Climate Change: Extreme Weather Events

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Tuesday 13th November 2018 Westminster Hall

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

It is a pleasure to speak in this debate and also a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Zac Goldsmith), who has a deep knowledge of this matter. He is someone we all listen to every time he speaks, because he speaks with authority and knowledge, and I thank him for that.

I am pleased that the hon. Member for Bristol North West (Darren Jones) has brought this issue to the House. Last night, during a different debate, I said that the probable reason we are here in Parliament is that we might have different opinions—perhaps on farming, for example—but on this issue we are all in the same boat, if I can use that terminology, and, as always, we look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say and, in particular, to her response to our questions today.

In the last few years, we have experienced a great deal of adverse winter weather, often resulting in schools having to close their doors. In fact, there is concern in some schools about the number of days that children have to take off because of adverse weather. We can all think back to our parents telling us how they walked 5 miles to school, come hail, rain or shine, but it only takes seeing a sliding school bus once to realise suddenly that there is a safety issue and that safety must come first. I know also of churches that get funding to run programmes having to continue those programmes into the summer months to meet their allocation a certain number of weeks.

The weather is certainly affecting us. In Northern Ireland—and probably here on the mainland—the first thing someone says to a person they meet in the street is, “It’s a cold one today”, or “It’s very warm.” In any conversation, that seems to be the natural introduction before we get down to the nitty-gritty of what we are really talking about. The weather is a topic of conversation every day, and it has been more so in the last year because of the clear changes we have seen. We have to look at how best to create a better environment.

I will speak on a number of issues not raised by the previous speakers. The diesel scrappage scheme, which encouraged people to get rid of gas guzzlers, was a tremendous way of lowering carbon emissions. It was greatly encouraged by my council, Ards and North Down Borough Council. We are pleased that the Government supported and encouraged the initiative. Looking at some of my council’s initiatives, its new recycling and food waste disposal endeavours have taken the equivalent of 10,000 cars off the road. Councils have led the way.

When, wearing a previous hat, I was on the council—the Ards council as it was then; it is now a joint one—the recycling initiative came in. We were perhaps not all that sure of what it was, but we knew we had to do something. We set targets, because setting targets means that everyone tries to achieve them. The councils have achieved those targets, with the co-operation of local people. Something that came up in the Westminster Hall debate yesterday on the e-petition about plastics was the education of children at a very early stage—in primary and secondary schools—to get into their minds the importance of recycling, and that is one way in which the councils have achieved the targets. Very often, it is young children who come home and say to their mum and dad, “We should be putting that in the blue bin.” There is a bit of an education programme for parents, but it also comes through the children, which is great to see.

We must do that kind of thing to help our environment, and I congratulate those who have worked so hard with these initiatives. I believe in being a good steward, and to me that means doing the best we can environmentally. Burning less coal is good for our health as well as for the environment; we need companies to step up when it comes to reducing coal use. In 2012, coal supplied two fifths of electricity; this year so far it has provided less than 6%—a massive change.

In his introduction, the hon. Member for Bristol North West referred to something about which we must express concern: the President of the United States unfortunately seems not to be focused as much as other countries are on environmental issues. We would like to have that commitment by him and the USA. Other countries also have a responsibility. We are not pointing the finger and accusing other countries, but there is a strategy, of which they have to be a part. We look at China, the States, India and Brazil, to which the hon. Member for Richmond Park referred. In the press just last week there was a picture of Brazil from the sky showing how much of the rainforest has disappeared—an enormous amount. That cannot go on. Our incredibly fragile ecosystem, which benefits everyone, needs the rainforest to be there as the lungs of the world, yet we see large tracts of forest being decimated and put to other uses. All countries across the world have a role to play.

Other energy sources have provided well, and if we use more renewable sources we can become more self-reliant and less reliant on other nations in a changing world and economy, which can only be a good thing. I look, again, to Government initiatives. The hon. Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Alan Brown) is here on the Front Bench; his party, the Scottish National party, has shown a strong lead on wind turbines and has encouraged that through its own Parliament. The Government have done that as well, and we have seen some benefits in my constituency: the wind turbines there—they are probably smaller versions—have been incredibly important in getting the right mindset and providing renewable energy. We have also had a dam project. It is a smaller project, but it is enabled by Government money, and it feeds into the grid. We also have solar energy, which is another big benefit in my constituency. It is hard to envisage this, Ms Dorries, but focus on 10 acres of solar panels, with sheep grazing on the land between them—it is possible to have both things together. Farmers have diversified. We have a really good scheme just outside Carrowdore in my constituency, and a couple more up the country in Mid-Ulster and the northern part of Northern Ireland.

The Government could perhaps do more with tidal lagoons projects. In my constituency, through Queen’s University and others, and some private partnership moneys, we are looking at how we can better harness the tidal movements at the narrows between Portaferry and Strangford. The power of that water is incredible, and it could provide green energy. As technology increases, we will probably be in a position to provide such energy at a lower cost. Wind turbine energy was very costly at the beginning, but the cost has dropped now and it is economical.

There was a Government initiative announced in the Budget around electric cars; that was talked about yesterday in the Chamber, in debate on the Finance Bill. Electric cars will work only if the prices are right, the cars run well and there are enough charging points, but at the moment, there is a dearth of these. It is no good if we do not regularly have charging points across high streets, villages and rural constituencies. Only then can people depend on electric cars. I was listening to a story on the radio last week about people who have dual-purpose cars—those that run on both electricity and fuel—resorting back to the fuel because charging points are not always available. That is a real issue for the Government and, to be fair, I think that they, and others, recognise that it is something that we need to look at.

I would like quickly to refer to coastal erosion, because my constituency is subject to it. We have the very active Ards peninsula coastal erosion group, and I am very conscious of the good work that it does. The Government need to set some moneys aside—regionally, not from here centrally. There is erosion in 96 locations in the Ards peninsula. We used to refer to there being a one-in-100-years storm, but there is now one every three years.

It has taken time, but in my home county we have now bought into making changes to be more environmentally friendly, such as enforced recycling and no more free plastic bags, which has been a real success in Northern Ireland. Although the changes were difficult to begin with, we have come out better on the other side—more environmentally aware and proud of what we have achieved. That should be the goal of any environmental agenda—ensuring that people are brought in, buy in, and feel a part of changes that are good for us all in the long run.

