GM Food Technologies

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Tuesday 19th July 2011 Westminster Hall

[George Freeman]

I could not agree with my hon. Friend more. I mentioned my own experience in the biomedical sector, where I have come across that sort of extreme anti-science movement. I hope that in my moderate tones I have communicated the fact that I am not for one moment an extremist on either side. But I could not agree with my hon. Friend more.

Extremism is not helpful in the debate on this subject. In my medical experience, I have seen the extremism of the anti-animal experimentation groups. Nobody is in favour of animal experiments. However, there is an irony that I will share with everyone here today. I am setting up a company to develop predictive toxicology software, to reduce the need for animal experiments. In order to do that, one needs to consult with the people who know most about the animal experiments, to reduce the necessity of those experiments. In so doing, we triggered the attention of the animal extremists, who targeted the company. Of course, of the six people on the board, there was one female, who was the company secretary. Who do people think the extremists targeted? The lone female in her cottage at night. The cowardice—moral, intellectual and physical—of the extremists shocked me then and in this debate today I want to try to initiate an open debate and to invite a proper and open discussion of the issues. As I say, I could not agree more with my hon. Friend.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for bringing this matter to Westminster Hall, because the debate about it is very important and the matter needs to be aired, debated and talked about. I agree with the hon. Gentleman that GM food technology gives an opportunity for cheaper food and better usage of the land, to try to meet the demand for food that exists throughout the world. Is he aware of the key and critical role that some universities are playing with private partners in the development of GM technology? One of those universities in particular is Queen’s university in Belfast. I have visited the university and I am aware of the good work that it does. Does he accept that that key partnership is important to the development of GM food technologies?

[George Freeman]

The hon. Gentleman makes an excellent point. Yes, a number of our universities play a key role in GM development and I absolutely agree with him that Queen’s university in Belfast is in the vanguard of that, along with the universities of Liverpool, Reading, London, Norwich and Aberystwyth, and one or two other universities in the UK. Moreover, GM is potentially an important part of helping our universities to generate novelty and to put themselves at the front edge of this important area of science. The foresight report frames for us the challenge and the opportunity for the UK. In my own area of Norfolk, when one openly discusses the benefits of the technology for local agriculture, people are interested, and there is an appetite out there to hear more about it.

It might be useful to share one or two facts to help frame the debate. It is worth remembering that commercial GM crops have been grown and eaten since 1994. In 2010, the hectarage of GM crops worldwide was 148 million hectares across 29 countries, 48% of which was in developing countries. Some 15 million farmers, 90% of whom are small and resource-poor, are already actively involved in growing GM crops. The argument is often put that the technology is untried and untested, but I suggest that that is a substantial body of evidence, with proper scientific and rigorous monitoring, and I do not think that anyone is aware of any serious problems that have arisen as a result of the adoption of the technology.

It is also worth acknowledging the extent to which it is the developing world that is driving the adoption. On top crops by area, the percentage of global crop that is now GM is 77% of soybean, 26% of maize, 49% of cotton and 21% of canola. The interesting thing that comes from that is that GM crops have a potential not just in food but in fuel and fibre. One of the problems with the debate in the UK is that the extremists take us straight to the hardest point of all, which is the compulsory—that is often the implication—force-feeding of people here with GM food. To my knowledge, no one is proposing that; I certainly am not. I do propose, however, that we should debate whether this country has a role to play in the application of the technology in fuel and fibre, and certainly in food production around the world. That should be non-controversial.

Going further, one could say, “Should there not be choice in the UK, particularly in the health care and the nutraceuticals and functional foods areas?” I think it would be perfectly appropriate—and the idea would enjoy public support—to say, “The consumer should have choice, but what is wrong with going into a supermarket and having on one side the organic carrots grown locally, here in Norfolk, over there the carrots grown more intensively at a lower cost, and over here the rather more expensive cholesterol-reducing carrots that have been grown and bred specifically for a group with particular dietary, nutritional and health care needs?”

Finance Bill

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Tuesday 28th June 2011 Commons Chamber

[Fiona Bruce]

I fully accept that the Government’s priority has been to clean up the terrible financial mess left by the previous Administration, which has necessarily involved difficult decisions, and I want to put on record today my support for the Government, who have not been afraid to grasp the nettle and make the difficult decisions that the previous Administration were incapable of making. Britain is on a much sounder footing today than was ever the case under the previous Administration, and I pay tribute to the Government’s hard work in this respect. However, even in the current economic environment, I believe that new clause 5 would, as I have outlined, be an investment well worth making both fiscally and socially. The Government have said that they will recognise marriage in the tax system at the appropriate time. I suggest that that time is now, particularly given that it would still take Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs some considerable time to implement a transferable tax allowance, because of the IT and other implications.

Does the Minister agree that the increased tax burden on one-earner married couples on an average wage—it will soon be more than 50% greater than the OECD average burden on such families—commends the early introduction of the transferable allowance if we are to be, as we aspire to be, the most family-friendly country in Europe? What assessment has he made of the time it will take to make the necessary IT and other changes to give effect to the Government’s commitment to introduce the transferable allowance? If he has not made such an assessment, will he do so? I ask the Government to bring forward this legislation not when they are ready, but sufficiently in advance of that, so that all IT and planning changes can be made first, and when the money is available, transferable allowances can become operational quickly, not one or more years later.

The transferable personal allowance was a key election commitment from many of us in the House and an important reason why people voted for the Conservative party. They are now looking for action. I very much look forward to what the Minister has to say, and I will conclude with a quotation from a speech given by the Chief Rabbi in another place earlier this year:

“If the Jewish experience has anything to say to Britain today it is: recognise marriage, not just cohabitation, as in the best interests of the child. Do so in the tax system. Do so in the educational system. Do so in relationship support. Otherwise, our children will pay the price—financial, educational, medical and psychological—for generations to come. Without stable marriages we will not have strong families, and without strong families we will not have a big society.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 10 February 2011; Vol. 725, c. 366-7.]

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

Thank you for giving me the opportunity to speak this evening, Mr Deputy Speaker. For the first time in what I suppose is a long time, I will be at odds with some of my colleagues sitting on the Opposition Benches. They are surrounding me at the moment, and I suspect that I will say something that they might not be entirely happy with. None the less, that will not stop me making my point of view heard.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kate Green]

Does the hon. Gentleman not accept that the reason why children from married relationships so often do better is that their parents come from higher socio-economic backgrounds, not the fact of marriage itself?

