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.

Women’s Changed State Pension Age: Compensation

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Wednesday 15th January 2025 Westminster Hall

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

On behalf of the 5,000 WASPI women in Strangford, I beseech the Government to take the right decision and make the just decision for them. It is not just an obligation because of the ombudsman; it is a moral obligation as well. I think of all the women who come to see me and feel—I say this with great respect—let down by the Labour Government. One lady said to me, “I’ve been a member of the union all my life and the Labour party have let me down.” I speak for her and all the others.

--- Later in debate ---

[Danny Kruger]

The hon. Gentleman highlights the central point here: although, as Members have said, the change of policy itself was not the subject of the ombudsman’s inquiry, the failure to communicate directly impacted the circumstances of many women. They did not understand the circumstances they would be in, and it changed the decisions they were making.

[Jim Shannon]

Does the shadow Minister share with me, and I believe with many in this Chamber, what the good book refers to as righteous anger? There is righteous anger today for those elderly people and women who looked towards their retirement as the end of pain and exhaustion. They were unable to plan financially to enable them to retire earlier due to the nature of the communication they were given by Government. Righteous anger deserves justice. Does he agree that the ladies who I and others in this Chamber represent deserve justice? Whether the Minister is responsible or not, he has to give a justifiable yes to what they want.

[Danny Kruger]

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. I have heard it said that anger is love in the presence of injustice. The righteous anger that so many people feel here in this Chamber and beyond reflects the essential injustice we have seen.

The Government, in their response to the report, made this central defence, which we might hear again from the Minister: they dispute that women were left out of pocket because of the failure of communication made by DWP all those years ago. The Secretary of State argued in the Commons that letters do not have much impact anyway, citing some research suggesting that people ignore letters, do not read them or do not remember receiving them. It begs the question of why Government communicate at all if there is no value to it. It is obviously true that communication of an issue raises awareness of the issue. The failure to communicate meant that awareness of the issue was not possible for these people.

I recognise the challenge faced by the Government here. It is, of course, difficult to assess the precise circumstances of 3.5 million women. I recognise that some of the claims made on behalf of the campaign were exorbitant. Nevertheless, there were many options on the table for the Government to consider, from a hardship fund to smaller packages of support. It was not the only option to give a total no—nothing at all for the WASPI women. That was not the only option.

Children and Young People with Cancer

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Wednesday 8th January 2025 Westminster Hall

[Clive Jones (Wokingham) (LD)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the matter of welfare for children and young people with cancer.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mrs Lewell-Buck, and to discuss an issue that is important to me. As a society we are aware of the cost that cancer has on our lives: it deprives us of a future with our loved ones; it leaves us tormented with constant hospital visits; it forces an anxiety on us about what will happen next; and it causes us relentless emotional, physical and mental pain. It is a pain that does not go away, even when the cancer does.

I regret, however, that society fails to understand the literal costs of having cancer not just to us as individuals but to children, young people and their families. Lest we forget the cruel reality of cancer for young patients, which is often different from that of adults, the cancers that they experience are often faster-growing, less common, have unique emotional and mental health impacts, and have significant long-term treatment effects. The support that they require is therefore quite distinct, and has specific financial implications that make it especially hard.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I commend the hon. Gentleman for all his efforts on cancer issues in the short time that he has been in this place. He has been assiduous, focused and very much to the fore on the issue, and we thank him for that. In relation to the welfare of children and young people with cancer, is he aware that 71% of families impacted by cancer in young people are struggling to meet travel costs? That is the case in Northern Ireland, but I understand that it is also the case on the mainland. With one in 10 people missing appointments because they have not got the finances to go to them—and the impact that has on the NHS—does the hon. Gentleman agree that now is the time for Government to step up and ensure that the finance to travel for young people with cancer is made available?

[Clive Jones]

The hon. Member is absolutely right that there are huge costs, especially for children when they have to face cancer, and for the parents of children, because they have to take time off work to look after the children. There is not always the necessary support. Research from Young Lives vs Cancer highlights that on average, a cancer diagnosis for children and young people delivers £700 of additional costs every month for a patient and their family. Those additional costs come alongside significantly falling household income, with an average drop of over £6,000 a year; for at least one in three, that drop is over £10,000 a year.

Cancer does not have the decency to allow people to consider the implications of what happens next, but instead forces people to immediately start spending more. For example, it adds £250 extra a month on travel to hospital, £144 extra on food, often due to specialist requirements and extra hygiene caution, and £68 extra on energy to ensure that the home is always warm and clean, due to young cancer patients being immunocompromised. Those examples and many more all take place from day one.

