UK-China Economic and Financial Dialogue

Jim Allister Excerpts

Tuesday 14th January 2025 Commons Chamber

[Rachel Reeves]

I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend, and I raised such issues with my counterparts in China at the weekend. It is really important that, whenever we engage with foreign Governments, we also raise issues consistent with our values, including Chinese companies supplying the Russian Government with materials used in Russia’s illegal invasion of Ukraine.

[Jim Allister (North Antrim) (TUV)]

Did the Chancellor raise any concerns, or indeed does she have any concerns, about the Confucius Institute, the Chinese Government-backed operation we see across the United Kingdom? And what answer did she get with respect to Jimmy Lai?

[Rachel Reeves]

When our Prime Minister met President Xi Jinping in Rio last year, they agreed that one of the points of re-engagement is that we were able to make clear our concerns on a range of issues in a private way. I am not going to go into the details of that conversation, but I raised these issues with all the Chinese officials I met at the weekend. [Interruption.] The problem is that Conservative Members, for all their chuntering, did not raise these issues because they did not even engage.

Agricultural and Business Property Relief

Jim Allister Excerpts

Tuesday 14th January 2025 Westminster Hall

[Graham Stuart]

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. If the measure was about hitting huge investors, they are the ones least likely to be affected. The richest and most sophisticated will find it easiest to avoid the impact. Small farmers, such as the ones I visited on Friday, will be most seriously affected. It is a bit like the winter fuel payment cut. If the Government took that away from people who had an income of more than £25,000, it would be infinitely less controversial. The point is, it hits people on very low incomes and hurts them the most.

[Jim Allister (North Antrim) (TUV)]

Does the right hon. Gentleman also accept that the measure has an inequitable application across the United Kingdom? In some parts, land values are higher than others. In Northern Ireland they are the highest, therefore one will reach the £1 million threshold sooner with less acreage there than elsewhere. Where we have a concentration of family farms, that will have a crippling effect on future generations.

[Graham Stuart]

Once that farmland is lost, it is gone forever. It is certainly gone forever from the families who, generation after generation, have been prepared to invest their all—their time and their money—into an asset which they never seek to realise, but merely use for a very low return on capital employed, in order to feed the nation.

As somebody said to me, of all the groups that one might possibly target, of all the profit-maximising people it could be assumed might have the broad shoulders to pay more, why pick people who sit on a multimillion-pound asset, take a derisory income from it, and get up at four in the morning to feed us? Of all the groups to target, this is the most absurd. I hope the Minister, who has until 2026, can start to realise this.

Crown Estate Bill [Lords]

Jim Allister Excerpts

2nd reading
Tuesday 7th January 2025 Commons Chamber

[Jim Allister (North Antrim) (TUV)]

I can well understand the need to update the Crown Estate Act, particularly in regard to the financial reach of the Crown Estate and the assistance that it may require. It is perfectly clear in this debate that Members have rightly discerned that the real driving force behind this legislation is to twin the promotion of offshore wind energy with Great British Energy. That seems to be the primary motivation behind much of the Bill. If the Government create circumstances where the Crown Estate is required and facilitated to increase its own financial success and they twin it with the promotion of GB Energy, they inevitably incentivise the development of offshore wind, which has its part to play, but it is not the answer to all our needs.

In Northern Ireland I have seen proposals for offshore energy, particularly in the South Down area, that have provoked great and rightful opposition from the fishing industry, leading to substantial difficulties. Yet it is quite clear that where the Bill talks about sustainable development, it is not in respect of the historic use of our seas as fishing grounds but in respect of our seas as sites for offshore wind energy. As another hon. Member said, there is a tension between offshore wind farms and fishing. It seems from the Bill that the Government have made up their mind about which is the priority. We have heard in this debate that the definition of sustainable development specific to the Bill will be very much orientated to the climate change theology. It will therefore place the need for wind farms above the needs of the fishing industry, which will not serve the interests of our coastal communities well. There is a need to reinstate some balance in that regard.

There is an interesting contrast between clause 3, which focuses on sustainable development, with the obvious meaning I have referenced, and clause 5, which I know the Government have said they will be removing. In clause 5, which relates to salmon farming, one of the matters to be looked at is the environmental impact; however, when it comes to wind farms, there is no requirement to look at the environmental impact—only at sustainable development, which is couched in terms that favour offshore wind development.

I think of my own constituency of North Antrim, where there are already proposals to put huge offshore wind farms not far offshore, just beyond the territory that contains the wonderful Giant’s Causeway and Rathlin island—cheek by jowl, coastwise, with areas of outstanding natural beauty. I do not think that would enhance the coastline or the waters in and around North Antrim. There have been similar proposals off Portstewart in County Londonderry.

When I read the Bill, it seems to me that the incentivising—it is much more than a nudge—is towards pushing along offshore wind farms with little regard, and certainly no corresponding regard, to the environmental impacts that they could have on whole communities.

