Harland & Wolff
Jim Shannon Excerpts(3 weeks, 6 days ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Jonathan Reynolds
I share the hon. Gentleman’s aspirations and recognise his calls for UK shipbuilding to have a higher priority in future than it has in the past. To be specific on what I was saying in the statement, there has been a revision to the value of the fleet solid support contract; it has required a little bit of additional support—but not greatly and on commercial terms—in order to deliver it. There are not promises of additional work packages on top of the contractual agreements made by the previous Government, but because Navantia UK is such a world-renowned expert builder of shipping of all sizes, as well as the investment that comes with this deal and the more competitive nature of the yards in future, there are genuine grounds for optimism. I see real opportunities in fabrication and maintenance, but particularly in energy. I also think that a little bit of competitive diversification in the military shipbuilding sector’s supply chain is welcome, creating better value for money in procurement. Across the board, this is a positive story for Harland & Wolff and its employees, but as the hon. Gentleman has described, it is also a positive story for UK shipbuilding.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
This announcement is really good news, and everybody across the House will welcome it. It is probably time to break out the Christmas cake and the mince pies early, because there is good news coming and the Secretary of State has delivered it today. This morning I spoke to my right hon. Friend the Member for Belfast East (Gavin Robinson), who has worked tirelessly with the company to secure this progress. We all agree that it is great news, particularly for the 1,000-strong workforce in Belfast, and especially in the run-up to Christmas—well done. My right hon. Friend will be at the yard with the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland this afternoon, probably in about an hour’s time.
If the national shipbuilding strategy is to mean anything, it must be that the Government invest in skills and capacity throughout the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. Does the Secretary of State agree that more could be done to increase research and innovation support across the United Kingdom and, in particular, in Northern Ireland?
Jonathan Reynolds
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for asking what I think will be my last question of the year. I would particularly like to recognise what he said about his colleague, the right hon. Member for Belfast East (Gavin Robinson). Obviously, he has a constituency interest and a leading role in Northern Ireland, and I think he understood the decisions we had to make. We had to explain in confidence to all colleagues affected why the initial decision on the guarantee alone was not the right way forward, but that we were committed to the kind of solution we have announced today. I am extremely grateful for being able to work with the right hon. Gentleman on that. It is great news that he is going to the yard today; my colleagues the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland and the Minister for Industry are also in Belfast today, and I understand that the Secretary of State for Scotland will be at one of the yards in Scotland too.
On the hon. Gentleman’s point about innovation and research and development, that is the basis on which we have to compete. Whether in the sectors of aerospace, automotive or shipbuilding, what we need is high-end, sophisticated R&D, innovation and world-leading products. That is what we have in many of our advanced manufacturing sectors, but it is such a competitive world that we have to maintain that edge. In particular, R&D is an area where core support and core funding between Government and industry has real benefits. We have seen that in lots of sectors—maybe not to the degree we have needed in shipbuilding, but let us look at that for the future and approach the next year with some real positivity.
Employment Rights: Terminal Illness
Jim Shannon Excerpts(4 weeks ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
It is a real pleasure to speak in this debate. I commend the hon. Member for Corby and East Northamptonshire (Lee Barron) for giving us the opportunity to participate, and congratulate him on his introduction, which showed an understanding of what the issue means to his constituents. I hope I will convey that too.
This is an opportunity to highlight the much-needed help and support that the Government must facilitate. I am pleased to see the Minister and the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Mid Buckinghamshire (Greg Smith), in their places, and look forward to their contributions. I believe that the Minister understands the necessity for this debate, and I understand that the Government are going to make changes; the Minister will respond to that later.
This is one of those bread and butter issues, which I love because they make a difference to people’s lives. There are important constitutional and foreign policy issues but these matters are the ones we deal with every week in our offices. These are not just bread and butter issues; they are literally life-and-death issues, and the hon. Gentleman has set that scene so well.
I want to advocate for the tremendous work of the wonderful charity, Marie Curie. We all deal with many charities in our constituencies, as others will mention. I have lots in my constituency, but I am a supporter of Marie Curie in word and deed. I am not better than anybody else—I never claim to be and I never will be—but I support that charity’s work financially and in other ways. I have been to the Marie Curie centre in Knock, Belfast, where the staff provide real help to each person and their family. That must be an incredibly hard job and every Marie Curie nurse deserves credit.