Parental Leave for Parents of Premature Babies

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Tuesday 13th November 2018 Westminster Hall

[Mr Steve Reed (Croydon North) (Lab/Co-op)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered parental leave for parents of premature babies.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Pritchard. Having a premature baby is one of the most traumatic experiences that any parent can go through. Instead of the healthy baby that they longed for, traumatised parents watch their tiny baby struggling for its life inside an incubator surrounded by tubes, wires and bleeping monitors. That is terrifying and it can go on for weeks or months, until the baby is well enough to go home.

By the time that they take their baby home, many parents find they have already used up an awful lot of their maternity and paternity leave, so their child suffers twice: first, from the serious health conditions and trauma of premature birth and, secondly, because mum and dad have to go back to work much earlier in the baby’s development than the parents of a baby born at full term. Losing this vital time for bonding and nurturing can hold the child back throughout its life. I met a young mum whose baby spent three months in intensive care, and all that time was taken out of her statutory maternity leave.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

This is a topical subject. In the last week in Northern Ireland, six small babies have been born prematurely to parents who were not expecting to see them this soon. Those parents then have to change their plans for coming home. Common sense dictates the normal things that happen when a baby comes home, but does the hon. Gentleman agree that those parents should have the additional time to deal with their child’s acute needs, which arise from being premature, and that they should be given additional leave for that purpose? At that critical moment, they need that extra time.

[Mr Reed]

The hon. Gentleman makes the point extremely powerfully and I hope he has persuaded the Minister that action is needed to support these families. It is not just the baby who suffers; so do the parents. Two mums in five of premature babies suffer mental ill health because of the stress of watching their tiny baby fight just to survive. The expense of daily journeys to hospital, overnight stays in nearby accommodation and eating in cafés pushes many parents into debt.

I first raised this issue in Parliament in October 2016 on behalf of a group of fantastic campaign organisations, including Bliss and The Smallest Things, which is based in my constituency. We were delighted when the then Minister agreed to pilot a voluntary scheme for employers, drafted by the Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service, encouraging them to offer parents of premature babies the flexibility and time they need to look after their little baby. The pilot started in November 2017 and was intended to run for a year, ending in October this year. We are now well into November, but there is still no word from the Minister on her view of how well the pilot went, or whether she agrees that legislation is needed.

Instead of action, the letter that the Minister kindly wrote to me proposes—regrettably—a further delay until next summer. The charities recently met with officials from the Department, but the officials said they had not yet worked out how to assess what impact the voluntary guidance has had. I would be grateful if the Minister explained the point of running a pilot if we do not know from the start how to assess it.

The truth is that we do not need any more pilots. The best employers are providing the flexibility that parents need, but too many others are not. Voluntary guidance will never coax employers who do not understand—or who do not want to understand—into doing what is right. These parents need the full force of the law behind them to ensure that their babies get the love and care they need.

Nuclear Power: Toshiba

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Monday 12th November 2018 Commons Chamber

[Greg Clark]

This is the point the trade unions have made. The failure of the Labour party even to support the policy described at the Opposition Dispatch Box by the hon. Member for Salford and Eccles (Rebecca Long Bailey) concerns investors in new nuclear. In the past, we have been able to establish a common approach in this area so that investors can take a long-term approach with certainty. It would be helpful if we returned to that.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I thank the Secretary of State for his replies so far. Toshiba’s decision to withdraw from the nuclear plant leaves a clear gap in the energy market. It has been stated today that there will be a 7% deficit in energy provision as a result; how will that deficit be filled and by whom?

Public Holidays on Religious Occasions

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Monday 29th October 2018 Westminster Hall

[Martyn Day (Linlithgow and East Falkirk) (SNP)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered e-petitions 220501 and 221860 relating to holding public holidays on religious occasions.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Main. I am pleased to open the debate about this interesting subject on behalf of the Petitions Committee. I thank the House for agreeing to the later start time to accommodate Members attending the Chamber for the Chancellor’s Budget statement, which I was able to hear myself.

I thank the Committee staff in the digital outreach team for their assistance with the consultation work that was conducted in advance of the debate. I am also grateful to the National Council of Hindu Temples UK, the Hindu Council UK, the National Secular Society and over 1,000 individual petitioners, most of whom are Muslim, who responded to the process. They provided me with valuable insights into the subject of public holidays and time off for religious occasions, as well as points and quotes that I will reference further.

Petition 220501 calls for public holidays on Muslim religious occasions and has more than 46,000 signatures. It states:

“This will give an opportunity for Muslim families to get together and share happiness with other religious communities. It is very important for Muslims to celebrate Eid.”

It adds that despite being the second largest UK religion,

“Muslims don’t get a lawful Public Holiday on their two special religious occasions in a year”.

Petition 221860 calls for public holidays on Hindu special occasions and has more than 11,000 signatures. It states:

“It is very important for Hindus to celebrate Diwali…Diwali—Festival of Lights is a major holiday that is also celebrated by Buddhists, Jains and Sikhs.”

It notes that Hinduism is the third largest religion in England but that Hindus do not get a “lawful Public Holiday” on religious occasions. The petition also asks for a public holiday on Dussehra.

Today is Budget day and the more numerate among us may have spotted that today’s petitions have fewer than 100,000 signatures, the threshold normally required for the Petitions Committee to schedule a debate. There are a number of factors for that, not least the absence of any petition over that threshold. When combined, these were among the next largest petitions, representing issues that primarily affect minority groups who may find it difficult to attract 100,000 signatures. The subject has not had a parliamentary debate since 2014 and is without doubt of interest to a significant number of people in the wider public.

It is fair to say that the petitions are essentially about the same issue: establishing public holidays for religious occasions. The Muslim and Hindu faiths are the second and third largest religions in the UK, the first being the Christian faith, which has public holidays during its major religious festivals at Easter and Christmas, as Members will be aware. It is equally fair to point out that the Government response to each petition is the same, stating:

“The Government has no plans to create a public holiday to commemorate religious festivals such as Eid”

and “such as Diwali.” The responses add that the costs are “considerable” and cite the example of the 2012 diamond jubilee holiday, which cost about £1.2 billion. The responses add:

“The Government regularly receives requests for additional bank and public holidays to celebrate a variety of occasions including religious festivals. However the current pattern is well established and accepted.”

