British Sign Language Week

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Thursday 20th March 2025 Westminster Hall

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Desmond. I commend the hon. Member for Thurrock (Jen Craft) on setting the scene so well. She spoke excellently yesterday in the Down’s syndrome debate and her speech today was a tour de force.

[Perran Moon]

I wonder if the hon. Gentleman could try to talk a little slower, because the interpreters might be struggling a little bit.

[Jim Shannon]

Kate Hoey, formerly the hon. Member for Vauxhall, said, “Whenever Jim Shannon speaks, he gets more words to the minute that any other MP”, so the hon. Member is absolutely right to tell me to slow it down. I will do my best to slow down a wee bit, if that is possible.

The speech made by the hon. Member for Thurrock was a tour de force. It is clear to all of us here that her heart shines brightly, and we thank her for telling her story. I congratulate all the other hon. Members who have had the ability to learn sign language.

The hon. Member for Camborne and Redruth (Perran Moon) referred to one of his staff members; I say to her, keep a tight rein on him! I say that in jest, of course, because we all recognise how hard the hon. Member works.

In Northern Ireland, we have two sign languages. It is part of the Belfast/Good Friday agreement. We have British Sign Language and Irish Sign Language, because we have two different traditions, and the people of those traditions have the same difficulties when it comes to sign language. Those who want to have British Sign Language can have that and those who want Irish Sign Language can have that as well. In March 2004, the Secretary of State announced the formal recognition of British Sign Language and Irish Sign Language as languages in their own right, following similar recognition of BSL in Great Britain.

Some of my staff are very assiduous. I am only as good as my staff—I say that honestly because it is true. When some constituents came into the office who were challenged and had deaf issues, my staff decided that—even though those constituents came into the office with their parents—they would learn some sign language in order to communicate with them. My staff wanted not only to understand what my constituents wanted but to engage socially with them. I think it was the hon. Member for Camborne and Redruth who said that when people cannot hear anything, they do not know what is happening around them. My staff felt that it was important to do that small thing. It shows that sometimes we have to do things outside of our own systems.

British Sign Language and Irish Sign Language in Northern Ireland have their own grammar and syntax systems, rather than being visual reflections of other languages. I believe we have a good system in Northern Ireland.

I should have said that I am pleased to see the Minister for Social Security and Disability, the right hon. Member for East Ham (Sir Stephen Timms), in his place. I do not think I have yet been in a debate where he has been responding. I look forward to hearing what he has to say, and to the speeches of the Opposition spokespeople, the hon. Member for East Grinstead and Uckfield (Mims Davies) and the hon. Member for Wokingham (Clive Jones).

British Sign Language is the first, or preferred, language of communication for approximately 3,500 members of the deaf population of Northern Ireland, and approximately 1,500 use Irish Sign Language. Schools have incorporated some basic sign language, and I am glad they have—it is another way of doing it.

We have many churches who engage in this. It is no secret that I am a Christian, and I like to understand that we are moving with society. There can be language issues for children at church whenever we are preaching the gospel, preaching the word of God, reading the Bible or praying, so we should have sign language in the church.

The Police Service of Northern Ireland has launched a brilliant new sign language video relay service for deaf people. There is access to the facility—24 hours a day, seven days a week—on the SignVideo app or via a call button on the PSNI website. I say to the Minister: if the PSNI has done that in Northern Ireland, perhaps we need to do that here.

I have one last point. Fury from “Gladiators” is deaf, but look at what that lady has done. There is not one man in this Chamber who would take her on, never mind any other lady—I know I wouldn’t, anyway. I will finish by saying this: if Fury can do it, you can do it as well.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Stephen Timms]

Yes, I would be very glad to meet representatives of the devolved Governments, and to co-operate with them on this, as we do in many other areas.

[Jim Shannon]

The Police Service of Northern Ireland has a 24/7 video system, so that those who have hearing problems can contact them and somebody can come out immediately. Is that something that the Minister could push forward with police forces on the mainland?

[Sir Stephen Timms]

I welcome that innovative arrangement; if the hon. Member drops me a line about it, I would be interested to look at it further. That is a similar example to what we heard about some energy companies operating for their customers, and I welcome it.

Another main focus for the advisory board this year is the use of artificial intelligence to reduce barriers. How long will it be before we have a handheld device that will be able to interpret BSL both ways? What might be the pitfalls of that happening? Yesterday I chaired an interesting roundtable at Tata in Bishopsgate, attended by the co-chairs and members of the BSL Advisory Board, representatives of the British Deaf Association, the RNID, Professor Richard Bowden from the University of Surrey, and Professor Kearsy Cormier, professor of sign linguistics at University College London.

At the roundtable Dr Charudatta Jadhav, the principal scientist and head of the accessibility centre of excellence at Tata in India, told us that, while Tata is focusing initially on Indian and American Sign Language, it expects to have a BSL interpretation product within five years. We discussed the ethical and cultural issues around that: how can software interpret the nuances in facial expressions, which I believe are much more important in BSL than in Indian Sign Language? How do developers decide which version of BSL to implement? How will regional accents, which can provide a BSL user with valuable information about the signer, be handled? Those are interesting topics, and as Members have said, deaf people need to be in driving seat in resolving them.

Tech can certainly help deaf people to overcome barriers that too often and needlessly block opportunities that others take for granted. We want more of that potential to be realised. The Government have taken important steps around equal pay and flexible working. On Tuesday, we launched our 12-week consultation on mandatory disability pay gap reporting—including, I am pleased to say, a BSL version of the consultation document. We want deaf people to get the support they need to thrive in the workplace, and we recognise that too many do not at the moment.

Implementing the BSL Act is only just beginning. Let us all keep working together to deliver the access and inclusion for deaf people that all of us want to see. Again, I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock and to everyone who has contributed to this important and welcome debate. I am grateful to those in the Public Gallery for their interest. I express particular thanks to the interpreters who have supported us today, and I thank Mr Speaker for enabling them to be with us.

Welfare Reform

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Tuesday 18th March 2025 Commons Chamber

[Liz Kendall]

I know that my hon. Friend cares passionately about these issues. Her constituents will not only benefit from the £1 billion investment into employment support, but the first ever above-inflation permanent increase in universal credit, if people are on universal credit and PIP. We have already taken action to ensure that those with the broadest shoulders take a bigger burden, including our action on the non-dom tax status and a tax on the profits of utility companies. That principle of fairness is vital to us all.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I go on the tube twice a week, and the disability seat in the carriage says “Not every disability is visible”. Bearing that in mind, those with severe mental health issues, such as paranoid psychosis, anxiety, depression or post-traumatic stress disorder, already fear phone calls from withheld phone numbers. Will the Secretary of State commit to ensuring that they will not be impacted or hounded in the attempt to root out fraudsters? Does she accept that those with severe mental health issues may not understand their illness, or be able to explain it or grasp it? How will these people—my people; our people—be protected?

Women’s Changed State Pension Age: Compensation

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Monday 17th March 2025 Westminster Hall

[Alison Hume (Scarborough and Whitby) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stringer. I congratulate the hon. Member for South Cotswolds (Dr Savage) on her powerful opening remarks.

