VAT on Medication: Compassionate Access Schemes

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Monday 7th September 2026 Commons Chamber

[Danny Beales]

I thank my hon. Friend for that. As chair of the all-party parliamentary group on access to medicines and medical devices, I have heard those stories far too often. I completely agree that we should be removing every single barrier.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I commend the hon. Gentleman on bringing forward the debate. He has hit the nail on the head on an issue that is a matter of life and death for families right across the United Kingdom. For His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs to sweep in and penalise that relief is a disgrace. Does he not agree that, although a temporary pause from the Treasury is welcome, it is simply not a solution when the clock is ticking for cancer patients and those with rare diseases, and that the Government should commit to working with the Treasury and devolved health executives—including those for my constituency of Strangford—to secure a permanent VAT exemption and ensure that tax bureaucracy never stands in the way of human empathy?

[Danny Beales]

I agree that we do need to find a permanent and comprehensive solution. Hopefully we can air those issues fully today.

Fundamentally, the principle underlying this issue is very straightforward: if a pharmaceutical company is willing to provide a lifesaving medicine to a patient free of charge because that patient has a serious or life-threatening condition and has exhausted the available standard treatment options, the tax system should not make access to those lifesaving drugs more difficult. That reflects the points raised by the hon. Member and my hon. Friend the Member for Morecambe and Lunesdale (Lizzi Collinge).

Pharmaceutical companies already operate these schemes at a loss. For example, over the last four years, AstraZeneca alone has given more than 2,500 patients access to innovative, lifesaving medicines free of charge, costing millions of pounds. This is clearly not a commercial transaction. It is a moral, compassionately motivated decision and programme, and in my view that means it should be supported, championed and facilitated by Government, not blocked, disincentivised, or made administratively more burdensome—but unfortunately that is exactly what has been happening since HMRC started charging VAT on those donations.

This is not just a line on a tax return, impacting on the bottom line; the impact is also having real-world consequences on patient groups. The consequences of this delay are gut-wrenching and deeply frustrating for clinicians, patients and their families. Every day, every week and every month that we wait for a permanent solution to move forward, more severely ill patients are denied access to drugs that could save or extend their lives, at no cost to the NHS.

It is also important to note that patients with rarer cancers are disproportionately affected by this issue, as they generally have fewer treatment options. In August, I was contacted by Emma and her husband Ian. Ian and Emma are currently watching this debate online from Ian’s hospital room at University College hospital, as they could not be here in person. Ian has an advanced, rare and aggressive bile duct cancer. Following his latest chemotherapy, his consultant Professor Bridgewater recommended regorafenib as Ian’s next treatment. Regorafenib was previously supplied free of charge by Bayer through a compassionate use programme. However, since Bayer became liable for VAT on the medicines it was donating, it withdrew from the programme, meaning that Ian lost free access to this potentially life-extending treatment. Ian and Emma are now urgently trying to find the money to pay privately for Ian’s treatment, and the cost is thousands of pounds per month. It goes without saying that many families cannot afford to pay thousands of pounds, each and every month, for treatment.

Working with Sarcoma UK, I have also heard from Dr Robin Young, a consultant medical oncologist at Weston Park cancer centre. He reported that a 62-year-old patient with metastatic leiomyosarcoma, whose disease had progressed through all the standard chemotherapy options, was also denied this drug in January 2026 because of Bayer’s withdrawal. That patient subsequently self-funded an alternative treatment at a cost of £3,500 for one month, before deciding that he could not afford to continue with that treatment. These are heartbreaking decisions for patients and their families. I have also heard from Dr Alex Lee, a consultant medical oncologist at the Christie NHS foundation trust, who has reported that two patients with advanced osteosarcoma were refused access to the drug earlier this year, with Bayer citing the VAT position. Tragically, one of those patients has since died. She was just 20 years old.

I hope these stories make clear the urgency of resolving this issue as soon as possible. This would not only enable Bayer to re-engage, but ensure that existing participants could continue to access their drugs through the programme and enable potential new drugs to enter early access and compassionate access schemes in the future. On paper, this might be a niche and complex part of tax policy, but in real life it is a desperately ill patient, it is a family and it is a clinician having to explain why a medicine that had previously been made available can no longer be provided.

I shall turn now to the position of the pharmaceutical industry. Patients, clinicians and the Minister will be pleased to hear that the pharma companies are keen and willing to re-engage with compassionate, early access and other similar schemes once a suitable solution has been finalised with Government. However, I have heard concerns from the industry about the pace and scope of negotiations since the Government announced the pause.

The first issue is about the breadth of the definition of the products that will be exempted from VAT liabilities. The definition used to determine any VAT exemption should include the full range of schemes that pharma companies engage in to provide these medicines free of charge. These include: compassionate use, where a clinician requests a specific medicine as a last resort once other options are exhausted, usually off-licence; early use, for new patients immediately after a trial; post-trial provision, for patients who responded well during a trial and need to continue; and bridging prescriptions, for patients where a drug has been approved but is not yet funded on the NHS.

However, I have been told that the definition initially suggested by HMRC during negotiations has been too narrow to cover all those uses. I encourage the Minister to look again at this, given that compassionate use of off-licence drugs accounts for a substantial proportion of the patients who benefit from donations to the programme. I understand that the Government may be now moving to a better position on this point, and I would welcome confirmation of that from the Minister.

The second issue I have heard is that HMRC is considering attaching two conditions to any VAT exemption: first, that the patient must be treated on the NHS rather than by a private clinician; and secondly, that medicines must be supplied directly by the company to the NHS. I am sceptical of the merits of both those points. First, patients should not potentially lose access to a lifesaving free treatment, which is at the cost of industry, just because the clinician recommending the treatment is a private doctor. On the second point, I would be grateful if the Minister would explain how such an arrangement would work on a practical level. We know that the NHS can refer to private clinics and that clinicians can, particularly for specialist issues, work regularly between NHS practices and private clinics. The fundamental question must surely be whether the medicine is clinically needed and whether it is free at the point of use for the patient.

The third issue raised by pharma pertains to the question of historical liabilities. My understanding is that many pharma companies have already paid VAT for historical liabilities, and it is important to say that we do not expect that they will be able to recover that in full. However, given the upcoming changes, it would be helpful if the Government provided some clarity on the legal position on historical liabilities before the pause. I urge that settlements should be negotiated constructively and with understanding based on the nature of these liabilities.

Closely related to the issue of historical liabilities is that of co-ordination between Departments on this issue. AstraZeneca has told me that, despite ongoing negotiations with HMRC and the pause announced in July, it is currently being pursued by His Majesty’s Treasury for accounts by the end of September, which it has been indicated should include VAT liability on compassionate access—a position AstraZeneca is not confident is consistent with what it is hearing from HMRC. Business needs certainty to prepare accounts. I encourage the Minister to ensure that HMRC and the Treasury are working from the same hymn sheet.

On the method and pace of resolution, my understanding is that the Government are looking at creating an exemption for the compassionate donation of medicines through a legislative change to the Value Added Tax Act 1994. However, have the Government considered issuing a business brief from HMRC to clarify the new position, given that this could be a faster and more effective route? I would be grateful for the Minister’s perspective on that.