I am sure that that will have disappointed the petitioners, but some comfort can be taken from the Government’s comment that:

“The Government is committed to bringing people together in strong, united communities. We encourage and support people to have shared aspirations, values and experiences.”

The responses note that festivals such as Eid, Diwali and Dussehra “contribute towards this objective”.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on introducing the debate. I spoke to him about the subject beforehand; I also discussed it with the Minister in the Tea Room earlier today. As a Christian, I value having public holidays to clearly mark the importance of religious holidays, but I understand that the Government are not disposed towards making that happen. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that, in the strongest terms, employers should work with their employees to accommodate their wishes to take time off to celebrate Eid? Working with employers is probably the best way forward.

[Martyn Day]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his comments; there is a lot of merit in what he suggests. I looked at various resources online in preparation for the debate, and ACAS gives very good advice to employers. I will address that point later in my speech, but we certainly need to highlight to the wider employing public the requirements to facilitate all religious faiths within the workforce.

I am sure that we all agree with the Government’s comments about trying to encourage greater engagement with communities. However, 87% of respondents to our consultation said that they felt that not allowing time off for religious occasions was discriminatory, while 84% felt that they could not ask for time off work or education for a religious occasion, so there are clearly underlying issues that need to be addressed.

I will start the debate with a range of questions. When are the festivals on which petitioners are requesting public holidays, and why are they important? Why do we have the public holidays that we have? How do we compare with other countries? How do we best achieve social cohesion across our multicultural societies? Last but not least, how do we satisfy the legitimate concerns of the petitioners? I will briefly take each question in turn.

First, when are the festivals on which petitioners are requesting public holidays, and why are they important? All four are moveable feasts; they are based on lunar calendars and are therefore not on fixed dates.

Eid al-Fitr is a Muslim festival that marks the end of the fasting month of Ramadan. It is celebrated on the first day of Shawwal, the 10th month of the Islamic calendar, but in the Gregorian calendar it shifts yearly, falling about 11 days earlier each year. This year, it was on Friday 15 June, while next year it will be on Tuesday 4 June.

Eid al-Adha, the other Muslim festival, is celebrated following the annual pilgrimage—the Hajj—and falls on the 10th day of Dhu al-Hijjah, the 12th month of the Islamic year. This year, it was on Tuesday 21 August; in 2019, it will be on Monday 12 August. The exact timing of each festival, however, is dependent on the sighting of the crescent moon following the new moon.

Diwali is the five-day festival of lights celebrated by Buddhists, Hindus, Sikhs and Jains for a variety of reasons. It usually falls between mid-October and mid-November; it will be on Wednesday 7 November this year and on Sunday 27 October next year. The date is determined by the Hindu lunar calendar.

Dussehra is the Hindu festival that celebrates the victory of good over evil. It occurs on the 10th day of the month of Ashvin in the Hindu calendar; it was on Thursday 18 October this year and will be on Monday 7 October next year. It falls 20 days before Diwali. My thoughts and prayers go out to those who were affected by the Amritsar train accident, which killed 61 and injured many others during this year’s festivities. Sadly, the reporting of this tragedy on TV and in the news was how I learned the details of Dussehra.

The celebration of these festivals is very important to worshippers of the faiths concerned. They represent the most important occasions in their religious calendars. At a time when religious persecution is growing around the world, it is important that we do everything we can to protect people’s freedom to practise their religion or belief.

We can be very proud of the diversity of our nations within the UK. We have a modern multi-faith and multicultural society in which people of all faiths and none can follow their belief systems. However, we can never take that diversity and tolerance for granted, particularly as we have seen increased antisemitism and significant Islamophobia. Just yesterday, The Sunday Times reported on a poll in which 47% of respondents believed that Britain was becoming less tolerant of Muslims.

The Petitions Committee’s public engagement also suggests that things are not as good as they could be. Some 88% of those we engaged with felt that their community had few opportunities to get together to celebrate religious occasions. A large number of general comments that we received focused on fairness, inclusion and the need for religious diversity to be recognised through public holidays, while others spoke about wellbeing and benefits to society and the economy.

The Government’s response to the petitions focuses on the likely costs of holding an additional public holiday. Those costs could be very significant indeed, but they do not reflect the full economic impact because they would be partially offset by increased activity across the leisure, tourism and retail sectors as a result of domestic consumers enjoying time off. Enhancing our global reputation by recognising these festivals also has an unknown potential to attract international tourism.

Many people felt it unfair that although they were forced to take time off at Christmas and Easter, they struggled to get time off to celebrate their own religious festivals. Some 72% of respondents who identified themselves as directly affected said they had been refused time off work or education for a religious occasion. Similarly, 72% felt that their employer was not sympathetic to the request and did not understand its importance. Some of the respondents described the process of asking for time off for a religious occasion as “risky” or

“risking job prospects and growth”.

Many people said they were made to feel guilty for asking for time off to celebrate religious occasions.

The Hindu Council UK points out that without guaranteed time off for religious occasions people are

“penalised financially and spiritually by taking off time and thus losing income and forced to work (or study) at a time when there is a major religious celebration of their faith.”

The National Council of Hindu Temples UK advises:

“What should be a carefree positive celebration becomes tainted and stress laden and the final outcome is diminished”.

Two comments from the consultation, emphasising the issue of inclusion, are illustrative. One contributor said:

“Our government needs to guarantee its citizens the right to celebrate their particular religious festivals in order to make all its religious groups inclusive in modern British society.”

Another said:

“I feel as a British citizen and a tax payer, I should have the right to have my religious day off without having to make me feel that I am not part of this country.”

We clearly have an issue: those are strong arguments that something needs to change.

Why do we have the public holidays that we have? That is an important point to reflect on, before we consider adding new ones or changing existing ones. The original bank holidays were established under the Bank Holidays Act 1871 as days when banks could close and all trade could cease. Across the UK there are now a variety of bank and public holidays. There are eight such days in England and Wales, nine in Scotland and 10 in Northern Ireland. The differences are that in Scotland we have 2 January as a holiday and not Easter Monday, and the first rather than the last Monday in August. We have St Andrew’s day in Scotland, and in Northern Ireland there are St Patrick’s day and the battle of the Boyne commemoration.