According to the latest figures, there are 7,160 women in Scarborough and Whitby affected by the various Acts that made changes to women’s state pension age. As a candidate standing in Scarborough and Whitby, I pledged to support WASPI women, and as an MP, I rise today to speak for them. I sympathise with their anger and frustration. In her statement to the House in December, the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions said that most women knew that their state pension age was increasing. That may well have been the case—I have no way of telling—but I have been contacted by so many constituents who have told me that they were not aware of the changes to their state pension age, and the reasons are ones that I think we can all understand.

My constituent Kirsty was living in Spain when the letters were sent from the DWP, so was totally unaware of the pension age increase. Another of my constituents told me that she only heard about the changes through a friend while looking after her dad, who was suffering from dementia.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

As the whole House is probably aware, Women Against State Pension Inequality has received 7,607 requests and raised £132,000 for the judicial review. There are 77,000 WASPI women in Northern Ireland, and 6,000 in my constituency, who want justice. Does the hon. Lady agree that it would be in the best interests of the Government and the Minister to meet those women to finally negotiate a satisfactory outcome, avoid the costs of a judicial review, and ensure that justice can be given to the WASPI women, who richly deserve it?

[Alison Hume]

As always, the hon. Member makes a powerful point for his constituents, and I support his wider call for the Government to think again.

Returning to my constituent who was looking after her father who suffered from dementia, had she been aware of the changes she would have increased her personal pension contribution and saved more money to enable her to retire sooner to look after her dad, who has since passed away. The carer’s allowance was simply not enough to live on and pay for food and other essential bills. Her experience caring for an elderly parent is very common among women in their 50s and 60s; I have been there myself. It is extremely likely that many other women in that situation will have been preoccupied with coping with the day-to-day challenges that carers face and will not have known about the change to their state pension age.

Another constituent of mine had to sell her home of 36 years after she lost her husband, as she had planned for the future under the impression that she would receive her state pension at 60. Obviously, she acknowledges that even without the changes there is no guarantee that she could have remained in her home, but all the calculations that she and her husband did indicated that she would be all right. Many others had to work longer than they had anticipated or dip into their life savings and change their retirement plans after years of working hard and looking forward to life beyond work.

I acknowledge the action that the Government are taking to tackle the long-standing problems with carer’s allowance, which previous Governments failed to address. The increase in the state pension this April will make a tangible difference to the lives of many women in Scarborough and Whitby. I also acknowledge that the previous Government failed to set aside a single penny for compensation, and left behind a black hole in the public finances, which I appreciate constrains the ability of this Government to offer compensation.

--- Later in debate ---

[Danny Kruger (East Wiltshire) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stringer. I thank the hon. Member for South Cotswolds (Dr Savage), my Wiltshire near-neighbour, for her powerful speech representing the many thousands of people who supported the petition.

I pay tribute to our visitors in the Public Gallery, many of whom I detect might qualify as WASPI women. I echo the point made by the hon. Member for Torbay (Steve Darling) about the power of this campaign, which demonstrates what people power can do to get the attention of Parliament. I hope they feel that this debate has advanced their cause—we will hear from the Minister shortly about whether that has happened.

I also pay tribute to hon. Members across the Chamber for their speeches. I agree with those of them who pointed out the cross-party nature of our efforts. It has been very powerful to see, in particular, the friendship between the hon. Member for Salford (Rebecca Long Bailey) and my right hon. Friend the Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Sir John Hayes), which is a moving sight. They are the conscience and soul of their respective parties, and I hope that the Minister will listen to his hon. Friend just as I listen to my right hon. Friend.

I recognise that the question is a complex one and the Government have had a difficult time in thinking about what to do. It is true, as the ombudsman’s report pointed out, that there was no direct loss of income to women from the maladministration. However, it is also true that the bad communication of the policy change led directly to people’s income being impacted negatively and to their making decisions in the absence of full information from Government about their future income, as many hon. Members have powerfully expressed on behalf of individual constituents.

It is also true that the question of how to communicate with individual members of the public is a fraught one, but it is simply not credible to say that the communications with this group were adequate. As the hon. and learned Member for North Antrim (Jim Allister) powerfully pointed out, if the Government also say that there is very little point in sending letters because people do not open them, then what is the point in the Government communicating with the public in that way on any topic?

It is also true—this is the final defence of the Government, as it were—that dealing with 3.5 million people, all of whom have difference circumstances, is a complex matter. I recognise how difficult that is, and how enormous the potential bill for the taxpayer could have been if every single one of those women received the maximum compensation.

I have said that this issue is very complicated, but it is also fundamentally very simple. Other hon. Members have made this point more powerfully than I can, but the fact is that Labour MPs campaigned to fix this problem, right the wrongs that had been done to the WASPI women and, if they won the election, see justice done. That has not happened. As hon. Members have said very powerfully, our democracy depends on us MPs fulfilling the promises that we make when we stand for election. If we do not do that, we will have a bigger problem than the injustice done to the WASPI women; indeed, our whole democracy will be in crisis.

I recognise that more could have been done by the last Conservative Government before the election. However, we were waiting for the ombudsman’s report and the suggestion that we kicked it into the long grass is a little unfair. The fact is that the ombudsman’s report arrived a matter of weeks before the general election was called. I am confident—my party made clear pledges to this effect—that we would have fulfilled our commitment to the WASPI women in light of the ombudsman’s report. Exactly what we would have done, I cannot say. Sadly, no one will ever know because the public took a different view about who should take the matter forward. Nevertheless, I can say with absolute candour and confidence that we would have done more than nothing, which is what the Labour Government have done.

Leaving party politics out of it, I echo the point made by the hon. Member for Edinburgh West (Christine Jardine), who said that this is a matter for Parliament. The report came from a parliamentary ombudsman and it is Parliament that decides on these matters. Like her, I take hope in the many excellent, powerful and brave speeches made by Labour Members here in Westminster Hall today, and by many other Members who have stood in public and pledged their opposition to the decision made by their own party leadership. I honour them for the commitment they are making to honour the pledges they made when they stood as candidates, and I very much hope that the Minister is listening to them.

[Jim Shannon]

I have been a Back Bencher all my parliamentary career; I have no wish to be anything other than a Back Bencher. I am very happy in the role that I play. The Government Back Benchers in Westminster Hall today are playing an absolutely magnificent role; they should be congratulated and they should be very proud of the stance they are taking. Every one of them has spoken in support of the WASPI women and we thank them for that—and more Members than those Back Benchers are committed to doing the same. I look to the Minister here today. I have seen him nodding in support of them; his head went up and down, so I think he was agreeing with what they were saying. If that is the case, does he agree that he can only do one thing—meet the WASPI women before the judicial review makes him do something that he may end up deciding he should have done long ago?

[Danny Kruger]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, who is without a doubt the greatest Back Bencher in the House of Commons, and I very much agree with what he is saying. I reiterate my appreciation of and respect for colleagues across the House and particularly those Labour Members who have spoken today and in other places in support of the WASPI women.

Let me finish by putting a specific question to the Minister. When we were here in Westminster Hall a couple of months ago to debate this issue, it was his first day in the job. By the way, we should not be blaming him for coming up with this policy; he was a Back Bencher when it was conceived and he just had to come out and defend it, which he did. On that day, during the last debate on this topic, he said:

“We will work with the ombudsman to develop a detailed action plan identifying and addressing lessons from this and other PHSO investigations.” —[Official Report, 15 January 2025; Vol. 760, c. 157WH.]