[Jim Shannon]

The evidence from the constituency that I represent would indicate that that is not necessarily the case. Those who are perhaps worse off financially are in stable relationships as well. The reason I am speaking on this issue tonight is that I am reflecting not only my personal views, but—I believe—those of a large majority of the people whom I represent. I am here as the MP for Strangford to put that on the record and ensure that that opinion is well heard this evening. Many people might not like what I have to say, but hon. Members will have to accept that it is my opinion.

[Barry Gardiner]

I, too, believe that marriage is good for society, but surely what we have to consider this evening is whether the proposals before us would do anything to incentivise marriage and increase the number of people going into wedlock, and I do not believe for a moment that they will.

[Jim Shannon]

I do not believe that that is the intention of those who have put these proposals forward. I believe that they are about the unfairness in the taxation system that impacts directly on those in marital relationships. That is the reason. This is not about creating a financial incentive—other Members have suggested that it is about encouraging people to get married for an extra £150—and I do not believe for a second that it is.

[Ian Paisley (North Antrim) (DUP)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that these proposals are not about incentivising or encouraging people to get married, but about saying to people who are married, “You will not be penalised financially”? Marriage is good for society, good for relationships and good for children, and it should be encouraged. We should not as a House try to pour scorn on the many married couples out there, whether they are unemployed married couples or wealthy married couples.

[Jim Shannon]

I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention and for the passion in his voice.

Mindful of those points, it is a minimal responsibility of policy makers to remove all obstacles to marriage resulting from fiscal policy. Indeed, there is a good case for considering what steps could be taken to support marriage. I believe that the proposal before us is one suggestion that we should be considering. In the light of that, I am delighted by what the Prime Minister has said. Some people in this Chamber would say, “If the Prime Minister supports it, we don’t,” but if the Prime Minister says something good, let us support it, whether he is the Prime Minister or not—and if one of my colleagues says that something is good, then that is good as well.

[Mr Burrowes]

The hon. Gentleman is making the case on behalf of his constituents and presenting his own personal view, but does he also recognise that a strong case has been made in those countries that recognise marriage in a way that this country does not?

--- Later in debate ---

[Jim Shannon]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. Clearly that is the issue, because there are many countries right across the world that have tax breaks. Indeed, the Prime Minister has said:

“Britain is almost the only country in Europe that doesn’t recognise marriage in the tax system.”

That was his comment back in 2007, but he reiterated the point in 2008 and 2010. There is clearly an issue to be addressed if we are to make comparisons with tax systems in other countries across Europe.

[Barry Gardiner]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way again; he is being extremely generous. I am delighted that he believes that this should not be about incentivising—[Interruption.]

[Barry Gardiner]

My apologies, Mr Deputy Speaker.

I am delighted that the hon. Gentleman has said that this measure is not about incentivising marriage, or about penalising people. Can he therefore explain why, under the proposals, a woman with children who has recently been widowed would suffer a financial loss at precisely the time when the family needed the money the most? That seems to me to be a fundamental flaw in the proposals.

[Jim Shannon]

The hon. Gentleman made that comment earlier to other speakers, and they responded to it. I accept that there are anomalies in all systems. In the short time that I have been in the House, I have spoken on many issues, and each one was something that my constituents told me that they wanted me to deal with. I am on record as having opposed changes to the education maintenance allowance, the employment and support allowance and incapacity benefit. I am also on record as opposing changes to the disability living allowance, among other changes in the benefit system. I have done that in this Chamber; if I see something wrong, I will take a stand on it. If I see an anomaly, I will do my best to address it. I cannot necessarily tell the House every detail of the matter, because I might not be aware of them, but if there is a wrong, it must be righted.

[Ian Paisley]

Does my hon. Friend also accept that it is all very well to say that there are anomalies, but that sometimes straw men are put up in these arguments? The fact is that if a pensioner, for example, loses a loved one, their tax credits and allowances go up, not down. We should not allow these straw men to be introduced into the debate.

[Jim Shannon]

I thank my hon. Friend for that contribution.

[Yasmin Qureshi]

No one is saying that there is anything wrong with marriage. Of course, one should encourage it. My parents were married, and I am married. No one is objecting to people getting married or saying that we should be telling people to get married. However, a fundamental problem with the new clause is that it effectively discriminates against one set of people. Why should a man and a woman who live together and have children be less well off or be discriminated against, compared with a married couple? Why would we wish to create discrimination between those groups of people?

[Jim Shannon]

People’s interpretations of these issues are different; we see things in different ways and have different opinions. I do not necessarily agree with what the hon. Lady has said, but there are issues to be addressed.

[Roberta Blackman-Woods]

Does the hon. Gentleman accept that there is inconsistency among Conservative Members, in that they want to support marriage while taking away huge amounts of financial support from ordinary families?

[Jim Shannon]

I do not believe that there is an inconsistency in relation to this matter, although, with respect, I would disagree with certain other proposals relating to the benefit system.

[Michael Connarty]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend—I regard him as such—for giving way. I share his warmth about marriage, having spent the past 41 years married, although I am not sure that my wife would be quite so enthusiastic. He has, however, strayed beyond his own guidelines. He said that the provision was not about people marrying for a payment, yet he is now arguing that that is what he supports. Surely this should be about the responsibilities that people take on as a couple, especially when they have children, because that is the most burdensome time when they need the most help from the tax system. This is not about whether they decide to have one kind of a relationship or another. Whether they are married or unmarried, if they decide to be together and have children, they will be burdened with other costs.

[Jim Shannon]

I can tell the House that when I married, I married for love. I am one of those old-fashioned boys; that is just the way I am.

[Mr Leigh]

In the light of the intervention from the hon. Member for Linlithgow and East Falkirk (Michael Connarty), it is important to point out that we are not trying to penalise single-parent families or families in which there are two earners. All we are trying to do is remove the severe penalty on families in which there is only one earner, because our system is totally out of step with most of the rest of the world in that regard.

[Jim Shannon]

I thank the hon. Member for his contribution and for providing a bit of focus to this debate.

