isolation”. People may wonder how on earth that can be, when the Liberal Democrat leader has not been in the House since these events happened. How can he have anything on record in Hansard? Of course, I quoted not the present Liberal Democrat leader but the Liberal Democrat leader from 1992—nearly 20 years ago—when we had exactly the same situation. They have not even learned new lines, for goodness’ sake. If they are going to criticise someone for undermining the European project, one would have thought that they would learn to find some new arguments.

People have said that we are isolated in the world. It is interesting to note that when Hillary Clinton commented, she said that she was not concerned at all about what the Prime Minister did in Europe this weekend. She was more concerned—and America is more concerned—about whether this will be an effective way of dealing with the crisis of the euro. As a number of hon. Members—including even the hon. Member for Cheltenham (Martin Horwood) —have pointed out, even the markets agree that this has not been a good deal. How on earth can we be isolated and left alone on the edges of Europe on this issue if we find that all those looking at the effectiveness of the deal have found it wanting?

The second argument is that Britain will be left alone and other nations in Europe will not support us. Hon. Members, including again the hon. Member for Cheltenham, and the hon. Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Damian Collins) and even the hon. Member for Foyle (Mark Durkan), have pointed out that this is not the end of the matter. Many of those hailed as supporting the deal are already beginning to have second thoughts. The list is endless: Denmark, Sweden, Poland, Finland and Czechoslovakia. Ironically, even one of the candidates who might well be the next Prime Minister of France has said that he would undo what has happened. I think that, far from being alone, we will find this issue being revisited by others. That requires a word of caution: if it is to be revisited, it is important for the Prime Minister to take the same stance again.

Fuel Prices

Debate between Jim Shannon and Sammy Wilson

Tuesday 15th November 2011 Commons Chamber

[Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)]

I welcome the opportunity to speak in the debate, because the price of fuel is an important concern for many of our constituents. I will start with two observations. First, I am glad that there has been little evidence today in the House of the green zealotry that drove the increase in fuel prices—a point we must not forget, because it was argued that that was a way of weaning the population off fossil fuels. Secondly, although Members have talked about the role of petrol and oil companies, let us not forget that 60% of the cost of fuel is accounted for by Government action. Therefore, this is the appropriate place to debate what can be done about it.

The Government’s record on this differs from what they said in opposition. They had many fine ideas in opposition. Indeed, in “A Fair Fuel Stabiliser” they indicated that any reform should help families when the cost of living is rising and reduce the inflationary impact on the economy—but what has the record been since they came into power? In Northern Ireland, fuel bills for families have increased by an average of £254 a year for those using diesel and £284 a year for those using petrol. The Government promised in opposition to do something for families when the cost of living was rising, but their actions have been different.

They made clear in opposition what they thought about an increase in VAT. Indeed, in an intervention in this House in 2008, a Conservative Member asked the then shadow Chancellor:

“Does my hon. Friend not agree that Labour’s plans to increase VAT to… perhaps even 19.5 per cent…. after the next election will hit hard-working families hardest? Should the Government not be ashamed of themselves?”

The answer was “absolutely”, and that the Conservatives would keep reminding the then Government of that

“every…day between now and the…election.”—[Official Report, 26 November 2008; Vol. 483, c. 741.]

The Conservatives did that, but as soon as the election was over and VAT went up to 20%, it all went quiet on the Government Benches, and we did not hear much from them about VAT hitting the poorest families hardest.

During this debate, Government Members have said, “Ah, yes, but we reduced fuel duty.” On the one hand, fuel duty was reduced; on the other, VAT was put up. The Chancellor gave, and the Chancellor took away. That is the truth for hard-working families.

[Jim Shannon]

I thank my hon. Friend for his passionate speech. As he represents a rural constituency similar to mine, has he been contacted by farming communities regarding the effect of fuel prices on food production, which affects everybody in the country? There is the price of the fuel for their machinery, but the increased fuel prices also get passed on to them in the price of fertiliser and other things that they use on the farm. Is he concerned about that, and about its impact on food prices?

[Sammy Wilson]

That just illustrates the inflationary impact of the situation, not just on individual families but throughout the economy, and the Government ought to bear it in mind as they ask themselves, “What shall we do to regenerate the economy?”