I would be grateful if he told us what progress has been made on this matter and what action plan we can expect. What update can he provide? As the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) just said, I very much hope that he will work closely with the WASPI women themselves and their representatives to develop that action plan.

This battle is not over; as we have just heard, there is a case in the High Court about it. However, Parliament remains powerful enough, and has the authority and the ability, to right the injustice that has been done over so many years to these women. I very much hope that the Minister—who, as I say, cannot be blamed for conceiving of this policy—having heard the powerful speeches from parties across the House and being aware of the strength of feeling in our constituencies, will feed back to his colleagues in the Government that a mistake has been made and that the opportunity still remains to right this injustice.

--- Later in debate ---

[Torsten Bell]

My predecessor, who I just mentioned, did meet the ombudsman prior to the decision being announced by the Government. Parliament has been very engaged in this issue, as demonstrated today and in January’s debate led by the right hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Sir John Hayes). The Government have made their decision and it is right that hon. Members hold us accountable for it, as they have done powerfully today.

[Jim Shannon]

The judicial review is pending. It is like the sword of Damocles hanging over the head of the Government. Does the Minister fear the judicial review that will, perhaps, force the Government to give WASPI women the compensation and justice they deserve?

[Torsten Bell]

I thank the hon. Gentleman, but I suspect that was a statement rather than a question. He knows that the Government will not comment on a live litigation. In answer to questions asked by other Members, I will, of course, be happy to meet with the chairs of the APPG, subject to the constraints of that live legal case. As a Department, we must and will learn the lessons from this case.

Oral Answers to Questions

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Monday 17th March 2025 Commons Chamber

[Sir Stephen Timms]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right to press for improvements. We want to change how we think about jobcentres and the benefit system. Our youth work coaches talk a lot to disabled young people and are very keen to help more. Our reforms are making that possible, by giving better help and support, and by opening up new opportunities for disabled young people up and down the country.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

My staff member, alongside me, does benefit applications, appeals and tribunals at least five days a week. She overturns 75% of applications in favour of the applicant, which tells me that there is something wrong with the system. I am worried sick for my constituents who suffer from mental and physical issues because of our 30-year conflict. There must be a system that protects my constituents and the people we all represent.

[Sir Stephen Timms]

Again, the hon. Gentleman is right to call for improvements. We want to see improvements in assessments, and he is probably well aware that we will shortly be publishing a Green Paper with proposals for reform to the health and disability benefit system. We will have something to say about this in that document.

Child Maintenance Service

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Wednesday 26th February 2025 Commons Chamber

[Ian Sollom]

I absolutely agree; that is exactly the sort of reform we need to see in the system, and I will come to those points later.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I commend the hon. Gentleman for bringing forward this matter. I spoke to him before the debate. I would love to say that things are better in Northern Ireland, but they are not better one bit. Hon. Members can see that I have no hair, and one reasons for that is that I find this matter incredibly stressful, and he has referred to things that I and my staff deal with regularly. The statistics for Northern Ireland show that in March last year only 54% of parents were paying more than 90% of what they owe. That means that 46% of those who should be paying are not. It is quite clear to me that the system falls down. Single-parent families are struggling. Does he agree that we need a UK-wide overhaul to address such worrying statistics—not just in Northern Ireland, but everywhere in this great United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland?

[Ian Sollom]

I will come to the national statistics later in my speech, but those mentioned by the hon. Gentleman absolutely speak to the need for reform.

The constituent I mentioned is far from alone, and it is not all one way, with paying parents often finding themselves let down by the CMS too. Another constituent has spent months battling the service after experiencing a genuine drop in income. Despite providing every piece of documentation that he has been asked for, he has been left waiting and waiting for an adjustment to his payment schedule. He said:

“I received a letter that said my request was not valid. No explanation was given. The letter said I would be referred to an unnamed team that could help me. Almost two months later, I have received no contact.”

That is just another story that embodies the failures at the CMS.

I recently attended the parliamentary event hosted by Gingerbread, the charity for single-parent families, and the all-party parliamentary group on single-parent families. The testimony shared that day echoed many of the fundamental problems: enforcement failures, dehumanising customer service, the resulting financial hardship and, in too many cases, continued abuse.

--- Later in debate ---

[Andrew Western]

I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention. He has a long history of working not just on CMS issues but on child poverty more broadly, and his expertise is of great value to the House. I will say a little more about domestic abuse and financial abuse later in my contribution, but I reassure him that the focus we had in the consultation on the proposed abolition of direct pay was intended as a specific response to that issue. I have seen appalling examples in cases that have crossed my desk as a Minister of people who can message their former partner in the form of a comment on a bank transaction. They will transfer a penny—they have a direct payment in place—along with an abusive term or some form of triggering harassment of a former victim of theirs. That shows that while a parent may have moved away from that unsafe and dangerous environment, they are never fully away when direct pay is engaged.

[Jim Shannon]

rose—

[Andrew Western]

I can see the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) trying to come in. I will beat him to it and give way.

[Jim Shannon]

I thank the Minister. I expect that we will have a positive response from him to the hon. Member for St Neots and Mid Cambridgeshire (Ian Sollom) and all the queries, because that is what we get from the Minister we have in front of us.

One of the things that really frustrates me—it frustrates us all—is whenever one of my constituents comes to me and says, “I get a different person every time I phone up. I have to tell them the same story over and over again, and then you go back two weeks later and the person you were speaking to is away as well.” There must be some way in the Department for Work and Pensions that we can have a specific case officer who looks after something, and they need to respond to that person. I know that the Minister understands these things, but, honestly, it is so simple to sort out—at least, it seems to me to be simple. We really need something on behalf of all our constituents.

[Andrew Western]

I absolutely understand the point that the hon. Gentleman is making. With specific reference to named caseworkers, initially for victims of domestic abuse, I will have something further to say that I think he and all hon. Members will welcome, but I take his more general point.

If I may make some progress, turning to direct pay and domestic violence, financial abuse and so on, the proposals also sought views on collection fees and explored how victims and survivors of domestic abuse can be better supported. That is so important given the issues raised by the hon. Member for St Neots and Mid Cambridgeshire and the case he cited of his constituent. Overall, work is ongoing to establish the steps needed to really improve the service, taking account of the views of parents. Those will be set out in the response to the consultation. I appreciate that he would like that to be as soon as possible; I will take that away.

To drill down on the issue of domestic abuse, the scale of violence against women and girls in our country is intolerable, and the Government will treat it as the national emergency that it is. Our manifesto included the mission to halve violence against women and girls in a decade—we were right to do so—and I and all Ministers are focused on making that a reality. If I may, I will therefore say a little about the support that should be available. If the hon. Member wants to share specific details of the case that he referenced with me, I will take that away. The support that should be available is extensive and runs contrary to what clearly happened in the case that he outlined.

We have overseen progress in providing support, with the continued roll-out of an operational team to deliver targeted support to parents subjected to the most challenging and complex domestic abuse. The team provide a tailored and discrete service to customers, which is incredibly important, giving regular progress updates. They can and do assign a named caseworker to prevent customers having to re-tell their story at each interaction. As the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) was saying, that can be incredibly stressful for parents using the service. Caseworkers are trained to identify and refer appropriate cases within the collect and pay service to that team. More generally, the CMS consulted on a diverse range of stakeholders to review its domestic abuse training for all frontline CMS staff to ensure that caseworkers understand, recognise and respond appropriately to customers who are experiencing domestic abuse or who are survivors of domestic abuse.

