Community Helipads: Rural Access

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Wednesday 15th October 2025 Westminster Hall

[Mr Angus MacDonald (Inverness, Skye and West Ross-shire) (LD)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered access to community helipads in rural areas.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms McVey. I am delighted to be speaking on an issue that impacts not just my constituents, but pretty well the whole of rural Britain.

I spoke in this Chamber earlier this year during the debate secured by my right hon. Friend the Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael) on coastguard helicopter services. At that time, I pointed out that search and rescue helicopters are an extremely valued facility; I think everybody who has had any dealings with them would respect the quality of people involved. I have personal gratitude to them, because my wife was going along a ridge and fell off and was scraped up by Arrochar mountain rescue team and flown to Glasgow hospital, where they fixed her up—which was good news, she tells me. In addition, my father was involved in the Glencoe mountain rescue team for the whole of my youth. He said the search and rescue helicopters were probably the biggest positive change for saving people’s lives in the mountains, so this is a very important debate.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I commend the hon. Gentleman for securing this debate. Representing a rural community, I, like him, understand how important this is. We are very blessed to have an air ambulance available for our communities in Strangford and Northern Ireland. It truly has been the difference between life and death for so many. However, there is a definite issue with safely landing and taking off. Does he agree that there must be access for that purpose alone? It is sometimes possible to land near where an accident takes place, but they must also be sure not to interfere with telephone lines or traffic, and safety must be paramount.

[Mr MacDonald]

The hon. Gentleman makes a very valid point. Safety is at the bottom of it all, but I will be talking about over-safety in one particular instance.

I am always pleased to recognise the dedication of the helicopter crews, but there is one specific case I want to talk about, in Portree on the Isle of Skye. The Portree and Braes Community Trust manage the helipad, not NHS Highland or anybody else. The helipad is a community venture; the trust raised the money and built it. It was set up 30 years ago and has been refurbished in conjunction with the coastguard, NHS Highland and other bodies, so it is very much an approved helipad. The ambulance can drive right up beside it; there are lights that can be turned on from the helicopter; it has windsocks; it is fenced off; it has special paint demarking the H—it has every facility one could want from a helipad.

Despite that, members of the community trust tell me that the helicopter is not allowed to land on that H. It has to land on the boggy, wet hillside beside it. It is not allowed to use that helipad. That sounds quite extraordinary; I am sure everybody here is wondering why, so let me inform them. The aviation regulations have been updated, meaning that the helipad is no longer functioning for search and rescue. It is being used by air ambulance and other helicopters, but not by the Bristow search and rescue helicopters. Understandably, that is causing a lot of confusion and irritation for mountain rescue, the community trust and the wider Portree community.

What is behind this? In March 2022, a lady attending an appointment at Derriford hospital in Devon was knocked over by a downwash from a helicopter and died tragically from a head injury shortly thereafter. Following that tragic incident, safety guidance was tightened—but in practice the new approach has gone too far, and has created a fear of litigation rather than a focus on safety.

In April 2024, the Civil Aviation Authority published the third edition of its guidelines, “CAP1264: Standards for helicopter landing areas at hospitals”, which some Members may have read. In August 2024, following the CAA’s publication, Bristow helicopters undertook a thorough review of all helicopter landing sites and helipads that may be used for hospital purposes, to assess their compliance. The review highlighted that the majority of those sites were not compliant with the new guidance, and so Bristow withdrew from operating on the non-compliant helipads. Out of fear of litigation after the Derriford tragedy, Bristow insists that it needs legal authority to operate from sites that are not CAP1264 compliant. The problem is not the quality of Portree helipad; it is the red tape around liability and the ownership of risk.

Energy Profits Levy: North-east Scotland

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Tuesday 14th October 2025 Commons Chamber

[Harriet Cross (Gordon and Buchan) (Con)]

I secured this debate because what is happening in north-east Scotland simply cannot go on. Hundreds, if not thousands, of jobs are being lost on a regular basis across our region from the world-class energy sector that we are so proud of, not least because of the energy profits levy. These are geologists, engineers, technicians and project managers—highly skilled workers who are nothing but of value to the UK—but they are also people with mortgages, people with families and people who have given decades to an industry that this Government are now destroying through deliberately punitive policies.