Various reasons why it is difficult to do something have been given. The first, which we have heard from Government Members, is that if we try to reduce VAT Europe will intervene. That is another reason for renegotiating our position on Europe—but leaving that aside, I note that 75% of the tax is not VAT but fuel duty, so even if there is a problem with Europe, the Government have another way of dealing with the problem.

The second reason that has been given has involved asking, “What about deficit reduction?”, but there does not seem to have been any difficulty with deficit reduction when it has come to bailing out the euro, with £12.5 billion having already been pumped into it and the Government talking about more money going to the International Monetary Fund. Indeed, as Government Members have said, the measure could almost be self-financing anyway: if, for example, it led to a rise in demand, there would be more duty; if it cut costs, more corporation tax would be paid.

Energy Prices

Debate between Jim Shannon and Sammy Wilson

Wednesday 19th October 2011 Commons Chamber

[Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)]

I am pleased to take part in what I believe is a timely debate. There is general concern about the size of the energy bills that are hitting people right across the country. This is happening in the context of rising profits for the energy companies, while—despite what the global warmists are saying—we are increasingly having cold winters, which mean an increase in people’s energy bills.

As I have said, the debate is timely because there is a general feeling that the Government may not be giving these matters the priority that they deserve. When a Secretary of State dismisses the problem by saying, “Well, phone around and find out what the alternative costs are”, when energy companies are given a slap on the wrist but there is no real outcome, and when we are told, “Just grin and bear it, because some of this has to be done to save the world”, it is understandable that people should detect a degree of complacency.

This is a particular issue for us in Northern Ireland. First, the profits of Northern Ireland Electricity have risen by 68% over the past year, which is commensurate with the increases in the profits of the big energy companies in Great Britain. Secondly, energy prices in Northern Ireland are about 14% higher than the average in Great Britain. Thirdly, fuel poverty in Northern Ireland is well in excess of the average in the rest of the United Kingdom, affecting 43.7% of households in comparison with the UK average of 21%.

[Jim Shannon]

My constituents spend 10% of their incomes on fuel, and 44% of them are experiencing fuel poverty. Strangford has the second highest level of fuel poverty in Northern Ireland. Does my hon. Friend agree that the Government’s decision to reduce the winter allowance will have an unfair impact on people in Northern Ireland, as against the rest of the United Kingdom?

[Sammy Wilson]

Yes, and I shall say more about that later.

Part of the problem is a direct result of Government policies that have an impact on households and businesses throughout the United Kingdom. About 50% of those who are in fuel poverty in Northern Ireland are over 60, but just as worrying is the fact that 27% of those who will find it difficult to pay their fuel bills—who will be, as we loosely term it, in fuel poverty—are in work. They are going out every day to do their business, and their wages are so low that they still find it difficult to pay. That is another reason for my belief that the debate is timely and will resonate throughout the United Kingdom.

I will not repeat all the many causes of the problem that have already been mentioned today, but I think it worth drawing attention to the way in which large energy companies have used the prices of raw materials to raise the prices that they charge consumers, and the fact that—as a number of Members have observed—there is not the same flexibility when prices fall. That is one of the reasons for the level of profits that companies are experiencing. As many Members have pointed out, in the short term some of those profits could be used to deal with the problems.

A second cause is lack of investment. Because of that lack of investment and because of the demand that exists, prices are bound to be fairly buoyant anyway, and there is a captive market. A third—I suspect that many people will secretly agree with this, but will not be prepared to say so openly—is the impact of the Government’s climate change policies. When we say that because we want a low-carbon economy we will charge those who use carbon-based fuels in ways that cause carbon dioxide to be released into the atmosphere, and when we say that we will introduce policies to stop that happening, we cannot run away from the fact that such action will have implications for people’s fuel bills throughout the United Kingdom. The facts are clear. This year, simply to deal with the renewables obligations, being forced to purchase electricity from renewable sources has added £1.8 billion to the cost of producing electricity, and by 2020 the cost will be £6 billion a year. According to the Department’s own estimates, domestic consumers will face a 33% increase in the cost of electricity and non-domestic consumers such as industry will face an increase of 43%.

