National Insurance Contributions (Secondary Class 1 Contributions) Bill

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Consideration of Lords amendments
Wednesday 19th March 2025 Commons Chamber

[James Murray]

I will not, as I have already given way several times and must make progress.

We had to take those decisions to put the fiscal responsibility back at the heart of government, to return economic stability to the public finances, and to have the basis for the investment on which we can grow the economy and put more money in people’s pockets.

Lords amendments 1, 4, 5, 9 and 13 relate to the NHS and social care providers. The amendments seek to maintain the employer national insurance contribution rates and thresholds at their current level for NHS-commissioned services, including GPs, dentists, social care providers and pharmacists, as well as those providing hospice care. As Members of both Houses will know, as a result of the measures in this Bill and wider Budget measures, the NHS will receive an extra £22.6 billion over two years, helping to deliver an additional 40,000 elective appointments every week.

Primary care providers—general practice, dentistry, pharmacy and eye care—are important independent contractors that provide nearly £20 billion-worth of NHS services. Every year, the Government consult the general practice and pharmacy sectors.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

One question raised regularly in my constituency relates to GP surgeries. The national insurance contributions will hit them immensely hard. GPs tell me that their only choice is to reduce staff and cut back appointments. The Minister mentions £22 billion extra for the NHS, but if GP surgeries and health clinics are reducing staff and reducing their capacity to deliver services, is that not a step down in what is delivered in my constituency and beyond? Will he reconsider the measures given the impact on GP surgeries?

[James Murray]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for raising the question of GPs and the funding and support that the Government are providing them. We are investing an additional £889 million in general practice, which brings the total spend on the GP contract to £13.2 billion in 2025-26. That is the biggest increase in over a decade. The changes to the contract will improve services for patients and help to make progress towards the Government’s health mission—shifting from analogue to digital, from sickness to prevention, and from hospital to community care—as set out in the Prime Minister’s plan for change. That support for GPs is an essential part of what the Budget, including the national insurance measures we are debating, delivers.

Finance Bill

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Report stage
Monday 3rd March 2025 Commons Chamber

[James Wild]

My hon. Friend is 100% correct. I think we all know that the architect of much of this is the Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero, who takes a rather fundamentalist approach. He wants to cover farmland with solar farms, and wants to undermine our oil and gas sector. We on the Opposition Benches disagree. It was the previous Government who introduced the levy, but that was to tackle extraordinary profits at an extraordinary time. The revenue helped to keep energy bills lower for all our constituents, but now the Government are ratcheting up the levy and seem to want to tax North sea exploration out of existence. This is just a further example of the Government’s ill-conceived energy policy. GB Energy is a net zero vanity project that will not generate any energy or be an energy supplier. It certainly will not deliver £300 off bills.

Amendments 67 to 69, tabled in my name, would remove clause 47 and abolish Labour’s education tax. Since 1 January, independent school fees for education and vocational training have been subject to VAT at 20%. It is the first time education has been subject to VAT. Why is that? Because education is a public good, so we do not tax it. Putting VAT on independent schools particularly hurts those on the most modest incomes who have chosen to save and make sacrifices to send their children to a school that they think will serve them best.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

In Northern Ireland, we have a number of faith schools that will be impacted greatly by the measure. They have contacted me even at this late stage to ask whether the Government would reconsider. Does the shadow Minister agree that faith schools will be impacted, perhaps more than others, and that the impact on parents, and children in particular, will be gross?

--- Later in debate ---

[Daisy Cooper]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising the plight of Scotch whisky. My husband is an Ayrshire boy who is certainly doing his bit to keep the Scotch whisky industry going.

Notwithstanding that, it would help if the Government did not pursue these particular duties. Near my constituency —it was in it before the boundary changes—is an importer of fine wines. One of its products is port—not the kind of drink that many people sit and glug as they might do with a cheaper form of alcohol. [Hon. Members: “Speak for yourself!”] For most families around the United Kingdom, port is a drink to buy for an occasion—a birthday, Christmas, a wedding or something of that kind. It is not typically the kind of drink that someone would glug—with the exception of a few people in the House—in such volumes as other alcoholic drinks. None the less, that business will be impacted by these measures. They will affect a huge amount of innovation in the industry, which is a prize to our economy.

[Jim Shannon]

I ask the hon. Lady to cast her mind back to Scotch whisky. I met representatives of the Irish whiskey industry just before Christmas. They told me of their deep concerns over jobs and employment and the future of their distilleries. In my constituency, the Hinch, Rademon and Echlinville distilleries all have those concerns. The hon. Lady is right to pursue this matter on their behalf.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Paul Kohler (Wimbledon) (LD)]

I will speak to new clauses 7 and 8. As the MP for Wimbledon, I am proud to represent a constituency with such a rich and diverse educational offering, including fantastic primary and secondary schools in both the independent and state sectors. But recent Government decisions, including the increases in employer NI contributions on all schools, the removal of business rates relief and the imposition of VAT on school fees at independent schools, are pushing many in the state and private sectors to the brink. The changes to independent schools have caused considerable concern in my constituency, as can be clearly seen by the over 1,000 signatures from my constituents on the petition being debated today in Westminster Hall.

It is my belief and that of my party, as Liberals, that education should not be taxed and individuals should be able to freely make choices about how their children are educated. The ambition should be to reach a point where the state offering for schools is so high that no parent feels particularly compelled to send their children to independent schools. However, these ideologically driven policies of taxing education are not the solution. They simply put further strain on the state sector while financially hitting those who make what they believe to be the best choice for their child. These policies are a piece of red meat to show that the red flag is still fluttering on the Labour Benches.

Admittedly, the long-term impact that the changes will have on schools is still to be seen, but the early signs are not good. This academic year we have already seen a drop of 10,000 pupils at independent schools—three times higher than the Government estimated. Many believe that the change will not be a one-off event, but the start of a longer period, with more pupils expected to leave independent schools in the coming years, making any financial gains to improve the state sector illusory.

It is important to note that the cost per pupil is likely larger than the national average due to the sheer number of students in the independent sector who have special educational needs. The Independent Schools Council estimates that over 130,000 pupils in independent schools have special educational needs, with 90,000 of them receiving special educational needs and disabilities support with no education, health and care plan.

Independent schools in my constituency, such as the Hall school, Wimbledon high school and Donhead prep school, to name but three, do a huge amount to support children with special educational needs, and many parents choose to send their children there for that reason alone. I have spoken to many parents who have made tough financial sacrifices to send their children to those schools. They speak of the barriers to their children receiving the support they need in the state sector, including long waiting lists to receive an EHCP. The changes are already forcing many to reconsider their decision because they simply no longer can afford to use the private sector to relieve pressure on the state system.

As is well documented, there are huge issues around the provision of SEND support in state schools, with many children waiting years for support and many schools not being able to provide the support they would like to due to budgetary restraints. At a time when the Government and local councils are already struggling to support schools with the money they need for SEND support, avoiding further strain on state schools is vital—these decisions do the opposite.

Turning to new clause 8, I draw the House to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. I will speak about the impact the Bill will have on the wine industry, the night-time economy and hospitality in general. Under the current wine easement, 85% of all wine sold in the UK is subject to the same rate of duty. With the alcohol duty now set to be linked to the volume of alcohol in each bottle of wine, that will be replaced by 30—yes, 30—different rates of duty. While I understand the Government’s broader intentions, the new regime is simply not workable in the context of wine. It fails to account for the fundamental difference between wine and other more manufactured drinks.

