Churches and Religious Buildings: Communities

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Tuesday 13th May 2025 Westminster Hall

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Jeremy. I thank the right hon. Member for Salisbury (John Glen) and the hon. Member for Battersea (Marsha De Cordova) for leading today’s debate. I extend my heartfelt thanks to all who are gathered here today and, furthermore, to all who support the work of the all-party parliamentary group for international freedom of religion or belief, of which I am privileged, honoured and humbled to be the chair.

I want to give a perspective on churches and their impact on communities, and I will describe three countries where they are important. Churches and religious buildings have long played an essential role in our communities. They are places not only of worship but of support, guidance and service. In my constituency of Strangford, I have seen churches that run food banks, offer support to the elderly, provide youth programmes and bring people together across the community—including my own Baptist church in Newtownards, which I love and am grateful for. Those buildings serve the whole person—not just spiritually, but practically—and it is important that we do that.

I want to focus first on Morocco and the challenges that religious buildings face around the world. The recent destruction of minarets—symbols of religion and cultural identity—has caused great distress. Those structures are much more than buildings: they are central to the spiritual life of the community. For many Moroccans, the minaret is a sign of their faith and history; losing it is about not just architecture, but identity, culture and the right to express their beliefs.

Secondly, just a week or 10 days ago, on a parliamentary visit to Egypt—I encourage our Christians here to do the same—I had the opportunity to visit one of the evangelical churches in Cairo. It is a congregation of 1,800, with 600 children who attend its services on a Sunday morning. Pastor Youssef Samir’s words were, “It’s a golden age for churches.” That should be encouraging for each of us here—although we see persecution and discrimination across the world, we can also see a country trying to come to terms with that.

[Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP)]

On that point, unfortunately, it is not a golden age for churches everywhere in the United Kingdom. We need to do more to highlight what those buildings offer, because many people take them for granted and put them to one side, simply because of their age and historical context.

[Jim Shannon]

I wholeheartedly agree with my hon. Friend.

To put the situation in Egypt into perspective, each church, irrespective of denomination, has the police and army on guard 24 hours a day. In 2013, Christian churches were burned and Christians were murdered. Today, however, the opportunities have changed, and there will be a new church in upper Cairo.

In Jordan, churches and mosques have been working hand in hand to support Syrian refugees by offering shelter, food and education. Those interfaith efforts are rooted in the power of religious communities, and the spaces that those communities occupy serve as a powerful reminder of what is possible when freedom of religion or belief is respected and protected. That includes ensuring that places of worship remain accessible, protected and supported.

I end on a Scripture text, as I often do in these debates, because I think it is important. Isaiah 56:7 says:

“Even them will I bring to my holy mountain, and make them joyful in my house of prayer: their burnt offerings and their sacrifices shall be accepted upon mine altar; for mine house shall be called an house of prayer for all people.”

That is not just a call to protect buildings; it is a call to safeguard the freedom to worship. Every individual, regardless of faith, should be able to worship freely without fear of persecution or obstruction. When such places are attacked, it is an assault on the fundamental right to practise our faith, to live according to our beliefs and to do so without fear. Let us continue to support efforts to ensure that churches and other religious buildings remain places of peace, welcome and faith. Let us speak out for those whose right to worship in safety is still denied.

[Sir Jeremy Wright (in the Chair)]

We have five more speakers and about 10 minutes left, which means, I am afraid, about two minutes each.

Cold and Damp Homes

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Thursday 8th May 2025 Westminster Hall

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

It is real pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Western. Like the hon. Member for Vauxhall and Camberwell Green (Florence Eshalomi), I apologise for being approximately 55 seconds late, but we were rushing. Thank you for helping us and for letting us take part in the debate.

I thank the hon. Member for Leeds Central and Headingley (Alex Sobel) for leading today’s debate on this important issue. He set the scene admirably. All the detail that he gave helps all of us to focus on what we need to do. This is one of those issues that arise in all parts of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. We all hear of these issues from our constituents. The hon. Member for Bath (Wera Hobhouse) referred to her constituents and the information she gets from them; we all can say the same. Cold and damp are among the biggest problems when it comes to housing in my constituency.

As chair of the healthy homes and buildings all-party parliamentary group, I am fully aware of the problems of cold and damp in domestic homes and commercial buildings. I hear about it from my constituents regularly. Some 60% of the housing cases my staff deal with are transfers, and 40% of those are about damp and mould. Some of the pictures that they have seen are extraordinary, so it is good to be here to discuss the issue and see what we can do.

I am very pleased to see the Minister in his place. He responds to the questions we ask with honesty and clarity. We look forward to the answers that we will get today.