I support the motion, but it makes a rather glib reference to climate change. Many people will feel that they can agree with such sentiments, but behind them is the reality of what will happen to fuel bills: people will pay more for their energy. Denmark, not our country, has the highest costs per unit and the highest fuel bills, and Denmark produces 20% of its electricity from wind power. That is the highest proportion in Europe. The lowest costs are in France, which produces 75% of its energy from nuclear power.

Higher Education Fees

Debate between Jim Shannon and Sammy Wilson

Thursday 9th December 2010 Commons Chamber

[Sammy Wilson]

Quite right.

Of course, there are other things that the Liberal Democrats could have compromised on. Was a referendum on a voting system that happens to benefit their party—although perhaps no voting system will benefit them in future—a higher priority than their manifesto pledge on fees? Given the choice between increasing fees by 200%, despite making a firm commitment not to do so, and creating a voting system that happens to benefit their party, I suspect that most people would say that the priority ought to have been to stand firm on fees.

People may say, “What’s this got to do with people from Northern Ireland, because after all, under devolution, it is up to the devolved Administrations in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland to decide their higher education policy?” but that is factually incorrect, because ahead of this vote the Government decided that resources that would have been taken out of higher education were taken out of devolved budgets. Northern Ireland will therefore lose more than £200 million as a result of a decision made on the basis of a vote that has not yet been taken. That restricts the ability of devolved Administrations to set their own policies.

[Jim Shannon]

My hon. Friend is in a unique position, because he is the Finance and Personnel Minister in the Northern Ireland Executive. Will he indicate what impact the increase in tuition fees will have on the Executive’s budget?

[Sammy Wilson]

I have indicated the impact of the policy on the budget, but the policy also impacts on the ability of the Executive to restructure the economy. It is important for us to have a supply of skilled labour that will attract inward investment.

Let us consider two of the arguments that have been made today. First, people have said that the policy has everything to do with helping to reduce the deficit and dealing with the economic mess that was left. However, the proposals will lead to more borrowing. The flow of money from graduates will not come through immediately —it will take a number of years—so the deficit will not be reduced. That is not even good economics, let alone good politics. The Browne report says that 70% of those who take loans over the next 30 years will default on all or part of them. Who will pay for that? It will be the taxpayer. Therefore, the public finances will be no better off, unless the plan is to pass greater costs on to students in future. The policy does not make economic sense.

Secondly, many Government Members have argued that the policy will have no impact on the poor, but the proposed scheme accepts that it will. Why have a national scholarship scheme or all the other things that have been put into the system if the policy will have no impact on the poor? Of course it will have an impact the poor, as the Government themselves admit.

Housing Benefit

Debate between Jim Shannon and Sammy Wilson

Tuesday 9th November 2010 Commons Chamber

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I want to make some constructive comments, and I hope that the Minister will take on board some of the issues I raise. I will ask some questions from a Northern Ireland perspective, because the housing benefit changes will affect us as well—we cannot divorce ourselves or walk away from them.

I should set the scene, because Northern Ireland has some very particular circumstances: the Department for Social Development has responsibility for social security benefits, and the Department for Employment and Learning has responsibility for training and employment programmes, in contrast with the rest of the United Kingdom and the Department for Work and Pensions. DEL has significant differences with its steps to work programme, as against the job guarantee fund here. There are issues to be clarified, therefore, and I want to ensure that the changes in benefits will not impact adversely on the people of Northern Ireland.

Northern Ireland has had the local housing allowance since 2008, but it has not been formally assessed. I had hoped that it would be, because it would have given us an idea of how successful it has been. I am concerned, however, that the proposed changes to the allowance lack a firm evidential base. Will the Minister comment on that? I think that the proposals will adversely affect recipients in Northern Ireland.

I am gravely concerned about the Budget plans to reduce the initial award of the benefit by 10% in April 2013 to those claimants who have been receiving jobseeker’s allowance for longer than 12 months. I make that comment because the unemployment rate in Northern Ireland between April and June was 6.6%. Worse still, the working-age employment rate remained well below the UK average, and was the lowest of all the 12 UK regions. The changes put forward tonight will adversely affect the people of Northern Ireland because of our position in relation to benefits.