Most of those days are determined by statute under the Banking and Financial Dealings Act 1971; some, such as new year’s day in England or the first Monday in May in both Scotland and Northern Ireland, are determined by royal proclamation under the 1971 Act; and some, such as Good Friday and Christmas day in England and Northern Ireland, are common law public holidays. The battle of the Boyne anniversary, proclaimed by the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, has been a public holiday since 1926. The most recent addition, in 2007, was the St Andrew’s day holiday in Scotland. It is an official bank holiday, but it operates as a voluntary public holiday. Just to add to the complexity, bank holidays in Scotland are not necessarily public holidays, and public holidays can be set by local authorities.

Clearly, parts of the UK differ a bit as to the number of days, the specific days and how they have come about. It is also fair to point out that things have changed over time. Taking Scotland as an example, as I know it reasonably well, Christmas became a public holiday only in 1958, and Boxing day was added only in the early 1970s. Most of the current holidays are not on religious occasions, Easter and Christmas being the exceptions.

In comparing our holidays with those in other countries, I have not looked at the situation worldwide. However, compared with other European Union members we are at the bottom of the public holidays table. Countries with similar numbers of holidays to ours are Ireland with eight, Spain and Luxembourg with nine, and Hungary and Holland with 10. Every other EU nation has more, and Belgium and Latvia have as many as 17.

Of course, public holidays are only a part of the equation. Perhaps a better indicator is a person’s annual holiday entitlement, particularly as the Banking and Financial Dealings Act 1971 does not automatically entitle workers to time off on bank holidays. Instead, the right to time off comes from their contract of employment, which will cover holidays, public holidays and holiday pay. Full-time workers in the UK generally have the right to 28 days’ paid leave per year, with public holidays included in that, which means that most people have about 20 days’ leave that they can take at other times.

Some employers may well require staff to work on bank holidays, which means that designating additional national holidays still might not deliver the effect sought by the petitioners. Concern has also been raised by the National Secular Society, which commented:

“A likely result of increasing the number of public holidays by including Muslim, Hindu, or other religious festivals would therefore be a decrease in the number of discretionary holidays workers can take.

Compelling those who do not celebrate minority faith festivals to take time off work risks causing unnecessary resentment and would harm efforts to promote a concept of common citizenship.”

That concern was echoed by those who chose to comment on the House of Commons Facebook post about today’s petitions. On that forum, the majority of commentators did not think that new religious public holidays should be introduced. Some, such as Giselle, argued that no religious occasions should be public holidays, and Tom said:

“Religion is a private matter for individuals, not the business of the state or whole society.”

Others suggested that dates such as St George’s day should be holidays. There is clearly a demand for various national days across our nations.

How are we best to achieve social cohesion across our multicultural societies? Clearly we have a conundrum. How do we succeed in bringing people together, and supporting religious festivals as a way of achieving that, without causing any resentment and inadvertently hampering that objective? Although today’s petitions relate primarily to Muslims and Hindus, it is worth remembering that there are many other religions in the UK with smaller faith communities, and that their festivals are equally important to their individual worshippers.

The situation was summed up well by the National Secular Society:

“The UK’s religious landscape is in a state of continuous change. Our population is more irreligious, yet more religiously diverse, than ever before. A multi-faith approach to holidays can therefore never serve the individual needs of the many different people who make up the UK, or adequately keep abreast with the changes in the UK’s demographics. A more practical and equitable approach is to give workers greater flexibility, where their work allows, to take holidays on the specific days that matter to them.”

That is a pragmatic suggestion, which is perhaps let down only by the apparent lack of awareness in society as a whole, and among employers in particular, of the significance of religious occasions—something I mentioned earlier in my remarks.

That lack of awareness featured repeatedly in the comments by petitioners, who made the point powerfully. Many people said that employers wanted holidays to be booked well in advance, which was particularly difficult for Eid, because it is lunar and not on a specific calendar date. They said that employers often did not understand it. One person said:

“It’s very difficult to bring it up as many don’t recognise religious occasions and how paramount they are for the ones celebrating.”

Another commented:

“I’m made to feel like they’ve done me a favour by giving me the day off. Sometimes they say they cannot give me the day off because I took the day off for the last Eid. They don’t think Eid is important.”

Another said:

“The problem was mainly with my employer not understanding the importance of the occasion.”

Another said:

“There is a lot of scepticism on non-Christian holidays at my work place—be it Eid or Diwali.”

One commentator said:

“Religious Holidays is sometimes spoken about like it’s a dirty subject and employers and schools do not understand the significance of it.”

That last point about schools is important, especially if communities wish to celebrate together and if religious families want their children to participate fully in their festivals. It can be difficult for pupils and students to get time off for religious festivals, and this year Eid al-Fitr fell within the GCSE exam timetable in England. In Scotland, Scottish Qualifications Authority examinations occur earlier, so that problem is heading in my Muslim constituents’ direction in a few years’ time. I ask Members from a Christian background to imagine for a moment what their thoughts would be if they or their constituents were required to sit exams on Christmas day, because that is the closest comparison. Clearly it puts students from faith backgrounds at a disadvantage.

That brings me to my last point about how to satisfy the legitimate concerns of the petitioners. Obviously, they would be delighted if the Government were to have a change of heart, and the Minister were to look at establishing public holidays for the largest minority religions. However, I suspect that that will not happen; indeed, I have in my remarks explored a variety of reasons why it might not be the best option. We do, however, have a problem that needs to be addressed, and I will make a few suggestions.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jim Shannon]

The hon. Gentleman referred to education. Does he feel, as I do, that raising awareness of other religious sects’ holidays through school education might be a way of gently pushing into people’s minds the importance of other celebration days for religious groups, whoever they may be? People might then say, “Do you know something? That is the way it should be.”

[Martyn Day]

The hon. Gentleman’s suggestion is a good one, because if we educate people young enough, they learn the lessons for life and we do not have to keep re-educating people. There is some merit in that suggestion.

Most of the petitioners who responded to the survey, 52%, said that they would prefer a legal right guaranteeing time off work or education to celebrate religious occasions not currently recognised as public holidays, such as Eid and Diwali. A small number of people, 5%, wanted the ability to swap public holidays such as Easter for other religious occasions. I ask the Minister whether those suggestions could be considered as a possible way forward.