The alcohol by volume of wine cannot be predicted with precision before or during the wine-making process. The alcohol content is stable only at the point when the wine goes into the bottle. The ABV varies between different years and vats. Until bottling, we do not know the ABV of a particular bottle. It therefore creates huge uncertainty about price and profit margins for the industry if there are different rates of duty depending on the specific ABV, down to a gradation of 0.1%. That is particularly important with low-cost wines. This regime is utterly impractical for wine producers and merchants.

Hal Wilson, co-founder of Cambridge Wine Merchants, told me:

“In my business this feels like death by a thousand cuts, or even two thousand cuts. We sell over 2,000 different wines each year and from February will need to know the precise ABV of each and every one before being able to calculate their full cost. For each 0.1% ABV difference there is a different amount of tax to be paid.”

I wrote to the Minister about the matter and received a long and detailed response, for which I am grateful. He made the point that His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs will change its practice and accept the ABV on the label of the bottle to the nearest 0.5%, but that is current practice; it is not in the legislation as I understand it. It is still far too complex and much of my criticism still holds.

Secondly, the letter fundamentally misunderstands why people drink wine. Wine is consumed primarily for the taste, not the strength. The ABV affects the taste profile. Compare a light Beaujolais with a robust Rioja—it is all about taste, not whether it is stronger so one can get more drunk. That is not how people consume wine.

Turning briefly to hospitality and the night-time economy, the industry faces an existential crisis owing to the cost of living crisis, rising energy prices, inflation, labour shortages following Brexit, changes to commuting patterns and the more than doubling of business rates. The increase in alcohol duties will be yet another burden. Every incremental cost makes survival more difficult, as I know myself, and the Bill shows that the Government are still not taking the dangers seriously.

[Jim Shannon]

It is a pleasure to speak in the debate—is it the end? No, I am sure it is not. I thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for calling me so soon; I was just getting myself prepared. This is an opportunity to speak on this Bill one last time. I have spoken every time it has come to the Chamber, and I am pleased to do so again.

The shadow Minister, the hon. Member for North West Norfolk (James Wild), referred in his contribution, which was helpful for setting the tone and level of the debate on these important issues, to the impact of the inheritance tax changes on small and medium farms. That needs to be raised at every opportunity until the Government understand the devastation that it will wrought on farmers, causing them to sell their land and their future to pay the Government. I have sat beside the Minister and asked for the threshold to be increased. If the threshold were increased by £1 million to £5 million for farms, it would mean that many farms would not be penalised by the changes. The Government urgently need to promote food security in the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. This decision beggars belief. If they are aiming the measures at those who abuse the system, they should design a scheme for them—not a scheme that affects many farmers across this great United Kingdom, including 70% of farmers in Northern Ireland.

The other major concern is that of the NI contributions. GP clinic and health centres are the latest to suggest that they will have reduced hours and capacity because of the constraints of their NI contributions. That must not be the case.

I support the Opposition’s new clause 2, on “Energy (oil and gas)”. The shadow Minister made the case for it extremely well, and others have spoken to it. I agree with them, and my party will support the new clause if it is pressed to a Division, as I understand it will be.

On new clause 8, the hon. Member for St Albans (Daisy Cooper), who spoke for the Lib Dems, referred to the whisky sector. I will make the case for Irish Whiskey Association, which was clear when I met it before Christmas that the measures will have a great impact on a sector that is already under pressure. Let us be honest: most Irish whiskey organisations’ trade is under pressure. They export most of their whiskeys to make their money, but the fact of the matter is that they find that extremely difficult to do. They tell me clearly that if they are taxed more heavily, it will lead to job losses and a reduction in what they are able to do. They do incredible work for the community. I have known the owners of three whiskey distilleries in my constituency—Rademon, Hinch and Echlinville distilleries—since they have had their businesses, and they are concerned about the impact of the measures.

[Daisy Cooper]

rose—

[Jim Shannon]

Whenever the hon. Lady pushes her new clause, we will support it. I give way.

[Daisy Cooper]

The hon. Member will be acutely aware that there are huge supply chains. Distillers are fantastic for attracting people, including in the tourism industry, to create strong local economies. There is huge innovation going on in that industry. It is essential that the Government carry out an impact assessment not just of how much the measures will cost and of the tax revenue to the Treasury, but of the operational costs and the red tape over the 12 months before the measure, which will cause havoc, comes in. Does he agree?

[Jim Shannon]

The hon. Lady makes her point succinctly. I hope that the Minister has heard her comments about the impact. Her concerns are certainly my concerns—indeed, the concerns of all Members on the Opposition Benches. She referred to the review of the impact on small and medium-sized enterprises. I understand that new clause 4 will not be pressed to a vote, but if it were, it is another that my party would support.

[Ben Lake (Ceredigion Preseli) (PC)]

Does the hon. Gentleman share my concern that there seems to be a disconnect between some of the statements made by the Government about the impact, or lack of impact, of the measures on small and medium-sized enterprises, and the fact that, week after week, small businesses and family businesses tell us, as constituency MPs, that they will have to reconsider much of their investment and recruitment plans for the coming year as a result of the measures in the Bill?

[Jim Shannon]

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. That is what my small and medium-sized enterprises tell me—and, I believe, everyone else on the Opposition Benches—about that.

Ultimately, whenever the national insurance contributions are passed on to businesses, they will pass it on again to the customers—the wee man and the wee woman. They are the people that the Labour party—the party of conscience—says that it represents, but it will penalise them.

[Joe Robertson]

Does the hon. Member agree that the national insurance contribution rise for small and medium-sized businesses is not only passed on to the consumer but is damaging for the economy as a whole, because it stifles growth? Growth, not increasing tax rates, is the way to increase the tax take for the Treasury.

[Jim Shannon]

The hon. Gentleman is right—he makes that point well. One business in my constituency employs 1,200 people. It told me just before the new year that those measures would cost it £1.1 million per year. I asked, “What are you going to do to address that extra cost?” It said, “We cannot absorb very much of it, so we will pass it on.” That is exactly what will happen. If we want to promote growth, we have to consider all the aspects and problems.

High Street Bank Closures

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Wednesday 26th February 2025 Westminster Hall

[Ian Lavery (Blyth and Ashington) (Lab)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered high street bank closures and banking hubs.

It is always a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stringer. I want to bring to the Chamber a really important issue: high street banking, which in my view, has been in absolute crisis with the precipitous decline in branches operating in communities up and down this country for the past four decades. Data from the British Banking Association shows that the number of branches in 1986 was more than 21,000; at the beginning of 2025, there were fewer than 5,000. Many smaller communities no longer have a high street bank.

Banking habits have clearly changed, with many people now using internet banking, but the loss of high street banks is a bitter blow to many people, particularly vulnerable groups in our communities, such as the aged, the frail and people with disabilities, all of whom are at serious risk of financial exclusion. For example, according to the Royal National Institute of Blind People, in my Blyth and Ashington constituency there are 3,420 people living with sight loss. That is extraordinary. For blind and partially sighted people who struggle with online access, bank closures are—at the least—devastating, and that is just one prime example of the groups of people affected by the disappearance of banks from the high street.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

This is a very important subject for the hon. Gentleman and for me as well. We have lost 11 banks in my constituency. They put forward the idea of banking hubs; well, we have got one, and there is a second one on the way, but the fact is, it takes ages for them to arrive. Does he agree that what we need is urgency on the substitutions, whether they are banking hubs or alternatives, such as in post offices? If we do not have that for rural communities, then we do not have anything at all.