I have concerns about the introduction of a measure that utilises sanctions that are neither helpful nor beneficial. The proposal appears to be based on the assumption that a reduction in housing benefit will motivate working-age claimants to find work, but it is clear that even if every working-age claimant was so motivated, there would still be significant numbers of long-term unemployed people in Northern Ireland beyond 2013. Perhaps the Minister will comment on that. We have to find a balance. How do we distinguish between those who are genuinely seeking employment and those who perhaps are not?

I mentioned earlier that the focus of housing benefit has to be on providing low-income families with access to good-quality housing. The housing benefit cap rates may have a knock-on effect on the social housing sector, as private rented accommodation becomes harder to access for those on low incomes and the demand for social housing increases. A great many people are in a Catch-22 situation: they do not have enough money to rent a house privately, yet there is not enough social housing for them.

[Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)]

My hon. Friend makes an important point, but does he accept that in the absence of cap rates—or, sometimes, where the rates are fairly generous—private sector rents become inflated? Landlords simply look at what the rate is, and if it goes up they put their rents up. It is almost like a perpetual cycle: the rates go up, so rents go up, and then the rates are pushed up again, and the only people who gain are the landlords.

[Jim Shannon]

I thank my hon. Friend for his information, which is helpful in focusing attention on what we are trying to aim for.

Members have mentioned fuel poverty. One of the spin-offs of losing housing benefit will be fuel poverty. In my former position, I sat as a Member of the Northern Ireland Assembly. One of the inquiries that we undertook was on child poverty. Fuel poverty and housing benefit both came up in that inquiry into child poverty, but all those things were part of the jigsaw of how people survive. Take away one part of it and we have a problem. I have some concern about that.

One Member mentioned the discretionary housing payment, and I would certainly be keen to find out from the Minister what he intends to do if the pool of funding that is set aside runs out. He said that it was impossible to separate housing benefit from housing and social development policy in general, and there are some examples of that in Northern Ireland where housing has been designed to bring mixed communities together, such as in Loughbrickland in County Down and Ballynafeigh in south Belfast, which are also examples of how we have moved forward. I would like to express some concern over the removal of housing benefit from people where it will drive them towards poorer areas. For some people who are already in poorer areas, they will not move beyond them, and I have concerns about that.

I am conscious of the time, but another concern of mine relates to applications by carers for disabled people—I do not think that the issue has been mentioned fully yet, although some Members may have partially touched on it. A carer for a disabled person might want to apply, but the only person who can do so is the claimant’s spouse or partner. Would it not be more beneficial to ensure that the rest of the family members, who are perhaps those who are more affected, may also apply? I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response to that. I also believe that some consideration needs to be given to single parents who have shared custody of children. I am not sure whether that issue has been addressed, so I would ask the Minister to look at that, too. Where custody is established, benefit entitlements should be granted to the parent to support the family unit. I do not believe that the proposals do that. Again, I ask the Minister to consider that point.

Other Members have touched on the issue of large families. It would not apply so much in the area that I represent, but I believe that it none the less applies right across the United Kingdom. Has particular consideration been given to ethnic families in other parts of the United Kingdom, where larger, multi-generational households are perhaps more common? I ask the Minister to consider that as well. There should be more innovative and positive incentives, which are far more preferable in making housing benefit entitlement reflect family size in the social rented sector from 2013. The Government position is bereft of detail, and I ask the Minister to consider my points.

Equitable Life (Payments) Bill

Debate between Jim Shannon and Sammy Wilson

Tuesday 14th September 2010 Commons Chamber

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, for allowing me to say some words in favour of the Bill, and I congratulate the hon. Member for Congleton (Fiona Bruce) on a very good maiden speech. The spirit of her predecessor certainly lives in her, and I wish her well in the Chamber.

A society is judged very much on how it treats its young and vulnerable, on how it looks after and cares for the elderly and on how the young are given opportunities. I hope, therefore, that no one is judging us in the Chamber by the standard we have set in the treatment of Equitable Life members, because if they are, they will be sorely disappointed. This debate has continued without redress, at least until now, and with no help from this place, at least until now, and EMAG estimates that about 32,000 policyholders have died since its campaign for compensation began—a stark figure already mentioned today—with members continuing to die at a rate of about 100 per week. Those are stark facts when we realise that these are people’s lives we are talking about.