I am thankful for the support that Marie Curie gives to patients and families in the throes of cancer journeys. Those are journeys that I and constituents have dealt with over the years. I am also grateful for the information that Marie Curie consolidates and provides us with to enable our fuller understanding. Information from those in the thick of funding and practical issues is invaluable. We need to dig deep individually and collectively within our constituencies. When loved ones pass away, they often leave something in their will to Marie Curie or other charities, which helps them do more for other people on life’s last journey.
I want to focus heavily on the recently published report, “Dying in Poverty 2024”. If hon. Members have not had the opportunity to read it, I suggest it may be worth a look. It looks at the financial insecurity faced by many people at the end of life. Research found that some 111,000 people each year die in poverty. Wow; I can hardly take in that figure, especially in this modern society—this wealthy Britain—that we live in. That figure needs to settle into all our minds. The report also found that working-age people are at much greater risk of dying in poverty: 28% of those who died in 2023 died in poverty, compared with 16% of pension-age people. Anyone who is not shocked by those figures must be unfeeling—they must not understand—but I believe that everyone in this room is as shocked as I am.
For that reason, a lot of workers with a terminal diagnosis decide that they must continue working for as long as they can. The hon. Member for Corby and East Northamptonshire referred to one lady who wanted to keep working right up until the end, because work was where her social group was, even though she would have found doing so incredibly difficult. Unfortunately, the experience of many workers is that their employer either is unsympathetic—I am sure that some are sympathetic—or puts up barriers to their continuing in work. A 2022 survey of human resources decision makers found that only 44% of organisations and workplaces have policies in place for staff with a terminal illness. If businesses do not have those policies in place, they should. They have to prepare for that eventuality and be able to help workers through the process.
Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP)
A number of employers might either not have a policy or simply be unaware, for some reason, of the need to be more empathetic with people who find themselves in such a horrendously difficult position. The advantage of a debate such as this one, secured by the hon. Member for Corby and East Northamptonshire (Lee Barron) and supported by all hon. Members, is that it can raise awareness and hopefully bring action from Government Departments and employers, which need to take action and show support.
Jim Shannon
I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention; I do not want to give him a big head, but his interventions often capture the focus of a debate in one sentence. If the companies have forgotten or are unaware, it is time that they were aware. The question is how we can make that happen.
As I say, only 44% of organisations and workplaces have policies in place for staff with a terminal illness, so if a worker with a terminal illness loses their job, they lose their income. The impact could not be any more real: they may lose any death in service payments that they have earned through their lifetime of work, because those are payable only to those who die while still in employment. The hon. Member for Corby and East Northamptonshire referred to the lady who stayed at work for her social circle of friends. Perhaps it helped her—I am sorry to say this—to ensure that when she passed away she had the payments that she should have had.
I agree with the Marie Curie charity that there is therefore a need for strengthened employment rights for people with a terminal illness, alongside an improved safety net to provide safety or support through our welfare system. When the Minister responds, I am sure that he or his civil servants and staff will have some figures from Marie Curie; if there has not been engagement with the organisation, I suggest that there should be.
Carla Lockhart (Upper Bann) (DUP)
I commend the hon. Member for Corby and East Northamptonshire (Lee Barron) for raising this important issue. Does my hon. Friend agree that there also needs to be workplace protection for the parents of children who have been given a terminal diagnosis? When a child is given a terminal diagnosis in such tragic circumstances, parents are worried because they have to leave their work to care for their children. Does he agree that there needs to be better protection for them?
Jim Shannon
I thank my hon. Friend. Others might not have thought about that issue, because there are always the two adults—the mum and dad who are in a relationship—and it is their child, but if their child has a terminal illness, how does that impact them in work? They need to be there to take their child to the hospital, and to be there for their child in the last days of their life. I know that the Minister understands those issues; perhaps he can give us an encouraging answer to these questions.