Offshore Energies UK warns that, largely because of the EPL and other Government policies on the North sea, almost 1,000 direct and indirect jobs will be lost every month. That is 1,000 livelihoods, 1,000 mortgages and 1,000 families facing uncertainty every single month. OEUK also projects that 42,000 jobs are at risk between now and 2030. Energy workers in north-east Scotland feel like they are on borrowed time. No one really celebrates when they manage to survive a round of job cuts, because they know it is likely just to be short-term relief, with more cuts coming soon.

The energy profits levy was introduced in 2022, at a time when oil and gas prices were spiking after Russia invaded Ukraine. At that time, Brent crude peaked at over $130 a barrel and averaged $99 a barrel in 2022. Similarly, in 2022, gas peaked at 640p a therm and averaged 165p a therm that year. Let us compare that with this year. In August 2025, Brent averaged $71 a barrel and gas 81p a therm. That is a 28% and a 51% drop on the 2022 averages, and oil this week is at a six-month low. The energy profits levy has ceased to be a windfall tax. The windfall has gone, and the prices have returned to normal levels. The Competition and Markets Authority found that in 2025, oil markets are now relatively stable, and exceptional circumstances seem to have receded.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

Mr Shannon on the north-east of Scotland.

[Jim Shannon]

Madam Deputy Speaker, I spoke to the hon. Lady beforehand to ensure that I was here to support her in what she is trying to achieve in north-east Scotland. It is very important that we add our support to her.

Does the hon. Lady agree that while investment in tidal energy has not produced the desired result of sustainable, reliable energy, the levy on energy profits has achieved a result that is absolutely undesirable and is seeing investment in our countries being moved to the USA and other regions with a more favourable approach? Does she also agree that the economic black hole cannot be filled by more levies but must be filled by investment in our businesses and creating future job security? I commend her.

Oral Answers to Questions

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Tuesday 9th September 2025 Commons Chamber

[James Murray]

The hon. Member asks about an important matter. As a constituency MP, I have met families who have an interest in the fund and who are in the process of adoption themselves, so I know on a personal level from my constituency work how important it is. What the Department for Education was able to announce last week was important in confirming the extension of the fund, which will offer some certainty to the affected families. I will continue to work with colleagues in the DFE to ensure that we are doing all we can to support those families, who are playing such an important role for their children and for society.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I thank the Minister for a very positive answer and for that commitment. What steps are being taken and what discussions have taken place to ensure that vulnerable young people in Northern Ireland can benefit fully from the better futures fund, particularly in the areas most affected by educational disadvantage?

[James Murray]

We want to ensure that the better futures fund is targeted where it is most needed and that the investment is spent in a way that really improves life chances, in particular for young people and children who face some of the biggest challenges ahead. I note what the hon. Gentleman says about the area he represents and the part of the UK he comes from; it is something we will consider as we develop the details of the fund.

Property Taxes

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Wednesday 3rd September 2025 Commons Chamber

[Sir Mel Stride]

My right hon. Friend, as ever, is absolutely right. The reality, as we see in the bond yields at the moment, is that the markets have no confidence in the ability of this Government to get on top of spending. We saw the farce of a Government who came into office scrapping the £5 billion of welfare savings that were already baked into the OBR’s scorecard because we had brought them in, and attempting to bring forward their own reforms only for their Back Benchers to vote them down. My right hon. Friend is so right; this Government do not have the will or the plan to deal with spending, and that is at the heart of the reason why we will all be punished and pay the price of more taxes come the Budget in November.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I commend the shadow Chancellor for bringing forward this subject for debate. He clearly shares my deep concern that I have, and that I think everyone in this Chamber should have, that the Government are considering a further tax on property, despite the fact that the Prime Minister committed to not imposing capital gains tax on residents of this United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. Last year, it was the family inheritance tax; this year, those who own property—those who have scrimped and saved for their house, those who are middle class, those hard workers—have now become the latest target of Labour tax policy.

[Sir Mel Stride]

The hon. Gentleman is entirely right. Of course, if the Government have got into a situation where they are having to scrabble around and look at property taxes, as we are debating this afternoon, than really nothing is safe from the taxman under this Government.