According to National Energy Action, approximately 40% of households in Northern Ireland are classified as being in fuel poverty, meaning that they spend more than 10% of their income on energy costs. That, I think, highlights the issue for many, especially at a time when money is tight and people are not able to stretch it as far as they would like. In addition, social housing stock in Northern Ireland is notably energy inefficient. Many homes lack adequate insulation, leading to higher housing costs and more vulnerability to cold and damp conditions.

A little while back, a constituent who was residing in a Housing Executive property that had excessive damp and mould in both bedrooms came into my office. A little girl of the age of four slept in one of those rooms, and her mother was increasingly concerned about the health issues that can come with cold and damp. That is often forgotten. We tend to focus on the physicality —how it looks and the smell that may come from mould. It is no secret that damp and mould can lead to respiratory issues and exacerbate the symptoms of asthma and cardiovascular disease. I am also chair of the APPG for respiratory health, and we have worked closely on those issues. With a double chair hat on, as chair of both the healthy homes and buildings APPG and the APPG for respiratory health, those issues have combined to put the focus on these things today.

I want to be respectful to Government, as I always try to be, but 10 million pensioners across the United Kingdom have lost their winter fuel payment, and it is projected that those cuts will push an additional 50,000 pensioners into relative poverty each year from 2024 to 2029. In some years, as many as 100,000 people will be affected. Often, those with chronic illnesses or disabilities face higher energy bills and so are disproportionately affected by the cuts, which ultimately will plunge more people into poverty this winter and make it harder for them to heat their homes. That means more cold homes, more damp and more mould, which the Government will single-handedly allow by removing this payment.

There has been some indication in the past few days that the Labour Government are reconsidering this policy. I hope that they are. It would be a positive step forward. I hope that the final decision will be that winter fuel payments will be reinstated. Elderly people who suffer with health issues like the ones I mentioned are much more likely to become ill as a result of a cold home. I cannot stress enough how important it is that the Government commit to reversing this brash and wrong decision.

NEA has estimated that, across the United Kingdom, on average more than 10,000 people die each year due to living in a cold home. It is important to put the problem into figures, because, unfortunately, such a death toll gives us a better idea of what is happening. In England and Wales, excess winter deaths rose by nearly 20% last winter. That is another indication of where we are going. Those figures are shocking. The Government must work more closely with social housing associations and landlords to ensure that people can afford to heat their homes adequately, and are not forced to decide between eating a meal or putting the heating on.

This is a UK-wide issue that must be given the attention it deserves and tackled alongside the devolved Administrations —back home, the Department for Communities. More must be done to support pensioners who are struggling after the loss of their winter fuel payment, and to help tenants, many of whom are families in social housing, whose housing is not habitable or up to scratch. It is time for change. I think that the Minister is committed to it. I look forward to hearing what he has to say.

--- Later in debate ---

[Matthew Pennycook]

It has been acknowledged that I have some knowledge of housing, but the hon. Gentleman tempts me into an area about which I do not have particular knowledge, not least because the warm homes plan is the responsibility not of my Department but of the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero. I am sure that Department will have heard all the comments that have been made about the warm homes plan, and I will ensure that the relevant Ministers reflect on them.

There is currently a zero rate of VAT until March 2027 on energy-saving measures such as insulation and low-carbon heating, making it cheaper for landlords to invest in their properties and reduce their energy usage. Other support is available to landlords to improve their properties. An eligibility tool is available on gov.uk to help people find the support available to them via the home upgrade grant and the Great British insulation scheme.

Of course, it is not just rented homes where we need to take action. We are also considering options to ensure a fair, proportionate and affordable approach to improving the energy performance of owner-occupied homes. The warm homes plan will help people find ways to save money on energy bills and will transform our ageing building stock into comfortable, low-carbon homes that are fit for the future. We will upgrade up to 5 million homes across the country by accelerating the installation of efficient new technologies such as heat pumps, solar batteries and insulation.

Before I conclude, I should mention how our efforts to improve standards and quality in homes of all tenures fit in with a wider housing strategy. In many cases, cold and damp homes are a symptom of the wider housing crisis that we inherited. That acute and entrenched crisis will not be solved by raising quality and standards; we need new supply. That is why the Government’s plan for change includes a hugely ambitious milestone of building 1.5 million safe and decent homes in England in this Parliament. We know that is a stretching target, but it is deliverable, in our view, and it is essential.

We have already announced changes to planning policy to support the delivery of affordable homes. We have also provided two immediate one-year cash injections totalling £800 million to the affordable homes programme to deliver an extra 7,800 homes. On 25 March, we injected a further £2 billion into the affordable homes programme from 2026-27 to build up to 18,000 new homes by the end of this Parliament. That funding is a down payment on future long-term investment and will act as a bridge to the future grant programme to be announced in the spending review. In that programme, we want to put particular focus on delivering homes for social rent. These are new homes, built to high standards, that will be warm and dry.