Life is tough for families in full-time employment, never mind those with reduced income and greater costs. Changes must be made to universal credit— I know that that is not the Minister’s responsibility—to allow those in full-time employment to access help and support for their care and time off work. All my staff members understand the benefits system very well, but I am fortunate to have one particular staff member who spends every day of her five and a half days a week—the half day is probably voluntary, because she is a lady with compassion and understanding—working on benefits. As elected representatives, we try to offer all we can to our constituents. All Members do. That lady fills out universal credit applications, personal independence payment applications, employment and support allowance applications or, probably in most cases, attendance allowance applications, although sometimes it is for families with small children.
These are really difficult times. I do the forms myself; I am not better than anybody else. There is a box on the second or third page that asks whether the applicant has a terminal illness. When you tick that box, it moves you into a different system. I have to be fair to the Department: when that box is ticked, the Department moves immediately. I know that from cases that we have done through my office, and other Members will confirm it when they get their chance to speak. An urgency is put into the process and it quickly moves on.
The hon. Member for Corby and East Northamptonshire highlighted in communication to Members that the purpose of this debate is clear:
“The last thing someone with a terminal diagnosis and their family should be worrying about at the end of their life is how they will be able to pay the bills.”
Wow. The Government should remove that equation for people. Many people’s key social networks exist at work, and I believe that those who are terminally ill should have the choice of when they finish work. That is what the debate is all about.
I agree wholeheartedly with the hon. Gentleman’s view. More than that, I will work with him and with the Government to achieve that—to simply do more for those with terminal cancer. Just because charities do such an incredible job of raising funds and caring, that does not absolve our Government and our Minister of their responsibility; I say that with fairness and with respect. It is our duty to ensure that we fulfil these obligations. We must do better.
Oral Answers to Questions
Jim Shannon Excerpts(1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Speaker
This will be a good example of a short question. I call Jim Shannon.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
Challenged already!
In the short time that the Minister has been in her role, she has shown quite clearly that she has a deep interest in Northern Ireland. Defence, light engineering and cyber-security are all vital to jobs and the economy in Northern Ireland, but what assessment has been made of the sustainability and efficiency of Northern Ireland’s agrifood sector, and will the Minister commit to promote the productivity of that industry across the United Kingdom and, indeed, across the world? That is as short as I can make it, Mr Speaker.
Hospitality Sector: Eastleigh
Jim Shannon Excerpts(1 month, 1 week ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Liz Jarvis (Eastleigh) (LD)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered Government support for the hospitality sector in Eastleigh.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dame Siobhain. I am grateful to have the opportunity today to discuss the urgent challenges facing the hospitality sector in my constituency of Eastleigh and across the UK.
Hospitality is not only a significant economic driver, but the beating heart of our high streets and communities. From the pubs that act as social hubs to the restaurants and cafés that bring people together, the sector is central to our economy and way of life. My constituent, Lorraine, is the landlady of the Master Builder in West End in my constituency. Her heating costs are around £3,000 a week, placing an unsustainable strain on her business. Although December bookings provide some hope, she worries that the quieter months of January and February could push her pub to the brink. Despite the pressures, Lorraine’s commitment to her community is unwavering. Her pub hosts local care home residents for darts and meals and welcomes charities, including Southampton Sight, for Christmas dinners and Sunday carveries. As she says,
“it’s not just for coming in on a weekend and letting off some steam, it’s about friendship, kindness and community.”
Yet with rising costs Lorraine is questioning how much longer she can keep her doors open while working over 90 hours a week to make her business work.
In Eastleigh the hospitality industry contributes £114 million annually. It employs 1,805 people and encompasses 84 venues, including some fantastic cafés such as the Coffee Cabin, which recently celebrated its third birthday, many superb restaurants and 32 local pubs. Eastleigh is also home to Steam Town Brew Co., an independent brewery, and The Steel Tank Alehouse, an independent micropub in Chandler’s Ford, both of which embody the entrepreneurial spirit that drives our local hospitality sector. Our football club and world-class cricket ground attract visitors from across the UK and beyond, many of whom stay in our local hotels and enjoy local hospitality.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I commend the hon. Lady on securing this debate. I spoke to her beforehand and we share a similar concern in relation to national insurance contributions. The pressure on hospitality businesses is leaving the industry at breaking point. If the Government and the Minister do not provide some form of relief, we will face a lot of empty cafés and restaurants in the coming year. Does the hon. Lady share my concerns?