Support for Pensioners

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Wednesday 12th February 2025 Westminster Hall

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dame Siobhain. I thank the hon. Member for Mid Bedfordshire (Blake Stephenson) for setting the scene incredibly well. I hate to say this, and apologise for doing so, but I am disappointed that no Labour Back Benchers are present because, as the Minister will know, my allegiance lies to the left of politics. That is who I am, but the party that I expected to be the party of conscience is no longer that party. I spoke to my friend, the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire North and Moray East (Seamus Logan), before I rose to speak. I am very conscious that it is not Opposition Members that put it into law that the winter fuel allowance would be withdrawn from pensioners; it is Government Members. That is incredibly disappointing for me. The party of conscience, as I saw it, is no longer the party of conscience. I say that with deep regret, but I say it honestly, because that is how I feel, and I have to put it on the record.

Although the previous Government did it, we will take the credit for it. Remember that the DUP was in partnership with the Conservative party. As part of that deal, we secured the triple lock on pensions for our people. Everybody gains from that. To be fair to the Labour party, it is committed to it, and I do not see any changes coming in that regard—at least I hope to goodness that no changes are coming. For a certain period of time, that helped to keep pensioners out of poverty due to cost of living increases, not least the ever-escalating fuel bills. Even the triple lock cannot keep up with prices.

Poverty among older people is the highest it has been since the 2008 recession. Northern Ireland, where oil instead of gas is more often used to warm houses, has seen sharp price rises. Indeed, I understand that 68% of houses in Northern Ireland depend on oil. Over the past three years, National Energy Action has experienced a significant rise in the number of households seeking emergency support because high energy prices and wider cost of living pressures mean they can no longer afford to keep their homes warm and safe.

That is something to which I can testify. Many people get food bank vouchers from my office in Newtownards. My constituency had the first food bank in all of Northern Ireland. A good thing about the food bank is that it brings together the churches, individuals and organisations that wish to help. Sometimes we can focus on the dire need, but we should also focus on the fact that it brings good people together to help. There is a goodness out of it, and one that I am pleased to support. My office is the biggest referrer for food bank vouchers in the whole of the constituency. The food bank does wonderful things and helps people in their hour of need.

[Seamus Logan]

I completely agree with the hon. Gentleman about the wonderful work that food banks do, but does he agree that it is a source of shame to this country that food bank usage is growing?

[Jim Shannon]

Yes, it is disappointing, and I cannot ignore that fact. I always like to think that good people come together, reach out and try to address those issues, but the hon. Gentleman is right that they should not have to.

In September 2023, NEA undertook a Northern Ireland-wide representative survey to assess the impact of energy prices on households. The survey found that 41% of households in Northern Ireland were spending at least 10% of their total household expenditure on energy costs, and were therefore in fuel poverty. The continued pressure on household budgets has led to a rise in detrimental coping mechanisms. Those systems that should be in place to help are clearly unable to. For example, 19% of households told the survey that they had gone without heating oil, gas or electricity in the past 24 months because they were unable to afford energy. One in 10 households admitted to skipping meals to ensure they had enough money to pay for energy. Others have referred to that.

The pensioners I speak to are vulnerable, have complex health needs and have disability issues. Sometimes they have no family. As others have said, they have to look after themselves, but they are unable to. That dismays me greatly. Data shows that close to one in five households over over-60s are now in such severe fuel poverty that their homes are being kept in a condition that “endangers the health” of the inhabitants.

What happens when someone cannot heat their house? The house deteriorates, the mould grows and the damp grows. It is a fact: people have to have a level of heat in their houses; otherwise, they will deteriorate. That is an impact that is perhaps not often seen. The hon. Member for Aberdeenshire North and Moray East will remember the debate this morning in which a constituent was mentioned: an elderly person, over 70, who was living in a house with a leak in the roof. He did not have the ability to fix it, had no family to fall back on and did not qualify for any grants for it. The deterioration of houses cannot be ignored.

Fuel poverty among pensioners is dangerous and must be addressed. I recently went to the home of a lady who was applying for attendance allowance. I am no better than anybody else, but I know how to fill in forms—I know how to do all the benefit forms, and I have done them for umpteen years; I know how they work, and I know the right words to say on behalf of a deserving constituent. When I was on the election trail in July, going round the doors, I acquired between 80 and 90 attendance allowance forms. Those constituents did not qualify for pension credit, but we were able to get them on to attendance allowance, as I will explain with one of my examples. Those forms take at least an hour to fill in, and I have a staff member who does nothing but fill in forms five days a week—sometimes six.

Let us be honest: I am no spring chicken any more. I am a pensioner and I will be reaching quite a significant figure shortly, but I am pretty strong. I think I am strapping, although I am not sure whether my wife agrees—she is the one who really matters. I know that the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire North and Moray East has a great interest in shooting; I could probably stand shooting for the best part of the day in cold weather, as long as the pheasants and the pigeons kept coming over my head.

[Steve Barclay]

Not only standing, but I recall that in the debate on Monday, the hon. Gentleman was sitting next to the Minister, such was the pressure on seats. Given that none of the Minister’s colleagues have bothered to come to the debate, perhaps he might consider sitting over there again and giving the Minister a little company.

As other hon. Members did, the hon. Gentleman is talking quite rightly about the speed and the targeting of the policy. The point is that it was a choice. There is a debate to be had about universal benefits and targeted benefits, but the speed with which it was done meant that some of the targeting, such as for pension credit, was not addressed. That has caused the cliff edge that hon. Members on both sides of the House have spoken about, so that if someone is just over the threshold, they lose out entirely.

On choices, the Government have chosen to fund not just the Chagos deal, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Wendy Morton) said, but the above-inflation pay rises to trade union workforces such as train drivers. The hardship cases set out by the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) and others show that this issue is not about a wider debate on the economy, the mistakes made in the Budget or their effect on our growth projections, but about choice. The Government have chosen to give money to their other priorities—but before the election, they told pensioners that they would choose to prioritise them.

[Dame Siobhain McDonagh (in the Chair)]

Order. The right hon. Member is a man of great of experience and he knows that this is an intervention, rather than a speech.

[Jim Shannon]

The right hon. Gentleman was doing so well that I felt like leaving him in full flow. He is absolutely right that we need to focus on that issue.

I was successful with that lady’s attendance allowance form, and I am pleased that the benefits system justified her claim given her complex health needs, including mobility issues. In that lady’s case, it enables her to get £436 per month, or £5,130 a year, which fills the gap from not getting the pension credit. However, not everyone qualifies for that allowance, which is what the right hon. Member referred to.

The lady’s home was on the brink of freezing, and she very openly said that she was hopeful of getting the attendance allowance to fill the tank with oil, which she did. She justified her claim and she deserved it, but she should have got it years ago. She did not apply because she did not know about the allowance, so perhaps the Minister could look into contacting pensioners directly.

I find the pensioners who I deal with regularly to be very independent, and they are nearly apologetic for applying for a benefit. They say, “Oh no, I don’t think I’d qualify for that,” but when we ask them questions, we suddenly find out that they do. My office staff were able to secure a Bryson energy grant to put some oil in that lady’s tank in the short term. When people say that pensioners are getting more than ever, I can only think of that wee lady in her cold home, who quite clearly was not.

