Oral Answers to Questions

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Tuesday 20th May 2025 Commons Chamber

[Torsten Bell]

I certainly can. Our reforms to the local government pension scheme will support local investment in every part of England and Wales. Our defence spending plans will be felt on the ground—total defence spending in the west midlands totals £1.6 billion a year. We are building reservoirs again, including one in the west midlands. We are also getting the country trading once again, including businesses in Tamworth, where PI-KEM, a specialist chemical supplier, recently won a major export order, with £100,000 in UK Export Finance support. Britain, and Tamworth, are open for business.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I want to ask about 18-year-olds, who are just starting off, being encouraged to take out a pension. Whenever I was 18, my mother took me down to see John Thompson, the pensions man in Ballywalter, and he said, “You’re going to take a pension.” I asked, “What for, Mum?” She said, “You’re taking a pension.” So I took the pension. Does the Minister agree that what everybody really needs is somebody like my mother to encourage them to take a pension?

[Torsten Bell]

I did not know where that was going, but I know that I speak for everybody in the House when I say that the whole country needs someone like the hon. Gentleman’s mother.

Speaker’s Statement

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Tuesday 13th May 2025 Commons Chamber

[Liz Saville Roberts (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC)]

Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. I first knew Sir Roy Stone when I became leader of my group after the 2017 general election. He did, in fact, pass views on the Chief Whips of the time, but I think they are probably best kept to myself for now, because some of them are in the Chamber. He was immensely supportive, and as the leader of a very small group, I learned so much from him. It was the first time that the group had had meetings with the Chief Whip. I speak on behalf of a small party, and Sir Roy’s respect for Parliament, and for the presence of small parties in it, was evident. He felt that we had a role to play, and he enabled us to play that role very effectively.

My lasting memory of Sir Roy was from just after he left. A member of staff, Fflur Elin, could play the harp. Sir Roy found that out, and nothing would do but for Fflur to bring in said harp to play for him. It has been an honour to know him, and people’s recollections of him today tell me that he had immense influence on all of us here.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. On behalf of the Democratic Unionist party, I want to convey to the family of Sir Roy Stone our deepest condolences at this time of tragedy and grief. To serve under a number of Prime Ministers and Chief Whips is no easy task, but he was always fair and impartial. He contributed loyally and with great wisdom. I would not like to say anything against any of the Chief Whips in my party, but I have probably challenged them all, and to be perfectly honest, I probably still do. Sir Roy’s advice was much sought after and liberally given. He set a standard for others to follow, and to admire from a distance. It is always good to cite the Bible at these times; he has run the race, he has fought the good fight and there are many crowns laid up for him in heaven. Thank you, Sir Roy, and God bless all the family at this time.

[Mr Speaker]

These really have been fitting tributes to Sir Roy Stone. He will always be in our thoughts and memories because of what he did for this House. I know that the Clerks feel the same way.

Defence Sector Financing

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Wednesday 7th May 2025 Westminster Hall

[Mr Charters]

I thank my hon. Friend for his sterling work on the Defence Committee. Through our collective industrial strength, what greater deterrent could there be to our adversaries?

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I spoke to the hon. Gentleman before, so he knows what is coming. Is it not ironic that at a time when the Government want to increase defence spending—most MPs support that, and I am one of them—the trustees of the Members’ pension fund have decided that there is to be no investment of MPs’ pension contributions in the defence industry? Is it not time for the pension trustees to change their attitude immediately? What a disgrace. I hardly believe it.

[Mr Charters]

There could be nothing more ethical than investing in the companies that support our Ukrainian friends.

I believe Britain’s membership of a multilateral defence development bank could cement Britain as a leader not only in financial services, but in defence. Today, I will also talk about how we can bolster our sovereign defence industries by fixing the capital stack here at home and by sorting out the credit and cash-flow issues for British companies.

I will just take a couple of steps back. When I was at the Bank of England and the Financial Conduct Authority, I was working on cross-border payments, sanctions and so many related things, but more importantly, I had a front-row seat to the regulatory and financial barriers that defence start-ups faced when I was acting head of compliance at a fintech. I saw how everything from export controls and dual-use rules to complex international regimes made it really difficult for those defence customers.

A few months ago, the Prime Minister pledged the largest defence spending rise since the cold war. That sent a clear signal that now is the time to invest in peace. Yet British defence innovators have told me they still face hurdles accessing finance, bank accounts and insurance. That is why my hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot (Alex Baker) and I brought together over 100 Labour parliamentarians to write to the sector, highlighting some of those challenges. Following that, we wrote to the FCA, which helpfully published a statement that, as we have heard from firms, has eased environmental, social and governance perception concerns.