Liz Jarvis
Yes, I do share the hon. Gentleman’s concerns. Despite the remarkable community contribution that our hospitality generates, the sector is under immense pressure. Nationally, hospitality employs 3.5 million people. It generates £140 billion in economic activity and pays £54 billion in taxation. The Government’s Budget, however, introduced £3.4 billion of cost increases, including rises in employer national insurance contributions. Those measures disproportionately impact lower-paid and part-time workers, who form the backbone of the industry. The Office for Budget Responsibility has said that next year 60% of the employer national insurance contribution’s increase will be paid for by staff in reduced real wages.
According to UKHospitality, employer national insurance contributions for a part-time worker on 15 hours will increase by 73%. Combined with reductions in business rates relief from 75% to 40%, these policies are creating unsustainable pressures on businesses already operating on razor-thin margins.
The Steam Town Brew Co. is a local success story. David from Steam Town raised the issues of residual inflation in food and drink, the prices of raw ingredients for brewing and high interest rates. He wants to grow the business, but the current economic conditions and existing market restrictions, such as the lack of access to tied pubs for smaller breweries, have made it challenging. The situation is made worse by the surging costs of energy. Hospitality businesses are among the most energy-intensive sectors, with pubs and restaurants relying heavily on refrigeration, heating and cooking equipment. High energy costs have led to dramatic increases in operating expenses that are becoming too hard to bear.
For smaller businesses the increases are not sustainable and many businesses are at risk of closure. Will the Minister share the steps the Government are taking to help hospitality businesses to manage their energy costs in the coming months? Post-covid recovery remains a significant challenge for hospitality businesses. Many are grappling with debt, reduced footfall and the shift of consumers to online food shopping. Last year alone, 2,704 hospitality businesses went into insolvency, highlighting the fragility of the sector and the urgency for Government support.
The cost of living crisis has created a perfect storm for the hospitality sector, as households across the UK tighten their belts, reducing discretionary spending on dining out, hotel stays and social experiences. That squeeze on disposable income directly impacts the vibrancy of our high streets. Individual prosperity and high street prosperity are intrinsically linked. When families feel they cannot afford to participate in social activities, it is not just their individual wellbeing, but the fabric of our communities that suffers.
Critical Minerals: Domestic Production
Jim Shannon Excerpts(1 month, 1 week ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
It is a real pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mrs Harris. I am sorry I missed you yesterday, but I am back in line today. It is really nice to be here.
I thank the hon. Member for Camborne and Redruth (Perran Moon) for leading the debate. He made the case for critical minerals enthusiastically, with the evidential base that he clearly has from his constituency. This may not be the most sexy debate, but it is a vital one, because it raises important issues that are often forgotten or not acknowledged. The hon. Member has done the House a service in introducing the debate, and we thank him for that.
I am aware of the minerals within Cornwall, and the fact that a range of critical minerals are required for numerous industries within the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. Minerals such as lithium, cobalt and graphite, which have a high risk of supply disruption, are the centre of debates on this issue. It is truly great to be here to give a Northern Ireland perspective, to enable us to play our part as well. The hon. Member for Camborne and Redruth mentioned County Tyrone. He said beforehand that he would mention Northern Ireland, and he did. I will refer to Country Tyrone, and a few others, to add to the debate and hopefully enhance the scope of what we are trying to achieve.
The British Geological Survey published a report in 2023, which identified numerous areas around the UK as prospective areas for critical raw minerals. For Northern Ireland, those areas were in mid-County Tyrone. These critical minerals are essential for the transition to the green economy. Some people think we can ignore the green economy, but we cannot. It is important that it should be central to our policy as we move forward. It is essential for the creation of jobs in the tech, defence and automotive industries.
There are numerous critical minerals that are found in Northern Ireland and have been mined there historically, including iron ore and coal. In 2021, the Department for the Economy back home in Northern Ireland commissioned research into the economic, social and environmental impacts of mineral exploration and mining in Northern Ireland. I know that the Minister is assiduous in her job, so perhaps she would tell us whether there have been any discussions with the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Investment back home, and if so, what they have been about. We can do this together, and it enhances our great Union when we do things together.