[Ian Lavery]

I agree. I have already mentioned the number of closures; I am not sure whether a post office can act as a back-up, because we have seen closure after closure of post offices, until eventually a number of the constituencies up and down the country have no facilities whatever.

Crown Estate Bill [Lords]

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Report stage
Monday 24th February 2025 Commons Chamber

[Henry Tufnell (Mid and South Pembrokeshire) (Lab)]

We live in uncertain times, and as a nation we face many challenges ahead. For one, there is Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. The impact on our domestic energy prices has shown the extent of our reliance on the international oil and gas markets. Since 2022, gas prices for households across the country have spiked, and the cost of living continues to bite. Putin’s boot is on our throat.

Another challenge is the result of rapid deindustrialisation across the UK since the 1980s, and too much economic focus on London and south-east England. We have seen massive job losses at Port Talbot; we face an uncertain future at Grangemouth; and we still bear the scars of the loss of the mining industry. Regional inequality is stark, and in my constituency of Mid and South Pembrokeshire, the rate of child poverty is steadily increasing.

And of course there is our climate crisis: wildfires in California, torrential rain in Spain, and extreme heatwaves and longer droughts. Even walking through the village of Angle in Pembrokeshire with members of the local community council, it is all too easy to see the increase in frequency of flooding, not to mention its damaging impact on residents and local farmers.

Prior to the general election of 4 July, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor set out her economic vision of securonomics: we would make, sell and buy more in Britain, and so deliver energy security and create good, well-paid jobs while tackling the climate crisis. My Labour colleagues and I stood for election on that manifesto, and it is time to deliver. At a time when the challenges are so great and the need for leadership is so acute, it is vital that the Crown Estate has greater scope to rise to those challenges and do its part for the revitalisation of our great nation.

The provision in clause 3 that commissioners at the Crown Estate

“must keep under review the impact of their activities on the achievement of sustainable development in the United Kingdom”

is therefore to be welcomed. That amendment was hard fought for by the noble Lords in the other place, and I commend them for it. However, it is our duty in this House to provide clarity about the meaning and scope of “sustainable development”, and about the mechanism for enforcing that provision. Maintaining transparency and accountability is critical for an organisation as big and influential as the Crown Estate. Allowing the estate to define “sustainable development” and report annually is a move straight out of the environmental, social and governance playbook. Given the financial firepower that this House is granting the Crown Estate, allowing it to effectively self-regulate on an issue of national importance is a dereliction of our democratic duty.

Under amendment 5, the commissioners must have regard to net zero, regional economic growth and energy security. It would not impede the independence of the Crown Estate, but would provide unambiguous purpose and direction on an otherwise undefined and unexplained term. It should therefore be welcomed.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

Of course, a key issue for all of us in the United Kingdom, and certainly for us in Northern Ireland, is the fishing sector. Any net zero development, such as a wind farm—wind farms have been proposed for my constituency in the past—could have a direct impact on the fishing sector there. Does the hon. Gentleman share my concern that the fishing sector could be impacted by measures that take away the opportunity to fish in the seas around this United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, to the detriment of those in the sector, and their families?

[Henry Tufnell]

The fishing industry has a great history in my constituency, and it is vital that the Crown Estate takes on board the issues in the fishing industry when it looks at leasing and consenting. I thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention.

I am grateful also to the Minister for his assurances in Committee that the public framework document will give context to clause 3, on sustainable development. However, no text has yet been shared with this House, nor will any be shared until after the Bill receives Royal Assent. This reduces scrutiny and will encourage a retrospective review, rather than a proactive approach. Furthermore, relying on a public framework document reduces this House’s ability to ensure that the clause is properly enforced. What is the mechanism for enforcement in the event of non-compliance? What if the Crown Estate failed to report in good faith—what would the penalties be?

Off the back of Labour’s resounding victory last July, we know there is democratic consensus across the nation on our economic vision, which promotes energy security, regional economic growth and net zero, yet the Crown Estate appeared to be relying on the window dressing of ESG standards to obfuscate its desire to maximise its 12% of profits, at the expense of our nation.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jim Allister (North Antrim) (TUV)]

I wish to primarily address new clause 7, tabled by the hon. Members for Belfast South and Mid Down (Claire Hanna) and for Ynys Môn (Llinos Medi), and to express opposition to it. It very much reflects what is in new clause 1, in terms of seeking devolution of the Crown Estate, but in this case to the Northern Ireland Executive in respect of the assets there. I oppose that for a number of reasons. It presently is a reserved matter, and I strongly believe that is how it should stay. I say that not because that is right ideologically, but because practically it is beyond belief that the current Stormont Executive could ever handle the controversies that come with the Crown Estate.

This is an Executive in Stormont that have been in existence for almost 13 months and still cannot agree a programme for Government. If we were to hand them something as controversial as control of the Crown Estate, we all know what the outcome would be. Why is it controversial? For one specific and historical reason. Lough Foyle is controlled and owned by the Crown Estate. It is a piece of water that separates County Londonderry, which is in Northern Ireland, from County Donegal, which is in the Republic of Ireland, but the entirety of Lough Foyle since last we had a King Charles rests under British control. In 1662, Charles II gifted Lough Foyle, the surrounding waters, the seabed and the waters within it to the Irish Society. The Irish Society was a conglomerate of various companies from the City of London, which did a great deal to develop and build the city of Londonderry; and as part of that, I presume, it was gifted control over Lough Foyle. In 1952, the Irish Society conveyed Lough Foyle to the Crown Estate.

A divided Executive in Northern Ireland would be hopelessly incapable of resolving the issues that flow from the somewhat controversial aspect of the entirety of Lough Foyle, right up to the coastline of County Donegal, being properly, legally and in perpetuity in the control of the Crown Estate. Therefore, devolving the Crown Estate to the Northern Ireland Executive would be disastrous for the good management of the lough and for the uncontroversial continuance of its ability to be developed. That might be a particular situation, but it is in addition to my opposition from an ideological point of view and my belief that the Crown Estate is a national asset that should continue to be of a reserved category. I think the proposition in new clause 7 would be the utmost folly; I trust that the Government will resist it and that the House will reject it.

[Jim Shannon]

It is a pleasure to contribute to the debate; I will follow on from what the hon. and learned Member for North Antrim (Jim Allister) seeks. I want to make a specific request, which I did when I intervened on the hon. Member for Mid and South Pembrokeshire (Henry Tufnell).

My issues with the provisions primarily relate to the fishing sector and the impact on fishing fleets around the whole of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, but particularly in Strangford for Portavogie, and Ardglass and Kilkeel in South Down. I appreciate the opportunity to speak on an issue that affects Crown Estates in the entirety of the United Kingdom.

As the Library briefing outlines, the Crown Estate focuses on activities that align with wider national needs, including energy security and sustainable economic growth. It manages the seabed and much of the coastline across England, Wales and Northern Ireland, playing a

“fundamental role in the sustainable development of this national asset, including the UK’s world-leading offshore wind sector.”

I am not against wind turbines and the green energy they produce, but I am concerned about the impact on the fishing sector. I want to state my concerns and express my support for the fishing fleets at Portavogie, Ardglass and Kilkeel, where fishing is an important economic sector, providing jobs and investment. That has been happening for hundreds of years, and I want to see that tradition maintained. I hope that when the Minister sums up, he will reassure fishing communities that any development will not be to the detriment of the fishing sector.

[Jim Allister]

Does the hon. Member agree that one of the problems in this territory is that we do not yet have the definition of what is meant to be sustainable? On reading the Bill, it appears that the whole focus of what sustainable will be is on the green energy side, rather than what will sustain the fishing industry.