Staffordshire: Cultural Contribution

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Tuesday 29th April 2025 Westminster Hall

[Leigh Ingham (Stafford) (Lab)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the cultural contribution of Staffordshire.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Furniss, and I thank everyone for their interest in attending this Westminster Hall debate. Staffordshire is a county where culture is carved in clay, sung on local stages and carried proudly in the stories of its people. Its legacy is rich and alive, and today I rise to champion our region and its contribution.

Our future links us to our past, but we are not bound by it. That future speaks to the potential of every single one of Staffordshire’s communities—from Stafford, my proud county town, and the vibrant city of Stoke-on-Trent to the quieter, more rural parts of the county such as Eccleshall, Derrington and Church Eaton. Much like our county symbol, the 15th-century Stafford knot, we are all interlinked.

I secured this debate to celebrate Staffordshire’s legacy and to mark Staffordshire Day on Thursday 1 May, which is another important day to vote Labour and champion our community’s future. The debate is an opportunity to discuss tapping into our heritage, building on our creativity and ensuring that our proud traditions and culture continue to be a force for positive change in Staffordshire and beyond.

Staffordshire is known for many things. It is perhaps best known for its ceramics, which I will leave to my hon. Friends the Members for Stoke-on-Trent Central (Gareth Snell) and for Stoke-on-Trent South (Dr Gardner) to discuss in detail, and for its brewing, which I am confident that my hon. Friend the Member for Burton and Uttoxeter (Jacob Collier) will discuss at great length.

Those are just the most famous examples of Staffordshire’s skilled craftspeople and their impact on our country’s industrial and creative landscape. As a pioneering industrial county, many of our more modern organisations—such as Bostik, which makes adhesives; Perkins, which makes engines; and GE Vernova, which makes transformers—have grown from roots in more traditional work with metal, clay, leather or textiles.

Much of Staffordshire’s history, which is encapsulated in archives, can be found at the new Staffordshire History Centre in my constituency. At that amazing new facility, over a thousand years of Staffordshire’s history have been brought to life in some fascinating displays. The archives include rare items such as Anglo-Saxon charters confirming the foundation of Burton abbey and a letter written on the eve of the American revolution. A key part of the centre’s collection is the rare books and manuscripts collected by William Salt. For anyone looking for more information about Staffordshire’s past after this debate, the centre is a very good place to start.

As a proud county town, Stafford has a key story to tell in Staffordshire’s cultural history, and it echoes through to today. In its town centre, people can stop for coffee and cake at the Soup Kitchen, which dates to the 16th century, enter the historic churches of St Mary’s and St Chad’s, and take in the interior and exterior of the Ancient High House, which is haunted by a ghost called George and is known for being the largest surviving timber-framed townhouse in England. We also have Stafford castle, which has dominated the skyline in Stafford for over 900 years.

As the chair of the all-party parliamentary group for theatre, I will also talk about theatres. There is the Stafford Gatehouse theatre, famous for its Shakespeare festival and for its hilarious pantomimes every Christmas, which bring audiences from across the county to Stafford. The Gatehouse also provides a space for actors, artists and writers to hone their craft with its hugely popular youth theatre. I was lucky enough to meet some of those actors, artists and writers last Friday before the opening night of “Carrie: The Musical”.

Across the county, we have other wonderful theatres such as the New Vic in Newcastle. It stands out as a theatre in the round and creates an innovative, immersive style of theatre that makes audiences feel as if they are part of the performance. There are also the Regent theatre and the Garrick theatre, which is in Lichfield. They host productions by flagship companies from around the country.

Of course, theatre is not always confined to traditional stages. The Claybody theatre company is based at the former Spode pottery works in Stoke-on-Trent Central. That is a brilliant example of how our county’s cultural history can inspire its present. Its work is fuelled by the stories of the area, and it regularly integrates members of its community company into its productions alongside professional actors. As well as performing in its current historic home, it uses found spaces such as Fenton town hall, which hosted its production of “The Card”, based on the novel by one of Stoke’s most famous sons, Arnold Bennett.

The connection with our past does not extend just to the theatre. Many of our communities come together to celebrate our history, with the Gnosall canal festival being a really good example. Centred on the historic canal boats, that event tells the stories of the village’s past, while bringing people together for live music, entertainment and more.

I also want to talk about the future. Although our past and heritage are a source of pride, Staffordshire’s culture is far from static. It is living, breathing and evolving every single day. Staffordshire remains a county of skilled tradespeople and of artists, and it is vital that we nurture and develop that talent. We must ensure that arts and culture are part of our everyday lives, because that is where we find connection, community and identity.

Last weekend, I spoke with Johny Todd, whose business in Woodings Yard Studios stands as a proud reminder of Stafford’s history in the leather industry. We discussed how artists today face many challenges and the opportunity that this Labour Government have to support our creative industries as a way of building community and supporting our local economies.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I commend the hon. Lady for putting such a shine on Staffordshire, and she is right about the creative industries. It is important that those skills of our forefathers—our grandfathers and fathers—are passed on, but I feel that they are being lost. Does she agree that the Government should step in to ensure that a training system is in place so that those skills are not lost?