[Jim Shannon]

The Minister is always assiduous and gives good answers. He has put forward many good ideas to ensure that the issue of cold, damp and mouldy homes is addressed in the United Kingdom, especially in England. The hon. Member for Brecon, Radnor and Cwm Tawe (David Chadwick) and I would be keen to ensure that the Minister shares those ideas with the Governments in Northern Ireland and Wales.

[Matthew Pennycook]

We speak regularly with our counterparts in the devolved authorities, but I will make a special point of ensuring that the comments that have been made today are passed on to the relevant Ministers within those authorities and, as I said, with colleagues in the Scotland and Wales Offices.

Once again, I commend my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds Central and Headingley on securing this important debate, and thank all those who have contributed to it. We all know the detrimental impact that non-decent housing has on the lives of our constituents, and that more must be done to drive up standards across housing tenures. I hope that this afternoon I have provided hon. Members with reassurance that the Government are working with determination to drive a transformational and lasting change in the safety and quality of housing in this country.

Havering Borough and Essex Devolution

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Wednesday 7th May 2025 Commons Chamber

[Andrew Rosindell]

The hon. Gentleman is completely right. Havering and Thurrock are neighbouring boroughs, and we are Essex through and through. He is very lucky, because his constituency does not have London-wide policies imposed on it, so it avoids ULEZ and planning interference from the Mayor of London. It is free to make its own decisions—in fact, as a unitary authority. I commend the hon. Gentleman for what he said, and we are certainly on the same page on this issue.

We barely see policemen in Romford. They are mostly seconded into inner London areas, and this is compounded by the tri-borough arrangement that merges Havering, Barking and Dagenham, and Redbridge. We now get even fewer police on the streets of Havering.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

May I commend the hon. Gentleman? In all the time I have known him, he has always been British to the core—there is absolutely no doubt about that. Although I am a supporter of devolution —many matters are devolved in Northern Ireland— I understand the complexity. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that devolution is only as useful as the people in place to carry out the job? Effective people are the key. Does he further agree that devolution must have community support and that, regardless of whether it is in Essex or Strangford, the general public must always have the final say?

[Andrew Rosindell]

The hon. Gentleman is completely right: any type of devolution has to have the consent of the people. I have to say to you, Madam Deputy Speaker, that I do not believe that the current Greater London devolution arrangement really has the consent of people in Havering. I think that if there were to be a referendum tomorrow, they would overwhelmingly vote to leave Greater London and be a unitary authority, but maybe there are other options. That is why this debate about Havering borough and Essex devolution is so pertinent today, and I look forward to the Minister’s response to my arguments.

To return to what I was saying about the police, all but one of our police stations have been closed, and my constituents are deeply unhappy with the lack of police cover we receive, despite the huge amount we contribute financially to the Greater London Authority. This is no fault of the dedicated officers who form the day-to-day, rank-and-file backbone of our local police operation. The local force is dedicated and determined to respond to and prevent instances of criminality that blight the locality, but they are undermined by a lack of the resources that we in Havering pay for, but simply do not receive. Indeed, if you speak to my constituents, they will tell you that they believe Havering residents are in effect subsidising inner London areas and, through the Greater London Authority, funding what I believe has become a London-wide bureaucracy in City Hall and associated London-wide quangos. It is hard to see how the people of Havering benefit from that, and more often than not, it has no relevance to local people in my borough whatsoever.

The reason for my Adjournment debate is to ask the Minister to please allow us to look at alternatives. Now is the time to consider Havering’s future. With devolution for what is termed Greater Essex now being implemented, this must surely be the right moment to examine a change that would give the people of Romford, Hornchurch, Upminster and Rainham hope that we could be part of something that better suits our local needs and goes with the grain of our historical identity. If the Government truly believe in genuine devolution, I hope the Minister will agree that local people should determine what is best for them, and a borough such as Havering must surely have the freedom to consider all options for our future. I request that the Government open up a meaningful conversation with the people of Havering about devolution for Essex that could include Havering, so that we can look sensibly and in detail at ideas for change.

Let me make one thing crystal clear. The freedom travel pass for pensioners is often cited as one of the benefits of being part of Greater London, as if the Mayor of London provides it to us for free, which is not the case. My borough pays millions to buy in to this scheme. It has always done so and will always continue to do so. We pay millions of pounds for the privilege, but I will always defend and support the freedom pass as our older folk deserve the benefits it gives them.