Given that the agreement pertains to a full Parliament, one ordinarily would not be concerned at the failure to action a commitment in just over a year. What we need is for legislative change to be approved by the coalition Government, to move forward and perhaps see this legislation coming through in two years. The latest publication of the international tax comparison, CARE’s “The Taxation of Families 2009-10” puts things in a very different light. It demonstrates that we are now headed to a place where the tax burden on a married family with children with one earner on an average wage is growing so much that it will soon be more than 50% greater than the OECD average. That breaks new ground, taking us into territory that not even new Labour dreamt of occupying.

Some will no doubt respond by saying that this is a result of the tax burden having to increase on everyone in the context of the debt crisis. I understand that, but it is not exactly the case. Let me quote a director of an influential think-tank, who said:

“Given that it will take some time between changing the law and implementing the actual recognition of marriage in the tax system, it is important that the Government makes this a priority, takes swift action. The change, or at least a recognition of it, should be made”.

I very much hope that that report can be taken seriously, that the Government can look further at the issue and perhaps bring it forward in future legislation.

[Kate Green]

I just want to ask the hon. Gentleman which report he is referring to and which think-tank?

[Jim Shannon]

The think-tank is ResPublica.

As the hon. Member for Gainsborough (Mr Leigh) said earlier, the tax burden on single people with no dependants on the same wage has been falling and far from being 50% above the OECD average, it is now actually below it. That is reflected in the fact that the tax burden on a one-earner married couple on an average wage with two children is projected to rise from 73% to 80% of that of a single person on the same wage by 2012-13, while the equivalent average burden among OECD nations is 52%.

In this context, it is strange that the Government have started investing what will probably end up being almost £12 billion on increasing individual allowances to £10,000. There is a cost factor there and an agreement within the coalition on how that is going to happen. That will cost us all. It is a measure that will have a disproportionately positive effect on single people, yet the Government will not have brought forward a much cheaper transferable allowance policy.

I do not believe that the current situation is sustainable. It is now urgent that the Government introduce legislation to give effect to the transferable allowance. I hope that the Minister will be able to provide robust assurances on this point and a commitment to ensure that as the tax burden increases in the context of the current financial difficulties, it is allocated in a way that is fair, sensitive to family responsibilities and recognises the real strengths that marriage brings to society. I also trust that the Minister will address the important points raised by other hon. Members, including the need urgently to address the IT implications of recognising marriage in the tax system. There are changes to be made, there are costs and a system will need to be set up.

I urge Members to support new clause 5. I believe it is worthy of support. I understand that there are differences of opinion. This is probably the first time that I have disagreed with many colleagues on the Opposition Benches, but I believe in my heart that this is an issue of some importance.

[Dr William McCrea (South Antrim) (DUP)]

Does hon. Friend accept that no one here needs to apologise for believing that this nation was richly blessed whenever it honoured marriage in legislation?

--- Later in debate ---

[Jim Shannon]

I thank my hon. Friend for putting the issue into perspective. We have no apologies to make; we believe in the sanctity of marriage; we believe it is important. Long may this House subscribe to that belief; we need to provide help and assistance to support marriage. We urge Members to support new clause 5.

[Dan Rogerson]

This has been a fascinating debate. It has been broad in its coverage of issues relating to marriage and social policy—although I must say that at times it has been as long as it has been broad—and it has strayed back into recent centuries in examining the institution of marriage. One common factor has emerged from it: Members in all parts of the House recognise the hugely beneficial effect of marriage on wider society in keeping families together and improving the quality of life, although some evidence presented by Members has raised questions about the quality of life during marriage.

Eurozone Financial Assistance

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Tuesday 24th May 2011 Commons Chamber

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I rise to support the motion before the House and to add some comments to the debate. I want to give a couple of examples—fishermen and the farming industry—where the EU is creating more hassle than can be justified. I am of the school of thought that we should make the best of a bad job, and on many occasions we have to do that. The EU, along with the way in which it is run, is most certainly a bad job, yet at present we are in it whether we want it or not. It therefore falls on this House, MEPs and another place to do our best to hold the EU to account as far as possible for the events that take place over in Brussels. We have an opportunity today to debate that and vote on it.

It is clear that the European financial stabilisation mechanism is not fit for purpose; owing to this, the UK could be held liable as a member state. On 9 May 2010, the European financial stability facility was created, and it is a special purpose vehicle agreed by 16 members of the eurozone and aimed at preserving financial stability in Europe by providing financial assistance to eurozone states in economic difficulty. Thus far, we are not at all involved, but no to the euro meant no to the EFSF. The tricky part came with the notion that the facility may be combined with loans of up to €60 billion from the European financial stabilisation mechanism, which is again reliant on funds raised by the European Commission using the EU budget as collateral, and up to €250 billion from the IMF, all to secure a safety net of €750 billion.

If there is no financial operation in activity, the EFSF would close down after three years, on 30 June 2013. If there is a financial operation in activity—which of course there is—the facility would exist until its last obligation had been fully repaid. There has indeed been activity, and a good deal of it involving the EFSM, despite the fact that it should not have been involved to the extent that it had an equal if not greater share of the bail-outs. The purpose of the European financial stabilisation mechanism is to provide an emergency funding programme that is reliant on funds raised on the financial markets and guaranteed by the European Commission using the European Union budget as collateral. I want to give some examples of where things have gone pear-shaped, to use that terminology.

It seems abundantly clear that, as a non-eurozone member, we can be held accountable only for the EFSM, yet for some inexplicable reason it was this funding that bailed Ireland out—to the tune of €5 billion—as opposed to the eurozone funding, which should have borne the brunt. We are neighbours of Ireland, and I do not wish to be harsh. Of course we want to help out where we can, as a healthy Irish economy could benefit the Northern Ireland economy, owing to the shared land border. However, it is hard to grow this sense of neighbourliness when we see the fund enabling Ireland to undercut us on corporation tax, which subsequently encourages business investment in the Republic as opposed to Northern Ireland, or when we see that it has enabled fuel duty to be reduced, which has also taken flight business away from the Province. So, we bail them out and then they use that to our disadvantage. Why should we doubly lose out—through access to European funds, along with increased competition for our business in Northern Ireland within the United Kingdom—when the eurozone fund should have been responsible for bailing Ireland out all along?