Living Standards: East of England

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Wednesday 3rd September 2025 Westminster Hall

[Clive Lewis]

I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention and for all his work in this area. Council homes are overwhelmingly the solution to this country’s housing problems. There is always space for private housing, for affordable housing and for housing associations, but it is council housing, built in a sustainable way, that will solve the housing crisis in this country. I agree with him that developers—not climate, nature or local democracy—are the block to building more houses here, and I am firm in making that point.

Public transport in my region is patchy at best. Broadband in rural Norfolk is slower than a tractor on a Sunday morning—people who live in Suffolk or Norfolk will know what I mean. Child poverty levels run at one in three in Norwich once housing costs are factored in and, although we are blessed with extraordinary landscapes, too many of our neighbours live in what I can only describe as nature deserts—no green space within walking distance, and no safe place for kids to play.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I commend the hon. Gentleman for securing the debate. He is right to underline the issue of low income; the quality of life for working families on low incomes is the worst that it has ever been. When I spoke to him beforehand, I referred to my constituency, and indeed all Northern Ireland, where I understand that the rates are the same as in his constituency: 16% of working-age adults are in relative poverty. It should never be the case that working people are in poverty. The Government need a strategy to address that issue, but they do not at present. Does the hon. Gentleman agree?

[Clive Lewis]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his contribution. I do not raise this in this speech, but I think that one of the key ways of lifting people out of poverty is by strengthening trade unions and their sectoral pay bargaining ability, which I do not think even this Government—my Government—are going to do. That is key, particularly in the areas of social care and many other low-paid sectors. It would ensure that people get decent pay and attract people into those areas. It would make a massive difference.

We face real and urgent challenges in the east of England. Now, the Government—my own party’s Government—tell us not to worry, because living standards are going to rise and we have a plan for growth. But what do we mean by that? In practice, it means looking overwhelmingly at one number: disposable income, or what is left jingling in our pockets at the end of the month. Useful, yes—but adequate? No.

Reducing the richness of life to something we can measure is like trying to paint a rainbow with a single grey crayon: we get the outline, but none of the colour, none of the joy, none of the lived reality. The Indian economist and philosopher Amartya Sen warned that dignity cannot be reduced to decimal points. Martha Nussbaum, a US philosopher and ethicist, reminds us that the question is not just what we earn, but what we are free to do and to be. Kate Raworth is also right: paper prosperity that trashes the planet leaves our children bankrupt.

When we are told that living standards are up because the averages look rosy, we should remember what Danny Dorling pointed out: an average can hide a multitude of sins. If Jeff Bezos walked into a Norwich pub, the average wealth in the room would shoot through the roof, but not a single person’s pint would get cheaper—and I doubt he would get to the bar ahead of anyone else, either.

Government Performance against Fiscal Rules

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Monday 7th July 2025 Commons Chamber

[Darren Jones]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on being so successful. The amount of investment that he has secured for his constituency is clearly a testament to his ability to represent it. He is right to point to all those investments, because part of the Chancellor’s economic strategy is investing in the renewal of Britain to benefit not just his constituents, but all our constituents across the country.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

Although I very much welcome the Government’s decision last week to roll back on proposed welfare changes, it has undoubtedly put considerable pressure on the fiscal rules. I have the greatest concern for the middle class, who get little help to raise their children, pay for their education or feed them other than child benefit, and who will feel the squeeze of a wage increase without an increase in the child benefit threshold. With respect to the Chief Secretary, and always conscious of the importance of looking after people who need help, may I ask how he will ensure that middle-class families are not squeezed further, which can only have the effect of them robbing Peter to pay Paul, thereby landing themselves in debt to both?

[Darren Jones]

Let me point to the fact that wages are now increasing faster than costs—for the first time in many years. He also invited me to comment on childcare provision, which the Government agree is important to families, whether middle-class or otherwise. We have extended school-based nurseries and breakfast clubs in schools, and have subsidised childcare in nurseries across the country to help working families get to work and be able to afford to do so.

Oral Answers to Questions

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Tuesday 1st July 2025 Commons Chamber

[James Murray]

The shadow Minister forgets to mention the fact that we have had £30 billion of investment in green energy since the general election. I am sure he has consulted the spending review documents closely—I know he is a diligent shadow Minister in that regard—and he will have seen the investment that we are putting into Great British Energy, Sizewell C, small modular reactors, fusion, nuclear R&D, the warm homes plan, and carbon capture and storage. All of this is to make sure we improve our energy security and bring down bills for good.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

7. Whether she plans to provide additional Barnett consequential funding to the Northern Ireland Executive for the winter fuel payment.