[Ms Polly Billington (East Thanet) (Lab)]

I am struck by the fact that many of the people living in the hon. and learned Gentleman’s constituency will be dealing with extremely high energy bills in poorly insulated houses, and will be desperate to see those energy bills go down and to see decent jobs come back to Northern Ireland, and for them and their communities to thrive. I also recognise the value and importance of heritage sites. My constituency in Thanet is surrounded on three sides by sea and has enormous opportunity for offshore wind, but we also want to retain the value and beauty of our surrounding environment. Can the hon. and learned Gentleman not see that these things are reconcilable? This is not a theology, but a science and an economic requirement of this country so that it can serve his constituents, as well as mine.

[Jim Allister]

The point I am making is that the tension in the Bill between the environmental impacts and sustainable development—the codeword for offshore wind—is out of kilter. It is very much weighted in favour of offshore wind, with little or no regard, it would seem, given to the environmental impacts. I am simply saying to the House that we need to have regard to both. I do not think we serve future generations well if we surrender the beauty and serenity of the coastline that we enjoy, to be blotted for years to come by huge offshore wind farms.

Offshore wind farms have their place, but that is not in every place—that, I think, is the key point. Take the Giant’s Causeway, which is a UNESCO world heritage site. Are we saying there should be giant wind farms shortly beyond it? What would that do for the UNESCO setting of the Giant’s Causeway, or for other sites around the United Kingdom? I am therefore advocating caution. I am advocating that we remember that it is about not just offshore wind farms, but preserving and protecting our environment and getting the balance right, and I am not sure that the Bill does that.

National Insurance Contributions (Secondary Class 1 Contributions) Bill

Jim Allister Excerpts

Committee of the whole House & 3rd reading
Tuesday 17th December 2024 Commons Chamber

[Jim Dickson]

Thank you for your advice, Madam Chair.

In closing, in raising national insurance, the Labour Government are taking the tough choices to fix our public finances. As I said at Second Reading, the Bill is a crucial part of our plan to fix the foundations of this country. It provides a major part of the funding needed to fix our public services after 14 years of decline under the previous Government.

[Jim Allister (North Antrim) (TUV)]

When we talk about national insurance, it is easy to forget that it is only part of the tax burden placed upon employers. However, within the matrix of tax, the reach of national insurance that has been delivered by the change is truly shocking, particularly because of the reduction of the threshold to £5,000. I suspect that will mean that there is not a single person who does a part-time job whose employer will not now be paying 15% national insurance. Before we even come to the viability of the business they work for, that makes the viability of that job questionable.

To reduce the threshold by that amount is the most punitive part of the measure. It is not even tempered, as it could have been, by a phased reduction, so rather than paying 15%, someone could pay a lower amount, such as 5%, if the threshold was reduced to £5,000. The measure is excessively punitive and will hit many small businesses in everyone’s constituency, including mine.

I think of small businesses throughout North Antrim. They employ six, seven, eight or 10 people, and may stretch to take on an extra worker, but they will not be stretching like that any more. They will be stretching the other way, because the consequence of the measure is putting them over the edge in terms of what is affordable. I am talking not just about small businesses but about a vast swathe of a critical sector that keeps our society in operation. Our community and voluntary sector will be among those most cruelly affected and particularly those who are often doing the job of Government, delivering services in our community. They will bear it unabated, without any assistance such as the assistance that the public sector will have.

I was interested to receive and to read the report from the Northern Ireland Council for Voluntary Action, which is clear that whereas public sector organisations will have their budgets on this aspect reimbursed, voluntary and community sector organisations will not have the same protection. They will have to absorb the budget increase. Yet, as I have said, many of those in the voluntary and community sector deliver services on behalf of Government. The public sector therefore gets matters ameliorated, but those that deliver services for Government in the voluntary and community sector will not. That will have an effect not just on those organisations, but on the services they deliver and, therefore, on all our constituents to whom those services are delivered. When we ally 15% on national insurance with the increase in the living wage, we have a double whammy. The two together are the very thing that will produce a negative outcome.

The hospitality sector in my constituency, as a sector that already runs on relatively small margins and employs a lot of part-time people who will now fall within the ambit of employers’ national insurance, has drawn attention to the fact that the increase, along with the living wage increase, will impose a huge burden. Indeed, the sector’s organisation has suggested that the living wage and national insurance increases will add £2,500 a year for every employee. What business, in current circumstances, can simply shrug that off and carry on unaffected? There will be very few, indeed.

The consequences will be substantial and will affect many small businesses, be it the butcher on our high street, our community services provided by voluntary organisations, our doctors or our dentists. The latter are already under huge pressure and many are giving up national health service provision. Why? It is because they cannot make ends meet. Then, Government come along and put this burden upon them.

I therefore say to the Government that, yes, they have the numbers that mean they can close their ears to all of this. They can impose this if that is their will, but in imposing it they will do irreparable damage to those who they say they care about. This is a wake-up moment. If the Government truly care about ordinary people, whose jobs will be lost and who will be affected by this measure, and about ordinary businesses, which are not rolling in riches but making ends meet, they need to find a way to readdress this issue and to bring back some viability, going forward, for those businesses.