[Mr Davidson]

That point is of significance to Scotland as well, because the pressure from Northern Ireland to reduce its corporation tax to compete with the Irish Republic is being replicated in Scotland. Does the hon. Gentleman have any idea why this Government are using British taxpayers’ money to fund an opportunity for the Irish Republic to undercut us on corporation tax in that way and thereby cannibalise British revenues?

[Jim Shannon]

The hon. Gentleman makes an appropriate intervention. We in Northern Ireland certainly do bear the brunt of that, and we feel the pain more than most, as does Scotland. Perhaps when the Minister responds we will get an idea of exactly why that has happened.

The second example is from Iceland—there is more than one cloud hanging over Iceland, by the way—and the second referendum there. Iceland rejected a proposed deal to repay €4 billion that Britain and Holland spent in 2008 to reimburse savers hit when Iceland’s banks collapsed. Meanwhile, I am hearing complaints from my constituents about the amount of fish that fishermen can catch and the number of days that they can work being restricted by EU legislation, as opposed to the Icelandic raiders—they are certainly not an ice hockey team—who are sweeping in, despite Euro-protests, and fishing mackerel that belong to our fishermen. Those are just two simple examples of the failure of the bail-out system in Europe. It is passed the time that this be brought to a head and we ensure fairness for all in Europe.

The hon. Member for Rochester and Strood (Mark Reckless) has stated that the legality of the EFSM is called into question by the current wording of the treaties, which must be changed accordingly. That is exactly the issue that we are trying to address. Therefore, the answer is very clear: use the upcoming meeting of the Council of Ministers or the European Council to vote against the continued use of the EFSM unless a eurozone-only arrangement that relieves the UK of liability under the EFSM has been agreed.

For far too long we have slavishly followed the dictates of Europe, throwing pound after pound into that deep hole that is Brussels and awaiting some kind of recompense for doing things the right way. For too long we have watched other countries prosper—and not too far away from us, either—with bail-out funding, while we cut funding to schools, hospitals and infrastructure in order to remain solvent and claw our way back to a sound financial footing. Everyone in the Chamber today will be able to give examples of that from their constituencies. For too long we have paid in while watching our farmers and fishermen flounder under the weight of European dictates, at the same time as we watch other nations flout the very same rules that our officials seem to have an almost evangelical zeal in enforcing. Indeed, we have been fined £60 million in Northern Ireland for mistakes in bureaucracy and forms that have been filled in.

We need to assert ourselves by saying to the EU that we will no longer be Europe’s nodding dog, making do with a pat on the head every now and again, as if that is okay. We more than pay our way. Others must be held to the dictates that we adhere to. That should start with the matter of this funding and how it is used. I fully support the motion and urge every Member here today—those who embrace Europe and those who oppose it alike—to state that from now on we will make a better job of what is currently a bad job and demand our rights as a member state, beginning with the right to exclude ourselves from the euro without paying for it through the back door.

Oral Answers to Questions

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Tuesday 10th May 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hoban]

I know that my hon. Friend has campaigned tenaciously for IFAs. I remind her that although the FSA is an independent regulator—this addresses her question directly—it has an obligation to assess the impact of its rules on businesses, including small businesses, and to make its rules proportionate. I should add that it is not planning any initiatives by means of its powers under the Financial Services and Markets Act apart from those that are already under way.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I thank the Minister for his response. Clearly, if the economy is to be regenerated and rebuilt, it will be small and medium-sized businesses that will achieve that, and one of the things they tell me as their elected representative is that they need rates relief and assistance. What assistance is the Minister considering giving to such businesses?

[Mr Hoban]

As the hon. Gentleman will be aware, this Government have taken many actions to provide support to small companies. For example, we have cut the small profits rate of corporation tax—which the previous Government sought to increase. We have done a lot to encourage the growth of small businesses, and we will continue to look at what further measures we might take to encourage their future prosperity.

Hospices (VAT)

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Tuesday 10th May 2011 Commons Chamber

[Bob Russell]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising that point, which I was just about to mention. Let me be financially blunt about this: if the hospices did not exist, the excellent work that they do would fall to the NHS and cost the public two to three times more because of the considerably lower cost of hospices, brought about by the special working combination of professionals and volunteers, with fundraising and so on, which is the basis on which hospices were founded and have existed over the years.

I understand that, on average, charitable hospices receive about one third of their funds for the services they provide from statutory sources, which leaves two thirds to be raised to cover all the other costs. This already challenging target is not helped when it is realised that the taxman is helping himself to 20%. I am advised that most local hospices do not have three-year agreements with NHS commissioners, relying instead on year-on-year negotiations that are, by their very nature, subject to budgetary pressures within the NHS. Alarmingly, a survey of member hospices conducted by Help the Hospices last March found that 64% of primary care trusts had frozen NHS funding for hospices for the period 2010-14.

I will set out some statistics about the excellent job that the nation’s hospices do. Collectively, they provide more than 26 million hours of specialist care and support every year, 90% of which is provided through day care services and care in people’s homes, and 77% of adult palliative care in-patient units are run by hospices, with the voluntary sector providing 2,139 adult in-patient beds, compared with just 490 provided by the NHS. All children’s in-patient units in the UK are run by the voluntary sector. Independent voluntary hospice expenditure increased by a fifth between 2007 and 2009, which indicates the continuing growth and importance of hospices in the life of the nation. More than £1 million is raised every day for the nation’s hospices, from fundraising, legacies and donations.

The value of the voluntary work carried out by the 100,000-plus volunteers is estimated to be worth in excess of £112 million every year. Help for Hospices has told me:

“Hospices are unique among providers of healthcare because they contribute so significantly to the funding and provision of hospice and palliative care. In 2009, hospices spent £687 million. For every £1 the State invests in local charitable hospices, those hospices deliver £3 worth of care.”

It thus makes sense that the burden of VAT on hospices should be lifted so that they can do even more good for the benefit of the communities that they serve.

Help for Hospices also told me:

“Hospice care receives overwhelming public support in the UK. A recent survey showed more than 80 per cent of people believe everyone with a terminal illness should have the right to receive hospice care.”

My only observation is that I am amazed the figure is as low as 80%.