It is clear that at the very least we need greater understanding among employers about the significance of religious festivals for employees who are people of faith—I am referring to all faiths here. No one should feel discriminated against for practising their religion. We must all do more to improve awareness; I would like to hear the Minister advise how the Government can ensure that public bodies in particular take that on board. We also need action to ensure that all employers sympathetically consider requests for time off to celebrate festivals or attend ceremonies, whenever it is reasonable and practical for the employee to be away from work. That is something I believe many workplaces could manage, with some foresight and advance planning.

Surely it must also be possible to consider the likely dates of key festivals well in advance and avoid educational bodies’ setting exams on those potential dates. In the absence of formal holidays on those festival dates, there is a need to ensure that support is in place for pupils and students who miss routine coursework during any non-attendance. Believers should not be forced to choose between education and their faith. Again, I look forward to hearing the Minister address those points in the summing-up.

In conclusion, I hope that my summary of the issues raised in the petitions has done justice to the petitioners’ concerns, and helped to raise public awareness of the wider issues.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jim Shannon]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for putting forward a powerful argument and request for special days for different religious sects. The hon. Member for Linlithgow and East Falkirk (Martyn Day) referred, as did I in my intervention, to the greater capacity of employers to work with employees, but the hon. Gentleman has not referred to that yet. Does he feel that there is a halfway house towards that, with employers playing their part for employees who need those extra days off? Does he feel that that is the way forward?

[Bob Blackman]

There are clearly two issues. There are private employers and there are public sector bodies. We would clearly require people, as we do currently, to work in hospitals, the fire brigade and the police—I could continue naming other public services—on bank holidays or public holidays. However, I see no reason at all why appropriate arrangements should not be made to enable people of different faiths to work on different public holidays, flexing the workforce according to the requirements of a particular company or service. What is wrong with that?

I strongly support the principle of providing more public holidays—we have far too few in this country—and I strongly believe that we should base them around the major religions, to demonstrate that we celebrate all religions. We should consult with those communities, and particularly their leaderships, on when such public holidays should be held, whether they should be on the particular day of the week that the religious holiday falls on, and how they should be implemented, together with how firms and public services should operate. This idea would certainly meet with great enthusiasm among the general public and would give great certainty to employers, who would know what the position would be with their employees. We could predict these things in advance, so they could be planned in the calendar, rather than having people who celebrate particular faiths taking days off.

When I was a councillor in the London Borough of Brent, every religious holiday was programmed out of our calendars so that no meetings could take place on those days. Many days were declared as unacceptable for holding committee meetings or full council meetings or such like. If a London borough can do that, so can this country.

Home Insulation

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Wednesday 24th October 2018 Commons Chamber

[Sir Mark Hendrick (Preston) (Lab/Co-op)]

I rise to bring to the Government’s attention their approach to detrimental home insulation issues. I am pleased to have secured the debate to talk about the terrible conditions suffered by some of my constituents who live in the Fishwick area of Preston. The source of their complaints is work first carried out between January and June 2013.

The work was a Government scheme aimed at improving the thermal efficiency of homes by providing wall insulation. The aim, of course, was to lower heating bills in properties where many people were likely to be suffering from fuel poverty. The Fishwick area is one of the poorer areas of the city of Preston and the success of this scheme should have been very important to improve the lives of these people. The funding for this scheme was secured in September 2012 from InterGen, the managing agent for the scheme was Anesco, and the contractor for the scheme was called Ecogen. In total, 387 properties in Fishwick had work carried out as part of this scheme.

As I said earlier, the work was completed in June 2013, and in October that year, tragically, Ecogen was liquidated. By December 2013, the complaints started to flood in. By January 2014, the complaints were referred to the managing agent, Anesco. By March 2014, the complaints were referred to Ofgem.

Between March and December 2014, Ofgem undertook an investigation into the scheme. In December 2014, Ofgem decided to issue an enforcement order to have the work rectified. By April 2015, independent surveys were carried out by the energy partnership with a view to rectifying the work. By August 2015 a second set of independent surveys were carried out and, at the same time, the entire scheme was referred to what was then the Department of Energy and Climate Change. This was complemented by the Bonfield review, which was launched in 2015 by DECC in the wake of the failure of the green deal. The purpose of the review was to examine and make recommendations about how consumers can be protected and advised when installing energy efficiency and renewable energy measures in their homes.

By this time, of course, it was clear that the residents of the 387 homes in the Fishwick area had been living in substandard conditions for three years, with properties suffering from damp, fungus and mushroom development on the walls at various times throughout the year. They were living in extreme humidity because of the way in which the cladding attached to the building had contained water and allowed it to accumulate for long periods inside the building. Quite apart from the humidity and smell being extremely uncomfortable for the residents, it was also a health hazard that resulted in complaints of illness from various residents of the properties.

On 5 February 2016, I was made aware of these problems for the first time at a public meeting held at the Sahara community centre in Fishwick, following which I emailed the right hon. Member for Hastings and Rye (Amber Rudd), who was then the Secretary of State at DECC, to ask her to make funding available as a matter of urgency as well as an emergency fund to deal with water ingress. I then received a response from the noble Lord Bourne, who said in his letter of 17 March 2016 that in such cases complaints should be referred to a local citizens advice bureau or Ofgem. It is understandable that Ofgem should be involved, but how on earth can the citizens advice bureau help? It was clear from my letter to the Secretary of State and the attachment that the contractor, Ecogen, had been liquidated and it was therefore not just a simple case of going back to the contractor and getting them to put the work right. Special help was required to help put right the defective work.

As a result of my persistence, in early June 2016, I received an email from the National Energy Action fuel poverty charity that stated that a total pot of £2.5 million could be made available to Preston City Council to assist people trapped in the scheme if Preston City Council was prepared to take on the role of managing the remedial work. Unfortunately, the NEA had to contact me on the matter because it had yet to receive any response from the city council. I later found out that one of the council officers had sat on the letter from the NEA and not referred the matter to either the chief executive at the time, Lorraine Norris, or the councillors for the Fishwick ward. I believe that this was because the council officer concerned was reluctant to take on the role of managing the remedial work and therefore did not pass on the correspondence from the fuel poverty charity.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

The hon. Gentleman is raising a specific point about his constituency, but I want to refer briefly if I may to Northern Ireland, where the fuel poverty figures have dropped by some 22%. That is in no small part due to the Northern Ireland sustainable energy programme, or NISEP, which ring-fences some 80% of funding specifically to help vulnerable and low-income families install efficiency measures in their homes. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that working alongside housing associations in Northern Ireland and with NISEP would be something the Minister could consider and an excellent way of ensuring that vulnerable people could install efficiency measures in their own homes and get the help to which he is referring?