That lady is not the only one. Local churches, such as the House Church and Christian Fellowship Church, make their facilities available to people for food and meals, as well as to come and read—or “sit and knit”, as they call it—in their warm facilities in Newtownards town. I am greatly encouraged by people’s goodness, so I am thankful for the churches and the voluntary sector that step up when the Government fail.

I want to clarify one final issue, although I am very conscious that somebody else wants to speak and I do not want to take up their time. A further issue of concern for pensioners are the letters that come from His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs, with no explanation, and ask women in their 80s to go online, fill out a tax application and pay back taxes. I have one lady whose husband’s pension is £50 per month and that puts her over the threshold. Honestly, I get so frustrated, and I know that wee lady was even more frustrated than me. She had to pay back a tax bill of £280, and of course, she said, “Look, take my husband’s pension. I don’t want it any more. It’s only giving me bother. I don’t know how to fill the forms in.” So there is an issue about pursuing that, and we have to reach out and help people who get those sudden letters.

I conclude with this: my party has sought to divert some of the block grant as a small help for pensioners in fuel poverty, recognising that they need that help. I understand that the Government cannot pay all of the fuel bills, but I believe that we can do better, and help more, and I look to the Minister to do just that.

--- Later in debate ---

[Torsten Bell]

The right hon. Member is absolutely right to raise the case of those who might need support to complete the form. That is why one of the elements of the campaign we have run this year is targeting not pensioners directly, but friends and family, to encourage them to help people to apply for pension credit themselves.

[Jim Shannon]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

--- Later in debate ---

[Torsten Bell]

We will be maintaining the triple lock throughout this Parliament, as promised in our manifesto. In April, the basic and new state pensions will increase by 4.1% and 12 million pensioners will see a concrete increase—whether Members believe it or not—of up to £470.

Several Members mentioned the need for long-term planning. That commitment to the triple lock means that spending on the state pension is forecast to rise by over £31 billion this Parliament. At the individual level, that translates into the new state pension being on track to rise by up to £1,900 a year, and the basic state pension —the pension that is relevant to those who hit the state pension age before 2016—by £1,500. But the last 15 years tell us that we need to do more for pensioners.

[Jim Shannon]

In my contribution I hinted that attendance allowance might be another method of giving benefit entitlements to qualifying pensioners. Not every pensioner would qualify, but many would. I suggest a concerted campaign by the Government to make every pensioner aware of all the benefits. As the right hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Wendy Morton) said, sometimes they are shy, sometimes they are independent, and sometimes they do not know they are entitled to things.

[Torsten Bell]

The hon. Member raises an important point. Attendance allowance would entitle a pensioner to extra income to pay for extra costs, including heating if required, but it would also lead to a higher threshold for qualification for pension credit. However, he is right that we need to see people applying for those benefits.

As I was saying, the last 15 years tell us that we need to do more for pensioners, and that returns on private pension savings matter too. We are undertaking a comprehensive pensions review to ensure that the pensions system is fit for the future, building on the success of auto-enrolment, which was introduced under the last Government and has seen over 11 million employees saving into a workplace pension. That is one of the big areas of progress in the pensions landscape in the last 25 years.

The Government are committed to further reforming our pensions landscape, so that it drives up both economic growth and returns to savers, via the upcoming pension schemes Bill. We need bigger and better pension funds investing in productive assets such as infrastructure. We need to help individuals consolidate small pension pots and have sight of them via the pensions dashboard, so that they can plan for security in retirement. The measures in the Bill could help the average earner who saves over their lifetime have over £11,000 more in their pension pot when they come to retire.

Community and Third Sector Organisations: Employment

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Monday 10th February 2025 Commons Chamber

[Paulette Hamilton (Birmingham Erdington) (Lab)]

Before I start the debate, I would like to declare an interest: I chair the organisation in my constituency that I will be talking about, but I get absolutely no remuneration for it.

It is a privilege to speak on behalf of my constituents in Erdington, whose communities are filled with untapped potential. My constituency ranks among the top five most deprived areas in the country, with an unemployment rate of around twice the national average. Sadly, we fall well below the national average for functional literacy, ranking 47th lowest out of 533 constituencies in England last year. This stark reality creates major barriers for my constituents, but I am proud to say we have not stood idly by. Instead, in the face of adversity, our community came together to take decisive action to shape our future.

In 2020, in response to the economic fallout from the covid pandemic, the north Birmingham economic recovery board was formed. This vibrant and dynamic board is administered by the Witton Lodge Community Association, and I have had the honour of serving as its chair since March 2022. Driven by collaborative action, we are ambitious, maximising economic opportunities and supporting thousands of residents into training and employment. The board brings together around 25 organisations, including the local authority, the combined authority, local and national businesses, community groups and third sector organisations, to deliver skills, training and employment opportunities to residents of north Birmingham, particularly those facing the greatest barriers and exclusion. From the beginning, it was vital to include businesses and social enterprises of all sizes to ensure that local residents can access and benefit from significant business opportunities.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I spoke to the hon. Lady before the debate, and I commend her initiative. Her constituents can feel immensely proud of her efforts. Scrabo residents’ group has done something similar in an area of disadvantage in my constituency where people do not have opportunities. The group has provided jobs in security and HGV driving, for example. These people previously had no job, and now they have opportunities for employment. A community initiative has made this happen.

[Paulette Hamilton]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for sharing what his constituents are doing.

The results speak for themselves. To date, we have secured over £15 million in investment, supported 8,000 residents—two thirds of whom are aged between 24 and 49 —and helped over 1,000 people into work. We have enrolled 1,500 residents in gateway courses, linking them to jobs, and supported major employment with recruitment drives such as at Amazon’s Peddimore site.

But it does not stop there. Witton Lodge Community Association holds regular skills workshops and jobs fairs in north Birmingham, such as the event at St Barnabas church in Erdington just two weeks ago, connecting hundreds of local unskilled jobseekers with more than 25 diverse employers. The board is working with companies such as Halfords to develop bespoke apprenticeship packages, ensuring that young people and adults can access high-quality training and job opportunities. None of this would be possible without the dedication of our partner organisations like Birmingham Metropolitan college, IM Properties, Pioneer Group and Witton Lodge Community Association.

Oral Answers to Questions

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Monday 3rd February 2025 Commons Chamber

[Liz Kendall]

I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend. We have a responsibility and a duty to use every possible measure to ensure that taxpayers’ money is wisely spent, on our schools, hospitals and police and on supporting those who are in genuine need. Our new Public Authorities (Fraud, Error and Recovery) Bill, along with fraud measures in the Budget, will save £8.6 billion over the next five years. That is the biggest fraud package ever. We were elected on a mandate for change, and that is what this Government will deliver.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

In the press today there is a reference to a criminal gang who defrauded the DWP by more than £1 million and were able to abscond to a certain eastern European country. Without mentioning too many things that are happening, can the Secretary of State tell me whether there is a way, within the law of this land, of chasing those people up, getting them back here and finding out where all that misappropriated money has got to?