I would like to say a little more about the St Helena hospice in Colchester, which I visited on Saturday ahead of this evening’s debate and in order to inspect the newly extended Joan Tomkins day care centre, which was officially opened to coincide with the annual fete in the grounds of the hospice.

The original day care centre, named in memory of the late wife of local business man Mr Robin Tomkins, whose generosity made the building possible, was opened in April 1988 by the Princess of Wales. I remember that well, because my mother was in the nearby hospice and died a few days later. The princess spoke to my father at my mother’s deathbed, and he spoke afterwards of the warmth of compassion that she had shown.

St Helena hospice, the main building, was officially opened in April 1986 by Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth, the Queen Mother, so we have just celebrated its 25th anniversary. As an aside, I should have said that my mother was one of the volunteers in the early months after the hospice opened.

Like other hospices throughout the country, St Helena is rooted in the local community that it serves. It provides free medical and nursing care and therapy to adult patients with any diagnosis. Alongside the two day centres there is also one at Clacton, and there is in-patient accommodation in the purpose-built extension to the historic Myland Hall.

Services are also provided for patients in their own home. Indeed, in the past five years there has been a 58% increase in the services in patients’ homes. St Helena hospice also provides pre and post-bereavement support to family members, including children, and attached to the hospice is an education centre, providing education for health and social care professionals.

It will cost St Helena hospice more than £4.6 million in the current financial year to provide its valuable services, and it would be great if it did not have to pay value added tax, but could instead spend that money on the purposes for which people wish it to be used—supporting the work of their local hospice.

Help for Hospices told me:

“As the population ages and people approach the end of life with ever-more complex co-morbidities, a spectrum of highly flexible and adaptive hospice and palliative care services need to be available.”

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

Not only the services and the care provided but also hospice-build should be exempt from VAT. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the Minister should address that in his reply?

[Bob Russell]

The hon. Gentleman makes an exceedingly good point. We have the nonsense, right across the construction industry, whereby new-build is VAT-exempt, but when a building is added to or converted, as in the instance to which I believe the hon. Gentleman has just referred, VAT is levied. When a hospice wants to extend its building, as in the extension and modernisation of the Joan Tomkins day care centre that I mentioned, VAT is levied, as I understand it. That is wrong.

Help for Hospices also told me:

“The Government has committed to a ‘level playing field’ for all organisations delivering public services. However, charitable hospices continue to face extra costs that statutory and private providers do not.

Tax burdens should be removed from hospices where they can be. This is particularly necessary as hospices are providing public services and investing considerable charitable funds into the ‘health economy’ and, unlike other private and public providers of healthcare, are subject to significant funding and contracting challenges.”

I believe that the public would overwhelmingly take the view that the coalition Government should urgently introduce measures to deal with the unfairness of levying VAT on our hospices. I have put forward suggestions as to how that can be achieved, and I now invite the Minister to pursue these matters.

Finance (No. 3) Bill

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Wednesday 4th May 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Gauke]

As I said, the OBR considered the package in the June 2010 Budget and incorporated the changes along with other announcements. From that it anticipated an increase in business investment, and clearly there was a link between the corporation tax package and that increase in investment. We believe that by reducing the cost of capital, we will increase business investment above the levels that would otherwise have been the case.

I was struck by the right hon. Gentleman’s speech this morning in which he took considerable time to outline more than once the unemployment numbers in various regions of the UK. I was struck by the contrast between the argument he appeared to be making this morning, which was that the corporation tax cut needs to be targeted at regions with higher unemployment, and the argument he made during our considerable debate on the National Insurance Contributions Act, which was that it was wrong for us to target the national insurance contributions holiday at regions where the public sector was strong and unemployment high. I am not sure there was much consistency there, but there was great ingenuity in his speech earlier today.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

Obviously any advantage to industry is to be welcomed. I understand that figures released show that only 4 million people are employed in the manufacturing sector. Has the Exchequer Secretary discussed how the corporation tax changes will benefit that sector? Is the cut acceptable to the sector? Does it feel that it will achieve the recovery in that important sector? The Government have recognised it as an important growth industry, so I would be interested to hear his response.

[Mr Gauke]

I suspect that we will debate manufacturing at greater length in the next group of amendments. However, manufacturing will benefit from the package as a whole, including the changes to capital allowances. It will benefit considerably. Indeed, it is one of the sectors that pays a great deal in corporation tax. We also believe that the changes will benefit all regions. It is perfectly right for the right hon. Member for Delyn to highlight the different requirements in different regions, and as the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) will know, the Government are exploring the case for greater flexibility for corporation tax in Northern Ireland. We continue to explore that matter.

On the subject of jobs, the OBR, in its 2011 Budget publication, forecast that 2010-15 total employment would increase by about 900,000. That will not all flow directly from the corporation tax cut, but that reduction will play a part in it. We also have to recognise that most of the recent academic analysis—certainly a recent report published by the OECD—makes the case that taxes on corporation income are the most growth-inhibiting ways of raising revenue. They are inefficient, so it is right that we seek to have a lower rate of corporation tax to help the economy.

Finance (No. 3) Bill

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Tuesday 3rd May 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Jones]

I agree with my hon. Friend. The Tory spin doctors forget that if we had followed the first reaction to the Northern Rock crisis from the then shadow Chancellor, the right hon. Member for Tatton (Mr Osborne), we would have let Northern Rock go, which would have had a knock-on effect on other banking systems and the recession would have turned into a depression. It is perhaps not fashionable to say it, but we should thank the Chancellor and the Prime Minister of the time for the decisions they took to ensure that that depression did not materialise.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

It is a pleasure to see my hon. Friend the Member for South Antrim (Dr McCrea) in the Chair. I understand that this is the first time a Northern Ireland MP has chaired a Committee of the whole House, which is particularly fitting on the 90th birthday of Northern Ireland’s formation as a state.

Does the hon. Member for North Durham (Mr Jones) agree that one thing that annoys people about the banks and their bonuses is that after the Government and taxpayer bailed them out, they went on to make excessive profits? Does he agree that some of those profits should be returned to the taxpayer and the Government to pay off the money spent bailing them out in the first place?