Women’s State Pension Age Communication: PHSO Report

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Tuesday 17th December 2024 Commons Chamber

[Liz Kendall]

I would say that the ombudsman’s report itself says there would be a huge cost and administrative burden of going through 3.5 million women individually, but I am sure the hon. Member can read the ombudsman’s report and see that quote for himself. This is not about increases in the state pension age, which is what many of the women in the campaign have been very concerned about. It is about the communication, and for all the reasons I have set out, we have decided on this approach.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

It is with great sadness that I rise to ask a question, and I am very disappointed by the statement. As the right hon. Lady will know, I stood shoulder to shoulder with many Labour Members, including the Secretary of State, in calling on the Government to do the right thing by the WASPI women. However, here we stand, six months into the new Government, and these women are poorer than ever, given the removal of the fuel allowance. Pensioners are borrowing more and paying off less, and the statement implies that the Government will do nothing. Will the Secretary of State clarify exactly what has changed for Labour Members? Six months ago, they stood up for the pensioners. I say that with great respect; the right hon. Lady will know that I speak with respect in this House. After taking advice not relevant to the report’s findings, why will the Government suppress the rights of these women once again? More importantly, when can the 5,000 WASPI women in my constituency of Strangford expect their relief—not an apology, which will not heat their room by 1°? How sad it is that today, in this House, the ombudsman’s recommendations are being ignored, and right and justice have been denied.

Oral Answers to Questions

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Monday 16th December 2024 Commons Chamber

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I thank the Minister very much for her answers. Both parties—the one now in opposition, and the one in government—have always encouraged people to buy pension contributions in every way they can. However, the fact is that for many people who are low earners, it is not possible to have a pension scheme and at the same time to live, given the age we are in and the cost of living. What can the Minister do to encourage people to do so in a way that does not impact on the money they have coming in?

[Emma Reynolds]

I thank the hon. Member for that question. A number of ideas have been put forward by think-tanks and research institutes. One such idea is a sidecar savings account, which could be used for a pension, but could also have some money set aside for a rainy day should somebody fall into debt. We are considering that. He raises a very important question, because some of those on low incomes sometimes cannot afford to put in those contributions, but there may be a way between opting out and remaining in the scheme, and we are looking at that.

Disability History Month

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Thursday 12th December 2024 Westminster Hall

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I thank the hon. Member for Thurrock (Jen Craft) for setting the scene so well on a subject that we all engage with every day in our constituencies. I believe, as I think we all do, that we should encourage those who wish to work, and might not have had the opportunity, to do so. This debate is an opportunity to highlight this issue, raise awareness and encourage my constituents back home. I always try to give a Northern Ireland perspective to debates relating to the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. This is that sort of debate and hopefully the Minister will answer some of our questions.

The most recent census was in 2021—indeed, this is the season to talk about the census after all. It showed that one person in four in Northern Ireland——24.3%, or some 463,000 people—had a limiting long-term health problem or disability. Forty per cent of those, or some 185,300 people, were aged 65 or over. Statistics and figures sometimes go over our heads, but if we think of those 185,300 people, that is also 185,300 families, and that impact on a population of 1.9 million in Northern Ireland is great.

It was also interesting to note that the number of people with a limiting long-term health problem or disability increased from the 2011 census to the 2021 census. Unfortunately, this shows a worrying trend. The 23.6% increase from 374,600 people in 2011 to 463,000 people in 2021 is notable and the response to it must be, too. I will ask a question to the Minister that I always ask: has he had an opportunity yet—he is in a new role as Minister—to discuss these matters with the appropriate Minister back home in the Northern Ireland Assembly? We need to ensure that we co-operate better and that our policies, strategy and response are co-ordinated right across the whole United Kingdom.

Ards and North Down borough council in my local area recently had a motion to ensure that signage was visible in council facilities to remind people that not every disability is visible. I have seen on the tube whenever I travel here that, as well as seats for disabled people, there is always a wee poster that says, “Not every disability is visible”. In this age when everybody is hustling and bustling and rushing, it is interesting to see how many times people will give up their seat maybe unknowingly to someone who has a disability. Their pride sometimes prevents them from taking the seat, but the fact is that people are kind. In this fast world we live in, it is always good to remind ourselves that people do reach out and help. It is important that we do so.