As well as the patient benefits, there is also a key strategic opportunity for us as a country to be a global industry leader in life sciences research. Many other countries have complex schemes in place, and sometimes charge VAT or the equivalent on such things. However, I understand that although liabilities technically exist in the Netherlands, they are not enforced in practice. If the UK were to fully resolve this issue and put it beyond doubt, this would be a genuine point of competitive advantage in attracting life sciences investment, research and clinical trials to this country, at a time when our overall competitiveness in the sector is under pressure from other directions and policies. It would also encourage the participation of innovative new drugs and potential wider patient applications of them, driving forward potential research opportunities and improving healthcare practice.

To sum up, my questions to the Minister are as follows. First, can he confirm that a permanent solution will define eligible products as widely as possible, to include the full range of schemes that are currently used? Will he reconsider the proposal to restrict eligibility to NHS-treated patients only?

Secondly, the Government have said that they will act as soon as possible, but for a patient with a life-threatening disease, that phrase can feel like a very long time. Will the Minister set out a clearer timetable about actions and next steps, and when the consultation with industry is likely to conclude? Will the Government decide to bring forward a reimbursement mechanism? Can the Minister explain why a business brief route has not been preferred, or whether one can be explored? When is detailed guidance likely to be published and operational?

Finally, what is being done to repair the relationships with industry, which have been damaged as a result of this policy? Where a company such as Bayer has withdrawn, I hope that it will be strongly encouraged to re-engage as soon as possible, so that the patients we have heard about today can gain access quickly. Will the Treasury work with the Department of Health and Social Care to engage industry and be in direct communication with clinicians to help to identify which patient groups have been most affected, so they can be notified as soon as possible that the treatments may become available again?

This is, on paper, a narrow, technical issue of tax policy—not always the thing that makes the front pages of newspapers or the most engaging social media videos—but in practice, a clear and quick resolution to this issue is a life-and-death issue for many thousands of people. It is the difference between a patient like Ian fighting to save thousands of pounds a month—just to be able to focus on his health and his loved ones— or not. It is the difference between a clinician having to explain why a medicine that was available last year is not available now, and being able to provide that innovative and lifesaving drug to them and many more patients besides. It is the difference between a pharmaceutical company that wants to do the right thing, providing drugs to patients for free or at a low cost, and it withdrawing its drugs completely because the costs become significant.

Once again, I strongly welcome the ministerial statement and the pause from June. I thank the Minister and his predecessor considerably for their work to date, which has made a difference. I know that he is committed to engagement on this issue and to finding a way forward.

Employer National Insurance Contributions: Small Businesses in Hampshire

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Wednesday 2nd September 2026 Westminster Hall

[Alex Brewer]

I wholeheartedly agree. That is the exact crux of the issue, and it is borne out in the data. The Bank of England decision-maker panel revealed that 46% of firms nationally have cut staff because of these changes, and that 20% have paid lower wages than planned. Nationally, small businesses account for 60% of private sector employment, so when they pull back it is not a footnote to the labour market; it is the labour market.

Nowhere is that clearer than in the hair and beauty sector. Kerry Mather has run KJM Salons in Fleet for 36 years, employing around 20 people including six apprenticeships, training a new generation in a key town centre location. In the past decade, apprenticeships in the UK hair and beauty industry have dropped from nearly 19,000 to 3,000. If we are not careful, soon there will be no apprenticeships left.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I commend the hon. Lady for securing this debate and I will echo both what she has said and what the hon. Member for Winchester (Dr Chambers) said in his intervention, because the situation is the same in Northern Ireland.

According to the Northern Ireland inter-departmental business register, small businesses and microbusinesses make up the vast majority—about 90%—of Northern Ireland’s local economy, with almost 83,000 registered businesses employing fewer than 10 people. These businesses are not faceless conglomerates; they are the family-run corner shops, local butchers and small builders across my constituency and the constituency of the hon. Member for North East Hampshire (Alex Brewer).

Echoing the hon. Lady’s opinion, the Federation of Small Businesses Northern Ireland has explicitly warned that these surging costs are forcing independent retailers to slash staff hours, cut back opening times and put growth on ice. Does she agree that this issue lies on the shoulders of Government and of the Minister in particular, and that this anti-business policy must stop before it pushes vital high street traders to the wall?

[Alex Brewer]

I thank the hon. Member for his intervention and I agree that this is a matter for Government, which, of course, is why I am raising it today.

The pressure compounds, of course, where a workforce is already stretched. Vehicle repair already loses around 1,700 workers a year. The Institute of the Motor Industry says:

“Protecting that workforce is not just a matter for bodyshops and garages—it is a matter for insurers, fleet operators, and ultimately for every driver who needs their vehicle repaired.”

Foster and Heanes, a name that is well known in North East Hampshire for providing MOTs and repairs, sits squarely in the path of that shortfall. Where there are no staff available to repair a vehicle, the consequences ripple out to every tradesperson who needs a van back on the road and every local supply chain that depends on vehicles moving on time. In a constituency with limited bus infrastructure, the school run is also affected, because for many families there is no alternative but to use a car.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Winchester (Dr Chambers) and the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) have said, such business challenges are of course felt across the country. Some 69% of businesses cite employer national insurance contributions as one of the top three cost threats to UK labour market competitiveness, while business confidence has fallen—even since the market turmoil of autumn 2022, which is a really damning indictment of this policy. A quarter of firms cut back investment in the very quarter that these changes took effect, making it no surprise that growth under this Government has never once crept above 0.6%.

The policy is just so hard to understand given the rhetoric used by this Government. There is talk of growth, talk of apprenticeships and talk of opportunities for young people, but the action seems to be the opposite—fewer jobs, fewer apprenticeships, less business investment and an economy that continues to stagnate. Small business owners need to understand how the Government can justify this policy.

Nowhere is the policy harder to defend than in health and social care. This year alone, independent care providers have been billed an extra £940 million. Ministers point to additional social care funding, but for providers on the ground that funding is little more than a consolation prize, because the Government voted down every single Lib Dem amendment tabled in the House of Lords to exempt care and early years providers from this rise. It has landed on a sector that is already in profound crisis and that simply cannot reduce its workforce to cope.

Hundreds of thousands of people are currently waiting for care, many of them stranded in hospital beds simply because the care they need is not available, which piles more strain on to the NHS. Liberal Democrat analysis found that almost 900,000 people had their request for care denied in the last financial year, while—tragically—a further 6,000 people died while waiting for their care to be approved. This policy does not simply squeeze care providers’ margins; it deepens a crisis with a real human cost.

That gets to the very heart of the matter. At the centre of this situation, as local business owners in North East Hampshire have told me, are people. Good employers who pay their staff a fair wage, who train and invest in their teams and who contribute to the communities in which they operate are being squeezed to breaking point.

Having barely recovered from the covid years, service and retail businesses no longer have the financial buffers they once had. That means their staff lose out not just on a pay rise but on a Christmas party or a team training day, or perhaps their equipment is not replaced as regularly or they do not get a bonus. Whatever the consequence, it is people who are impacted—the ones who this Government claim they want to support.