[Mr Jones]

I agree. I am sorry that I forgot to welcome Reverend McCrea to the Chair; it is a pleasure to serve under his chairmanship. The hon. Gentleman makes a good point. It was taxpayers’ money that rightly bailed out the banks; if they are making excessive profits now, which clearly they are, the banking levy would allow some payback.

If the Government are feeling timid and do not want to upset the banking sector, the amendment provides them with an obvious get-out by making it clear that there is a review at the end of the year that would enable us to see whether the levy was having a detrimental effect. Evidence to date suggests that the £3.5 billion that the bonus tax took out of the banking sector has not damaged the banking system in any way, shape or form. The public expenditure effects, however—they will affect my region and also the area that the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) represents—are going to be absolutely devastating.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Jones]

If the hon. Gentleman had been listening, he would know that I was not arguing for regional variations in fuel taxation. I was saying that if we are to have variations in fuel prices, which we already have, and if the Government are to introduce a derogation and cheap fuel for certain island constituencies, clearly buying off the Liberal Democrats, the effects on the economy need to be assessed. I would also argue that if that is to happen for some of those rural communities, it must also happen for parts of County Durham where having access to a car is not a luxury, but a necessity for getting into work along the A1 corridor to Newcastle and other places. The fact that the Government are also reducing the public subsidy that local government can give to bus companies means that in the next few months parts of my constituency will have no bus services whatsoever on some days of the week.

[Jim Shannon]

The hon. Gentleman mentions the price of fuel. In Northern Ireland this week the price of diesel was £1.44.9 per litre, which is probably one of the highest in the United Kingdom. If there is to be regional help for the islands of Scotland, there must also be help in Northern Ireland for rural communities. Although he might have some concerns about that, would he not agree that it is only fair that that should happen?

[Mr Jones]

It is, but the islands derogation has been brought in as a sop to the Liberal Democrats. They have to get something out of this coalition, after all, and a few pence off fuel may well help them at the ballot box, but I doubt it in the long term. The hon. Gentleman makes a fair point that, if we are to assess the effect of the increase, regional variations will need to be considered.

Finance (No. 3) Bill

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Tuesday 26th April 2011 Commons Chamber

[Stella Creasy]

I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman has not been listening closely. Let me make it very clear: the figures from the Office for Budget Responsibility that I cited refer to this past year. Forgive me, but as far as I am aware, his party has been in power during that time and it has presided over this increase in the private debt that households are now taking on.

Let us talk about some of the things that are causing that increase. VAT is costing a family with children an extra £450 this year, on average, due to the rocketing cost of buying basics such as telephones and clothes and of getting a boiler or a washing machine fixed. That is before they even consider getting out and about to spend money. Many Conservative Members have talked about fuel prices, but the increase in VAT is adding £1.35 to the cost of filling up a 50-litre tank with unleaded fuel. The cut in fuel duty gives back only 1p, but the VAT increase costs us almost 3p a litre.

Those who are in work are finding it even harder to make ends meet as a result of the Budget. Since 5 April, 750,000 more workers have been dragged into the higher rate of income tax, and benefit recipients have lost £2.7 billion-worth of payments. Cuts to child care support have taken £1,500 a year from families. The £48 that people will get through the personal allowance increase in the Budget is barely a tenth of the amount that families will have to pay back through increased VAT. In two years’ time, 1.5 million families—including many in places such as Walthamstow—will lose all their child benefit. Credit Action has pointed out that, of the 45 changes to the tax and benefit system made in the Budget, 26 will have a negative impact on households.

There will also be fewer chances of getting a better-paid job, or of getting back into work, because unemployment is set to be higher in every year of this Parliament as a result of this Government’s actions.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

Those in the 16-to-25 age bracket who are unemployed will soon top the 1 million mark. Does the hon. Lady share my concern, and that of many other hon. Members, about what the future holds for them?

[Stella Creasy]

I absolutely agree with the hon. Gentleman. I have been a close reader of the work of Paul Gregg at Bristol university, who has shown how unemployment can scar young people and affect their earning potential for life. I am extremely worried about young people in this country who are facing unemployment and have little prospect of a place on a training scheme or in a university.

There is little sign that these pressures on family finances will ease. With the current wage squeeze expected to continue until at least 2013, average wages are expected to fall to less than £25,000, which is more than £1,800 lower than in 2009. People do not have the pounds in their pockets that they need in order to keep spending in the way our economy needs if it is to grow. If we add to that the anticipated rise in interest rates and mortgage payments, which has been one area of respite in the past few years, we can see that things are going to get a lot bleaker. As our newspapers warn daily, and as the Bank of England has pointed out, interest rates are likely to climb, piling pressure on the 60% of low to middle-income families who are already struggling to pay their bills.

It is no wonder that four in 10 people are worried about their current level of debt, with 4 million fearing redundancy and 4 million more having taken on debt in recent months. We know that the cuts that we have seen so far are just the beginning. The ones that families across the UK felt this month accounted for a mere 10% of the total savings planned before 2015 from changes in the tax credit and benefit system. More than 40% of the cuts kick in in 2013.

Loading debt on to households helps this Government to cut the deficit at the pace they desire, but it is the job of Opposition Members to challenge them on the cost and consequences to all of doing so. In an economy where jobs and growth are in short supply, such debts do not just mean lower consumer spending, higher levels of bankruptcy or repossessions. Nearly 30% of British parents admit they are arguing over their family finances and a third of parents are suffering the stress of sleepless nights because they are worried about money.

Such changes also directly impact on our chances for economic recovery. As the Bank of England pointed out,

“prospects for consumption…have an important bearing on the outlet for activity”,

but it added:

“Near-term prospects have weakened further over the month. The squeeze on households…was likely to dampen consumption materially over the next year or so.”

Even after a sharp reduction in its private consumption forecasts, that favourite of the hon. Member for West Suffolk, the Office for Budget Responsibility, expects British households to account for just over a fifth of economic growth this year and for almost a third next year. The truth is that if the average family is not willing to dig itself deeper into debt, those figures might have to be revised.

The Bill reflects the Government’s complacency about the challenge. There is no commitment to act on these problems—only a general sense of unease, summed up best by the Minister for Equalities, the hon. Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Lynne Featherstone), who wrote:

“What is tough—and will get tougher—is losing jobs. People in work will mostly get by—somehow. People on benefits will mostly get by—somehow. But for those who lose their job—it will be devastating. The cuts were announced last year. Their impact has yet to fully hit. This budget promised growth. The proof will be in the pudding. And the question will be whether there’s a new job to be found within a time frame that can keep health, hearth and home together—and we need to keep a watch over that.”