[Jim Shannon]

That is the thrust of where I am coming from. I am not against the idea of green energy, but I want to ensure the sustainability of the fishing sector over the years. It has been sustainable and still provides jobs in Kilkeel and Ardglass, and I want it to continue to do so. That would be my concern as well.

The fishermen in my area are well aware of the limitations brought about by Crown holdings on the coastline, and concerns have been expressed to me regarding the partnership announced by the Government for the Crown Estate and Great British Energy—the very issue that the hon. and learned Member for North Antrim refers to—to bring forward new offshore wind developments. I wholeheartedly welcome renewable energy and attempts to harness the reliable energy of our vast seas and loughs, but only inasmuch as they do not stop the fishing sector from operating and being successful. That must always be the key consideration. If we were to lose one of our primary sectors in fishing and to gain wind turbines and green energy, that would be something that the Government would have to consider sensibly.

Similarly, the regeneration and development department in my local Ards and North Down council has highlighted the additional red tape that comes from leasing or altering existing leases to the Crown Estate. That being said, the council is also thankful for the open doors and accessibility when needed. However, it has been seen that there is a willingness to consider the national needs when requests are made for alterations, and that is appreciated. When we look at the national needs, we want to ensure that they do not take away from the local needs of those in Strangford, in Ards and North Down and in the fishing fleets and those who own land and farms around the Irish sea and Strangford lough.

During 2023-24, the Crown Estate generated a net revenue profit of £1.1 billion. Over the past decade, it has returned £4.1 billion of net revenue profit to the Treasury. We must ensure that the Crown Estate is being run at ultimate capacity and is bringing money into our coffers, but also that it has a socially conscious operating model and that it is being used to do good for everyone, including the fishing sector in my constituency.

I was very much inspired, as we probably all were, by the Prince of Wales’s scheme on homelessness, and by the fact that he is using his personal estate, the Duchy of Cornwall, to build 24 homes to help tackle homelessness. The construction of the first homes in Nansledan, Newquay, is due to be complete in autumn 2025. That good work should inspire us all to ensure that a Crown Estate operated by a team appointed by the Prime Minister attempts where it can to make such an impact for the common good.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jim Shannon]

I seek assurance that the ambitious net zero targets will not detrimentally affect the fishing sector. I remember some years ago there was talk of a wind farm just off the coast of Kilkeel, and the fishermen were concerned that it would be in one of their prime fishing sectors, where scallops were plentiful. If that continued, the fishing sector could lose out because the Government decided to push for net zero. I sought reassurance that Northern Ireland MPs would be able to contact the Northern Ireland commissioner directly, but I ask specifically for a wider assurance about the fishing sector in Northern Ireland—for Portavogie, Ardglass and Kilkeel.

[James Murray]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention about the impact on the fishing sector, and I can reassure him that the Crown Estate is committed to the sustainable management of the seabed. As with any developer, the Crown Estate’s proposals go through the standard planning approval process, which includes the relevant environmental assessments. Under the Crown Estate’s strategy, it has an objective to take a leading role in stewarding the natural environment and biodiversity. Key to delivering on that aim is managing the seabed in a way that reduces pressure on, and accelerates recovery of, our marine environment. Of course, the Bill will not impact directly on how much commercial fishing takes place in areas managed by the Crown Estate.

I pointed out that the inclusion of clause 6 in the Bill in the other place provided for the appointment of commissioners responsible for giving advice about England, Wales and Northern Ireland. The requirement to give advice to the board about Wales will be alongside the commissioners’ existing duties. That change will strengthen the Crown Estate’s ability to deliver benefits for the whole UK.

Hon. Members may not agree with the points I have made, but I hope that I have set out clearly why the Government believe that the existing structure remains the best approach, and I hope that hon. Members will feel that they do not need to press their new clauses to a vote.

New clause 2, which was tabled by the hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire, would require the Crown Estate to ensure that any decisions about marine spatial priorities are co-ordinated with the priorities of the Marine Management Organisation, and to consult any communities or industries impacted by the plans, including fishing communities. I confirm that the Crown Estate and the Marine Management Organisation already have well established ways of working together to ensure effective collaboration for marine spatial planning and prioritisation.

Bank Closures: Rural Areas

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Monday 24th February 2025 Commons Chamber

[Simon Hoare (North Dorset) (Con)]

We now have the enjoyable prospect of an Adjournment debate lasting an hour and a half, which I know will fill the Minister with joy. I can see the boyish smile on his face—he just cannot contain himself. I do not intend to take an hour and a half, although a number of colleagues from across the House have indicated that they wish to intervene.

I am very pleased to have secured this debate. It is clear that our banking world is going through a period of transition. There are changes in technology; there is the move—some would say at too high a speed—towards a soon-to-be cashless society; and there is the cost of running branches, which includes insurance, business rates, staff costs and the like. I know full well that the closure of a high-street bank hits an area hard, whether the area is urban or rural. However, North Dorset is a rural constituency, and the thrust of my thesis is that the impact is felt disproportionately harder in rural communities than in an urban setting.

Why do I say that? I do not believe that North Dorset is unique in how it operates. [Interruption.] Heckling from the cheap seats. Our market towns operate on a hub-and-spoke model: the market town grows, and the villages are magnetised towards it, which is good for businesses large and small across the sectors, as we all recognise. It is also good for community cohesion at a time when we are all rightly concerned about rural exclusion and isolation; it brings people together. Our rural areas, by accident rather than by design, contain a disproportionately high number of retired or elderly people.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Simon Hoare]

I will, although the hon. Gentleman is neither retired nor elderly.

[Jim Shannon]

The hon. Gentleman is very kind. I commend him on bringing forward this debate. He is right to highlight elderly people. Social isolation is an issue for many people, not just those who are elderly or vulnerable, and it is worsened by the loss of basic banking. The hon. Gentleman told me before the debate that he has lost 14 banks. I have lost 11 banks in my constituency in Northern Ireland, which means that going to the bank becomes an all-day job, taking buses and making connections. Does he agree that there is a moral obligation on banks to ensure that they look after their customers? Indeed, if the banks do not do it under a moral obligation, does he think it is time for the Minister to make legislation to make it a legal obligation?

[Simon Hoare]

I agree. I will certainly come on to what I am asking the Government to consider, but the hon. Gentleman is right to talk about social isolation. We have lost 14 banks in my constituency since 2015. In 440 square miles, we have five banks remaining. We have had a fall of 74%. Across the county of Dorset, which includes the major conurbations of Bournemouth, Christchurch and Poole, we have had a decrease of 68% overall, with 101 branches closed and only 48 remaining in the whole of the county. Eight parliamentary constituencies are served by just 48 banks.

My constituent Deborah Jones made a good point in response to a recent announcement by Lloyds that it is closing its branch in Blandford Forum, a market town in my constituency with a large village hinterland. With the exception of Nationwide, it now has no proper, traditional high street branch.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury (James Murray)]

I commend the hon. Member for North Dorset (Simon Hoare) for securing this debate. He has ensured that the views and concerns of his constituents have been heard by Ministers this evening, and he has set out the particular dynamics of the role of banking hubs in rural communities. The fact that he received so many interventions from other hon. Members underscores how important this issue is to constituents across the country, and I thank him for securing this important debate.

It might be helpful if I outline some of the context around this issue. In recent years, people across the UK have reaped the benefit of the transformations of the UK’s banking sector, particularly the enhanced accessibility and convenience afforded by remote banking. For example, in 2017 40% of UK adults regularly used a bank branch, but by 2022 only 21 % of UK adults did so, and almost nine in 10 banked online or used a mobile app. Notably, that includes 65% of the over-75s. However, the Government recognise that those changes have presented considerable challenges for others.