Parking Regulation

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Tuesday 6th May 2025 Westminster Hall

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Efford. I thank the hon. Members for Derby South (Baggy Shanker) and for Newton Abbot (Martin Wrigley) for setting the scene so very well. Not a week goes by in my constituency when I do not have complaints from those with parking tickets, so I wish to register my concerns.

Parking regulations in Northern Ireland are managed mostly by the Department for Infrastructure. It is the relevant agency to issue parking tickets, to which I am no stranger on occasion. A lot of the referrals I have every week on behalf of constituents relate to the Department and to private companies. In the financial year 2023-24, the Department for Infrastructure issued approximately £7.4 million-worth of penalty charge notices, commonly known as parking tickets, which perhaps highlights the scope of issues concerning public parking regulation in Northern Ireland.

First of all, machines are not working and people still get tickets. Secondly, payment facilities are not working. Thirdly, disabled bays are not always marked correctly with lines on the road or signage, and people may get a ticket for something that was there in the past and is not there now. People may also be just minutes, or seconds, over their time limit. Disabled people coming back in wheelchairs is an example.

Here’s a cracker—that was something that used to be said. One of my constituents complained to me one day. They went to a shopping centre—I will not mention which—and when they went in, there were no lines. As soon as they came out, there was a line painted right around the car. The paint was so fresh that there were spatters of yellow over the car, and guess what happened? They got a parking ticket. You could not write that story. We fought the case, and to be fair, the company withdrew the fine, as it should have. It should never have happened. What the—it would be unfair to say that; I do not want to use bad language.

I am under time pressure. These are the issues in my constituency of Strangford. I have heard of resident permit parking schemes that have been introduced in some areas across Northern Ireland. For example, Belfast has a system with a £30 annual permit to allow people to park in designated bays. There are ways of doing it better. I know the Minister is a good Minister—he answers questions and always tries to be constructive. There are methods whereby we can move forward, and a bit of common sense and flexibility would help. The Minister is always keen to have discussions with his counterpart in Northern Ireland, so will he tell us what is happening in relation to that? Regulations sometimes differ between Great Britain and Northern Ireland, so I ask him to tell us what has been done in those talks to work together better.

Planning and Development: Bedfordshire

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Wednesday 23rd April 2025 Westminster Hall

[Blake Stephenson (Mid Bedfordshire) (Con) [R]]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered planning and development in Bedfordshire.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Desmond. Mid Bedfordshire—indeed, all of Bedfordshire —has played its part in delivering new housing. My constituency was once home to the world’s largest brickworks at Stewartby. Our communities bear testament to our brickmaking history, with former clay pits now finding new life as lakes and homes for nature in the Marston Vale forest, and with former industrial sites, including the brickworks at Stewartby and Kempston Hardwick, set to be repurposed as places to deliver the homes and jobs of the future.

In the past month we have also had confirmation of the Luton airport expansion, the announcement of the new Universal UK theme park at Kempston Hardwick in my constituency, and the publication of the Planning and Infrastructure Bill. That comes on top of the recent announcement of East West Rail, work being done to develop local plans in all three of our council areas— I refer Members to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests as a Central Bedfordshire councillor—and the work of the Government’s new towns taskforce.

In this debate, I hope to highlight the ways in which the planning system can help shape the future of our communities in Bedfordshire, and some of the things that my constituents need assurance on from Government. I want to be clear at the start: I am not a nimby or a blocker, but if the Government are serious about building houses and critical infrastructure, we need to ensure that we do so in a way that is future-proof and resilient.

We need to turn blockers into builders, rather than create a new generation of blockers. In my experience, most of the people whom this Government have labelled as blockers are not ideological obsessives standing in front of the bulldozers of progress; they are people fed up with bad development. They are fed up of developers throwing up housing estates but not building communities, of soulless developments that could be found anywhere, and, most importantly, of developments that worsen quality of life.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I commend the hon. Member for securing this debate. He has outlined some of the things being done in his constituency, such as using old industrial buildings for apartments. To add to his knowledge, in Northern Ireland we have been repurposing empty buildings in town centres, such as homes above shops—I said that to the Minister in a question just recently. Does the hon. Member agree that is something else that could be used to restore and build up our town centres while ensuring that we are not encroaching upon rural land, as so often happens across the whole United Kingdom?

[Blake Stephenson]

I absolutely agree. There is a lot of support for brownfield-first development, but also for gently densifying our towns and cities so that we have houses where people want to live within the existing infrastructure.