Hampshire’s experience and the national picture are one and the same story, but none of this was inevitable. The Office for Budget Responsibility itself says that firms will pass on 60% of the higher costs, whether through reduced wages or higher prices. Coupled with five consecutive years of falling living standards, the changes to NICs are nothing short of regressive.

There is no doubt that our public services need funding and that our country’s infrastructure needs urgent repair, and I am the first to call for those things, but there is a fair way to do this—and one that will not strangle the UK’s economic growth. The Government must focus on taxing those with the broadest shoulders so that they contribute more through a higher digital services tax, on overhauling the broken business rates system, on ensuring that enormous multinational corporations are paying their fair share for doing business in the UK, and on reversing the Conservatives’ banking tax cuts.

Positive change is possible. The Government’s steps towards cross-party discussions on social care and the 20% cut in business rates for pubs, clubs and music venues are welcome, but we must go further. Any relief to those sectors cannot leave NICs off the table. Today and every day, I represent the brilliant North East Hampshire business community. Small businesses are the engine room of the British economy, so I call on the Government to give them the certainty they need to invest, grow and create jobs. Our businesses should be thriving, not barely surviving.

UK Financial Services

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Tuesday 1st September 2026 Westminster Hall

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

It is always a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Twigg. I thank the hon. Member for Buckingham and Bletchley (Callum Anderson) for setting the scene incredibly well, and for highlighting a vital debate around the future of our financial services sector. I thank him for bringing this matter to the Floor of the House; if there is one thing that affects every single household, from the City of London right across to the beautiful shores of Strangford lough, it is the stability, accessibility and integrity of our financial systems.

It is also a joy to see the Minister in her place again. I think we are level pegging for how many times we can speak in Westminster Hall today. We are both at the touchline, and if she manages to stay for the third debate, she will find herself equal with me. I thank her for all her answers this morning and this afternoon, in anticipation of the passion she has for the subject matter of this debate. I mean that sincerely, because I think we are all encouraged by her knowledge and helpfulness in trying to answer the questions we pose.

When we talk about the future of financial services, the pundits and the media often look straight at the glass towers of London—they look at fintech, AI and the complex global trading systems. I am a proud Unionist; I want the City of London to remain the pre-eminent financial powerhouse of the world—as it is and as it should be—because that benefits us all. It brings billions to the Treasury, and a strong City means a strong United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.

The hon. Member for Peterborough (Andrew Pakes), who just left, referred to Nationwide in an earlier intervention. As I said this morning, the Nationwide branch in Newtownards has committed to working with the community and to staying in the town until 2030, and we hope that the commitment will go beyond that. I am not a member, stakeholder or customer, but I have noticed the large numbers of people who come in, and I understand that Nationwide is filling in where the banks sometimes fall short.

My main concern—indeed, the common concern of the DUP—is what the future of financial services looks like for the working man and the working woman. That is what I want to focus on. It is about the squeeze on the middle class and the ordinary families who are trying to navigate volatile inflation and changing economic climates. If financial services are to have a successful future across the whole of this United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, we must ensure that they are built on three fundamental pillars: financial inclusion, regulatory fairness for small businesses and unwavering integrity.

As banks look to a digital future, they are shutting physical branches at an alarming rate, which we discussed this morning. It is all well and good to say that everything will be on a mobile phone app, but what about the elderly constituent in Portaferry in my constituency, who relies on the face-to-face chat to manage their life savings, and who has to travel some 22 or 23 miles up the road to Newtownards because there is no bank in the entire Ards peninsula? What about the young people trying to understand credit and mortgage products without an accessible high street presence? The future of banking cannot be one that locks out the vulnerable, the elderly or those without reliable internet. We must protect physical access to cash and also look after consumer support.

There is a duty to protect our small and medium-sized enterprises, our small charities and family-run shops. In Newtownards we are privileged and honoured to have so many family-run shops. Whether they are agribusinesses or local hospitality venues, they are the backbone of our economy—certainly they are in my constituency. The future regulatory framework of the Financial Conduct Authority must be tailored to protect those businesses from hidden credit liabilities and predatory lending practices. The hon. Member for Buckingham and Bletchley referred to that in a previous debate in Westminster Hall—I remember it well. We need a financial system that acts as a springboard for entrepreneurship, providing firm, clear foundations of support rather than wrapping our local shopkeepers in suffocating red tape.

The future must be defined by absolute transparency and a transformation of corporate culture. Trust in our financial institutions was severely damaged in the past. As the FCA continues its work on transforming the culture in financial services, we must demand that the big banks treat customers with the respect they deserve. Every pound looked after by a financial institution is a pound earned by hard work. There must be no question of dishonesty or systematic unfairness.

The United Kingdom’s financial services sector has a bright future—I believe that with all my heart—but only if it remembers its core purpose, which is to serve the people. As we as MPs serve the people we are elected to serve, they should also serve the people that we represent. So let us ensure that as we innovate, we build a system that levels up every corner of our great nation, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and preserves our high streets, supports our small businesses, and protects the hard-earned money of the working-class families who are the backbone of this country.

Face-to-Face Banking: Rural Areas

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Tuesday 1st September 2026 Westminster Hall

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Wishart, and a big thanks to the hon. Member for South Devon (Caroline Voaden) for raising this debate. As the Member for Strangford, I am growing increasingly concerned about the effects of bank closures on vulnerable individuals in our rural communities, because face-to-face banking is about much more than simple convenience. Local bank branches have long been an important point of social contact, particularly for older people, those with disabilities and those who struggle with technology. It is a safe place for young people to get sound advice on savings and ISAs, and a place where people learn, get to know the staff and build protection for themselves.

I stress that online banking is simply not a straightforward substitute for an in-person service. Fewer bank services mean reduced footfall, as people have fewer reasons to visit town centres, and the impact of that on the high street is clear. Eleven banks have closed in my largely rural constituency, and as the MP for Strangford, I am deeply concerned about what this means for my constituents and particularly the older people in my constituency, a large proportion of whom rely on cash. The loss of local bank services will mean significantly longer journeys to access basic financial services. More must be done to ensure those in our rural communities are not left behind and continue to have unfettered access to essential banking services. Unfortunately, there is no longer a single permanent bank on the Ards peninsula where I live, and only very spotty internet services. The situation must be reversed.

It is not all doom and gloom: I thank the Nationwide Building Society, which has pledged to maintain all branches until 2030. My own local branch is an example of consumer-led safe banking, and I believe that we must hold main street banks to a higher standard. The banks must do better. Rural constituents deserve the same service as city dwellers, and the rural inequality must be addressed from this house down. For my constituents in Strangford, we need to do more.

[Pete Wishart (in the Chair)]

Before I call the Lib Dem spokesperson, I thank colleagues for their assistance and restraint. We have had 25 Back Benchers in for this debate.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sarah Dyke]

I thank my hon. Friend for her intervention. She makes a very good point, which I wholeheartedly agree with.

Small businesses also suffer from bank closures because they are not able to deposit their takings, transfer money between accounts, manage fraud or get simple advice on opening a business account. This has a large impact on small businesses in rural areas. For local charities, closures can mean the difference between banking the proceeds of a coffee morning and not banking them at all.