The research helped to provide key information on the mineral life cycle in Northern Ireland. Furthermore, it can allow us to work alongside partners in the mainland on the production of critical minerals, which are so important today. We need to exploit—I am loth to use that word, but it is possibly the best—or certainly take advantage of what we have. In addition, salt has been produced at the underground salt mine in County Antrim, and historically lead has been mined across Northern Ireland, including in the Newtownards area in my constituency of Strangford, which I have the pleasure and privilege to represent.
The regional, national and global demand for certain critical minerals has increased dramatically and rapidly, and we face ongoing challenges because of that. The hon. Member for Camborne and Redruth emphasised that clearly in his opening contribution. The extraction and processing of certain minerals has been highly challenging, and can lead to supply constraints and prices rapidly rising. The importance of the issue cannot be underlined enough. The hon. Gentleman mentioned the importance of mining in Cornwall, specifically lithium, which will be paramount to the UK’s transition to a better net zero policy and away from fossil fuels. The Minister responded to the hon. Gentleman’s question in the main Chamber by stating that the Government are currently looking at the critical mineral strategy. When the Minister responds today, perhaps she will indicate just what that strategy is, and how it encompasses all of this great United Kingdom.
It is understood that there are certain areas across the UK that are more prominent in relation to critical minerals, but I would be grateful if the Minister and relevant Departments committed to undertake discussion with their counterparts in the devolved institutions to ensure that areas with potential mineral production, such as mid Tyrone and others in Northern Ireland, can be used to increase UK production. We must do this together. Numerous companies have received Government support for the sector through the automotive transformation fund, and the UK supply chain has a share of up to £1 billion of funding, but the market for these industries remains increasingly competitive. I would be interested to hear from the Minister what could be done to enhance that.
To conclude, it is all about maintaining and building sustainable industries across the whole of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. I spoke in the main Chamber on critical minerals before the general election. I very much look forward to hearing what commitments the Government can make to Northern Ireland to ensure that we all have equal opportunities to succeed. Perhaps the Minister will give consideration to engaging with counterparts back home in Northern Ireland on this issue within this governmental mandate. We in Northern Ireland can and wish to be part of this very exciting opportunity. It is potentially exciting for all of the great United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. None of my Scots Gaelic cousins are here, but I can say honestly that we are always better together, and that is the truth.
Stellantis Luton
Jim Shannon Excerpts(1 month, 2 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Jonathan Reynolds
I agree that that is one concern that consumers have. The principal concern for consumers on EV take-up is the cost of the vehicle. The hon. Member will know from our constituencies that in some places, it is difficult to envisage the kind of infrastructure that people take for granted in areas that have more capacity to have it built into properties and driveways. There are about 70,000 public EV chargers in the United Kingdom, and there is not always equity across different parts of the country. A lot of people are surprised to learn that we have more public chargers than Norway, for instance, which is very much the leader in electric vehicle roll-out. There was money in the Budget to expand the roll-out of charge points and build on the 70,000 already in place, but the hon. Member is right to say that that is a key concern. We must consider not just the overall number of charging points, but the equity of those around the country, and I promise that the Department for Transport is interested in that.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I thank the Secretary of State for his statement, and in particular for his honesty. It is important to have that when we look at the bleak things we have before us.
The Secretary of State will understand that with the cost of living crisis that our constituents are struggling through, the last thing on their minds is to afford—forgive me—an all-singing, all-dancing electric car; they are clearly struggling to pay their electric bills. The closure of the plant, which highlights the lack of passion for electric cars, can come as no surprise. What can the Government do to make electric cars affordable for everyone, which would enhance the need for car manufacturers once again?
Jonathan Reynolds
I am grateful to the hon. Member for his question and the way in which he put it. He is right that cost of living concerns are paramount. We have also got to recognise that the cost of petrol and diesel is often a key consideration in overall household finances.