[Liz Kendall]

The hon. Gentleman is right to raise this despicable case. The new powers in the Bill—the existing powers have not been updated for 14 years—will bring us into line with other public bodies and ensure that we can investigate this properly, secure the evidence and get our money back.

Public Authorities (Fraud, Error and Recovery) Bill

Jim Shannon Excerpts

2nd reading
Monday 3rd February 2025 Commons Chamber

[Liz Kendall]

People who are genuinely entitled to claim benefits have nothing to worry about from this Bill, but we believe that the £7.4 billion wasted every year through benefit fraud must be cracked down on.

To the corrupt companies with their dodgy covid contracts, to the organised criminal gangs and to every single individual knowingly cheating the system, our message today is clear: we will find you, we will stop you and we will get our money back.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

No one denies that there are those who are blatantly cheating the system, as I referred to in my oral question to the Secretary of State earlier today. On her point about fair play, however, can she give an assurance to me and to the House? I am concerned that if officials in the Department seek out low-hanging fruit, people who have a genuine disability could be denied their rights. I am concerned about the anxiety, the depression and the physical effects that that might cause.

[Liz Kendall]

Actually, the Bill will do the precise opposite. Through the measures relating to the Public Sector Fraud Authority, we are saying to the large companies and corporations and to the individuals cheating, “We will treat you equally. We do not allow fraud against the public purse. We want to stop it and get our money back.”

--- Later in debate ---

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

Let me, at the outset, make it clear for the record that I think it is important that the Government pursue fraud. I asked the Secretary of State about that this afternoon during DWP questions. There is a story in the newspaper today, and it may even have been in yesterday’s Sunday paper, about a gentleman who defrauded the system of about £800,000 and skipped off to, I think, Romania. There was no treaty whereby we could pursue him, but obviously the Government wish to ensure that all those moneys are recoverable. The point I am making is that there are clearly those who set out to defraud the system, and it is important for the Government to respond positively. I think they are doing that, but I have some concerns.

When we speak to constituents on the doorstep, none of them have an issue with people who need help from the state—who are ill, or out of work for other genuine reasons—but there is a definite feeling that people should not claim and work on the side, and I agree that we need to clamp down on those who are “doing the double”. That terminology may not be used very often, but its meaning is clear. The statistics suggest that there may well be an issue, although the scale referred to in Government documentation varies greatly. The National Audit Office puts the amount across the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland in 2023-24 in the range between £5 billion and £30 billion. It is clear that we need to do something effective. Those who work hard and are barely making ends meet are crying out for fairness. However, I fear that we may open up powers that cannot be removed and that would turn us into a nanny state.

In my earlier intervention on the Secretary of State, I expressed concern about those who make genuine and honest mistakes. The hon. and learned Member for North Antrim (Jim Allister) referred to that, in his polished and qualified way. People fill in forms and think they are doing it correctly, but perhaps they make a mistake and tick the wrong box. It happens all the time. I asked my right hon. Friend the Member for East Antrim (Sammy Wilson) whether he had dealt with many such cases over the years. I have dealt with about 30, perhaps 40, every one of them involving a genuine mistake when someone unfortunately ticked the wrong box and had to repay the money. I am concerned about those who are disabled, those who are anxious, those who are depressed, those who have emotional or mental issues. I do not want them to become the “low-hanging fruit” for Ministers and the Department to pursue, rather than pursuing those who are guilty of claiming benefits only just this side of £1 million, like the person I mentioned.

A girl in my office, a member of my staff, works full time on benefits, five days a week. Her diary is full from 9 am until 5 pm every day of the week. Disabled people come to my office, and they are the people whose cases are genuine. They are the people who have applied for benefits and are anxious and worried about the whole thing. I always say to them, and the girls in the office say it as well, “If you are going to get the benefit—and it is right that you do—put the facts on your application form, and the Department will make a decision.” Those are the people I fear for. They are the people I worry for. They are the people about whom I myself feel anxious on their behalf, worrying about what could happen to them.

When people apply for benefits genuinely, the DWP does sometimes make mistakes. Every one of the 30-odd people I mentioned earlier with whom I have been involved over the years was successful because there had been a genuine mistake. I have to say, “Guys, I respect this greatly, because I understand the principle of what you are trying to do, so you should never be in doubt about where I am coming from”—I apologise, Madam Deputy Speaker; I should have referred to “hon. Members” rather than “guys.”

The hon. and learned Member for North Antrim mentioned people having their driving licences removed if they have not repaid £1,000 when it is money that, perhaps, they should not be in receipt of. However, if their driving licences are taken away when they have simply made a mistake, and they are penalised and deemed to be guilty, they cannot go to their jobs because they have no cars, and cannot do the work that would enable to pay the money back, that is overkill.

I also want to say something about bank accounts. Everything I do in this House comes from Strangford, and it will not surprise anyone that the examples I will give are Strangford-based. I say that to help all the other Members here. I was contacted by a constituent whose brother has been diagnosed with paranoid psychosis and was living in a tent when she realised that he had been turned out of his apartment and his benefits had fallen by the wayside. She took control, got him on benefits and found him a private rented apartment. Because he does not trust banks, which is part of his health issue, all that is done through her accounts. Without her, he would be unable to pay rent or do anything, as he does not trust Government and she handles it all. Will her bank accounts be open to Government scrutiny? Will she hand over care to the social worker who ceased contact because her brother would not engage, and signed him off as too difficult to work with? That is all part of the paranoid psychosis—the health problems, the disabilities, the emotional and mental issues that such people face. I think of these people. I will always speak up for the wee man and the wee woman who are penalised through a system that tries hard to achieve the goals that it sets itself, but unfortunately—again—falls by the wayside.

Who will take care of the situation if this man’s sister objects to Government rifling through her accounts when she works hard and pays more than her share in tax? One hon. Gentleman—I cannot remember who it was—said that HMRC should be pursuing other moneys with the same zeal that they are showing in this case. What security will my constituent have to ensure that her privacy is not sacrificed because she is helping her brother? More importantly, how many others like her —friends and families of those suffering from mental ill health—will pull back because of that?

I ask the Minister for an assurance about such cases, and I think it important for each and every one of us who has a conscience—I am not saying that no one else has a conscience; perhaps I should say, those of us who have concerns on behalf of our constituents—to bear them in mind. A Government overreach for those who are caring for the mentally ill, and who already lead a life of stress owing to their caring duties, without recompense from the Government because they already work—could lead to more pressure from the state to fill the breach. I must respectfully say that I do not see how we have the capacity for this.

I never want to see a scenario in which genuinely disabled people are so concerned about the scope of Government regulation in respect of their moneys that they do not claim what they are entitled to. That would be terrible. The Government set a system—whether it is the personal independence payment, universal credit, disabled living allowance, pension credit or attendance allowance—and all those benefits are there for a purpose. When people come to me, I always say, “The Government have set this aside for you. It is yours if you qualify and the criteria are there.” I think of people who save for a holiday, or perhaps their partners work and take them on a holiday tailored to their needs; perhaps they will go to the hotel in Portrush, not far away, or perhaps they will take a plane to Jersey, with a wheelchair and an assistant to get them on and off the plane. I do not want such people penalised when their disability is such that they can only do that if there is someone with them. They may be afraid to go on that holiday because they fear being labelled a benefit cheat, while those who are doing the double, as it used to be known, should be unable to continue that life at the expense of the taxpayer. My question to the Minister is this: how do the Government intend to find the balance?