This also demonstrates the impact of the rural premium that people in rural communities face when living their everyday lives. My constituency of Glastonbury and Somerton has felt the full consequences of the decline. Many market towns have lost all banking facilities already, and the Lloyds branch in Street is due to close next March. I have collected many signatures from concerned constituents who will be impacted by this change, and I have urged Lloyds—and will continue to do so—to reconsider the decision. I recognise that a community banking hub is expected to begin visiting Street from early 2027, and I welcome that effort to maintain some local presence of banking services, but let us be clear: a fortnightly visit from a community banker is not a substitute for a staffed bank branch. Of course, banking hubs and community bankers do have an important role to play, but they must be integrated as part of the conversation around banking services, rather than being the Government’s answer to it.

In addition, the Coventry Building Society branch in Wincanton will close in nine days’ time, leaving the town without any face-to-face banking services. Coventry Building Society has informed its members that they will be able to deposit their cash at their nearest branch in Frome, but that is a 40-mile round trip, so the closure will undoubtedly affect both rural local residents and local businesses, who will now need to make alternative arrangements.

[Jim Shannon]

Does the hon. Lady agree that there is something immoral about banks that make such exorbitant profits money closing branches and penalising their customers?

[Sarah Dyke]

The hon. Member makes a very good point. For people wishing to access banking services in Wincanton only the post office remains, despite the town’s continued growth, with more homes being built. Yet research from the Post Office found that 82% of consumers find it important to be able to access at least one in-person banking service, and the many small local and independent businesses that make Wincanton such a lovely market town will undoubtedly be inconvenienced.

In a rural county such as Somerset a significant number of businesses are SMEs: 78% employ fewer than five people. As the Countryside Alliance outlined earlier this year in its submission to the Treasury’s call for evidence on access to banking services, cash plays

“an important role across much of the rural economy.”

Business owners in rural areas are forced to travel further to bank their takings, deposit cash and obtain change. That reduces their productivity, increases fuel costs and adds to their administrative burden when they already operate on tight margins. SMEs, on average, deposit cash twice per month, but rural businesses may now postpone cashing in until they have more to deposit in order to avoid additional travel. However, that makes them more vulnerable to a growing rural crime epidemic. The total cost of rural crime in 2025 was estimated by the National Farmers Union Mutual to be £41.5 million, and increasingly sophisticated and organised gangs are operating in rural areas.

If rural economies are to thrive it is vital that rural businesses are not put at a disadvantage simply due to their location. That is why Liberal Democrats in the other place tabled an amendment to the Financial Services and Markets Bill that would require the Treasury to assess alternative frameworks, including the post office banking framework, for providing access to banking and cash services.

In many rural areas the post office network has become a lifeline. It is often the only local place to make cash withdrawals, deposits, and everyday banking transactions. During the summer recess I was delighted to support the reopening of two post offices in my constituency. Henstridge post office recently opened after local residents Lesley and Andy Scard and their neighbours Barry and Helen Howlett worked tirelessly to reopen the much-missed and much-needed community shop and post office. In Somerton the long-awaited post office has also returned, based inside the Stationery House, after Malcolm Adams stepped up and refurbished part of his shop to accommodate it. However, many local post offices are still under threat and we have seen closures recently in Butleigh and Charlton Adam.

Following last year’s Green Paper, the Government must commit to rural-proofing the post office and look at ways in which the post office can drive wider access to banking as part of the Treasury’s ongoing access to banking services review. Without adequate investment post offices cannot replace bank branches. Will the Minister commit to properly rural-proof the post office network so that postmasters are adequately resourced to take on the increased demand for local banking, rather than forced to absorb the cost when they are providing such a vital service?

The Liberal Democrats support the introduction of a fair banking Act to tackle financial exclusion. We have committed to the introduction of a national financial inclusion strategy that would require both the Financial Conduct Authority and the Prudential Regulation Authority to have regard for financial inclusion, such as by protecting access to cash in remote areas and supporting banking hubs.

Of course, the impact of bank closures is compounded by a deeper problem of digital exclusion. Across the country 1.7 million households have no broadband or mobile internet at home, around 2.4 million people cannot complete a single basic online task such as opening an internet browser, and over 5 million employed adults cannot complete essential digital tasks at work. Basic digital skills are set to become the UK’s largest skills gap by 2030. With the cost of living still biting, up to 1 million people have cut back or cancelled their internet packages altogether in the past year, while banks push them to access services online. In rural Somerset, patchy mobile signal and frustratingly slow broadband are not just an inconvenience; they are the difference between banking and not banking at all. Older and disabled residents, and those with visual impairments, are too often advised to download an app as if that were an appropriate solution; instead, it simply causes a further barrier.

Rural communities are not asking for special treatment or to be treated differently. They ask for a fair formula so that they are not left behind. Face-to-face banking, a functioning post office network and reliable connectivity are not luxuries; they are part of the basic infrastructure of rural life. Will the Minister commit to rural-proof banking policy and to bring forward without further delay a national financial inclusion strategy that genuinely supports rural communities? Unreliable access to face-to-face banking stymies economic growth and drives people and businesses out of rural communities. Somerset cannot wait, and neither can rural Britain.

Northern Ireland Hospitality Sector

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Wednesday 15th July 2026 Westminster Hall

[Robin Swann]

I agreed with the hon. Member until his last point. The McKeever group owns the hotel in which he was married. I had my wedding reception at the group’s Dunsilly hotel, and it is just celebrating the 40th anniversary—[Interruption.] Of the hotel, not my marriage, just to be clear to the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon). The group is being forced to make difficult decisions, looking at staff numbers, reducing opening hours and stalling or even cancelling investment plans. It is simply fighting to survive.

The Northern Ireland Food To Go Association has told me that over 200 of its businesses have closed in 2026 to date, but Northern Ireland faces an additional challenge that does not exist elsewhere in the United Kingdom, as we share a land border with another jurisdiction.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I commend the hon. Gentleman, who is a friend and colleague, for securing this vital debate. I rise to support the UK-wide #VATsTheProblem campaign, alongside our local champions at Hospitality Ulster. The hospitality sector in Northern Ireland is an industry trapped in an impossible competitive vice. This month, the Republic of Ireland dropped its VAT on food and café catering to 9%, meaning that our border communities face a 120% tax disparity compared with neighbours just a short drive away. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that we are asking only for a fair fighting chance for our hospitality sector?

[Robin Swann]

I thank the hon. Member for raising that point, because we do share a land border with another jurisdiction. In the Republic of Ireland, hospitality businesses already benefit from a significantly lower VAT rate of 13.5%, but the Irish Government have gone further by moving towards a 9% rate for food-led hospitality, as he said. That creates a clear competitive imbalance.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dan Tomlinson]

rose—

[Jim Shannon]

Will the Minister give way on that point?

[Dan Tomlinson]

I will.

[Jim Shannon]

It is no wonder that the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Adam Jogee) had to go all the way to Northern Ireland to get an Ulster girl to marry. That tells you what Ulster women are like. They are the best.