The Government have been elected with a clear mandate to build, build, build, and I accept that. But I hope that they will do the hard yards to plan, plan, plan, and ensure that the 1.5 million houses that they build are the right houses in the right places, as part of the right communities and with the right infrastructure. It is in that spirit that I bring forward this debate, because Bedfordshire is not a place that is standing still.

I congratulate the Government on completing the negotiations, begun by the previous Government, to secure the new Universal UK theme park at Kempston Hardwick. That will be a game changer for our local economy, and I will continue to support the Government, Universal and our councils as it progresses through the planning system, but to maximise its potential, it will be important to get the infrastructure right. That means we need to plan for the planes, trains, automobiles and accommodation. Through the planning system, we need to see work done to deliver the right accommodation that will be available in Bedfordshire for people to come and stay, hopefully to enjoy Universal and then stay a while in our towns and villages, spending their time and money enjoying everything that Bedfordshire has to offer.

As I noted earlier, I understand that Government have a mandate to “just get on and build”. I have some sympathy for their frustration with Members of Parliament like me who they see as trying to put the brakes on that ambition, but I hope the Minister will recognise that that is not my intention. I believe as fervently as he does that we need to deliver new homes for young people growing up right across Britain, but I believe we must do so in a way that is sensitive to our countryside and our communities, and that delivers the right homes in the right places with the right infrastructure.

The current planning system is not working for anyone. Too often, it blocks good development and allows bad development—development that erodes local character, that builds houses but divides communities, and that comes without the right infrastructure, leaving new residents and old alike frustrated and unwilling to accept the further houses the Government want to deliver in their communities. As this Government’s planning reforms progress, I hope they will take time to consider how the planning system can more effectively protect the character of our towns and villages, and how it can seek to disarm those blockers that the Government are concerned about by addressing the things they are concerned about, not by tying their arms behind their backs. That is a harder job, I accept, but is anything that is worth doing in politics easy?

In Bedfordshire, I would like to see the Government give us the tools through the planning system to protect everything that makes our communities such special places to live—protections for our historic character and our villages, protections for our beautiful and unique countryside against unending and unplanned urban sprawl, and protections for the great British pub; indeed, I would like to see more of them built as our communities expand.

In Mid Bedfordshire, we have always done the right thing and taken our fair share of housing—we have even taken Luton’s surplus housing need. We have done everything we were supposed to do, but our communities suffer the effects of bad development. Still, residents in Maulden see development crawling even further up the slope of the Greensand ridge, as their flood risk steadily worsens. Still, residents in Wixams find themselves fighting for a GP surgery that no one locally seems keen to take ownership of. Still, residents find themselves fighting developers who are keen to pocket the profits of development but less keen to deliver on their promises of well-maintained green spaces, proper flood protections and local amenities.

Residential Estate Management Companies

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Tuesday 22nd April 2025 Westminster Hall

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Stuart. I commend the hon. Member for South Devon (Caroline Voaden) for setting the scene so well.

I recently met one of the management companies in my local area, where residents had lodged a list of queries after their management fees went up by a substantial amount. They asked where the money had gone. It is difficult to see why fences still need painting when there is a bill for paint, and it is hard to understand why there is a bill for the upkeep of a sign that does not appear to have been cleaned in years. The difficulty with these companies is that, with no regulation of them, residents feel they are being done over.

It might be best if I quote one of my constituents and then offer a solution. My constituent said:

“I am writing as a resident to express serious concerns regarding the management of communal land. Like many homeowners across the UK, I am facing high and increasing charges for substandard maintenance, with no option to switch providers.

The company operates a monopoly in many estates, charging fees that are neither transparent nor fairly regulated. Residents are often left with poorly maintained green spaces despite paying substantial fees. Furthermore, there is no option for estates to collectively choose a different management company, leaving homeowners effectively trapped in an unfair system. I am asking for your support.”

She is asking me for my support, and I am asking the Minister to address this issue.

The solution my constituent suggests is introducing

“a cap on the fees that land management companies like Greenbelt can charge homeowners”

and creating

“a legal mechanism that allows estates to vote on who manages their communal land, giving residents the freedom to choose better service providers.”

She finishes by saying:

“Many homeowners across the UK are affected by this, and I believe it is an issue that requires government action.”

I look to the Minister to ensure that we address this issue UK-wide, and not simply in England and Wales. Residents across the United Kingdom face the same problems as residents in Strangford, and they must be addressed.

--- Later in debate ---

[Matthew Pennycook]

There are undoubtedly issues around the purchase of homes on these estates. For example, it appears to be fairly common for residential freeholders not to be notified of their future liability for charges early in the conveyancing process. We are giving due consideration to those issues as well.