Well, I want to do more than keep a watch over that, and I hope to answer a question posed by Government Members about what policies Labour Members could suggest.

Today, I argue that we could do more than squabble over Keynes or the Ricardian equivalence; we could do something to help those people in immediate danger of insolvency and bankruptcy. At present, this Bill is missing that. Given the large numbers of people facing financial difficulty, we should be deeply concerned about the strategies that families have to cope with these pressures and how the Bill could do something to help.

To cover costs, more and more people are turning to sources of credit, which might seem like short-term solutions but quickly become long-term problems. The number of people who say they are likely to use an unauthorised overdraft this month has nearly doubled since July last year—from 900,000 to 1.6 million. Similarly, the payday lending industry in the UK, with its 4,000% interest rates and more, has quadrupled in the past 18 months.

Being able to borrow in a way that does not leave a long-term scar on the family finances is the new dividing-line in our society. Those who can access mainstream credit might just scrape by in austerity Britain. Those with little option but the legal loan sharks, maxing out their credit cards or racking up unauthorised debt, could spend a generation or more trying to become debt-free.

This Government want to pretend that such kinds of personal debt are solely a private matter, but Opposition Members see the social and economic consequences and we must beg to differ. A lack of regulation of the high-cost credit market in comparison with other countries allows that industry to go unchecked in the UK. Recognition of the problems caused by casino banking in the City is widespread across the House, but that is only half the battle; we should not forget the financial needs of those in our communities. For the sake of our economic recovery and for the sake of those families, credit should not be lent in a way that is detrimental to consumers without those who profit from exploiting them being made liable for the consequences.

When this Government announced their Budget, I asked a simple question: how can they be so keen to show that they are so tough on national debt, yet so blind to the growing crisis of personal debt that their policies are stoking? Today, with this Bill before us, we are no closer to an answer, but thousands more edge closer to personal financial problems as a direct result. That is why I will table amendments to review whether the supplementary charge or the bankers’ levy could be applied in a way that would disincentivise negative, high-cost credit lending. It is time that this Government put the fortunes of every family first. Other countries have done that to protect their consumers, and I do not see why British consumers should be denied the same opportunity.

Let me offer an open invitation to Treasury Ministers to do what their colleagues in the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills have signally failed to do, and respond to the concerns of Members throughout the House. I invite them to meet us to discuss how we could cap the total cost of credit. Campaigners all over the country who support such action—Churches, trade unions, community groups and consumer associations—would thank them for taking it.

I hope that Members who share my concern about personal debt will support my amendments, and will join me in holding the Government to account for what they are doing to the personal finances of families in every constituency in the country.

HM Revenue and Customs

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Wednesday 2nd March 2011 Commons Chamber

[Gregg McClymont]

My hon. Friend makes a good point. There is a problem of short-term savings at the cost of long-term benefits—what we might call a false economy. I shall come to that.

We have not had any confirmation from the Government of how HMRC is to be restructured. We do not know which services to the public will go, or which services will be changed. We do not know yet which jobs will go. Before Christmas I asked the Treasury Whip about the future of HMRC jobs in Cumbernauld in a Back-Bench debate. The Treasury Whip suggested to me that the Cumbernauld jobs were safe. I understand that as it is a strategic site, its situation is different from that of some of the smaller call centres and the like. I urged the Treasury Whip to share the information that proved this to be the case: it has not yet been forthcoming, for good reason.

Subsequent questions for written answer revealed that the Government cannot give any such undertaking until HMRC publishes its business plan. It is better for HMRC to take its time and get its business plan right than to get it wrong in a rush, but that has consequences. It seems that the business plan will not appear before April. The delay and the mixed messages do not make tax officers’ jobs any easier. Clearly, the increased anxiety can damage morale.

We have heard about the situation from the hon. Member for Chichester and others. It is not surprising in those circumstances, and also given the nature of the job, that in a recent survey only 11% of HMRC employees felt that change in the organisation was well managed. HMRC employees in Cumbernauld are now just as uncertain about their future as they were when the programme of cuts was first announced in October. Such uncertainty has an impact on staff morale, and thus on productivity and performance. More fundamentally—this goes to the point raised in an intervention by my hon. Friend the Member for Luton North (Kelvin Hopkins)—I suspect that the cuts to HMRC’s budget may well prove to be a false economy. Short-term savings at HMRC could reduce the Government’s ability to maximize tax revenue in the long run.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

The hon. Gentleman, like many others in the Chamber, was at the presentation to Members of Parliament by HMRC staff last year. At that presentation, HMRC staff indicated that they were aware of revenue that the tax bodies were not collecting. Their message was clear: more staff, more tax revenue; fewer staff, less tax revenue. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the Government should consider the false “savings” that they will make in this year, against the tax income that they could generate instead?

[Gregg McClymont]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that observation. Clearly, this is a complex issue and there will be reasonable arguments on both sides, but it seems to me that it is a job in which morale is particularly important. I intend to refer later to the psychology of being a tax officer, which pertains to his point about raising more revenue.

Fuel Prices

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Tuesday 15th February 2011 Westminster Hall

[Miss McIntosh]

Some 6,000 small businesses in Thirsk, Malton and Filey will be affected, and I congratulate the FSB on its excellent campaign.

The impact on farmers—across north Yorkshire, farming is often the main business, and it certainly is in my constituency—of rising fuel prices has been catastrophic. That issue has pushed up the cost of producing livestock and the cost of taking livestock to market. Moreover, for those who train racehorses across North Yorkshire, many of whom are based in Thirsk and Malton, rising fuel prices have pushed up the cost of feeding the horses and the cost of transporting horses and jockeys to races.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

As the hon. Lady has said, rural communities in particular are suffering, and the area that I represent, which is very much a rural community, is one of those that has suffered most. Does she agree that concerns have been expressed during the past few months, particularly since Christmas, that some retailers were taking advantage of the situation in relation to the price increase? And does she also agree that there is perhaps a role for Government in relation to monitoring, controlling and regulating that situation?