[Dan Tomlinson]

rose—

--- Later in debate ---

[Dan Tomlinson]

There are a whole range of challenges and also benefits from the protocol and the Windsor framework. I agree with the hon. Member that they do not provide constraints on the policy choice on VAT. I always find it frustrating when Ministers hide behind legal constraints that perhaps are not always there, and I want to be up front with him: if a Government chose to do this, the protocol would not be a barrier.

Members have focused on the potential merits of a Northern Ireland VAT reduction pilot for hospitality, but VAT is a broad-based tax on consumption that applies to a range of sectors, and it also applies on a UK-wide basis. The Government’s view is that different VAT rates would create divergence between Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and impact the competitiveness of businesses between the two regions. I understand that Members are specifically talking about Northern Ireland, but across the country as a whole—some hon. Members did mention the broader campaign around reductions in VAT across the UK—a reduction to 10% in VAT for hospitality would cost around £11 billion a year, which is equivalent to the total expenditure on the Royal Navy or the annual child benefit bill.

There would be significant practical challenges associated with introducing a pilot for a different VAT treatment for hospitality in Northern Ireland only. Businesses, His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs, and consumers would then need to operate in a system that created different treatments for otherwise similar transactions. There would be boundary issues and administrative complexity to work through.

The fact that I am not announcing this change today does not mean that the Government do not take this issue seriously and understand the representations being made. We are also not standing aside. The Chancellor has introduced the Great British summer savings scheme, which is a temporary reduction in VAT on eligible family attractions and children’s meals over this summer, helping families with costs and encouraging footfall during the summer holidays. In England, the Government have also introduced new business rates multipliers for eligible retail, hospitality and leisure properties, a package of transitional reliefs, and the supporting small business scheme, which together amount to £4.3 billion of additional spending. The Barnett formula is applied in the normal way to those changes, so the Northern Ireland Executive received £185 million in consequentials as a result of those decisions.

The Government—and I personally, if I have the honour of staying in this role—will continue to listen carefully to representations from the hospitality sector, from the Northern Ireland Executive and, of course, from hon. Members. We will meet after the summer recess; I am as good as my word. However, we do not believe that a Northern Ireland-specific hospitality pilot is the right approach. As tempting as it is to burnish my devolution credentials ahead of an impending reshuffle, I will not make that commitment today.

I thank the hon. Member for South Antrim for securing this debate and for strongly representing his community. This is an important issue, and I am happy to continue discussing it.

[Jim Shannon]

The Minister is making a very good and clear speech. He referred to parts of Europe whose Governments are considering a VAT reduction because they recognise the importance of the hospitality sector. Are the Government considering that? If there is an evidential base for it, perhaps they and the Minister will at least consider it at some stage to see what can be used to our advantage.

[Dan Tomlinson]

Right now, we are engaging in what could be seen as a similar proposal to the one put forward today. We are doing a time-limited reduction in VAT, not for one sector and one part of the country, but for particular leisure and hospitality activities and consumption across the country as a whole. I am sure that His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs and others will conduct thorough evaluations of that, so that we can see the impact that it had.

We expect businesses to pass the reduction in VAT on to consumers. Some big organisations, such as Merlin Entertainments, have already done that by setting new ticketing prices for families this summer, and many small businesses have been changing the prices on their menus for children’s meals. I hope that once this Great British summer savings period ends on 1 September, we will review that and look at the impact.

Of course, the challenge with any VAT reduction is whether it will be passed on to consumers. To be clear, I do not begrudge businesses having more margin, but the objective of the hon. Member for South Antrim is to see prices fall. When VAT changes have been made in times gone by, the gains have not always flowed entirely to consumers. The Government have been working really hard to ensure that businesses pass on the reduction in the Great British summer savings scheme. As I say, we are really glad that many have done so. I look forward to continuing to discuss this important topic, and to seeing the impact of the temporary and targeted changes that we have made to VAT this summer.

Question put and agreed to.

Human Rights in Kashmir

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Tuesday 7th July 2026 Westminster Hall

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

It is a real pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mrs Harris. I thank the hon. Member for Bradford East (Imran Hussain) for setting the scene, and I commend him for his words of wisdom and his directions for finding a peaceful way forward. I have supported him every time he has had this debate over the years, and I am happy to be doing the same again. I declare an interest as chair of the APPGs for international freedom of religion or belief and for Pakistani minorities, so this issue is close to my heart, and the hon. Member made the case incredibly well.

I am grateful to have the opportunity to speak on this matter. I commend all hon. Members who have consistently brought the plight of the Kashmiri people before the House. I have spoken on this matter before and make no apology for returning to it. The situation in Kashmir is not a distant abstraction; it is a lived reality for millions of human beings—people with families, faith and hopes for their children. This United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland has both a historical connection to that region and a moral obligation to speak truth to power. I look forward to the Minister’s answer—she is much liked and respected by all of us in the House.

Kashmir, divided, disputed and suffering, represents one of the most protracted human rights crises of our age. Whether we speak of India-administered Kashmir or Pakistan-administered Kashmir, the reality for ordinary men, women and children on the ground is one of fear, repression and silenced voices. Amnesty International has documented with harrowing clarity the realities of life in Kashmir: arbitrary detention, torture, restrictions on freedom of assembly, the suffocation of civil society, and many killings and injuries. These are not abstractions; they are human beings deserving of dignity, justice and freedom.

In any debate, I try to think of the words of Micah 6:8 in the Holy Bible:

“And what does the Lord require of you

But to do justice, and to love kindness,

And to walk humbly”.

That is the reason I am here: to obey that Holy Scripture and speak up for my brothers and sisters across the world, wherever their human rights are being suppressed and wherever they are being persecuted. That is the standard of this House, and we must hold ourselves to it when we speak of Kashmir.

I have been on delegations to Pakistan in the past, and I am due to return, if God spares me, because I feel so strongly about the human rights of the people of that part of the world. I have sat with community leaders, religious minorities, and mothers and fathers who simply want safety and freedom for their children. Freedom of religion or belief—that intrinsic, God-given right—is denied across the Kashmir region. Muslim, Hindu, Sikh and Christian communities have all experienced the fragile nature of life when the state does not protect fundamental rights as it should.

The situation in India-administered Kashmir since the revocation of article 370 in 2019 has illustrated the dangers of unchecked Executive power: communications blackouts, thousands detained and journalists criminalised. In Pakistan-administered Kashmir, democratic accountability remains a transformative aspiration rather than a lived reality. Can we honestly say in this House that we are doing all in our power to stand against that? This debate is a chance for us to show our united resolve to speak up for our brothers and sisters in Kashmir.

You told us earlier to be conscious of time, Mrs Harris, so I conclude with this: we must use every diplomatic channel—bilateral, multilateral and through the United Nations—to press both India and Pakistan to uphold their international human rights obligations. I look to the Minister to ascertain how we can seek to play our part in ensuring that the people of Kashmir are not disenfranchised from justice for geopolitical convenience. The heartbeat of this Government’s foreign policy must be not only simple human rights but simple humanity. It is with that simple humanity that I speak.

Financial Inclusion: Young People

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Tuesday 30th June 2026 Westminster Hall

[Josh Dean (Hertford and Stortford) (Lab)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered financial inclusion for young people.