On the prevalence of future arrangements, the Government intend to seek views from a wide range of interested parties, including local authorities, management companies, developers and residential freeholders themselves. Our consultation will need to consider a wide range of trade-offs, including costs to homeowners, costs to local authorities, potential impacts on housing supply and the links with the planning system. As promised, we will consult on that matter this year.

[Jim Shannon]

Hon. Members have referred to opting out—in other words, if someone is unhappy with their management company, they can opt for another one. Would the Minister consider that, and would it be considered in the discussions he has with the Northern Ireland Assembly and the pertinent Minister?

[Matthew Pennycook]

Given the time available to me, I will have a separate conversation with the hon. Gentleman outside.

Before I conclude, I want to touch on the issue of managing agents, whose performance can present significant challenges, whether they are chosen by residents or employed by developers. Managing agents perform a critical role in managing and maintaining freehold estates as well as leasehold buildings, and the Government are determined to raise standards among them and drive out abuse and poor service at the hands of unscrupulous agents. We remain fully committed to strengthening the regulation of managing agents of leasehold properties and estate managers of freehold estates. We are looking again at the report published in 2019 by the regulation of property agents working group chaired by Lord Best. At a minimum, we believe that the regulation of managing agents should include mandatory professional qualifications. That will apply whether the agent manages a building or an estate. We will consult on the detail of that matter this year and remain committed to publishing a draft leasehold and commonhold reform Bill in the second half of this year to provide for enhanced scrutiny on the part of Parliament.

I again thank the hon. Member for South Devon for securing the debate and all those who have taken part in it. The Government intend to act, and act decisively, to protect residential freeholders on freehold estates and to reduce the prevalence of these arrangements over the long term. I look forward to ongoing engagement with hon. Members on all sides of the House—I welcome the shadow Minister’s invitation to that end—through both the forthcoming formal statutory consultations and more informal engagement across the House to ensure that we reform the system to the lasting benefit of affected homeowners.

Birmingham: Waste Collection

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Tuesday 22nd April 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

That allows us to come to Jim Shannon.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I thank the Minister for his answers to some very difficult questions. He will understand, of course, the absolute necessity of military intervention in civil life in Northern Ireland over a great many years. While it is never an easy option, does the Minister agree that if it is the only option to ensure that disease does not spread through the city—if a pay deal cannot be reached—action has to be taken, before the ill and the vulnerable pay the price of this stand-off?

[Jim McMahon]

As things stand, a normal service has returned to most streets at most times. The accumulated waste that was building up—which was not acceptable at all—has been removed. Some 26,000 tonnes has been removed; in most places at most times, the collection of bins is taking place as normal, and over 100 trucks a day are leaving the depots as usual. We hope that we do not return to the scenes that the hon. Gentleman has described, for the reasons that he expressed. That is not acceptable from a public health point of view, and has consequences.

Coalfields Regeneration Trust

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Tuesday 22nd April 2025 Commons Chamber

[Adam Jogee]

I agree wholeheartedly with my hon. Friend, and not for the first time. I would make that call not just for Derbyshire, but for Staffordshire, too.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

rose—

[Adam Jogee]

The hon. Member for Strangford, of course, wants to intervene.

[Jim Shannon]

The hon. Gentleman is fast making a name for himself in this House on behalf of his constituents for his assiduity and commitment, and we congratulate him on that. I made some inquiries back home before this debate—and I was speaking to him yesterday—about those who gave so much for the energy needs of the nation and for the industries in my town of Newtownards. The coal used by those who owned the shops in Newtownards for many years, way back when coal was the main source of energy, came from the hon. Gentleman’s constituency, so he has a close relationship with us from that point of view. Does he agree that it is past time that the Government helped to address the imbalance and disadvantage to ensure that the people in his constituency are rewarded for their hard work over all those years?

[Adam Jogee]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that intervention. My wife is from Northern Ireland, so when he said he was making inquiries, I was worried how far that was going to go. He raises a very important point, both about the power of British coal and the importance of Newcastle-under-Lyme for many parts of our United Kingdom.

East Midlands: Local Authorities and Economic Growth

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Monday 7th April 2025 Commons Chamber

[Michael Payne (Gedling) (Lab)]

Thank you for the opportunity to speak in this evening’s debate, Madam Deputy Speaker. I thank my hon. Friend the Minister for being here to respond to the debate. As my constituency neighbour, I know he is as passionate about Nottingham, Nottinghamshire and the east midlands as I am. I refer hon. Members to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests regarding my unpaid membership of two local authorities.

Ahead of important local elections across the east midlands, I am grateful to have this opportunity to lay out the importance of councils to our economy. Growth is this Government’s No. 1 priority. It will pay for our local services, our social security, from state pensions to universal credit, and our national defence. The Government are right to focus on growth. Under the last Government, we suffered a lost decade. Growth, income and opportunity were flat, and the east midlands suffered as a result. The gap between where we should have been on growth and where we are represents billions of pounds that could have been spent on essential public services.