[The Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury (Torsten Bell)]

I can reassure the hon. Member that there will be an increase in the Northern Ireland Executive’s funding through the annually managed expenditure forecasting process. This will be confirmed at the autumn Budget in the usual way. More importantly to pensioners in Northern Ireland, he will be aware that in June, the Communities Minister in Northern Ireland confirmed that winter fuel payments will be available in Northern Ireland on the same basis as in England and Wales.

[Jim Shannon]

I thank the Minister for that very positive answer. What assessment has been made of the impact of increasing the winter fuel payment in line with inflation? Given the increase in the cost of living, does he believe that current winter fuel payments are up to the standard in terms of how far they will go to support those who are eligible?

[Torsten Bell]

Our priority at the moment is to extend eligibility for the winter fuel payment, as the hon. Member and I have discussed on a number of occasions, but obviously that sits within a wider set of support. He will have seen the extension to the warm home discount announced in recent days and the extension of the household support fund. As he is well aware, social security is a transferred policy in Northern Ireland.

Access to Banking Hubs: Hertfordshire

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Wednesday 25th June 2025 Westminster Hall

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Desmond. I commend the hon. Member for South West Hertfordshire (Mr Mohindra) for securing this debate. He said that it is his first Westminster Hall debate; no doubt, now that he has the taste for it, he will be back next week for another one. I jest, of course, but I am sure that he will be back at some time in the future.

I am a strong supporter of banking hubs and offering communities the service that they deserve, so it is great to be present both to support the hon. Gentleman, and to ask the Minister for help constructively across the whole United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. Banks are not closing just in South West Hertfordshire; they are closing everywhere else in the United Kingdom. Over the past six or seven years, 11 banks have closed in my constituency. We feel the pain of that even today.

Speaking locally, from the point of view of my constituency, local high streets in Northern Ireland have witnessed a series of banking closures over the past 12 to 24 months. The Ards peninsula, where I live, is a banking desert. All the banks that were on the peninsula have closed. In fairness, they have been replaced by two credit unions, and the post offices have been strengthened, so there are some things to fall back on—but the banks on the Ards peninsula are all away. They went to other towns and bigger cities, which do not have the same accessibility for those who need them, especially those who are vulnerable, elderly and isolated. The hon. Gentleman mentioned bus services, but they are not always available to get to the banks or even to the cities, so the accessibility of the services is limited.

Banking and post office services are used daily and are essential to the lives of our constituents. Northern Ireland has a range of banking hubs across the province. This year, it was announced that two are to be developed in my constituency. One has opened in Comber. It is in an excellent location, exactly in the centre of the town. The post office is there, and the four banks—two of which used to operate in the town—do a half-day each in the Comber hub. From the point of view of a potentially good service, the hub is a step in the right direction. The other hub, in Ballynahinch, is to open shortly as well. The same offer will be available there; the banks that were in the town will do a half-day each and the post office is available within that. Will that meet all the banking requests that people have? Probably not—but it does, by and large, give people access to the banks.

The problem I have with bank hubs is that, between when the banks closed and when the hubs were instated, there was a time of perhaps two years. Cash Access UK is delivering those hubs to support residents with the services that they require. We undertake a lot of discussion nowadays on digital inclusion and exclusion. While it is great that we as a society are able to modernise, that does sometimes mean our elderly population, who are used to doing things a certain way, are left behind. Face-to-face services that are accessible for them are imperative. I hope that in future we can look to a greater scope of hubs across the UK, which will also increase employment in local areas.

I conclude with this comment as an example of the problem we are facing: last year one of my staff bought her first house, and her solicitor required a printed statement from her help to buy ISA for Barclays bank. The Barclays in Newtownards, where she lives, closed in 2023. The Barclays mobile service in Bangor, around a 15-minute drive away, could not carry out that function as it did not have the services available. She had to travel to the centre of Belfast, which is 40 minutes by car, to obtain a single, one-sided document. Banking hubs and mobile vans are great, but they must be accessible in terms of what services they can carry out for people; otherwise, in many cases, there is no convenience. Banking hubs delivers some things, but they do not deliver them all.