[Sir Mark Hendrick]

I concur with the hon. Gentleman. Whether it is with Northern Ireland authorities or with our own Government, there is no reason why there should not be good co-operation and good insulation schemes. That is what I would have expected with these 387 houses in my constituency.

In the meantime, I requested a meeting with the Secretary of State on the matter, as a matter of urgency. Except for a very brief encounter in the House of Commons Tea Room, when the Secretary of State said that she was looking into the matter as she passed me by, she seemed uninterested in the case and reluctant to discuss the matter. She did, however, refer me to an official, who then assured me that Preston City Council was working with the NEA fuel poverty charity. However, what the Department did not know was that this was the case only because of my direct intervention and contact with the chief executive of Preston City Council at the time, because, as I said earlier, the council officer had sat on the letter from the NEA.

By July 2016, the chief executive was indicating that she needed extra funding in order to carry out surveys to get a “detailed picture of issues”, so clearly the £2.5 million was not enough to deal with the problems, and in fact was only to be targeted at those homes which had complained about the work—62 of the 387 homes. That did not take account of the fact that many of the other homes had problems, but because the residents thought that people in other properties were complaining on their behalf as well, they did not come forward and make their direct complaints. Therefore, the fact that work was to be carried out on the 62 properties only, neglected all the work that needed to be carried out on the other affected properties, whose residents, for a variety of reasons, had not come forward and made their own complaints. That was, in my view, totally unjust and short-sighted.

On 24 November 2016, I emailed the Secretary of State at the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills—the right hon. Member for Tunbridge Wells (Greg Clark)—to ask what assurances and safeguards were in place to ensure that the properties would be safe, dry and warm, and that any installations would be done in a professional manner. In December 2016, BIS responded, asking for more detail. In January 2017, my office contacted BIS to ask what detail it required. My office staff were told that the policy team would get in touch. We waited and waited, and the policy team did not get in touch. However, work was already under way on the 62 properties, which were designated as phase 1. Those properties that were left were designated as phase 2 and the residents were told that they would be surveyed. However, there was no indication from any organisation as to how or if funding would be made available for phase 2.

In the meantime, I received an email from Councillor Martyn Rawlinson of Preston City Council, telling me that the management of the repairs on the 62 houses was as bad as the original work that was carried out. Some of the houses had been left half done for several months. E.ON originally said that all repairs necessary would be done, but E.ON was then saying that homeowners should get their own insurers to get the work completed, which was outrageous—an absolute disgrace—and by then the residents had been putting up with this nonsense for four years, with many of them having work done twice to their property, and still not to their satisfaction.

By 29 November 2017, I was ready to let E.ON know about my concerns over the progression of the remedial works, and asked it for a timescale setting out when all the works would be carried out and completed, and for a point of contact to be established for the residents. My office chased E.ON for a response for over a month, and a month later—January 2018—we finally received correspondence. E.ON confirmed that it was trying to divert attention from its responsibilities in the matter towards Preston City Council, which had no direct responsibility, and still has no direct responsibility, for the work to be carried out. It is E.ON that surveyed the houses in August 2017 for phase 2 of the repairs. I am told that those so-called “surveys” were in fact not proper surveys, but door-knocking exercises to ask people whether they were having problems, or had had problems previously; nothing at all was done of a technical nature, and certainly nothing that could generate a work order to remedy what problems they were having. In addition there is not, and has not been, any indication from the Government or E.ON of how the rest of the work for the 300-plus houses will be financed. We are seeing good will, but nothing in the way of resources to complete the work.

On 11 February I received an email from Councillor Martyn Rawlinson, with photographs of some horrific scenes within houses due to the damp issues. It is inconceivable that people should be left to live in such conditions, with no one apparently willing to rectify the problems as soon as possible.

On 8 March this year, I wrote to the Under-Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government, the hon. Member for South Derbyshire (Mrs Wheeler), describing my disappointment with the then Secretary of State and the Department, and appealing for help. On 27 March I received a response from the Under-Secretary telling me that the responsibility had moved from her Department to the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy.

I tabled a series of parliamentary questions to BEIS about the use of cladding on properties. That culminated in a letter from BEIS indicating that remedial work on 62 of the properties should be completed shortly, and that E-ON was in discussions with National Energy Action to help other households. In the meantime I received a variety of complaints from the residents, one claiming to have spent £1,500 after a ceiling caved in after wet weather. In a separate case, an elderly homeowner had to leave her property and move in with her son because the damp was affecting her health.

Since then, the Minister for Energy and Clean Growth has responded to my parliamentary question, PQ177184, indicating that the retrofit on 62 of the properties was completed in the summer of this year and that work has been carried out to estimate the extent of the work that is necessary to sort out the work required to the other properties. As I said earlier, that resulted in questions being asked on the doorstep. In addition, talks have been taking place between Ofgem, BEIS and the energy suppliers in an attempt to secure funding for the remaining houses.

This saga has been running for six years, from 2012 to where we are now, in October 2018. It has been an absolute tragedy for those living in those 387 houses, who have been trying to put up with substandard housing and great inconvenience. The result has been unsafe properties with associated health risks. In the meantime, I am reliably informed that in many cases the cladding has been removed, but properties have been left with holes in the walls. The landlord has said that they will be finishing off the work, but will only repair the holes and paint the brickwork. They are not prepared to install any new insulation. One of the complainants wonders where the money has gone for the work that should have been done to her property. The landlord has told her that she should speak to E.ON or Preston City Council.

Let me tell the Minister that I recall spending three years in the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs as Parliamentary Private Secretary to the then Environment Secretary, the right hon. Member for Derby South (Margaret Beckett). During that time, when my party was in government, we dealt with fuel poverty issues through the Warm Front scheme, which was applied to about 10,000 homes in my constituency, particularly in the area of Deepdale. The scheme focused on energy efficiency by installing new central heating boilers and providing loft insulation and double glazing for terraced housing that was not too different from the housing that we see in Fishwick ward. It was extremely effective, and popular with residents.