It is critical for us to get that balance right. I understand the urge to do this, and it is right to do it, but I do not want those who are justified in receiving a benefit to be penalised. I note that the Government believe they could reclaim some £54 million in 10 years. If that figure is right, this is worth pursuing, but how much will it cost to run over that period? How much will it cost the Government to chase all these moneys? How do we send a message to those who are concerned about their loss of freedom to a Government who can look into family bank accounts that this is a measure worth taking?

My final words to the Government are these: “Do. the job that you have set yourself, but make sure you do not chase the wee man and the wee woman”—the people whom I represent, the people whom the hon. Member for Blyth and Ashington (Ian Lavery) represents, the people whom we all represent on both sides of the House.” Those are the people I am speaking up for tonight, and I want to make sure that they are protected.

[John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Ind)]

I do not want to repeat what has been said by others, but I will share my perspective on the Bill. It is in two parts, and there is almost unanimity about the first part, which deals with how we tackle fraud carried out through contracts and so on. I thank the hon. and learned Member for North Antrim (Jim Allister) for pointing out some of the elements of real concern in that part of the Bill, which, to be frank, I missed. The Bill has been published for only a week, and it has been difficult to go through it. I have been somewhat distracted by the Government trying to concrete over a quarter of my constituency with a third runway at Heathrow, and elements of the Bill need further examination. To be frank, I think it will face legal challenge in some form.

I cannot welcome the first half of the Bill enough, which deals with tackling overall fraud. I was the first MP to raise with the then Chancellor the corruption that was taking place with covid bounce back loans. I raised it a number of times in the House, and I wrote to him twice. I received a standard letter that was almost identical to the response I got from the banks, which said they were going through their usual investigatory process, and then we eventually discovered that fraudulent claims for bounce back loans amounted to at least £5 billion. I welcome the first half of the Bill, because we need to be ruthless on the corruption and fraud that takes place.

However, the second part of the Bill, particularly clause 74 and schedule 3, is where we are straining, to be frank. Some hon. Members have mentioned the context already. There is real fear out there among people who claim welfare benefits, particularly disabled people. It is a result of their being targeted, and of careless language in this place and elsewhere. That is then exaggerated even further by the media, and benefit claimants become targets.

I echo what the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) said, because I have the same problem in my constituency. Sometimes it is about telling people to claim what they are entitled to, because they are terrified of the stigma around claiming benefits at the moment, particularly older people. The atmosphere that we now have is a climate of fear, and I am worried that this debate will add to that climate of fear.

The Secretary of State said that any proposal has to be proportionate, safe and fair, but there are real concerns about the proportionality of this Bill. As other Members have said, it is a mass surveillance exercise. The road to hell is paved with good intentions, and I fear that once we start down the path of surveillance in this way, others will come back with proposals for where we can go further. As Members have said time and again, there is an issue with safety. How many lessons do we have to learn about the way that computer systems and the use of algorithms have destroyed people’s lives? My hon. Friend the Member for Normanton and Hemsworth (Jon Trickett) said that the banks are gearing up, but they have expressed concern that the Bill is almost an exercise beyond their abilities. As a result, there will be errors, which will reinforce the climate of fear around benefits.

[Jim Shannon]

I apologise for omitting this issue from my speech. Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that the Government have decided to penalise those who have been charged with alleged fraud? Does he feel that there should be a system in place so that they can appeal?

[John McDonnell]

That is why the code of practice is going to be interesting. The code of practice needs to be published as rapidly as possible to see what mechanisms will be available for us to protect our constituents.

I have one area of experience with regard to the flagging up of sums of money that raise concerns: in the debates that we had on tax avoidance, we talked about suspicious activity reports. There is a record of real faults and a high number of errors in that process. As a result, people have been not just penalised, but penalised unfairly and exposed unfairly. It is not that I am in any way a defender of tax avoidance or anything like that, but if we are to introduce a system, we need to make sure that it is secure and effective, and does not penalise people unfairly.

The Bill is supposed to be proportionate, safe and fair. The reason why people will feel that it is unfair is that it specifically targets people who are often in desperate need. If there was a group of people whose accounts we would want to monitor because there has been a history of fraud, and who have had to pay money back—some have gone to prison—it would be MPs. I was here during the expenses scandal. Following that experience, are we really not monitoring our accounts for undue payments and so on? Why is it always the poor who we target in this way?

As I said, I am really worried about the climate of fear, particularly among people with disabilities, which the hon. Member for Torbay (Steve Darling) mentioned. We know about 600 suicides that are related to DWP activity. We circulated John Pring’s book “The Department”, which looks at the DWP’s role in those deaths, to all MPs, and it was starkly obvious that it had made a significant contribution, if not caused them. I remember a case in Scotland in which a poet in Leith committed suicide but did not leave a suicide note; he just left a letter from the DWP beside him.

My view is that whatever steps we take in exercising the powers in the Bill, we have to be extremely careful. One of the things I want to raise—if I can crowbar it into this legislation through an amendment, I will—is that a number of us, on the basis of the work of Mo Stewart, who does research on poverty and welfare benefits, have said that we must give people assurances that they will be protected and that we will do everything we can to cause no harm, and certainly not cause any further suicides, but we must also learn the lessons of what has happened in the past.

One of Mo Stewart’s proposals is for an independent advisory panel for DWP-related deaths. We have exactly that system in place for deaths in custody. We have an advisory system at the moment for the DWP but, to be frank, it is not working. The minutes of the panel’s meetings are cursory, and it does not do detailed reports in the same way as the deaths in custody panel. If we are to reassure people out there that we really are looking after their interests, that is one small step that we could include in this legislation. I am not sure that we will be able to crowbar it into the title of the Bill, but I will do my best and would welcome other Members’ creative drafting to help me. Such a measure would send out the right message. The Secretary of State has tried to do that tonight with her assurances about the processes, but I am not sure whether that will be enough, given the climate of fear that we now have.

What are the next steps? I hope that there will be sufficient time in Committee for us all to get our head around the detail of the Bill. I hope that there will be more consultation; it would be better to delay Report to enable that. I also wish to raise the same issue as the hon. Member for Brighton Pavilion (Siân Berry): we were given assurances that the proposals would be implemented by co-production rather than announced from above.

It would be an example of good governance if there were a process of proper consultation. After the Ellen Clifford case, in which the High Court ruled against the previous Government on their consultation, the spirit of the Government’s response was that there would then be proper consultation, hopefully on the principle of “Nothing about us without us”. Consultation on the detail of the Bill throughout its passage would be the best example that this Government could give of that process working productively so that we get it right and we do not endanger any more people, as unfortunately has happened in the past.

Agricultural Property Relief

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Tuesday 28th January 2025 Westminster Hall

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

On a point of clarification, Mr Stringer, I understand that the Front-Bench speeches will begin at 3.28 pm. Does that mean that the hon. Member for Tiverton and Minehead (Rachel Gilmour) and myself can divide the 17 minutes until then between ourselves?

[Graham Stringer (in the Chair)]

On the time limit that I have set, if people took the four minutes, we would finish the Back-Bench speeches at 3.19 pm. One of the problems is that some people have put in to speak but are not standing. That made the calculation difficult, because I assumed that people who had put in to speak would be bobbing, and they have not. At the moment, I will go with the four minutes that we have agreed.