Bank Resolution (Recapitalisation) Bill [Lords]

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Report stage
Thursday 24th April 2025 Commons Chamber

I reiterate the Government’s clear, strong support for the credit union sector. We continue to engage regularly with the sector to understand the barriers it faces to being able to grow and compete.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I support wholeheartedly what the Minister has said about credit unions, because credit unions have a big role to play in Northern Ireland, as they do in other parts of the United Kingdom. My concern when it comes to crises in banks is that credit unions belong to their members, but banks have a different hierarchy—they have chief executives and directors to pay. I believe it is unfair for bankers to retain their bonuses while the pensioner who has saved his pennies all his life suffers. No matter what the crisis is, the executives still get their dividends and bonuses. I have a simple question: within this legislation and the rules we have here, can we be assured that the bankers—the ones at the top who may be responsible for the banks, or certainly act responsible for them—will find that their bonuses are not delivered to them?

[Emma Reynolds]

The hon. Gentleman draws me on something that is not pertinent to the amendments, but I understand why he has asked the question. When a bank fails, there is a hierarchy of creditors. I can write to him with that hierarchy, as I do not have it in my head at the moment. The hierarchy ensures that if, for example, the bank is bailed in, those who have already invested in the bank become stakeholders, although it depends on the resolution scenario and where they are in that process. The people who have deposits in the bank—in more simple language, people who have bank accounts—are protected up to £85,000. Soon that will increase in the way that the shadow Minister suggested.

Amendments 1 and 3 in the names of shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Wyre Forest, and the hon. Member for Wokingham respectively both relate to the scope of the Bill, which has been discussed at length during the Bill’s passage through this House and in the other place. The Government’s position remains that the mechanism in the Bill is not intended to support the resolution of the largest banks. The hon. Member for Wyre Forest set that out in his speech, as did the hon. Member for Wokingham. The largest banks will continue to be required to hold MREL to self-insure against their own failure. For banks that are required to hold MREL, the Bank of England should in the first instance use those resources to recapitalise such a firm in resolution rather than resorting to the new mechanism in the Bill. It is right that shareholders and investors in the firm should bear losses before anyone else, which goes to the point made by the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon).

I return to the primary purpose of the Bill, which is to protect the taxpayer. Bank failures are by their nature highly unpredictable, as my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon said. In the unlikely circumstances where a top-up is needed to resolve a bank once all its MREL resources have been used, hon. Members must consider whether they want those costs to be borne by the taxpayer. It is the Government’s belief that the taxpayer should not be on the hook for those costs.

I made the point in Committee, and do so again today, that safeguards are in place to prevent inappropriate use of the mechanism. The Treasury, for example, is involved in the exercise of any resolution powers through being consulted about whether conditions for resolution have been met. It would also need to approve any resolution action with implications for public funds. If the Bank of England requested a large sum from the Financial Services Compensation Scheme that the scheme could not provide through its own resources, additional amounts would need to be borrowed from the Treasury and would therefore require the Treasury’s approval. Therefore, in practice, Treasury consent would be required if the Bank of England had requested a large sum.

The shadow Minister attempted to draw me into many different subjects related to MREL. You rightly reminded him, Madam Deputy Speaker, of the scope of the Bill and the amendments under discussion. I will always be happy to have those discussions with him—as he knows, the Bank of England recently consulted on the thresholds—and I note what he said before he was called to order. He also tried to draw me into questions about the Financial Services Compensation Scheme, which are also for a different day; as he said, there will soon be increases.

Oral Answers to Questions

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Tuesday 8th April 2025 Commons Chamber

[Darren Jones]

As every constituency MP will know, the closure of banking services on our high streets is always a difficult decision. The Government are committed to championing access by rolling out banking hubs across the country. We are committed to delivering 350 of those hubs, and 220 have already been announced. The closure of the post office that my hon. Friend mentions will trigger a further cash access assessment for her constituency. I would be pleased to arrange a meeting for her with the relevant Minister to look at the options for her constituency.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

rose—

[Mr Speaker]

Is there a Liverpool overspill in Strangford? I call Jim Shannon.

[Jim Shannon]

The Minister’s response is key. He is right to highlight the issues, whether they are in Liverpool, Everton, Cardiff, Edinburgh, Belfast or Strangford. In Northern Ireland, we have made the most of over-the-shops apartment conversions as opportunities for housing. Does the Minister agree that the possibilities for the regeneration of high streets and town centres also include housing opportunities?

[Darren Jones]

We have a shared ambition to ensure that our high streets are thriving communities for the people who live, shop or work there. We are delivering an integrated settlement for combined authority mayors in England, and have delivered a real-terms increase in funding for the Northern Ireland Executive—the largest since devolution began—to invest in exactly those types of local projects.

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.