I thank my local council for its motion and for ensuring that awareness is raised. I believe that has, in its own small way, had a real impact and changed the conversation around disability. The hon. Member for Thurrock is right that we need a change in the conversation. We want people to think and talk about this issue, so she deserves a lot of credit for bringing this matter forward. We must try to teach people to understand that while a person may seem healthy at first glance, they may also be someone who needs a little more help or assistance. Anxiety, depression and post-traumatic stress disorder crops up across my constituency all the time. Understanding that will help us to understand why the numbers are not what we expect. We need to ensure that every disability is acknowledged, and we must do all we can to ensure that every disabled person is heard.

This debate was in my mind during a debate we had the other day that was not specifically about this issue. We need to think about our veterans, some of whom have lost limbs, whether legs or arms, or have had terrific internal injuries. Through the Invictus games and the Paralympics, those with disabilities have been able to shine, and that should inspire us all. It should probably also humble us when we think of what those people can do with their disability. For me and for others in the House, the Invictus games and the Paralympics have become something we want to see even more, with great respect to those who are able-bodied. It is really important that we see the achievements they can reach.

I believe this is the main drive behind Disability History Month. We see where we started off, by removing the workhouses and those institutions. As the hon. Member for Thurrock said, we saw soldiers returning from war who could do more with more help. We acknowledged that there was a functioning place in society for these individuals, and the real discovery was that our society is the better for inclusivity.

I want to mention one last point about children. I have six grandchildren. Three of them have speech issues and require therapy. One of them is non-verbal, which is another disability in our children. The hon. Member for Thurrock referred to children, and it is important that we have the institutions in place, although this is a debate about disabilities, not SEND education, so I will focus on disabilities. As I say, one of my grandchildren is non-verbal, but he and children like him still have a smile and an interest in what happens around them. Education is very important to help those children to achieve their goals in life.

I have seen at first hand how many steps can be taken forward under the expert help and support that is available. The question for us in this place is this: is there enough help and support available for the massive spectrum of disability? My wife is obviously a very wise lady and a very sensible lady, given that she married me; she has been even more sensible to stay with me. She refers to disability as “difability”—a different kind of ability.

We can do more to support parents and help them to unlock their children’s potential; to ensure that mainstream schools have the capacity and finance to be a safe and engaging place to learn, with no child left behind; to help people into the workforce by supporting them and helping workplaces to afford the changes they need to make to become “difability” friendly; and to ensure that families can afford what they need and can grow. Lastly, we can do more with our ageing population, to ensure that they have the enhanced support and care required to remain at home for as long as they wish.

International Day of Persons with Disabilities

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Tuesday 3rd December 2024 Commons Chamber

[Debbie Abrahams (Oldham East and Saddleworth) (Lab)]

Today marks International Day of Persons with Disabilities—or disabled people, as we often refer to that group. Language is important, so I will use both terms. “Persons with disabilities” is understood internationally, but “disabled people” is often the preferred term in the UK.

This year’s theme is “Amplifying the leadership of persons with disabilities for an inclusive and sustainable future,” recognising the important role that disabled people have to play in creating a more inclusive and sustainable world. The refrain “Nothing about me without me” emphasises the importance of disabled people not just passively participating in but actively leading decision-making processes that affect their lives. I implore the Government to commit to that.

Disabled people are defined not by their limitations but by their boundless potential, talents and aspirations. Across the globe, they are leading as innovators, creators, athletes, entrepreneurs, educators and advocates, inspiring us with their stories and showing us that a more inclusive world is not only possible but essential. Yet despite progress, significant barriers remain, and the number of disabled people reaching their full potential is still far too low. Many disabled people—children and adults—still face discrimination, inaccessible environments, unequal access to education, employment and healthcare, and worse.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I commend the hon. Lady. The word “champion” is often used, but she has been a champion for disabled people. More work must be done to allow those with disabilities to live, work and travel independently, including through enhanced public transport with lifts and ramps for wheelchair users to get on to planes and the tube. Although this day rightly focuses on the tremendous impact of disabled people in our society, it also highlights failures in society that must be rectified. Does she agree?

[Debbie Abrahams]

The hon. Member will not be surprised to hear me say that I absolutely agree with him. I will come to the issues on which we need to provide challenge.

Since 2010, disability hate crime has increased almost sevenfold—that is absolutely shocking. Not only are such challenges obstacles for individuals but they limit society. As leaders, we need to demonstrate that we want an inclusive society in which we all thrive, not just a minority. The social model of disability views it as a result of societal barriers rather than a person’s impairment or difference, whether of mind or body. If we are truly serious about having an inclusive society, we need to address those barriers. Thirty years on from the Disability Discrimination Act 1995, that work is well overdue.

This year’s IDPD theme is particularly significant as it encourages the international community, including the UK, to consider how to remove barriers to enable disabled leaders to develop and thrive.