Bank branch closures can have a particular impact on rural communities given the distances to alternatives—indeed, we heard examples of that from the hon. Member for North Dorset, and other hon. Members who intervened to highlight specific cases and to draw the House’s attention to the challenges facing their constituents. I assure hon. Members, and the people they represent, that this Government understand the importance of face-to-face banking, and banking access, to local communities and high streets. Our objective is to ensure that people and businesses have access to banking services, supporting local communities and local economic growth. Work on that is well under way, and we are working closely with banks to open 350 banking hubs by the end of this Parliament. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor marked the opening of the 100th banking hub in December, and more than 200 hubs have been announced in total.

[Jim Shannon]

The hon. Member for North Dorset referred to 14 banks closing, and I referred to 11 closing. When it comes to the criteria for agreeing where those bank hubs will be, will the Minister reassure me that those constituents who have lost the most banks will be those who get more banking hubs when the opportunity comes through?

[James Murray]

The hon. Gentleman highlights how this issue affects communities right across the UK, and in a moment I will turn to the criteria by which the locations of banking hubs are decided—hon. Members have raised that important issue, and put on record their concerns and feelings about it.

Banking hubs offer counter services provided by post office staff, which allows personal and business customers of more than 30 banks and building societies to withdraw and deposit cash, deposit cheques, pay bills and check their balance. They also, crucially, contain rooms where customers can see community bankers from their bank to carry out wider banking services, such as registering a bereavement or help with changing a PIN. As the hon. Member for North Dorset pointed out, banking hubs offer more than just access to cash—that is an important point regarding why such hubs can bring so much to an area that has otherwise lost its local banks.

Community banking hubs can clearly contribute a great deal to local areas where existing banks have closed, and decisions over the opening of a hub are guided by the Financial Conduct Authority’s regulations. In response to the question from the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), it may be helpful for me to briefly outline how the FCA’s process works. When a bank announces a closure, Link, the operator of the UK’s largest ATM network, conducts an impartial assessment of a community’s access to cash needs. Link considers criteria such as population size, the number of small businesses and levels of vulnerability, as well as the distance to the nearest branch, and the cost and time taken to get there via public transport.

Should Link recommend a banking hub, Cash Access UK, a not-for-profit entity funded by major UK banks, will implement it. Crucially, a bank branch cannot close until any recommended services are in place. Additionally, individuals, including Members of Parliament, can directly request an access to cash review via the Link website. In collaboration with industry, the Government remain committed to advancing the roll-out of these hubs.

It is worth pointing out that customers have alternative options for accessing everyday banking services. Notably, 99% of personal and 95% of business banking customers can conduct their banking, including taking out and depositing cash, at over 11,500 Post Office branches nationwide. The Post Office, as several hon. Members have mentioned, has a duty to serve rural communities, with the Department for Business and Trade requiring that 95% of the total rural population across the UK be within three miles of a Post Office. Therefore, where communities might be too small for a banking hub, as may be the case for some of the rural communities we are focusing on this evening, individuals and businesses can still access essential services at their local Post Office.

Inheritance Tax Relief: Farms

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Monday 10th February 2025 Westminster Hall

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I should explain that if a Member wants to speak in this debate, they have to be sitting in the hemicycle. That is why I am sitting next to the Minister: because it was the only seat available. [Laughter.] I just wanted to declare that at the very beginning. I am very much opposed to the agricultural farm inheritance tax. The Minister is sitting next to me, so I am going to try to nudge him a wee bit—nudge nudge, elbow elbow, wink wink and all the things we would normally do.

I declare an interest as a member of the Ulster Farmers Union; I understand that there are some people from the Ulster Farmers Union in the Public Gallery today. I am a landowner and a farmer in my constituency of Strangford, and I am here to speak on behalf of my constituents on a subject that will have an effect on every single one of them, whether they realise it or not. Every one of my neighbours’ farms has been passed down from generation to generation. I cannot think of one neighbour who has not had a farm handed down, generation to generation.

[Dr Andrew Murrison in the Chair]

I thank the Ulster Farmers Union, which has worked so hard to provide the information that I will share today. It indicates the depth of the folly of the decision to implement inheritance tax on working farms, and the devastating impact that it will undoubtedly have on food security for the entirety of the UK. For my neighbours, for me and for all the people I know in the Ulster Farmers Union and in Northern Ireland, the land is the farmers’ lifeblood. It is more than land: it is their very reason for existence.

The Northern Ireland Rural Valuers Association, in conjunction with the Central Association of Agricultural Valuers, has used available data to look at the impact of the changes to inheritance tax proposed in October’s Budget. They tell me that 6,000 farming taxpayers in Northern Ireland will be affected by the tax change over a generation. My hon. Friend the Member for South Antrim (Robin Swann) referred to the value of the land. The value of the land in Northern Ireland is more than the value of the land here. I say with great respect to all my English, Scottish and Welsh compatriots—to all my friends in this Chamber—our land is better.

What are the solutions? The Minister is sitting beside me, and I hope he is listening—of course he is. There is a way forward. The Ulster Farmers Union said to me that the value of the land was done in the ’70s, ’80s, ’90s and noughties, which gives an unreal rateable value for today. I suggest that the answer is quite simple: take the threshold from £1 million to £5 million, and all the farmers in Northern Ireland—and in Wales, Scotland and England—will benefit. The threshold is too low, so change the threshold. I say to Ministers and the Chancellor that it is quite simple.

I understand that farmers will be meeting the Chancellor shortly; I look forward to the outcome of that. But I will say one thing: let us change the threshold. Let us give the farmers in Northern Ireland some hope for the future. Let us keep those farms that have been handed down from generation to generation. That is what this debate is all about, or it is for me—I hope the Minister is listening.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sarah Dyke]

I agree with the hon. Gentleman.

Levels of confidence among the farming community are at a worryingly low ebb. The National Audit Office reports that only one in three farmers are confident that DEFRA and its agencies can deliver their proposed changes to schemes and regulations. The family farm tax will only increase pressure on farmers, while burdening with extra uncertainty and anxiety farmers who are already suffering with their mental health. Today marks the beginning of Mind Your Head week. Now in its eighth year, it is a campaign that amplifies mental health awareness, run by the Farm Safety Foundation and Yellow Wellies. This year’s themes are love, positivity and resilience—three characteristics we should show to our farmers.

Recently, the Office for Budget Responsibility assigned any revenue from this tax a high uncertainty rating, stating that any

“yield from this measure is not likely to reach a steady state for at least 20 years.”

The Treasury projects that the combined changes to agricultural property relief and business property relief will raise approximately £520 million annually. Using HMRC figures on the total cost of each relief, however, the Liberal Democrats have calculated that the proportion attributed to the APR changes will be only around £115 million, confirming that this misguided tax will penalise British farmers for essentially no benefit.

In its report, the OBR reiterates that the measure will hit older farmers hardest, because they will find it difficult to quickly put in place the transitional arrangements to restructure their affairs in response to the pending changes. I recently spoke to a farmer from Martock who told me that their parents, who are in their late 80s, are horrified by this tax raid. They do not want to lose their home and their business, but the lack of time to implement the changes may make that their sad reality. They implore the Government to consult on transitional arrangements that work with them and for them.

I fear that these family farms will instead be broken up and parcels of land will be sold off at a deflated land value to already wealthy landowners, who will simply add to their large land portfolios.