It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Sir John. Today, young people are one of the groups most at risk of financial exclusion. Analysis by Fair4All Finance has identified 2 million unsteady starters in financially vulnerable circumstances across the UK. That includes 11% of financially vulnerable adults in Hertford and Stortford. Predominantly under 35, those young people are facing a combination of pressures: low financial resilience, higher housing costs, insecure work, rising insurance costs and a growing exposure to online financial risks. They experience poorer financial wellbeing as a result, closely linked to poor mental health, creating a vicious cycle that can undermine their educational attainment, employment prospects and economic participation.

Financial inclusion is about more than access to banking; it is about access to affordable credit, insurance, savings, trusted financial guidance and opportunities to build a financial track record. I am pleased that the Government have recognised the importance of tackling financial exclusion in the financial inclusion strategy. If we can break down the barriers to financial inclusion, we can improve the lives of millions of people and unlock growth across the country. In this afternoon’s debate, I want to examine the barriers to financial inclusion that young adults face, and consider where Ministers could build on the financial inclusion strategy to prioritise practical interventions to support young people.

Although a young person may pay rent regularly, meet mobile phone payments or have built responsible financial habits, they often lack sufficient credit history to access mainstream financial products on fair terms. We know that young adults are over-represented in the gig economy, temporary employment roles, part-time work and on zero-hours contracts. The insecure and variable income they receive is compounded by the high cost of living. It is harder for them to budget effectively or qualify for mainstream financial products, and they are more reliant on costly forms of borrowing as a result.

As the cost of living crisis continues to eat into disposable incomes, young people struggle to build emergency or long-term savings. They typically have fewer savings than older adults, which leaves them acutely vulnerable to financial shocks: losing a job, an unexpected bill, increased rent or transport costs. In those circumstances, without emergency savings to draw on, many face a poverty premium, paying more in the long term through instalments because they cannot afford the cost of an up-front payment.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I commend the hon. Gentleman for bringing this forward. The situation in Northern Ireland is no different from the one he described in his constituency and the wider United Kingdom. Young people face unprecedented barriers to building financial security. High street bank closures are turning rural and working-class communities into banking deserts. At the same time, the aggressive use of unregulated “buy now, pay later” schemes and predatory online lending apps is driving vulnerable young adults into spirals of unmanageable debt before they even secure their first mortgage or full-time career. Does he agree that the Government must implement comprehensive, mandatory financial literacy education in our schools, as a priority?

[Josh Dean]

I could not agree more about the importance of financial education for young people, which I will come to in my speech.

We can already see how those overlapping pressures exacerbate a young person’s financial insecurity. Insurance is another area where they are left facing vulnerability to financial shocks that they are already ill-equipped to absorb. I was shocked to learn that 18 to 24-year-olds are significantly less likely to hold contents insurance, even though they are more likely to experience flood damage, escape of water, fire damage, burglary and theft. That is especially true when they live in rented accommodation, which many young adults do.

I want to draw particular attention to the cost of motor insurance. Young people often make significant personal investments in driving lessons, to make it easier to get to work or education, only to find they cannot access affordable insurance when they pass their test. That directly impacts their ability to access work, training and other opportunities, especially in semi-rural communities such as the one that I represent, and it highlights how young people can face financial exclusion even when they are doing everything right.

Too often, young people are entering adulthood without the tools, confidence or support networks that they need to navigate increasingly complex financial decisions.

Transport: Marston Vale

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Wednesday 17th June 2026 Westminster Hall

[Blake Stephenson (Mid Bedfordshire) (Con)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered transport requirements in the Marston Vale.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Dowd. I hope this can be a constructive debate. I am not here to bash the Government or to stand in the way of progress; I am here to open a dialogue with the Minister on behalf of the people I serve in Mid Bedfordshire.

The Marston Vale in Mid Bedfordshire contains historical villages such as Cranfield, Marston Moretaine, Lidlington, Stewartby and Brogborough, as well as the new town of Wixams. It also sits at the heart of the Government’s growth agenda. The Universal UK resort will be a £50 billion boost to the UK’s economy, bringing millions of visitors every year to Kempston Hardwick. East West Rail, connecting the intellectual powerhouses of Oxford and Cambridge, will run along the Marston Vale line, stopping at Ridgmont, Lidlington and Stewartby. The merger of Cranfield University with King’s College London will bring further world-class research to the Marston Vale.

The Marston Valley development will see 5,000 houses delivered across new villages between Marston Moretaine and Brogborough, and the Stewartby brickworks development will see 1,000 houses delivered on a brownfield site in Stewartby. The new town of Wixams will continue to be built out over the coming years, with thousands more houses and a new train station. The Government’s proposed new town at Milton Keynes and potential developments at Keepers Place and the Aspley Guise triangle could see tens of thousands more houses built in and around the Marston Vale.

All in, the roughly 7.5 miles between junction 13 of the M1 and the town of Kempston will soon see two nationally significant infrastructure projects, thousands of new homes and one of the UK’s leading universities, all at the centre of the Oxford-Cambridge growth corridor. That is on top of existing significant sites including the Millbrook proving ground, the community forest of Marston Vale and the Woburn Forest Center Parcs.

As I said, I am not here to stand in the way of the growth that our area is set to contribute to the UK. If it is done right, there are immense opportunities for the Marston Vale, with thousands of new jobs, brilliant new transport links and new communities in our area.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I commend the hon. Gentleman for securing this debate. I very well understand the absolute devastation caused by bad management. As I said to him beforehand, I have similar problems in my constituency in relation to the Ballynahinch bypass. We must have robust Government involvement in prioritising infrastructure, and it must be managed, wherever it may be. We cannot have a piecemeal system; we must have central Government pushing it. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that is the clear way forward?

[Blake Stephenson]

I agree entirely with the hon. Gentleman. With the scale of the change that we are discussing, particularly in my constituency and also in his, it is vital that the proposals are done with, not done to, the residents of the Marston Vale and Strangford, in order to retain public support.

That means proper planning on transport infrastructure that considers the cumulative impact of these nationally significant projects on the local communities they will sit within. At the moment, I am afraid that is not happening, and public support is slipping away. Transport modelling for the various projects has been siloed and has failed to properly take into account the cumulative impact of proposals. For example, outline planning permission for the 5,000 houses at Marston Valley was granted on the basis of transport modelling that does not consider the impact of Universal UK, and Universal UK’s transport modelling does not consider the impact of the 5,000 houses at Marston Valley.

East West Rail’s proposals will increase capacity to serve Universal, but they fail to properly plan for the impact that they will have on the local road infrastructure by severing local communities. For example, to increase the number of trains on the line in response to Universal UK, East West Rail plans to close a number of level crossings in the Marston Vale and leave others with significant downtime throughout the day. That will have an enormous impact on local communities, effectively bisecting the Marston Vale along the rail line.

One of the level crossings that East West Rail has proposed to close, at Station Lane in Millbrook, is a key local route for the Marston Valley development. It is also a vital link for the Millbrook proving ground, including for the transport of military vehicles. The alternative route would direct enormous volumes of traffic down country lanes even with today’s level of demand, but we are adding thousands more houses and Europe’s biggest theme park. Roads such as Bury Ware in Lidlington are simply not equipped to cope with the volumes of traffic they are expecting.