The hon. Member asked specifically about what we can do to bring down the cost. It is about co-investing with industry in the most efficient forms of production. He mentioned an all-singing, all-dancing EV, but there is a whole range of vehicles available. Many of our producers have led on family cars. The Nissan Leaf is a great example of that, made by some of my former school friends in Sunderland. We should get behind that and talk about how great those products are. But, fundamentally, we need now to bring down not just the cost of the charging infrastructure but the unit cost. That can be done only by investment in efficient production and scale production. That is why the destination is so important. Working with industry on that destination is key to delivering the outcomes that I think he and I want.
Future of the Post Office
Jim Shannon Excerpts(2 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Gareth Thomas
As I have said, we are clear about our continuing commitment to ensuring that every community, no matter where in the UK, has access to post office services. That commitment has not changed. Indeed, we want to improve the quality of the offer from the Post Office—hence my comments about banking services. However, if it would be helpful, I would be very happy to meet my hon. Friend to discuss his concerns about his community.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I very much welcome the Minister’s commitment to the Post Office compensation—he laid out clearly the way forward, and we were all pleased to hear it. However, I must register my concern that post office branches in Newtownards in my constituency, and in Bangor in the neighbouring constituency of North Down, are poised to close, leaving more than 100,000 people in Northern Ireland with no main post office. That will do nothing but reduce services for the most vulnerable in Northern Ireland and must be strenuously opposed. What steps will be taken between now and the final decision to ensure that the Government do not leave tens of thousands of people without a full service? The Post Office acknowledges the limitations of post office hubs in garages and shops. They cannot cope, so big post offices must remain open.
Gareth Thomas
I welcome the hon. Gentleman’s comments, as ever, and I recognise the concerns of his constituents. As I said, we remain absolutely committed to ensuring that every community has good access to post office services going forward, and no decision has been made about directly managed branch closures. If we are to achieve the objective of putting the Post Office on a genuinely sustainable footing and increasing sub-postmaster pay, we must consider all Post Office costs and how we can genuinely deliver, to all communities, a better future for the Post Office. We are doing that, but I am conscious of the strong point that he has made about his constituents.
Pubs Code: Guest Beers
Jim Shannon Excerpts(2 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I commend the hon. Lady for bringing forward this debate. I spoke to her beforehand to ascertain what she was trying to achieve. Strangford has had a resurgence of alcohol production, including the microbrewer Ards Brewing Company, just a few minutes away from me on the Carrowdore Road in Greyabbey. It is a necessity that small brewers can sell in their local pub, and I believe it was a mistake not to allow exemptions for smaller breweries. I support the calls to allow these exceptions. Does she not agree that we must do what we can to let the wonderful craft breweries have a shot in the local market?
Budget Resolutions
Jim Shannon Excerpts(2 months, 1 week ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Jonathan Reynolds
I am sorry but, again, the right hon. Gentleman is wrong. I agree with part of his assessment, such as that a strong and thriving private sector is crucial to growth, but I find his analysis a little simplistic. Private firms will say that they also need skilled workers, and that they need a decent transport system so they can get to work.
Under the last Government, I would often get up in the morning and check my phone for updates from people using the trans-Pennine line I just mentioned—the one we are upgrading—and it would be full of people saying, “I cannot get to work.” I need the right hon. Gentleman to make a slightly broader analysis.
Despite the previous Government leaving us with a raging skip fire in many areas—we have to raise money, not to deliver our pledges but to deliver their pledges that they did not properly fund—we have had a regard and a heed for the level of competitiveness in the UK economy. For instance, on the rise in employers’ national insurance contributions, over half of all firms with national insurance liabilities will actually pay less or the same, not only because of the changes to the employment allowance but because of how we have removed the threshold so that all firms now qualify.
Despite the frankly terrible inheritance bequeathed to us, we have done our best to meet those needs and to deliver a long-term focus on the future.
Jonathan Reynolds
I was going to move on, but I cannot resist the hon. Gentleman.
Jim Shannon
I hope the Minister will not be disappointed.
There are many good things in what the Government have brought forward, but what is missing, unfortunately, is support for farmers on inheritance tax. Farmers are the backbone of Britain, and they produce almost all the food we eat across this United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. Farmers will be impacted greatly.