[Jim Shannon]

I commend the hon. Lady on her excellent speech. I echo what she says about the stress experienced by the elderly generation—the mums and dads. They are probably getting ready for the future and settling themselves into handing the land over to their families, but the situation is causing stress, anxiety and depression. She has been at the forefront in addressing mental health in the countryside. It is not only the young farmers who will feel the pressures of this change; it will also be the mums and the dads, the aunts and the uncles, the grannies and the grandads.

[Sarah Dyke]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for making that point. Indeed, a recent survey shows that 95% of young farmers under 40 see mental health as their biggest concern. It is so significant.

I agree with farmers in Glastonbury and Somerton who feel that the thresholds have been set far too low. Some of them have told me that the figures that the Government have arrived at are just plain insulting. Many farms have a land value that is way in excess of any returns that can be earned on their land. As we have heard, farmers are capital-rich but asset-poor.

A dairy farm near Broughton has been a family farm for five generations and more than 100 years. The farmers there have told me that they already struggle to make a living as it is, without having to face the prospect of thousands of pounds each year being eked away from their business when they pass away. Their son wants to come into the farming business, but the proposed changes will destroy his chances of success. The changes will destroy everything that that family has worked so hard for throughout their lives, trying to secure the business for the next generation.

What is so galling is that the family farm tax fails to address the key issue of land being snapped up by wealthy individuals as a tax haven. Like others, I am desperately concerned about the actual number of farmers who will be impacted by the IHT changes. The Government resolutely refer to a figure of only 500. In my view, however, one farm is one farm too many. My point is: where has this figure of 500 come from? The Government claim that it is from the OBR, but the OBR says that is not the case. If it is not, perhaps the Minister can confirm today where this figure has originated from, and how.

--- Later in debate ---

[Robbie Moore]

The hon. Member makes a very powerful point: this is about the choices that the Labour Government are imposing on many of our family farming businesses. Those families are now having to make difficult decisions about whether to look at disposing of land, plant and machinery or livestock to fit an IHT liability that may come down the line. All of that is reducing their productivity, which will have an impact not only on those family farming businesses, but on UK food production and UK food security. That is why I join all Opposition Members in calling on the Government to change course immediately.

Farmers are not multimillionaires. Many struggle to break even. As my right hon. Friends the Members for Beverley and Holderness and for Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale (David Mundell) have said, the vast majority of returns for our farming businesses are less than 1%, yet in most cases the value of the land on which they sit will be severely affected by the IHT changes, because the threshold that the Government are bringing out is £1 million. When the average size of a farm in England is 200 acres, and we take into account the farmland, the cottage that might exist on the farm, the plant and machinery, the livestock and the growing crops or stocks that may be in store, the value will be significantly higher than £1 million. That is why the Government need to listen to the NFU and its statistics.

[Jim Shannon]

I commend the shadow Minister. He is speaking exceptionally well and encapsulating the opinion of almost everyone in this Chamber. I thank him for that. In my contribution, I referred to the threshold. Instead of being £1 million on a rateable value in the ’70s, ’80s, ’90s and the whole way through, it should be at today’s value. Does he therefore agree that the threshold should be not £1 million, but at least £5 million?

[Robbie Moore]

I say to the hon. Member that the Conservatives have been absolutely clear: we would axe the family farm tax, and we would reverse the changes to business property relief and agricultural property relief, which have such huge and catastrophic implications. In my view, the Government need to go further—not tinker with thresholds, but provide proper, decent certainty to the whole agricultural community by reversing this provision, which will have catastrophic implications that they admit themselves will give the Treasury revenue of only about £500 million. In my understanding, that would keep the NHS going for about 20 hours. Given the detrimental impact that the changes will have, the Government should think about reversing this disastrous policy.

For the 10th time of asking in this place, what impact assessment has the Treasury made of the effect on growth within our entire agricultural sector as a result of the autumn Budget? What about all the other negative implications—employers’ national insurance, the minimum wage increase, the de-linked payments significantly reducing, and capital grants disappearing—even before we start talking about the family farm tax?

When this tax was first announced at the Budget, I thought that maybe our new Labour Government were being naive. Perhaps they did not understand the catastrophic impact their Budget would have on our farming businesses, and would soon change course. After six months, however, the Government have consistently refused to listen to the NFU, the CLA, the Tenant Farmers Association, the CAAV, Opposition Members and others who have repeatedly tried to expose the damaging impact of the tax.

Low-income Countries: Debt Cancellation

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Thursday 6th February 2025 Westminster Hall

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

What a pleasure it is to serve under your chairmanship again, Ms McVey. I commend the hon. Member for Southgate and Wood Green (Bambos Charalambous) for leading the debate. I spoke to him beforehand, and he told me that he led a debate in this Chamber two weeks ago. I had the debate last Thursday, he has the debate this Thursday, and I have the debate next Thursday in the same time slot—I think he and I are competing for the graveyard shift on a Thursday afternoon. I think that is two each. Maybe it will be exceeded—I am not sure—but well done to him, because this is a subject that we are all interested in, and that is why we are all here.

It is a pleasure to see the Minister in her place. I wish her well in her new role, and we look forward to her response on a matter that I know is close to her heart. I am confident that she will do her best to encourage us all. I also give my well wishes to the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Romford (Andrew Rosindell). I suspect he is newly appointed—I hope I am right about that—and I wish him well in the role.

The United Kingdom has been involved in various initiatives aimed at providing debt relief to low-income countries over the years, including in Africa, Asia and the Caribbean. We continue as a country to work alongside LICs to ease pressure, which is something we should be proud of. Many will know that we are known for our generosity to other countries. We will always do our best to support, and it is a real pleasure to discuss that. Indeed, Northern Ireland—you will probably know this, Ms McVey—is one of the most charitable regions. I am not saying we are better than anybody else, but we are generous when it comes to charitable giving, and I just wanted to put that on the record.

In December 2024, the World Bank warned that developing countries spent a record £1.4 trillion—my goodness, that slipped off my tongue quite easily, but it is an astronomical figure—to service their foreign debts in 2023, and that interest rates had risen to a 20-year high. It concluded that 38 low-income countries, most of them in Africa and Asia, are in debt distress.

Debt cancellation is a reserved UK-wide policy, but Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales contribute to the UK’s foreign aid and international development budget, which largely includes the debt relief initiatives for the LICs. The Northern Ireland Anti-Poverty Network has long advocated for the UK’s involvement in providing debt relief to countries struggling with high financial burdens. Has the Minister had the opportunity to hold any discussions with the Northern Ireland Anti-Poverty Network? It is a good organisation that does great work, and it is always encouraging for such organisations to have engagement with Ministers.

It is interesting to look at the at the root cause of the debt. The sad reality is that for many countries, such as those in Africa, it is poverty. It is as simple as that, as graphic as that and as real as that. Poverty in Africa is a long-term and complex issue that impacts millions of lives every day. Political instability, uneven distribution of natural and Government resources, sometimes corruption, and climate change all contribute to this issue. Those who are most affected are often those in rural and remote areas.

There are incredible charities out there, and the hon. Member for Southgate and Wood Green mentioned some of those that contribute regularly. I want to talk about some of the church groups that contribute through their missions. I think first of Eden missions. Every year, I am fortunate to have engagement with those from Swaziland. A young people’s choir comes over and they do some fundraising when they are in our constituency. We do our best to help and support them in every way we can. Every one of the children in that choir has AIDS, because their parents passed it on to them. They are fortunate to have the drugs that help them. Even with those disabilities, their voices are something special.