Previous East West Rail proposals have broad local support, but the new proposals, which fail to plan for the cumulative impact of transport pressures in the Marston Vale, now risk eroding that. I urge the Minister to work with East West Rail to reconsider the impacts of its proposals on level crossings in the Marston Vale, in the light of the cumulative development impacts. We cannot allow it to irreparably damage our communities and turn our country lanes into gridlocked rat runs.

Plans to deliver a new multi-storey car park in Lidlington have also caused concern that the village could end up as a park and ride for Universal UK, just one stop up the line on East West Rail. That is not nimbyism; it reflects a real local concern that good intentions alone are not plans. We cannot prevent people from parking in Lidlington and hopping on the train to Universal, but we can alleviate residents’ concerns and reduce the risk of it happening by properly planning for and delivering a park and ride elsewhere.

The new Ridgmont station just off the M1 is a prime candidate for such a park and ride, but that station’s delivery has been predicated on house building that does not yet have planning permission and is not yet included in any local plans. Disjointed planning and concerns about delivery timetables at Ridgmont leave residents in Lidlington and elsewhere fearing the worst.

Another impact of the changing demand for transport in our area is that East West Rail’s plans for Stewartby station are now out of touch with the needs of local residents. Stewartby station is relatively busy. Despite a limited rail service, the station sees around 90,000 passengers a year, almost all of them local and many of them students at Kimberley college, which is located a short walk from the current station. East West Rail’s plans for the station involve removing it from the village entirely and turning it into a gateway station for Universal UK.

To be clear, we absolutely need an East West Rail station to serve Universal UK, but very little work seems to have been done on the implications of the new station location for Stewartby residents and students of Kimberley college. If the plan remains to build a new Universal station and axe the Stewartby station entirely, Ministers need to ensure that East West Rail urgently works to produce a detailed plan for transport links between the station, Stewartby village and Kimberley college.

That plan should include details on how residents with mobility challenges will be able to get to the station, and it should set out the safeguards that Ministers will put in place to ensure that hundreds of students at Kimberley college will be kept safe when using an extremely busy station and making a much longer journey, likely on foot, from the station to the college. The alternative that I have been calling for would be to keep the current Stewartby station operational in addition to a new station serving Universal UK, with a limited stopping service operating only at peak morning and evening times.

More generally, despite a much-publicised announcement on the Government’s infrastructure investment to enable Universal UK earlier this month, neither the Chancellor nor the Transport Secretary has written to me to outline specifically what that investment will deliver in my constituency. Residents in the Marston Vale want and deserve clarity from the Government on what infrastructure, particularly transport infrastructure, will be delivered to facilitate the arrival of millions of visitors to Europe’s biggest tourist attraction in their backyard. I hope the Minister will be able to offer some further detail in her response.

Another good example of transport pressure in our area is junction 13 of the M1, which the Minister knows I am going to mention. The Government have indicated that junction 13 will be upgraded in the early 2030s, for which my constituents are grateful, but the timeframe for upgrades needs to be urgently reviewed. Junction 13 is unsuitable now; it is already acknowledged that it is regularly severely congested. While the Marston Valley development will provide some upgrades to cope with the demand brought by those new houses, it will not consider the volume of additional traffic brought by Universal UK. Junction 13 is a key route for local traffic as well as traffic passing through our community. Given the significant increase in traffic volume, we need that upgrade now.

Junction 13 is not the only significant road infrastructure impacted by local development plans. Vehicle traffic will also use the A421 to get to the Universal UK resort from the M1. The Government have acknowledged this with their investment in slip roads from the A421 to Universal UK, but we have recently seen the significant congestion caused, even with the current levels of demand, when the A421 is closed. In September 2024, there was severe flooding on the road, which saw a dip fill with 72 million litres of water after a pumping station was overwhelmed.

Work has been done to solve that particular vulnerability, but the traffic chaos that occurred in 2024 demonstrates what happens in the Marston Vale when the A421 is out of commission. That congestion would be many times more significant if the A421 had to be shut for any reason after Universal UK is built. Any respectable transport plan for the Marston Vale must address one key question: what is our contingency plan if the A421 is out of action? We have seen no answer to that question.

Junction 13 is not the only project for which timing will be crucial. From the day that the Universal UK resort opens in 2031, millions of visitors will pour through its doors, whether we have built sufficient transport infrastructure or not. But if we have not, they will pour through its doors via gridlocked local roads designed for local traffic, not for the largest theme park in Europe. It is imperative, therefore, that the Marston Vale is home to a national effort to deliver new infrastructure as swiftly as possible. That includes having the new station at Wixams on the midland main line open from day one, it means ensuring that East West Rail between Oxford and Bedford has services running to completed modern stations with step-free access, and it means having a road network, especially junction 13, that can cope with the volume of traffic we are expecting.

As I said, I did not come here to play party politics, to bash Ministers or to rail against the march of progress. I came with a specific request. What we see in the Marston Vale is not unique, but it is unusual: several projects of national significance contained within roughly 7.5 miles of Bedfordshire, split across Central Bedfordshire council and Bedford borough council. The myriad challenges are difficult to address because there is no centralised master planning and, as a result, there is no way to mitigate the cumulative impact of the various individual proposals. That is leading to contradictory solutions.

Because there is no centralised masterplan and no single body overseeing these projects, it is also much more difficult to leverage funding to ensure that it is spent in the right places. I would like Ministers to commit to working with me, local councillors, local residents and key stakeholders, such as Universal and local developer O&H, to develop a master plan for transport in the Marston Vale. That should set out exactly what communities in the Marston Vale need to manage the various pressures on our area. It should include detail about how to manage transport pressures strategically during construction periods, and it should open a conversation about how we secure the right funding to deliver those projects.

The rewards of success are clear: enabling the Marston Vale and its residents to play the fullest part in delivering the Government’s growth agenda, right at the heart of the Oxford-Cambridge growth corridor. But the costs of failure are stark: residents in the Marston Vale waking up in the 2030s to discover that they have suffered all of the downsides of growth in their communities, and that some of the benefits for the country as a whole have been squandered.

Rural Pubs: Fiscal Support

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Wednesday 17th June 2026 Westminster Hall

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

It is a real pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mrs Hobhouse. I give big thanks to the hon. Member for Meriden and Solihull East (Saqib Bhatti) for raising this issue. As always, I will give a Northern Ireland perspective on the issues.

I speak for the small villages, the crossroads and the tight-knit rural communities where the pub is not merely a commercial business but a vital community hub. It is the village town hall, the local meeting place and the frontline defence against rural isolation; it is a cornerstone of our £2 billion tourism economy. However, those historical institutions are hanging by a thread, suffocating under a mountain of unsustainable operational costs.