I declare an interest as a member of the Ulster Farmers Union and the National Farmers’ Union, and all the farmers I talk to in Northern Ireland have indicated that every farmer in Northern Ireland will be affected by inheritance tax. If the Government want to get it right, the threshold needs to be raised, and it is not too late. Raise the threshold to £4 million or £5 million so that family farms, the backbone of Britain, can continue.
Jonathan Reynolds
I always listen to the hon. Gentleman because he is genuine and conscientious in representing his constituency’s interests. I will always listen to what he has to say. We can judge the exact impact of these changes by looking at the value of claims to date. The Conservative party’s analysis has forgotten to aggregate the impact of the changes to those allowances, such as agricultural property relief, alongside the existing nil-rate band and the ability to transfer the allowances between spouses in all cases. The total number of farms across the UK that will be affected by this change is actually only 500 for the 2026-27 financial year. That has been missed, and I remind colleagues that any inheritance tax liability has a 10-year, interest-free payment period. To be frank, there has been some scaremongering from the Opposition, and we have to be clear with people.
We have had to restore economic stability to deliver that investment, and we should not shy away from explaining why this has been so necessary. The previous Government’s scattergun approach to growth left our country starved of investment, economically divided and struggling to maintain a competitive edge in the global economy.
The previous Government’s claim to have delivered the fastest-growing economy in the G7, based on its performance in the first half of this year, is laughably false. I believe that The Sunday Times likened it to someone walking a marathon in six hours but, because they ran the last 100 yards, claiming to be the fastest runner in the world. The truth is that consistency and stability have been sorely lacking. We have had seven growth strategies since 2010 and 11 Business Secretaries in as many years, to say nothing of the UK’s revolving door of Prime Ministers.
Road Fuel Market
Jim Shannon Excerpts(2 months, 1 week ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Graeme Downie (Dunfermline and Dollar) (Lab)
The topic for this, my first Adjournment debate, is fair fuel pricing, an issue that has been raised repeatedly with me by residents of Dunfermline and Dollar since I was elected in July, and that has been examined by previous Governments of all colours and by the Competition and Markets Authority.
In July this year, the CMA said that weakened competition in the fuel sector is negatively impacting drivers’ wallets. Its examination found that, in 2023 alone, high prices cost motorists a staggering amount of money. In the midst of a cost of living crisis, that seems especially egregious. The CMA’s warning was not, however, the first or even the second significant warning on fuel pricing. After launching a market study in July 2022, which reported a year later and made a series of recommendations to protect consumers, the CMA has issued three interim reports. In those reports, the CMA found that drivers were overcharged at the petrol pump by £900 million in 2022 and a further £1.6 billion in 2023. That means that, in just two years, drivers were overcharged by some £2.5 billion on their fuel in the midst of a cost of living crisis. That is shameful profiteering, which we know hits lower-paid workers and families the hardest. The cost of living crisis has meant that changes in the prices of utilities and fuel have been sorely felt.
We have long understood the argument that rural drivers might pay more for fuel due to the increased logistical costs and additional staffing costs. I do not always find such arguments convincing, but they at least have a perceived logic to them. However, fuel is not a luxury; it is a lifeline. It enables people to commute to work, take their children to school, and provide care and support to loved ones.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on bringing the debate forward. I spoke to him beforehand; he and I share the same concerns in relation to fuel. Drivers in rural constituencies, such as ours of Strangford and Dunfermline and Dollar, are very much at the mercy of those who seek to charge more for fuel. Some have to travel far to get cheaper fuel, and it is debatable whether that is competitive or even logical. Does he agree that when it comes to competitiveness, we must have fairness and equality for every postcode, and recognise that prices in Kircubbin, the Ards peninsula and Dunfermline are similar, yet in Manchester fuel is almost 8p a litre cheaper?
Graeme Downie
I thank the hon. Member for his intervention; I believe that taking an intervention from him is a rite of passage in this House. I could not agree more, particularly in relation to constituencies such as my own, where there is a mix of urban and rural areas and the rural pricing hits particularly hard. Those are often areas that have poorer public transport as well, so the impact is felt even more.