By the time this scheme starts paying out next year, 13,000 more members will have passed away, bringing to 43,000 the total number of people who have struggled more than is fair or judicious because no solution could be reached or help given by the Government when it was needed. I am glad, therefore, that today’s legislative change is passing through the Chamber, and I look forward to further contributions when the programme goes forward.

I have some concerns, however, about the quantum. Everyone seems to be in favour of the process, but we have not been able to identify the percentage. I have been contacted by Equitable Life members, including a gentleman who is terminally ill—this sort of situation will be replicated across the whole United Kingdom—and is desperate to receive the money so that his wife will be able to live comfortably. Surely, this is the very thing that we should be trying to do; this is the whole purpose behind pension schemes and Governments encouraging people to invest in private pension schemes.

I stand here on behalf of that terminally ill gentleman and others like him. I could do nothing else, because my job as an MP is to fight on behalf of those who come to me. That is what we are here to do, and I urge that a reasonable solution be agreed today, so that people can receive their compensation in time for it to make a positive difference to their lives. I have constituents who were paid half of what they expected on the commencement of their pensions in 1992, when petrol was about 40p a litre. It is now three times that, and the pensions are worth half their value. That is an indication of where their pension schemes are and of how Equitable Life members are losing out. Lives have been severely affected, and it is our duty in this place to redress the balance as much as we can.

[Sammy Wilson]

Does my hon. Friend accept that it is the duty of the Government to take this matter forward, especially given that when in opposition and during the election the Conservative party pledged to implement the parliamentary ombudsman’s report and recommendations, which for most people meant not a small fraction of their relative loss but substantial payments?

[Jim Shannon]

My hon. Friend must have read my mind. The parliamentary ombudsman’s report describes the Equitable Life situation as a decade of regulatory failure, and her second recommendation is that the Government should set up and fund a compensation scheme with the aim of putting people who have suffered a relative loss back into the position they were in before maladministration occurred.

The issue facing us is the percentage of the value of the Equitable Life schemes. A report commissioned by the previous Government suggested that policyholders lost up to £4.8 billion in this debacle and proposed that they should receive a package of about £400 million. However, there is no guarantee of that figure, which has been bandied about by many. They are not new figures, and I am sure that some here could repeat them in their sleep, especially the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, who has been reminded of them several times in letters from constituents of mine, forwarded through my office, yet they bear repetition so that all here will be under no illusion about the situation.

I remind hon. Members that this is not merely a number-crunching game that we are playing; we are playing with the quality of people’s lives, and it is essential that the Bill be subject to any decision reached. In July, the Financial Secretary said in the House:

“Consistent with the ombudsman's recommendation, Sir John has advised that relative loss for an individual policyholder should be capped at the absolute loss they suffered.”—[Official Report, 22 July 2010; Vol. 514, c. 577.]

Yet I remind the Financial Secretary that when he was a shadow Treasury Minister he wanted to ensure compensation for injustice. I ask that this be done and that we compensate for the injustice that all those people have suffered over years of unnecessary struggle.

I agree wholeheartedly with Chris Wiscarson, chief executive of Equitable Life, when he said:

“Let’s not make Equitable policyholders victims three times over. First, at the hands of the regulators, as so clearly articulated by the parliamentary ombudsman”—

as colleague have indicated—

“second, at the hands of the Labour government who failed to bring closure over a decade; and now third, compensation that will be decimated if Sir John Chadwick's advice, meant for the Labour government and slated by the ombudsman, is used.”

I am aware of the financial position. We all know that we have to make hard decisions over the next few years about how the money will be spent. We are not running away from that. Indeed, I am fighting against reductions in grants that mean that Northern Ireland Housing Executive constituents are living with damp in their homes; that worthy disability living allowance recipients are being stripped of their support; and that roads are ruining cars because there is no money to fix them. I see all of that, and everybody else sees it, but I accept that we must take into account the fact that the money is unavailable. However, to compensate Equitable Life members with 10% of their investments is scandalous and can never be acceptable.

Today, it is my desire, and that of many in the House, that reasonableness be made the basis of any decision.