VAT Registration Threshold: SMEs

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Tuesday 24th June 2025 Westminster Hall

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

It is a real pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Vickers. I thank the hon. Member for Mid Leicestershire (Mr Bedford) for setting the scene and giving us all an opportunity to engage with the Minister on this issue, as the hon. Member for Keighley and Ilkley (Robbie Moore) just did. The Minister is always a very pleasant gentleman—we all know that—and he always seems to be incredibly calm. I am not sure how he does it; maybe all the worries are somebody else’s worries—I do not know what they are. But I do wish him well with his answers to the questions that we pose today.

I read a very interesting article that outlined the pros and cons of raising the VAT threshold above the £90,000 that we are sitting at. What was most notable was the fact that these arguments were all made around an unalterable fact: we in Northern Ireland are hampered from truly having a full discussion by the Windsor framework, which does not allow Northern Ireland VAT to rise above the £90,000 threshold. Even if this debate today could make a change, and even if the Minister agreed with the change, it could not happen. Why? Because of the Windsor framework. I look to my right-hand side: maybe one of the Conservative Members there might have been in the previous Government who left us in Northern Ireland in that limbo land. They can answer for themselves—it is not for me to answer for them—but I do make the point that we were let down badly by the Conservatives in relation to this.

The reality is that, unless we can have regional VAT rates, the UK is prevented from acting in our best interests economically by the EU. It is a fact of life for us, unfortunately, nine years after the vote. I voted—and my hon. Friend the Member for East Londonderry (Mr Campbell) beside me voted—to leave under the same terms as the rest of the United Kingdom; but the EU is still dictating our economic policy in Northern Ireland. That is the reason that the DUP has consistently stood against this European interference. Perhaps, now that some businesses in other Members’ constituencies are being affected, in different regions—

[Mike Martin (Tunbridge Wells) (LD)]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way, but does he not now regret his vote to leave, seeing as it created all of these problems for his constituents?

[Jim Shannon]

No. I thank the hon. Member—he is a friend—but look, honestly, I am a Brexiteer; it is no secret. I want the same Brexit as the rest of the United Kingdom got. I did not get that. We were let down by a Government who did us over, so we did not get what we wanted, but if I had got the same as everybody else in England, Scotland and Wales—and my hon. Friend had—then I would not be having this conversation, and I would not be doing this spiel. I am still a Brexiteer and always will be a Brexiteer, and incidentally, the majority of people in my constituency voted to have the same Brexit as the rest of the United Kingdom, and my constituents did not get it either. When the Minister thinks about today’s debate, if he does not mind me saying, I would ask that he would petition the Cabinet, if it is not too much to ask for, to withdraw from this inherently flawed agreement for us in Northern Ireland.

The article that I read discussed the benefit of raising the threshold, highlighting that Government should want to encourage small businesses to grow. It would be much more effective to raise the threshold to £250,000, I would have thought. It is probably a better figure to work with. That is, of course, supported by the Government’s own statistics, which showed that, in 2022-23, £117 billion —75% of the total net VAT collected in the UK—was paid by traders with an annual turnover of more than £10 million. So, what does that mean exactly? Raising the threshold to £250,000 may not, therefore, have a significant impact on VAT’s total receipts, but it would allow His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs to save costs and to focus its time on ensuring that the largest VAT payers paid the right amount of tax.

The Government have a big, difficult task before them; they have got to balance the books—whatever the figure might be for the black hole, or whatever it may have been. They have set themselves that target to balance those books, and I understand that. Maybe there is another way of saving money, perhaps within HMRC, that could be better. The Minister is a very wise man; he will understand the point I am making, and the civil servants, who are the brains of the Department—I hope the Minister does not mind me saying that—will be able to respond, and maybe pass the message on about whether that can be done.

Raising the threshold would allow a large number of traders in my area, and others, to focus on growth and not question whether they could grow a business enough to cover the additional accountancy costs when VAT is involved. When most businesses register for VAT, they are faced with a choice: either increase their prices by up to 20% or lose 20% of their existing prices as VAT. That is a difficult scenario for a business. The former makes the business less competitive and likely to see a drop in sales, and the latter eats into the profits and ultimately reduces the amount of money the business can use to expand. Neither option advocates for small business growth. As I have said, this is a moot point, as the EU will not allow us in Northern Ireland even to consider raising the threshold. I cannot tell businesses in Strangford or across Northern Ireland that it could be an option.