May I ask the Minister why the more recent schemes that are using cladding of the type mentioned in Fishwick are being employed when the detriment to both property and residents is known? Why has it taken six years to get to where we are now for the residents of Fishwick? Are the Government willing to help to direct the residents to a satisfactory and available source of finance to rescue what is, in fact, a Government scheme?

HELMS and the Green Deal

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Tuesday 23rd October 2018 Westminster Hall

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

It is a pleasure to speak in this debate, Mr Robertson. I congratulate the hon. Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire North (Gavin Newlands) on securing the debate and on making the case so succinctly on behalf of his constituents. I am sure that colleagues are well aware that the green deal was not extended to Northern Ireland, but tackling fuel poverty and making homes more energy efficient remains a priority for us. I will speak about a number of similar schemes and options available in Northern Ireland. I support the hon. Gentleman and I am sure that other hon. Members will back him up.

I support redress for all the hon. Gentleman’s constituents and others who have been financially disadvantaged to a considerable extent. When reading up on the topic, I was truly shocked to read about the questionable business practices that many HELMS employees seemed to adopt; we have heard about some already and we will hear more. It is no wonder that so many Members are here today talking about the negative impact on their constituents. Many were left out of pocket and some have struggled to sell their homes, which the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire (Dr Whitford) mentioned.

[David Simpson (Upper Bann) (DUP)]

Over the past few years, there has been an increase in fraud, especially in relation to solar panels. In 2017, directors of a company were jailed, and recently a six-member gang committed a £17 million fraud in a solar panel scam. The full rigour of the law must be brought to bear on the company directors responsible.

[Jim Shannon]

The Minister is listening intently to what is being said and I look forward to her response. I know this matter is not ultimately her responsibility and she is filling in; nevertheless, I hope she is able to respond to my hon. Friend’s intervention.

When the company went into liquidation, many customers found themselves at a total loss, unable to take up their case with either the ombudsman or the company. The fact that the green deal was backed by Government undoubtedly gave the scheme credibility. The hon. Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire North said that one of his constituents phoned to check the scheme and found that it was Government-backed, so thought that it must be all right, but it was not. Coupled with the idea of saving money and being green, that resulted in many customers signing agreements that they did not necessarily understand, on the premise that their bills would not increase. It was disappointing for many that that did not turn out to be the case.

Members have given evidence that these operators of the scheme took advantage of their constituents. That said, Members must ensure that we do not undermine public trust in these types of scheme, given the potential benefits they can deliver. For example, in Northern Ireland, we have worked hard to tackle fuel poverty, and earlier this year, fuel poverty figures for the Province fell to 22%—a welcome drop from 42%. That indicates what we are doing back home, even with a stuttering Assembly.

[Dr Whitford]

I understand that the Government hope to do a future green deal project. Will that not be completely undermined if this issue is not resolved?

[Jim Shannon]

The hon. Lady is absolutely right. The Government have a great responsibility to address the issue for the sake of the credibility of any future schemes and so that participants in them will not worry about the future.

It is important to recognise that price fluctuations in home heating oil played a role in the fuel poverty figures I just gave. The reduction is welcome news, but we should not rest on our laurels: 22% of people considered fuel poor is still 22% too many.

A scheme that has proved to be extremely successful is the Northern Ireland sustainable energy programme. It has a particular focus on tackling fuel poverty, with 80% of funding ring-fenced for vulnerable and low-income families. The NISEP provides help to install energy-saving measures in homes, including energy-efficient boilers, heating controls, loft insulation and cavity wall insulation. With funding coming from a levy paid by all electricity customers, the scheme is delivered by energy companies and managed by the Utility Regulator. We have a system in place that has managed the programme well and delivered.

In 2017-18, five energy companies provided schemes, each of which had different eligibility criteria and incentives and/or grants to help people to make their homes more energy efficient and perhaps reduce their overall energy bills. As I mentioned, the focus is on those at risk of fuel poverty—for example, many of the schemes work directly with housing associations, which identify eligible tenants. The sheer variety of schemes means that people can make informed decisions about which scheme would best suit them and address their specific needs.

The NISEP provides some £7.9 million towards energy efficiency interventions, which include insulation and heating upgrades. It has proved so successful that it has been extended again until March 2019. The programme is working. The hon. Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire North referred to a different scheme. I only wish that scheme were the same as then we would not have needed this debate. We have accountability whereas, as he said and as we want to illustrate, there is no accountability in that scheme.

[Angela Crawley]

The hon. Gentleman is speaking to specific issues of fuel poverty in Northern Ireland. To come back to the mis-selling of the green deal, does he agree that people were conned into buying mis-sold products on the basis that there were UK Government logos on the paperwork, and UK Government approval gave them the confidence to go ahead, so the Government should compensate those individuals? That is what we are seeking from the debate.

[Jim Shannon]

The hon. Lady is absolutely right. With great respect to the Minister and the Government, I expect the Government to respond positively to the request being made on behalf of the constituents who have been disadvantaged and mis-sold products and who, as a consequence, are poorer today than they thought they would be. I cannot understand how someone who was paying an electricity bill of £80 a month can suddenly be paying £170 or £240 a month, as the hon. Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire North described. How can that be cheaper? How can it be legal? How can that be allowed to happen? That must be taken on board.

Across the United Kingdom, we all recognise the importance of becoming greener and the need to have a diverse and sustainable energy mix, which is why it is important to look at new technologies as well as to harness those that are already tried and tested. The Northern Ireland renewables obligation, like its equivalent in Great Britain, requires suppliers to source an increasing proportion of the electricity they supply from renewable sources. Colleagues might be surprised that, despite the often wet and windy climate in Strangford—in fact, my constituency has among the lowest rainfall in Northern Ireland; we sometimes wonder if that is true, but the statistics prove it—one of the most popular sources of renewable energy that people are turning to is solar. This might be controversial given the topic of the debate, but it really does work when done well.

There is a number of large farms in Strangford, and many of them have installed solar panels—in fact, one farm in my constituency has 10 acres of solar panels. That is an example of what can happen when green energy is done right, and that is what we want. With renewables obligation certificates guaranteeing payment for every unit of electricity generated, it is not surprising that so many are investing in solar panels. Not only can people save money on electricity bills, but they help to make Northern Ireland, and the whole United Kingdom, a greener place for the next generation, reducing our reliance on fossil fuels.