Most small businesses rely on efficient and cost-effective transport for their deliveries, staff and customers, and that often means running and fuelling a car or van. High prices at the pumps have a direct impact on small businesses and squeeze already thin margins in the ongoing crisis in the cost of living and of doing business. Research by the Federation of Small Businesses shows that more than three quarters of small businesses saw their costs go up in the last quarter, and of those more than a quarter said that the increased price of fuel was one of the main reasons for that rise.
My constituency is just 20 miles from Scotland’s oil refinery in Grangemouth, yet residents in Dunfermline consistently pay a full 5p a litre more than those nearby in Glasgow, Stirling, Glenrothes or Kirkcaldy. That is despite the local supermarkets Tesco and Asda, as well as a host of other outlets in the city such as BP, all supposedly competing to be the driver’s choice. What we see in Dunfermline is a cluster of prices around the same level within the city, and price clustering around Dunfermline as well, with all supermarkets and suppliers at roughly the same price. That is not local competition; that is a local cartel. Even worse, my constituents are paying 134.7p per litre at Asda in Dunfermline, whereas in the Asda Bridge of Dee store in Aberdeen, 112 miles further north, they pay just 121.7p at the pump. Never mind 5p—that is a difference of 13p per litre.
In rural and semi-rural areas, as was said earlier, where public transport infrastructure is less entrenched—certainly in my constituency, where the train service is frequently short-formed, delayed or cancelled at short notice—fuel is not a choice; it is a necessity. My Dunfermline and Dollar constituents rely on their vehicles more heavily, yet often face the highest prices. That is an issue of basic fairness. I am all in favour of market forces being used to shape prices, but not where the market is demonstrably broken, and fuel pricing has all the signs of a broken market mechanism.
It is nothing short of outrageous that the most essential aspects of daily life are subject to broken competition, a non-functioning market and what appears to be price clustering by retailers. Across the constituency, small businesses and sole traders such as plumbers, builders, florists and taxi drivers, along with families, are paying the price. As we might say in Scotland, small businesses are being pumped at the pumps. Like many fellow Members of this House, I welcome the Chancellor’s announcement in the Budget, which we passed this evening, on freezing fuel duty, which will help people who are still feeling the impact of out-of-control inflation on their take-home pay. However, while this pricing behaviour by retailers continues, I am concerned that the full benefit of the Government’s efforts to keep down fuel costs will not be passed on to my constituents.
To help the House understand fully the consequences of this kind of price clustering and the effects of a broken market, I will share the experience of one of my constituents, Aimee, a 20-year-old apprentice who wrote to me last month. Aimee was proud to secure her apprenticeship, which she started this autumn, earning the apprentice minimum wage of £6.40 an hour. With just over £1,000 a month to live on, Aimee uses £200 a month of her hard-earned wages on fuel. She gets her petrol at Asda in Dunfermline where, as I mentioned, unleaded was 134.7p per litre yesterday. Her £200 is buying her 148.48 litres of fuel. However, if Aimee was buying her petrol at Asda Bridge of Dee in Aberdeen, where unleaded was 121.7p a litre yesterday, she would have paid just £180 for the same amount of fuel. That is a full £20 a month difference. Over the course of a year, Aimee would have to work an additional 36 hours just to pay for the difference in price of petrol for her to get to and from work. That is not justifiable. Aimee, who is learning while earning, is experiencing a real-terms pay cut differential due not to anything she has done, but to the effects of this broken market.
We encourage the use of greener transport, but we have seen the failures of the SNP Government and ScotRail to provide Fife with a reliable service, so that is not an option for people such as Aimee, with short trains and unreliable service, particularly in West Fife. One step that the SNP-Green coalition at Holyrood did take was to remove peak fares, which saw a 6.8% increase in train usage. However, that encouragement of behavioural change was swiftly removed—just like the Scottish Greens from the coalition—when the financial incentive of fairer train fares was also removed.
Behavioural change of a positive nature does not happen overnight, but the switch back to the car from the train does, and has. That short-sighted decision—like the short-formed trains that often serve the region—has put people off using green transport. Having been let down by the Scottish Government, commuters in Dunfermline are being taken advantage of by fuel retailers and market competition in my constituency.