Some argue that there are benefits to retaining the VAT thresholds. Research undertaken for HMRC in 2016 found that 20% of unregistered businesses that were trading close to the VAT threshold had taken action to remain below it. Of those businesses, almost half said they had closed their businesses for part of the year to avoid having to register for VAT. One in five said they had turned down work, which was an indication that they could not grow as they wanted to because of the restriction. That strongly suggests that a significant number of businesses actively manage their turnover in order to stay below the VAT registration threshold. Lowering the threshold would prevent businesses from suppressing their trade in that way, which would in turn encourage economic growth.

[Mr Gregory Campbell]

Does my hon. Friend agree that in recent years, because of inflation, even small businesses in the retail trade that try to maintain a level just below the threshold find that they must pass on rising prices to the consumer? That means they will inevitably come to or above the threshold, and even an attempt to keep below it will often fail.

[Jim Shannon]

My hon. Friend always intervenes with words of wisdom and understanding. Perhaps the Minister will respond to that.

There is little point in Northern Ireland MPs discussing this issue, unless the discussion involves the revocation of the Northern Ireland protocol and each aspect of European interference. I ask the Minister sincerely, respectfully and honestly to take back to the Cabinet the circumstances of the Windsor framework, to ensure that Northern Ireland traders can have the very same options as those in England, Scotland and Wales.

--- Later in debate ---

[James Murray]

I would typically ask businesses’ permission before I named them in the House of Commons, but I can reassure hon. Members that in conversations with businesses in my constituency, or indeed across the country in my role as a Minister, they understand the difficult decisions we took to restore stability to the public finances and to the economy. That is not to pretend for a moment that those decisions were not difficult and do not come with consequences, but most businesses I speak to recognise our difficult inheritance from the previous Government, and the importance of restoring stability to the public finances as an essential prerequisite for investment and growth.

What is most important is working hand in hand with businesses—whether they are small businesses in our constituencies or large businesses that operate across the country—and putting through the reforms that we know are needed. That includes making sure that the planning system is reformed, that the National Wealth Fund supports their investment, and that we are investing across the country to ensure there are jobs and growth in every part of the UK. That is what we are focused on, working in partnership with businesses, because we know how important that is.

[Jim Shannon]

Irrespective of the Windsor framework and the protocol issue, I understand that experts and businesses have suggested that the VAT threshold should be £250,000. The hon. Member for Inverness, Skye and West Ross-shire (Mr MacDonald) referred to the fact that that would enable businesses to perhaps employ one or two apprentices or extra people in their companies, and help them to focus on a strategy for growth, which I know the Minister is committed to. Are there any circumstances in which the Minister would consider a £250,000 threshold, because of the benefits that it would clearly bring to all businesses in the United Kingdom?

[James Murray]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question. He referred to the impact of the Windsor framework, which as he correctly pointed out, imposes an upper limit of just over £90,000 on the threshold in Northern Ireland. The Windsor framework is therefore relevant to the threshold in Northern Ireland and, by extension, to the Government’s decisions in Great Britain as well. The debate is becoming slightly wider than the question about the VAT threshold, but I can understand why that is the case. The VAT threshold—in fact, VAT as a whole—is only one of the factors in the landscape that businesses face.

Although we recognise that we have taken some difficult decisions on employer’s national insurance contributions, as I said earlier, the important point to focus on is the stability that those decisions have brought to the public finances and that they have put our public services back on their feet. Many businesses that I speak to recognise that they need their workforce to be healthy and to be able to get on a train and get to work.

Businesses need people who are coming out of school to be trained and to have the right skills to access the jobs of the future. They need the Government to create the right environment for growth, because private sector businesses will drive growth and create wealth and prosperity across the country. Businesses want a partner in Government who will provide the infrastructure, reforms and investment to enable them and everyone across our country to flourish. That is the wider context in which this debate takes place.

This debate has mostly been about the VAT threshold. It has taken a wide definition of the VAT threshold and its connected policies, but I understand why: the threshold sits within a wider context that affects small businesses. We all agree that small businesses are at the heart of all our local communities and economies, and we all want them to thrive. That is why the Government have taken steps to ensure that the tax system supports them. We have doubled the employment allowance, increased the small employers’ compensation rate, frozen the small business multiplier, introduced permanently lower business rates for smaller retail, hospitality and leisure businesses from next year, and committed to maintain the small profits rate and £1 million annual investment allowance.