I think of the Elim church missions. In the Strangford constituency, there are so many—the best thing might be just to name all the churches. There is the Church of Ireland, the Presbyterian Church, the Methodist Church, the Roman Catholic Church and Baptist churches as well. Then there are the independent churches, which contribute greatly. We see massive Christian faith-based volunteerism and energy to support projects in Africa.

I think in particular of Elim, because I engage with it every year whenever it comes to Northern Ireland. It provides schooling, health and work initiatives. That charity does so much. It prepares people for life and for jobs, whether on the farm, as a doctor or teacher, or whatever it may be. It gives people the opportunity to know how to sow the seeds and reap the crops, so that they can live. When they come to Northern Ireland, we see their smiles and we cannot help being lifted individually.

Those are just some of the people who do this work, along with all the other charities and more that the hon. Member for Southgate and Wood Green spoke about, and that others will speak of as well. I have no doubt that every one of us could name groups that work beyond belief to provide aid and support to these communities at a local level. In the conversation about debt relief, however, the policies come straight from the Government. These groups do their work outside of Government, but the Government and the policymakers in this House are of massive importance at international level.

The UK has worked incredibly hard to introduce schemes that ultimately write off or suspend large debt from certain countries. I will give four countries as examples— I think the hon. Member for Southgate and Wood Green mentioned them too. Zambia, Ghana, Chad and Ethiopia have applied to the common framework, which followed on from the debt service suspension initiative that was introduced in 2020. Thus far, an incredible $12.9 million in payments have been suspended, which will go a massive way to easing pressure and providing a little more financial security for those countries. They are struggling—and, as I said, more often than not the reason is poverty. When it comes to Governments repaying debt, where is the tax coming from if people are on the poverty line to such an extent that they cannot pay it?

From 2001 to 2010, at least 49 low-income countries owing debts to the UK had all or part of their debts forgiven. The total amount of debt owed to the UK is now $1.8 billion. There are calls for the UK to strengthen legislation on debt repayments. I know the Minister will give us some thoughts on how the Government can help when it comes to debt repayments. Compelling private creditors to be involved in debt relief schemes is one of the options.

The International Development Committee said that the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland is “uniquely placed”—that is the Committee’s opinion, and it is mine, too—to legislate, because 45% of sovereign debts, a large amount, are governed under English law. Is that the Minister’s intention? If we have the ability to legislate, as I understand we do, I suggest, very respectfully, humbly and kindly, that we should.

The scale of debt that is owed is huge. We have done our bit recently to ensure fairness to other countries. I thank the Minister and the Labour Government, and the Conservative Government beforehand, for all that they have done. Debt has a huge impact on the development of LICs. We must take that into consideration without forgetting that there are other means through which we can receive payments back. For example, would it be an option for countries to give us something back in kind? I look forward to hearing the Minister’s plan to ensure that we protect LICs without putting the development of our own country at risk.

--- Later in debate ---

[Andrew Rosindell]

I respect the hon. Member’s point, but she did say that we should pay what we owe. All kinds of arguments can be put forward about what we owe, but it is a matter of opinion. Today we should bring unity and look for solutions, rather than making this a political issue. We can achieve more for developing countries if we work together, rather than looking at where things have gone wrong or right in history and at who may owe what, depending on what is going on in the world today. I do not think that will get us very far, so we should move on from that and focus on how we restructure the repayment of debt, and how we can develop a better system globally to deal with this issue, rather than looking too far back into history.

It has been clear to me, right from when I stood for Parliament for the first time, that this issue needs to be addressed. That has been confirmed by the passion that hon. Members have shown in today’s debate. Debt relief deserves serious consideration, and the Opposition recognise that. Unsustainable debt burdens can be huge and significant impediments to economic development and growth, trapping nations in a cycle of poverty. However, I believe that we must approach this matter in a responsible way, with both caution and pragmatism.

If pursued, debt relief must be conditional and tied to a strong policy of fiscal responsibility measures, so I hope the Minister will provide assurances that any recipient countries would be expected to implement sound economic policies, tackle corruption and take steps to prevent future over-borrowing. I do not think the Minister can disagree that without those safeguards, we risk creating a system in which there is financial mismanagement in perpetuity. We should focus on rewarding the expense of responsible governance. Making the hard-pressed British taxpayer foot the bill is not acceptable to most of our constituents, and we need solutions. We need to solve these problems and not see this as a one-way street.

If the United Kingdom taxpayer’s money is involved, I want the Government to tell us how they will ensure that such relief also serves the interests of the British people. During these difficult economic times, we must justify every single penny spent by the Government and always be mindful that it is our constituents’ money, not the Government’s. Debt relief must become not an open-ended commitment, but a strategic tool that strengthens bilateral ties and ensures geopolitical stability.

I hope the Minister can tell us how the Government intend to prioritise sustainable development, and what mechanisms are in place to monitor that. I also hope she will agree that the focus should be not on perpetual aid or blanket debt forgiveness, but on fostering economic self-sufficiency. That is the only sustainable way forward. We must also consider how the United Kingdom can play a meaningful part in helping low-income countries to develop their domestic industries, improve resource management and reduce their reliance on foreign debt. Without those structural changes, would debt relief simply serve as a temporary fix, or would she prefer to have a system that offers a sustainable solution? That is what the Opposition want.

[Jim Shannon]

I would never wish to be anything other than supportive of what the hon. Gentleman says, but everyone who has spoken so far has mentioned the charities and groups that contribute and sometimes fill the gap. May I ask, respectfully, if some recognition could be given to those groups?

[Andrew Rosindell]

The hon. Member touched on this in his speech earlier, as did the hon. Member for Melksham and Devizes. That is another new constituency name, and I think it includes Chippenham. Is that part of the hon. Gentleman’s constituency?

--- Later in debate ---

[The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Emma Reynolds)]

Thank you for calling me, Ms McVey. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship for the first time, and I am sure not the last.

I thank the hon. Member for Southgate and Wood Green (Bambos Charalambous) for drawing attention to these issues and for bringing this debate on debt cancellation to Westminster Hall today. I also thank the other Members, whose speeches have made for a rich discussion on this issue. I will mention them briefly and then hope to come to everyone’s questions, should time allow. I thank the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) for his kind words about my appointment—I am still early in my time in this role. I also thank him for underlining the importance of the role of charities in the development work that they do in low-income and vulnerable countries.

My hon. Friend the Member for Loughborough (Dr Sandher) spoke with great passion about his experience working in Somaliland. He brings great insights to the House after working in that capacity previously. I thank the hon. Members for Melksham and Devizes (Brian Mathew) and for Esher and Walton (Monica Harding) for stressing that the UK needs to restore our leadership on international development. I will come to some of their questions later in my contribution.

I also want to thank my hon. Friend the Member for Clapham and Brixton Hill (Bell Ribeiro-Addy) for raising crucial points about the situation that many low-income countries vulnerable to the impacts of climate change find themselves in. I will say a little more about that, too.

The Government are highly concerned by the debt challenges faced by many low and middle-income countries, with 3.3 billion people living in countries that spend more on servicing their debt than on health or education—a point made by many hon. Members. Among low-income countries, 10 are currently in debt distress and 25 are at high risk, and there is an urgent need to address the vulnerabilities. As a Government, we are fully committed to tackling unsustainable debt burdens in a way that supports development needs and helps countries address those vulnerabilities.

We are acting in three key ways. I will attempt to answer questions, particularly from my hon. Friend the Member for Southgate and Wood Green who secured the debate, when discussing the three key ways. The first is on addressing liquidity challenges; the second is on ensuring effective debt restructurings; and the third is on promoting debt resilience.