[Jim Shannon]

Thank you for that clarification, Mr Stringer. I did not intend to put you under any pressure. I wish you well and thank you for your chairship.

I thank the hon. Member for Caerfyrddin (Ann Davies) —I hope my pronunciation is right, with my Ulster Scots accent—for securing this important debate on a matter of grave concern for many constituents and communities across the United Kingdom, and for those that I proudly represent as the Member of Parliament for Strangford. I declare an interest as a member of the Ulster Farmers’ Union, a farmer and a landowner. All my neighbours—every one of them—are concerned about this issue, and they have expressed that to me very clearly.

Farmers are the backbone of our rural economy. Their work provides not only the food that graces our tables but the stewardship of our natural landscapes, which are an integral part of our cultural and environmental heritage. Yet the changes to APR threaten to destabilise that foundation. I have spoken to farmers in my constituency and beyond, and their message is clear: the changes will place a substantial financial burden on farming families, forcing many to sell land to cover tax liabilities.

In response to a survey by the Country Land and Business Association, 86% of farmers indicated that they would need to sell all or part of their land if APR were removed. I understand that approximately 70% of farms in Northern Ireland—that comes from the Ulster Farmers’ Union legal officer—will be affected, because the farms are smaller.

It is really important that we get this right. Farmers have faced unrelenting challenges in recent years, including soaring energy and fertiliser costs, unpredictable weather patterns and inflationary pressures. The past decade has been marked by uncertainty. The loss of APR would mean that future generations could face unsurmountable inheritance tax. For smaller farms, especially, that could spell the end of their viability. The reality is that the changes will sweep up in their net many genuine, hard-working family farms. It is not just a financial issue; it is a matter of fairness, community sustainability and food security.

The Minister is an honourable person, but let us be honest and reasonable: what is right and what is wrong? Justice is what we are looking for here, and that must be addressed. When global supply chains are increasingly fragile, it is unwise to undermine domestic food production. Every acre lost to inheritance tax obligations reduces our ability to feed our population sustainably and affordably.

[Alison Bennett (Mid Sussex) (LD)]

Clearly, many Members on both sides of the Chamber are incredibly concerned by the Government’s proposals to cut agricultural property relief and business property relief. Farmers from my constituency came to see me and they are incredibly worried. In an area with high land values but relatively small farms, they think that they will lose their farms. Does the hon. Member agree that, as well as having a global impact, losing those farms will be incredibly detrimental to the rural economy—to veterinary practices, agricultural merchants and other businesses attached to farming?

[Jim Shannon]

I thank the hon. Lady for that intervention. With those wise words, she has hit the nail on the head. When the Minister looks round this Chamber, he will see that everybody—those who have spoken and those who are here—is united against the change to APR. We are not going to put the Minister under pressure unduly, but if it were me, I would think twice about getting into a fight where it was 27 to one.

[Jamie Stone]

The hon. Member will be aware that my wife’s family come from Northern Ireland. My understanding is that the price of land there is quite a lot higher per acre than in Scotland or England. Does that not mean that what we are talking about today has a disproportionate effect on the Province of Northern Ireland?

[Jim Shannon]

It certainly does. For the Minister, we will lay on the line what we are after. The £1 million threshold is wrong, because it does not adequately reflect the rateable value of a farm. If the threshold was £5 million, that would save the small farms. The hon. Member for Caerfyrddin, who introduced the debate, talked about solutions. I have a solution for the Labour party, and I do not care if the Labour party claims it—that does not matter to me. What matters to me is that the threshold should rise from £1 million to £5 million. If it does, family farms will be saved, and if they are saved, we have a chance of moving forward.

I am trying to put that forward to the Minister as a positive solution. With the Ulster Farmers Union representatives William Irvine and Alex Kinnear, I had a meeting with the Minister away back before Christmas. We put that solution to him, and he said that he would take it to the Chancellor, because ultimately it will be her decision. It is a really clear way forward.

The hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Jamie Stone) is right in what he says about Northern Ireland. Land values are more expensive in Northern Ireland than anywhere else, which is why the 70% figure is greater for Northern Ireland than anywhere else. We want to have the same mechanism for everybody across this great United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, but there are other ideas about mechanisms such as extended payment windows or graduated tax liabilities to alleviate the financial strain on small farms.

I urge the Minister to provide clarity and reassurance to farmers, who are deeply concerned about the future. Again, I say this to him: if we want to do something positive following this debate—as I think we can and must—the issue of the threshold is the way forward. When people add up the value of the land, the value of the machinery and the value of the stock, they are well over the £1 million threshold, but what if he made the threshold £5 million? I have not grasped that figure out of the air; the Ulster Farmers Union and the National Farmers Union put it forward as a figure that could address the issue.

I am not going to put a lot of pressure on the Minister today—well, actually, I am. We are all putting pressure on him, because we see a way forward—genuinely, constructively and positively. I beseech him to take that message from the debate today to increase the threshold and save family farms.

This is an issue across Northern Ireland, including in the constituencies that my hon. Friend the Member for Upper Bann (Carla Lockhart) and I represent. All my neighbours are worried sick about what the future holds, as are those tenant farmers in Wales and Scotland—across this great United Kingdom. We need the threshold to be raised. If the Minister does that, we will be on his side.

--- Later in debate ---

[Torsten Bell]

I will make some progress and then I will give way.

We see a similar picture for business property relief. It is in large part these reliefs that mean the largest estates pay materially lower rates of inheritance tax than more modest estates. That undermines faith in the fairness of our tax system more generally. Given the pressures we face, it cannot be right to leave this system unreformed, which is a point the hon. Member for Waveney Valley (Adrian Ramsay) made well.

That is the context and the rationale for the changes to how we will target agricultural property relief and business property relief from April 2026. Contrary to the claims that these reliefs are being scrapped, which I am afraid to say were repeated by the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) just now, we will continue to provide significant tax relief, including for small farms and businesses. Individuals will still benefit from 100% relief for the first £1 million of combined business and agricultural assets. Importantly, the relief sits on top of all the other spousal exemption and nil-rate bands. Depending on people’s circumstances, up to £3 million can be passed on by a couple to their children or grandchildren free of inheritance tax.

[Jim Shannon]

I will try to be brief. On the rateable value, which the Minister mentioned earlier, my understanding after talking to the legal person of the Ulster Farmers’ Union is that the rateable value is based on whether the farm was handed over in the 1970s, in the 1980s, in the 1990s or even in the 2000s, but the rateable value does not show the real value of the land. Therefore, it is a flawed system. If it is a flawed system, the Minister needs to go back to the very beginning and look at it. I say that respectfully; I am not trying to catch anybody out. I am just saying that if something is not right, then get it right.

[Torsten Bell]

The point I was making was about the hon. Member’s point that the relief had been scrapped; I was just making the point that the reliefs have certainly not been scrapped and that they remain very generous indeed.

Beyond the thresholds I mentioned, the 50% relief will continue and there will be a reduced marginal inheritance tax rate of 20%, rather than the standard 40%. Furthermore, in response to the points raised by several Members today about the cash-flow challenges that some farms face, particularly after bad years like last year, I will point out that heirs can spread the payments over 10 years interest-free, which is a benefit that is not seen anywhere else in the inheritance tax system.