The industrial strategy, published yesterday, goes even further to support small businesses, including by announcing the creation of a new business growth service that will streamline access to Government support, advice and funding for small businesses. The VAT threshold strikes a balance between keeping the majority of businesses out of VAT altogether while ensuring that we can support public services and maintain fiscal responsibility.

I thank you again for your chairmanship, Mr Vickers. I thank all hon. Members who have contributed to the debate and, in particular, I thank the hon. Member for Mid Leicestershire for securing the debate.

Public Sector Pensions: McCloud Remedy

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Thursday 19th June 2025 Commons Chamber

[Christine Jardine]

I thank the hon. Member for raising a very good point, which I will come to later. I agree completely; this has been particularly difficult for many people in the light of the crises we have faced in recent years, with the soaring cost of living and sky-high energy bills.

This is what has happened to my constituents in Edinburgh West who have come to me with their issues with the administration of the remedy—not the remedy, but the administration of it—and the possible future impact on other pension schemes. One of my constituents who was affected is a retired police officer who served 25 years. His pension scheme was forcibly changed in 2017 to the CARE—career average revalued earnings—scheme, which was found to be discriminatory. He retired in February 2023 with his 25% lump sum, on the assumption that the remedial scheme would be in place by October that year. He estimates that he is now owed more than £30,000 in terms of both his commuted lump sum from the new scheme and the lower monthly pension. He is also one of thousands of immediate detriment officers still waiting for their remediation letter from the pension authorities, despite claims that the number of retired officers receiving these has accelerated, including in Scotland.

Another constituent started working for Lothian and Borders police, as it was, in 1996 and retired in 2022, knowing he would only receive his pension for his service between 1996 and 2015, while the remedy was calculated. He was told at the time that he would receive his remediable service statement by April 2025, three years after his retirement. He also estimates a loss in pension income of more than £30,000, given that seven years of his service to our community was not counted when he first retired.

A third constituent of mine has raised a possible issue that he faces when retiring with an NHS pension. The Government’s approach to NHS pension remedies means that pension growth will be calculated under an older scheme from 2008, even if he believes this rollback leaves those in the middle of their careers vulnerable to artificial breaches of the annual pension allowance and significant income tax charges because of the set-up of the 2008 scheme used for calculation.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I congratulate the hon. Member on securing the debate. I spoke to her beforehand to ascertain her focus, which is clearly on the McCloud remedy. The McCloud remedy will have implications on tax for some members, with some needing to pay more tax—she has outlined three—and others being entitled to a refund. My constituents in Strangford are experiencing the same issue as those in Edinburgh West and are in a similar position of uncertainty. Does she agree that discussion with financial advisers is essential, and for those who do not have access to financial advisers, the employer—the national health service, in the case of my constituents—must provide workshops to ensure that workers can understand what their choice will mean in reality?

[Christine Jardine]

The hon. Gentleman raises a very good point. This issue has affected all our constituents, in a different way. His is exactly the sort of point that I hope the Minister may be able to address.

All the cases that we have mentioned show the impact that the remedy process has had on people who have dedicated their lives to serving our communities. It is unfair and must be tackled. In written answers to myself and other hon. Members, Ministers have said that it is up to individual pension schemes and their managers to implement the remedy rather than the relevant Government Department, but that seems to allow the schemes to delay, or leaves them without the resources and support that they need to process claims at pace. Will the Minister outline how the Government work with these authorities to ensure rapid delivery of remedial pay?

What steps will the Government take to ensure that pension authorities can also deliver RSS notices to speed up the process of calculating and awarding remedial pay? That is particularly important for police pensions, as there appears to be a severe backlog in issuing those notices to retired officers to allow them to make their choice under the law. That is leaving my constituents in Edinburgh West and others facing years of further uncertainty on their finances, as the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) referenced, and losing out on money that they are entitled to for their work.

As policing is devolved in both Scotland and, as the hon. Gentleman knows, in Northern Ireland, how are the Government working with the devolved Administrations on these pension schemes to share best practice across Departments, provide increased resource and finally give these public servants, who have served our communities, taught our children and kept us safe for so long, the safety, security and financial stability that they deserve for their retirement? Surely that is what they are entitled to.