First, on addressing liquidity challenges, we are working with international partners to address immediate liquidity pressures facing many countries, which are crowding out vital spending on climate, health and education. We support the IMF and World Bank’s three-pillar approach, which is designed to support countries with high debt repayments. The first pillar is focused on action from vulnerable countries to improve revenue mobilisation and implement sound economic policies. The second focuses on ensuring that countries receive new flows of finance at concessional rates from international financial institutions and other development partners. The final pillar looks at providing case-by-case action to reduce the cost of existing debt burdens where needed.

Secondly, we are working to address debt vulnerabilities through improving the effectiveness of debt restructurings for countries in debt distress. The G20 common framework remains the best mechanism for co-ordinating debt restructurings to address unsustainable debt burdens, but further progress is needed.

The UK is working closely with the G20 and other international partners to ensure the framework delivers more timely, orderly and predictable debt restructurings. I know that is high on the priority list of the South African G20 presidency this year. The UK will be pressing for rapid implementation of the lessons learned from the common framework, which were agreed under the Brazilian presidency of the G20 last year.

The private sector, which has been mentioned by many hon. Members, must also play its part in debt restructuring efforts. We are actively engaging with private sector partners—for example, through the global sovereign debt roundtable—to ensure continued private sector support for addressing the debt challenges faced by countries, leveraging the City of London’s leading role in sovereign debt markets.

Several Members, including my hon. Friend the Member for Southgate and Wood Green, mentioned the issue of private creditors and whether we needed legislation to force them to participate. The Government are not currently seeing evidence that private creditors are refusing to participate in debt restructurings. Recently, private bondholders have agreed to debt treatments for common framework countries, including Zambia and Ghana. We are working closely with the private sector through bilateral meetings, engagement with representative institutions and Paris club discussions.

Hon. Members also raised the issue of comparable treatment by private creditors. I reiterate that both Zambia and Ghana have reached agreements on debt restructurings with their private bondholders. Official creditors have deemed these comparable with their own restructurings.

My hon. Friend the Member for Southgate and Wood Green raised the need for UK leadership on debt relief, and we heard that from others, too. I highlight that the UK has a strong track record of pushing for effective and holistic solutions to debt challenges, including supporting the IMF’s three-pillar approach for countries facing liquidity challenges and pushing for more effective co-operation and co-ordination under the G20’s common framework. The UK also co-ordinates debt treatment through our membership of the Paris club and our commitments to the G20 common framework in partnership with other creditors.

This is a key point: unilaterally writing off debt owed to the UK would not be in the interests of the UK taxpayer—the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Romford (Andrew Rosindell), mentioned the UK taxpayer, of course—which would be subsidising ongoing payments to other creditors if done unilaterally. The Government are therefore working closely with borrowers, official and private creditors, and the IMF and World Bank to strengthen the wider debt architecture and provide timely and co-ordinated restructurings for countries, where needed to support holistic debt sustainability for low-income countries.

The third way that the Government are pursuing this issue is through tackling unsustainable debt by promoting greater resilience in debt markets. In response to the shadow Minister, I mention that the UK is committed to provide sovereign financing on sustainable terms and to act in an open and transparent manner to support global debt sustainability.

We are playing a leadership role internationally in several key ways. The hon. Members for Melksham and Devizes and for Esher and Walton asked what the UK was doing to provide leadership.

[Jim Shannon]

My contribution, not that it was better than anybody else’s, put forward the idea that the countries we are helping with debt might be able to supply us with some goods as a way of paying us back, rather than making a financial repayment. Is that something that the Minister and the Government would look at?

Growing the UK Economy

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Wednesday 29th January 2025 Commons Chamber

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I thank the Chief Secretary to the Treasury for his truly encouraging statement. I would be churlish to say anything other than well done. However, as he will know, we have an issue in Northern Ireland. Economic output increased in Northern Ireland by 8.1% above 2019 pre-pandemic levels, but we are not yet close to our potential. An important factor in business growth is confidence. However, there is an obstacle. Will he outline how businesses in Northern Ireland can be confident, when we are still entangled in the protocol-supplied red tape that prevents good deals and hampers small and medium-sized businesses throughout the Province?

[Darren Jones]

We share the hon. Member’s ambition for the Northern Ireland economy and the people of Northern Ireland. We continue to work with them to unleash that potential. In respect of our trading relationship with the EU, Ministers are in active discussions right now.

High Streets: Autumn Budget 2024

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Thursday 23rd January 2025 Commons Chamber

[Victoria Collins]

The heart of this debate is about making sure we look after those businesses and the many more that could open.

My story shows why this debate is so important to me. I know that the story of our high streets is the story of our local communities.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Victoria Collins]

I will make a little progress.

Both for the families behind the doors, and for the families and local people who shop there, our high streets are truly at the heart of the community. I have the honour of representing seven high streets across Harpenden and Berkhamsted, and I am grateful to the local businesses that responded to my survey ahead of this debate. Today, I am sharing their voices, as well as the impact the Budget will have on their businesses, their livelihoods their families and our community.

--- Later in debate ---

[Victoria Collins]

Absolutely. Sadly, the desperation that came through in my survey shows that a lot of businesses are very worried about their future.

[Jim Shannon]

rose—

--- Later in debate ---

[Victoria Collins]

I will take the hon. Gentleman’s intervention.

[Jim Shannon]

From 1959 to 1979, my mum and dad had a shop in Ballywalter, and they had a shop before that as well, so there is a history of having shops. I will take the example of today’s high street in Newtownards. National insurance contributions, wages, theft and attacks on shop staff are all issues now being faced there. Does the hon. Lady agree that the high street needs help today like it has never needed it before?

[Victoria Collins]

Absolutely; that is very much in line with the feedback I had from businesses. Indeed, it is with much disappoint that I share the impact of the autumn Budget on my local businesses. It is no secret that the Conservatives left our economy in a mess, and many of our businesses are still reeling from that. That is exactly why it is important for the Government to get this right.

Many of the proposals in the autumn Budget will not lead to growth on our high streets. I would like to have faith that Labour intended to do the right thing and that these are unintended consequences. I hope that the Government heed some of the warnings and take action to mitigate the impact and change course. In the words of one director in my constituency,

“it is a disaster…all planned investment has been cancelled, expansion plans cancelled. Prices will go up on 1st April by at least 10%. And we’re looking at ways to reduce staff count.”

Agricultural and Business Property Reliefs: OBR Costing

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Thursday 23rd January 2025 Commons Chamber

[James Murray]

I am not going to tell the hon. Gentleman what he should say to his constituents, but what I can tell him about the Government’s policy is that we have reserved generous inheritance tax reliefs for people in the situations he describes. I encourage anyone who is concerned to seek advice, to understand exactly how the new rules might apply to them.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

Sometimes I am absolutely flummoxed—we probably all are—by the Chancellor’s intent to tax working family farms, which we all know will result in the loss of small farms, the sale of the land and a reduction in food security. Now it seems that the OBR agrees that it will not make savings. Will the Minister commit to meeting Cabinet colleagues urgently to remove the sword of Damocles that is hanging above small family farms and hurting the agrifood sector as a whole? I say to the Minister that there is a way forward: increase the threshold from £1 million to £5 million, and family farms will be saved.

[James Murray]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question, but I think it was based primary on the OBR publication yesterday. I reiterate the point I have made several times now: that OBR publication reiterated the costings and figures set out at the Budget, it reiterated the level of uncertainty associated with the measure, as published at the Budget, it provides more detail behind that, but the conclusion is the same as it was on 30 October.