The east midlands has been at the forefront of that decline, as a result of Conservative mismanagement. Our economy in the east midlands used to be strong, but deindustrialisation, a lack of investment and regional disparities in public spending have left us lagging behind other parts of the United Kingdom. The midlands was the industrial heartland of this nation. We have so much potential. We are the region that is most connected to the entire UK, with a distinctive mix of engineering, manufacturing, construction and sciences, but we now struggle to find the jobs, transport and opportunity that we had before. A lot of that comes from lack of investment, including a lack of investment in our local councils.

The east midlands receives the lowest level of spending per person across the United Kingdom. We receive the lowest level of capital spending and total spending. The facts speak for themselves: over the past 14 years, the east midlands was levelled down by the Conservative party. That inequity leaves our local government, our public services and our infrastructure investment billions of pounds short.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I commend the hon. Member for securing this debate and he is right to highlight the issues, but the growth commission set up by the mayor is key to investment and the east midlands must make the most of the freeport it enjoys, which the Chancellor announced just a few weeks ago. That gives hope and vision for the future, and it is important to underline those possibilities. With great respect to the Conservatives, they promised us a freeport in Northern Ireland but they failed to deliver it. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that it would be great if the current Government would designate a freeport for Northern Ireland? That is essential. As is shown in the east midlands, Government support is an essential component for economic growth that sows into the wealth of the whole of this great United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.

Political Donations

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Monday 31st March 2025 Westminster Hall

[Markus Campbell-Savours (Penrith and Solway) (Lab)]

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Irene Campbell) for leading the debate.

The Labour manifesto pledged to

“protect democracy by strengthening the rules around donations to political parties.”

I am pleased that these important proposals are being developed. Both today’s debate and the 2021 recommendations of the Committee on Standards in Public Life focus on foreign money entering the UK via companies and unincorporated associations, but I urge the Government, when they develop their proposals, to go further than that.

In 2009, Lord Campbell-Savours of Allerdale, who also happens to be my father, was involved in the tortuous debates in the other place before the passing of the Political Parties and Elections Act 2009. He and other Members worked to secure an amendment to the Government’s proposals. That amendment meant that individuals giving or loaning more than £7,500 to a political party must be resident or ordinarily resident and domiciled in the UK for the tax year in which the relevant donation or loan is made.

The Bill and the amendment were later given Royal Assent, but that clause, as with many other provisions of primary legislation, was subject to the development of commencement regulations. At the time, the Minister of State envisaged that secondary legislation would be completed not long after the summer of 2010. A general election interrupted that process. However, primary legislation is still in place, ready to be enacted—a quick win, one might say.

As has been said, the Conservatives enormously expanded the number of foreign residents eligible to donate to political parties in our country by removing the 15-year limit on British citizens overseas being able to vote and donate to a political party. Now, up to 3.5 million overseas residents can influence elections.

I am going to take on the baton handed to me by my father and his colleagues in the other place, some of whom are no longer with us, and urge the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government and the Electoral Commission to take on the task of drafting the secondary legislation required to ensure that overseas residents who do not pay tax in this country are no longer allowed to influence the outcomes of elections with their money.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

The hon. Member may not be aware that nearly $20,000 was donated from the United States to Sinn Féin’s 2017 Assembly election campaign—representing nearly one third of Sinn Féin’s spending in that election. Those who have been so exercised by political donations here have often done nothing to close the loophole that allows huge amounts of foreign money to influence politics in Northern Ireland. Nowhere else in the world would it happen that someone would be paying the bills of a foreign political party, yet that is what seems to happen with Sinn Féin. Does he agree that this loophole must be closed very quickly?

[Markus Campbell-Savours]

The hon. Member is quite right: I was unaware of that.

Under the rules set out the amendment, and made into law, these people would still be able to vote, and could even stand for election—arguably, that would be legitimate participation—but they could not spend money to disproportionately influence the outcome of elections in a country where they do not pay tax. Who runs this place should be a matter decided by those who live and pay their way here; it is they who live with the consequences of those electoral outcomes.

--- Later in debate ---

[Phil Brickell (Bolton West) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mrs Harris. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Irene Campbell) for leading this important debate. I rise to speak on behalf of the 177 people in Bolton West who signed the petition.