[John Grady (Glasgow East) (Lab)]

Like many on the Government Benches, I have spent many years of my career in business—in my case, as a lawyer. I have worked with some of the largest companies investing in the United Kingdom and some of the smallest companies in the country, such as charities, third sector organisations and others. What they value most of all is economic stability. What they do not value is huge increases in interest rates overnight and rampant inflation.

I understand how important it is to investors to ensure that the public finances are managed in a prudent way, which embraces and faces up to the realities. That is the foundation of the Budget and of our approach to the difficult decisions the Chancellor of the Exchequer has taken on national insurance contributions. A number of the parties on the Opposition Benches, and the Conservatives in particular, criticise, but they broke Britain’s economy and we are left to clean up their mess. There is nothing clever or great about promising that hospital after hospital will be built and not having the funds to cover that. That is the politics of the Santa Claus letter.

The Budget of my right hon. Friend, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, delivers on our commitments to the electorate. It puts an end to non-dom tax status and gets rid of a VAT exemption on private school fees to fund state schools, such as those in Glasgow. The national insurance contributions are an important part of that financial package. The Budget delivers a fairer, more sustainable tax system. Under the previous Government, the tax burden was placed mainly on the shoulders of working people. We heard from the hon. Member for Angus and Perthshire Glens (Dave Doogan), who represents a beautiful constituency, that that is precisely what SNP members are fans of—increasing income tax and national insurance on working people. We have seen that in Scotland time and again. The tax burden that working people face is absolutely enormous. If a person works in Newcastle and wants to move to Edinburgh, they will have to pay more tax to work in the NHS in Edinburgh. If that is supporting Scotland, who knows? We are delivering on our promise not to raise taxes on working people.

Oral Answers to Questions

Jim Allister Excerpts

Tuesday 3rd December 2024 Commons Chamber

[Rachel Reeves]

Just today, the Government launched the disability finance code for entrepreneurship—something championed by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Business and Trade—to ensure that people from all types of backgrounds, including those with disabilities, can start and grow their own businesses.

[Jim Allister (North Antrim) (TUV)]

When the Windsor framework was introduced, it was accompanied by the boast that access to the EU single market would result in a huge increase in investment in Northern Ireland. Is the Chancellor aware that Invest NI has reported that there has been no upturn, and is that not because of the barrier presented by the Irish sea border to the bringing of raw materials into Northern Ireland from Great Britain?

[Darren Jones]

The Government are committed to increasing the flow of investment to every nation and region of the United Kingdom, and we will continue to work with the Northern Ireland Executive to deliver that for the people of Northern Ireland.

Oral Answers to Questions

Jim Allister Excerpts

Tuesday 29th October 2024 Commons Chamber

[Tulip Siddiq]

As the hon. Member will know, the Chancellor listens carefully to everything that is said in the Chamber, and I am sure that she has noted what he has said.

[Jim Allister (North Antrim) (TUV)]

We in Northern Ireland were told that, as a result of having dual access to the EU market and the United Kingdom market, we would see an increase in inward investment and economic productivity. Recently, Invest NI has had to admit that there has been no uptick in investment, because access to the EU market is counteracted by barriers from the GB market—that is clear. Do the Government now recognise that that was a mis-sold proposition?

[Tulip Siddiq]

I think we were mis-sold a lot of things by the previous Government, if that is what the hon. Member is talking about. I remind him that we had the investment summit recently, where we secured £63 billion of private investment, creating more than 38,000 jobs. That is more than double what the previous Government secured in 2023.

Fiscal Rules

Jim Allister Excerpts

Monday 28th October 2024 Commons Chamber

[Darren Jones]

My hon. Friend is right. We have a choice at this Budget either to continue with the failed policies of the previous Government or to change them. The British people will not be surprised that our decision is to change them, reflecting on the fact that the cut in investment under the previous Government has led to poor productivity in public services and a lack of growth in the economy. That serves nobody.

[Jim Allister (North Antrim) (TUV)]

This statement speaks of giving the private sector the confidence to invest. Can the Minister explain to the small businesses in my constituency how it will give them confidence if the first act of this Government is to soak them with further national insurance increases? Will that not dent confidence, rather than increase it, along with sustained high interest rates? When he speaks about multi-year spending reviews, does that mean that he now expects the devolved Governments to produce multi-year budgets, which is something that the Stormont Government have been reluctant to do?

[Darren Jones]

I obviously cannot speculate on the Budget, so I invite the hon. Gentleman to come back to the House on Wednesday for the answer to the first part of his question. On the second part, he might know that I lead for the Government on our relationship with the devolved Governments. I have met Finance Ministers from Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, most recently in Belfast, where we had a productive meeting. They were all very clear that the reset in the relationship between them and the Westminster Government was positive, given the failed relationships of the past. We made some progress in that meeting, and we will make further such progress in the Budget.