We have heard the warnings loud and clear from the industry’s frontline. I pay special tribute to Colin Neill MBE, the chief executive of Hospitality Ulster, who I have met on numerous occasions. All Members in the Chamber have probably met him—I know that the Minister has. Colin has been a tireless champion for our publicans, masterfully making the case both at Stormont and here in Westminster. He has warned the Government in no uncertain terms—forgive me for being graphic, Minister, but we must be factual in presenting this case—that our local hospitality sector is in deep distress as a result of the cumulative impact of soaring energy bills, skyrocketing national insurance contributions and upcoming business rates revaluations. Colin has rightly pointed out that the current tax burden is squeezing the very life out of local employment. Hospitality Ulster data shows that nearly half our operators have been forced to reduce staff numbers. We are looking for economic growth and job creation, but we have lost them—this is a full-blown crisis.

Our rural pubs face a unique structural disadvantage compared with the rest of the United Kingdom. In Great Britain, pubs have benefited from various configurations of business rates relief, but publicans in Northern Ireland face the terrifying prospect of massive hikes in their rates bill—a move that Colin Neill has warned would be the “ruination” of our hospitality industry and, by extension, a severe blow to the Northern Ireland economy. Furthermore, our traders are forced to compete on an uneven playing field with the Irish Republic right across the border, where the Government have previously used targeted VAT reductions to protect their hospitality trade, to our disadvantage in Northern Ireland.

We cannot stand idly by and watch our rural heritage be wiped out by fiscal inertia. The sector accounts for four of every five tourism jobs in Northern Ireland, so we cannot deny or ignore that it is critical. If the Department for the Economy is to meet its growth targets—the Minister will want to encourage Northern Ireland to grow and meet them—it needs a thriving hospitality sector to anchor it, so, alongside my DUP colleagues and the Minister back home, I call on the Chancellor and the UK Government to co-ordinate directly with the Stormont Executive on delivering a targeted and ringfenced package of fiscal interventions.

We need three things: a reduction in the hospitality VAT rate to lower the structural burden on food and drink operators, energy cost reform to protect rural businesses that do not have the footfall of Belfast establishments, and a reformed, reality-based rates system that treats hospitality as an economic driver to be supported, not as a cash cow to be milked until it is dead, which is what I see happening.

The hospitality sector is asking for the chance to survive and grow, and I echo that sentiment. I ask the Government to give our publicans the breathing room that they deserve—especially for rural pubs that cannot work on economies of scale—and to deliver the fiscal support that rural economies desperately need, before the lights go out for good in rural pubs. I thank the hon. Member for Meriden and Solihull East for bringing this issue to the Chamber. I hope that the Minister can give us the answers that we desperately need.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dan Tomlinson]

I thank the hon. Member for raising that issue; it is one that publicans in my constituency have raised with me as their MP. Of course, there are benefits to having a link with a major supplier, and I understand why many publicans choose that route, but it is clear that there are significant challenges, too. DBT has looked at this, and I am sure that conversations are ongoing with the Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade, my hon. Friend the Member for Halifax (Kate Dearden), about what reforms could be made. This is not my policy brief, so I do not want to speak too far out of turn, but I totally understand the issue. I will raise it personally with my hon. Friend. I have done so in the past, after being asked to by my constituents.

On a related point, guest beers and access to the bar for guest beers in tied pubs was mentioned. DBT has met the parties involved in the beer market access review to hear their evidence directly, and it is giving due consideration to all the evidence, along with input from competition policy experts. This is under active review by the Government, and we are committed to making sure that we can have a diverse and competitive beer market. On a personal level, I hope that the Government can look really closely at this so that we can improve competition and choice, but it is being led by my hon. Friend the Member for Halifax.

As has been mentioned, in January this year we went further to support pubs, with a further 15% off their business rates bills and a real-terms freeze in business rates for pubs in the next two years of this revaluation period. That support is worth £1,650 for the average pub this year. It means that three quarters of pubs are seeing their bills either fall or stay flat this year and, as a sector, pubs will pay 8% less in business rates in 2029 than before the revaluation took effect.

Moving on from business rates, the Government recognise that pubs often serve as crucial community assets, particularly in rural communities, as the hon. Member for Meriden and Solihull East and many others have mentioned. They support local economies and communities, provide spaces for gatherings, support those in need and foster a great sense of local pride.

[Jim Shannon]

The circumstances around VAT in Northern Ireland, and reduced VAT across the border, are peculiar and particular to us compared with other parts of the United Kingdom. Has the Minister had chance to speak to Colin Neill, the chief executive of Hospitality Ulster, to ascertain some of the things that he feels might be a way forward? If so, have there been discussions not only with him but with the relevant Minister in the Northern Ireland Executive?

[Dan Tomlinson]

I have not managed to have that conversation, but the hon. Member is very welcome to write to me, and I am happy to consider those representations. Of course, I have heard calls from Members to cut VAT for hospitality, and I am aware that there is a campaign on that matter. I just say that cutting VAT for hospitality from 20% to 10% would cost £11 billion. A range of policy ideas have been raised, all of which involve cutting tax. The right hon. Member for Salisbury (John Glen) was right to acknowledge that there are important fiscal considerations for the Government. It is important that we manage the public finances and bring down Government borrowing, and we are forecast to have the fastest reduction in Government borrowing of any G7 economy, with our deficit falling below the G7 average for the first time in a very long time. Of course, I will listen to the representations made and the asks from campaigners, but I caution that we have to ensure that we have sufficient revenue to fund our public services in a sustainable way.

Rail Freight

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Wednesday 3rd June 2026 Westminster Hall

[Lisa Smart (Hazel Grove) (LD)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the role of rail freight in the transport network.

It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Mr Stuart. Compared with many other aspects of the transport network, rail freight rarely gets the attention I feel it deserves, yet it can help us to achieve so much of what so many of us say we want for our communities, our economy and our planet. From cleaner air and less congested roads to building new homes and a more resilient economy, rail freight is not a niche industry concern but a national infrastructure priority.

The Tarmac site at Bredbury in my Hazel Grove constituency receives daily freight trains carrying construction materials from the Peak district, North Yorkshire and south Wales. I was lucky enough to be invited to visit last year and don my hi-vis. What struck me was how tangible the benefits were. I was joined by Huw Merriman from the Rail Freight Group and Chris Swan, among others, from the great team at the Tarmac facility. A single train delivery to that site can provide enough materials to build up to 30 new homes and, in doing so, removes around 60 HGV movements from the A6 and the surrounding residential streets. That is 60 fewer lorries on roads that my constituents use every day to get to work, school or the shops.

The north-west is one of the busiest regions in the country for rail freight. Aggregates move daily from Peak district quarries through my constituency and beyond. Container trains run on the west coast main line bound for Scotland, Trafford Park and Seaforth in Merseyside. Those flows matter not just to the industries that depend on them, but to every driver who would otherwise be sharing a road with the lorries that would replace them.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I commend the hon. Lady for securing this debate. I envy her region’s constructive approach. We unfortunately do not have any rail freight in Northern Ireland, and it is very disappointing, but there is a need to emphasise and build on the east-west relationship. We are all part of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, so it is really important. Does she agree that, when it comes to looking at rail transport links, maybe the Minister should cast an eye towards Northern Ireland? Maybe—just maybe—she might be able to encourage the Minister there to do something.

[Lisa Smart]

The hon. Gentleman has, in his customary way, championed the needs of his constituents and the whole of Northern Ireland. I agree that rail freight is a very good thing of which there should be more. I am very keen to hear what the Minister has to say.