Before I came to this place I dedicated more than a decade of my career to tackling bribery and corruption in all its forms across the UK, India, the UAE and the US, so I have a professional imperative to speak out on cleaning up our politics, as well as a moral one. That is why I have been campaigning on the issue week in, week out since I was elected to this place in July of last year. I was pleased to attend the launch of Transparency International’s “Checks and Balances” report in the autumn of last year, along with the anti-corruption champion, Baroness Margaret Hodge.

Having pored over the petition data in granular detail, I know that this is one of the rare issues that cuts across north and south, blue and red, and urban and rural. We all want our politics to be clean and fair so that it can deliver the very best outcomes for our constituents. For me, that is the heart of the issue that we are discussing. Our democracy relies heavily on donations to provide funding for parties and candidates to engage with the electorate.

However, recent scandals across all major parties involving donations being linked to criminal, unknown or potentially malign foreign sources have led to some of the lowest levels of public trust that we have ever seen. Only 12% of people trust political parties, and there is a corrosive view that politicians are all in it for themselves. The issue has become so severe that I argue that the very integrity of our political system is under serious threat. Our constituents will not cast their votes if they do not believe that their vote makes a difference. Without voting, of course, they lose their stake in our politics. Who can blame them? For far too long, successive Governments have failed to act on political finance reform, leaving our system vulnerable to exploitation by those who seek to subvert our much-cherished democracy.

I recently had the pleasure of meeting the Electoral Commission, which has warned that significant loopholes in our political finance laws allow money of unknown origin, and potentially foreign influence, to infiltrate British politics. Independent scrutiny bodies, including the Intelligence and Security Committee of Parliament and the Committee on Standards in Public Life, have repeatedly warned about the risks posed by opaque political donations. That is why we desperately need what I hope will be a forthcoming elections Bill. I urge the Minister, in her response, to provide a clear timeline for that piece of legislation. We desperately need to close loopholes, empower regulators and protect our democratic institutions from foreign influence.

[Jim Shannon]

Continuing that line of thought, Northern Ireland will need to be part of such a new legislative ruling. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that we must all be subject to the same rules in this great United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland?

[Phil Brickell]

I agree that we need to move across the entirety of the United Kingdom to clean up our politics. Time waits for no person, so we must act now. With that in mind, I would like to propose five key reforms, which I gently ask the Minister to consider.

First, and most importantly, the campaigning organisation Spotlight on Corruption has called for “know your donor” checks, which would legally require political parties to conduct thorough checks on the source of donations. If a donor’s origins cannot be verified, that donation should be rejected outright. As a former compliance professional for more than a decade myself, I know that such checks can be proportionate and risk based, avoiding excessive administrative burdens. This approach would align with anti-money laundering practices already established in the private sector and mirror existing requirements in the charity sector. If charities must conduct due diligence on their donors, why should political parties be exempt?

Secondly, has the Minister considered reducing the donation reporting thresholds to bring more donations into light? Coupled with the “know your donor” checks, I think that would improve scrutiny and put off lower-value donations from dubious sources.

Thirdly, there is a glaring loophole around shell companies. Under current rules, companies that have never turned a profit in the UK can still donate to political parties. That is an obvious weakness for potential foreign influence, and I am yet to hear a convincing argument as to why it is permitted. The solution is simple: the Government should mandate that a UK-registered company can only donate from the UK profits that it makes. That seems like a principle we can all get behind, and it would go a long way to protecting our much-cherished democracy.

Fourthly, as we have already heard, we must address the role of unincorporated associations, which provide a potential trapdoor for dark money entering our politics. Currently, candidates are not required to verify the ultimate source of donations received through these associations, effectively creating opaque slush funds. Forcing unincorporated associations to conduct better checks on the sources of the original donations would very quickly put an end to that risk.

Fifthly, despite the current political financing laws being riddled with loopholes, they are not even enforced properly. The Tories neutered the Electoral Commission and stripped it of its independence in the Elections Act 2022. What better way to return politics to service than by equipping the commission to hold all parties, including my own, to account? We could start by increasing its capacity for deterrence, by putting up its fining powers. In this era of plutocrat donors, the current paltry fines that the Electoral Commission can impose are hardly going to put wrongdoers off. As I understand it, enhancements to the regime in that respect would not even require primary legislation.

This is an existential issue for our politics. It is not about one person, one party, one donor or even one jurisdiction. Transparency International UK has found that between 2001 and 2024, nearly £115 million in political donations came from unknown or questionable sources, with £1 in every £10 donated to political parties having an unclear origin. Reflect on that for a moment. It is simply unacceptable. The early signs are positive, and I thank the Minister for her engagement with myself and colleagues on this matter already. It demonstrates that the Government understand why today’s debate is crucial. Failing to act sends a dangerous message that British democracy is for sale; we cannot and must not allow that to happen.