What has happened with HELMS has probably put a lot of constituents off installing solar panels and, more broadly, installing renewable energy measures, but as we try to tackle climate change and battle to keep the lights on, it is important that we look closely at green energy measures, from electric cars and smart homes to making simple energy-efficiency changes to our homes. Not everyone will benefit from solar panels—people who do not generate enough electricity are unlikely to reap benefits and will end up paying more. As has been illustrated today, that was the case for many hon. Members’ constituents, and HELMS was at fault. The Minister, the Department and the Government must respond. However, it is so important that we do all we can both to help people out of fuel poverty and to support the use of renewables where possible and appropriate.

Oral Answers to Questions

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Tuesday 16th October 2018 Commons Chamber

[Greg Clark]

My hon. Friend raises an interesting point. That is why the CMA is conducting its investigation, and it has powers to prevent the loss of competition if it is in prospect.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

Will the Minister further outline what effect this merger will have on my constituents, who may see higher prices and less competition as a result of further limitation of the already smaller choice of supermarkets than on the mainland? Has the Department fully taken the likes of Northern Ireland and rural areas into consideration?

[Greg Clark]

The hon. Gentleman raises a very important question. The essence of the CMA investigation is to see whether there could be—not just nationally, but in particular places—any diminution of competition. If the CMA thinks that that is in prospect, it has the powers to block the merger or to place conditions on it, such as requiring the sale of businesses to a competitor.

Oil and Gas Industry

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Tuesday 9th October 2018 Westminster Hall

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I thank and congratulate the hon. Member for Falkirk (John Mc Nally) for securing this debate. As often happens during debates in Westminster Hall, although the issue might not directly concern Northern Ireland—our seas do not contain any oil or gas fields, at least at the moment—a number of my constituents work on oil rigs and travel over and return each week or fortnight, depending on their shifts. The debate is important for those constituents, but also because, although the gas and oil is found in the seas off Scotland, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland benefits from it. The debate therefore affects every person, every family and every household in the entire United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, which is why it is so important.

We all know the importance of the gas and oil industry and how big it is, and the stats are clear: according to 2018 figures, 37,000 people are employed directly by the industry, and 127,000 are in the relevant supply chains. Most of those roles are in the offshore industry, which is also important to Northern Ireland. Some of the repairs done to the oil rigs and the apparatus that brings the oil and gas ashore take place at Harland and Wolff in Belfast, and it is important to note our input into the process. Statistics from 2017 indicated that 40,000 people were employed directly in the industry, and it is important to record the importance of the oil and gas sector to Northern Ireland. Oil and gas provided 72% of the UK’s total primary energy, and net imports of natural gas were around 45% of UK supply. The majority of oil—almost 80% of final consumption—is refined for use in transport. Those figures indicate how important the industry is to everyone in the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.

The debate is also pertinent as we look towards the Budget. In 2016, the Chancellor of the Exchequer announced commendable reductions in taxation for North sea oil and gas fields to maximise the economic recovery of the North sea. The Budget also included commitments effectively to abolish petroleum revenue tax by permanently reducing the rate from 35% to 0%, to simplify the regime for investors and level the playing field between investment opportunities in older fields and infrastructure and new developments, and to reduce the supplementary charge from 20% to 10% to send a strong signal that the UK is open for business—we need the message to go out from this debate that we are open for business and working positively towards that. In recognition of the exceptionally challenging conditions that currently face the sector, those changes were introduced in the Finance Act 2016.

As has been said, although oil prices fluctuate between massive highs and lows, they are currently high. We want all regions to benefit from the oil and gas sector, so perhaps when he responds to the debate the Minister will indicate how we in Northern Ireland can continue to benefit from the oil and gas that we in the whole United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland own, as individuals and as regions.

In the 2017 autumn Budget, the Government focused on decommissioning costs and announced that they would bring forward legislation to introduce a mechanism for transferable tax history. Tax relief on decommissioning costs is linked to tax payment history, so the new mechanism would allow tax history to be transferred along with the asset. The Government also announced that they would consult on reducing tax for decommission- ing costs incurred by the previous licence holder.

It is clear, however, that we must do more to address prices for consumers. The Minister may not be directly responsible, but my biggest plea to him is that, because energy prices fluctuate, people consuming oil and gas think they are saving money when they come to pay for it, but actually they are not. Back home in Northern Ireland, a number of constituents who changed between oil and gas six months ago have found themselves in a difficult place in the past few weeks. That is yet another squeeze on so many families who cannot afford it, and we must address that issue at the highest level.

I look to the Minister for advice on how we can and will secure the future of this industry, and on our ability to provide our own sustainable energy source for heating in this great nation of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.

Shale Gas Exploration: Planning Permission

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Wednesday 12th September 2018 Westminster Hall

[Claire Perry]

I thank my hon. Friend for his measured approach. He is looking at these developments in his constituency and working very closely with his local communities. He is absolutely right, which is why we have launched an extensive, extended consultation to ensure that we hear from as many people as possible.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I thank the Minister for her comments. It is quite clear that we need to be assured of what steps the Minister and her Department will take, and what criteria will be in place, to ensure safety is paramount. When doing shale gas investigation or mining in former mining areas, safety has to be paramount. Can the Minister give an assurance that it will be?

[Claire Perry]

The hon. Gentleman is quite right; that is why our environmental regulatory regime is already the best in the world. Colleagues will see from various write-rounds that we are bringing together the regulators to form one virtual regulator, so there can be no doubt about what regulatory matters apply to which communities.

Oral Answers to Questions

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Tuesday 17th July 2018 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I am sure that the hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr Sheerman) did not bellow from a sedentary position like that when, as I referenced recently, he served with great distinction as a local councillor in the 1970s.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I have one of the foremost medical research centres on the border of my constituency at Queen’s University Belfast. Will the Minister outline what grants are available to enhance facilities in these world-class research centres?

[Mr Gyimah]

The hon. Gentleman makes a good point. I am particularly interested in the research that Queen’s University Belfast is doing, particularly around areas of cyber-security. I look forward to visiting it in due course. Obviously, UKRI deals with all of the UK and that university will benefit from grants from UKRI too.