[Miss McIntosh]

I am mindful of the point made by the hon. Member for Upper Bann (David Simpson) about the land border between Northern Ireland and southern Ireland. In the European Union, the dream place to live as far as fuel duty is concerned is Luxembourg. I am reminded of the queues that I saw on a road in Luxembourg, which existed because the fuel duty is less in that country. So I am very mindful of what the hon. Member for Upper Bann has said and, as I said earlier, I hope that that is an issue that the Minister will respond to, because rural communities seem to be bearing the brunt.

RAC analysis of the survey “Family Spending 2010” shows that spending on transport for the average household was £58.40 out of a total weekly expenditure of £455. Transport is the biggest single item of expenditure, bigger even than food, rent, mortgage or entertainment. Obviously, ancillary services will suffer if transport costs continue to rise incrementally.

There are four options to discuss today. The first is not very realistic—it is the option to do nothing and maintain the status quo. Personally I do not believe that that is a sustainable or realistic option. Obviously, my preferred option is for the Government to pause on 1 April and not to impose the 1p rise in duty. Of course, that increase will be the eighth duty increase to have been proposed by the previous Labour Government since November 2008. I am mindful of the fact that if it is imposed, it would add at least 4p more to petrol and diesel pump prices, on top of the 1p increase in duty in January and the VAT increase as well.

The perhaps more controversial proposal to introduce a fuel duty stabiliser was first put forward by the present Chancellor when in opposition. As shadow Chancellor, he launched a fairly full consultation in July 2008 on a fair fuel stabiliser, a mechanism to ensure that when fuel prices go up fuel duty falls:

“So as the price of fuel rises, the amount of VAT charged also rises. This means that when the price of fuel goes up, the amount of tax charged on it also rises…The current system also makes the public finances more unstable. This is because, when oil prices rise, the Government receives an unexpected windfall from taxes on North Sea Oil production. And when oil prices fall, the Government suffers an unexpected shortfall in revenues.”

I take some comfort from the fact that the Chancellor, in his June Budget, said:

“We are examining the impact of sharp fluctuations in the price of oil on the public finances to see if pump prices can be stabilised, and we will also look at whether a rebate for remote rural areas could work.”—[Official Report, 22 June 2010; Vol. 512, c. 178.]

--- Later in debate ---

[Ian Paisley (North Antrim) (DUP)]

I, too, congratulate the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Miss McIntosh) on securing this important debate. I am delighted that we have the opportunity to talk about the issue and that the Minister is present to listen to the concerns being raised, to which I hope she will be able to respond positively—if not today, then at least in the Budget.

In The Daily Telegraph in January, Boris Johnson wrote the immortal words that

“when it costs more to fill your tank than to fly to Rome, something is seriously wrong.”

I say a profound “Hear, hear!” to that—there certainly is something seriously wrong when it costs less to fly to Rome than to drive to Cullybackey in my constituency. Although that is a humorous point, it is—like all such humorous points—a telling one. The pips are now squeaking throughout this country, and none more loudly than in rural parts. Many hon. Members have already indicated that the car is not a luxury for people who live in rural areas. The hon. Lady made clear the necessity for four-wheel drive vehicles in rural parts of these islands. They are absolutely essential. That has to be driven home to the Government, who live mainly in cities. They have to recognise the needs of the rural community.

I say a huge “Hear, hear!” to the words of the hon. Member for Argyll and Bute (Mr Reid), who spoke about an island pilot scheme. I am glad that I live on an island—it is called Ulster—and I hope that such a pilot scheme will apply there as well. I flew today from the mainland of Ulster to this island to participate in this debate, so I hope that there is recognition for a fuel stabiliser from my island as well as the hon. Gentleman’s island. It is critical. Parts of England, Wales and Scotland have remote rurality, but if ever such remoteness was multiplied—there are a channel and seas between us—we are on the periphery of the periphery. On that basis alone, we deserve some sort of recognition for our rural areas and recognition that help will be given.

I was delighted to see in the agreement that formed the new Government recognition that something was going to be done to address inflated fuel prices. I am sure that, if we cast our minds back to the election, we would all recall that fuel prices were exceedingly high and that our potential and actual voters said on the doorsteps, “You have to do something about fuel prices.” That lost momentum—it is almost as if the car is no longer filled with fuel and has stalled. Now that prices are back up, as the hon. Lady has said, to 136p—15p higher in parts of Scotland, and 10p in parts of Northern Ireland—surely the momentum must be put back into the issue and the Government must grasp the nettle.

[Jim Shannon]

Since the coalition came into power last year, fuel has risen by £2.35 per tank. Does my hon. Friend think that the onus is on the coalition Government to address that issue?

[Ian Paisley]

The hon. Lady has rightly indicated that there are four options. As a member of an Opposition party, I am prepared to leave it to the Government and say that it is up to them to come up with a solution. Let us hope that we can get something with cross-party and cross-House support, and that we can drive it forward so that it makes a difference for the people who send us here. I think that we can all agree on that.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sheryll Murray (South East Cornwall) (Con)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Miss McIntosh) on securing this debate. It is essential that we discuss this matter, because of its severe effect on constituencies, such as mine in south-east Cornwall. There is no doubt that high fuel prices affect everybody, but in our rural constituencies they have a disproportionate effect.

South East Cornwall has a large number of self-employed people, small businesses and people who have to commute, and we have a very poor public transport infrastructure. The railway timetables are such that often the train cannot be taken and bus companies find it increasingly difficult to provide the service that is needed, so people rely on their cars. My constituents write to me time and time again about the cost of petrol. I stood at the general election on a manifesto that contained the fair fuel stabiliser. I hope that the Chancellor of the Exchequer will include provisions for that in the Budget so that my constituents, including businesses and the self-employed, are at least able to budget for a 12-month period, rather than have their profits decline continuously because of the high rise in fuel prices.

I echo what all hon. Members have said in the debate, but there is one issue that has not been addressed, which is the effect of current fuel prices on our shipping industry. I declare a special interest because my husband is a commercial fisherman. People do not seem to understand that, while our fishermen are able to reclaim the duty they pay, it has a detrimental effect—in fact, a disastrous effect—on their cash flow. There are fishermen in my constituency who go to sea in dreadful weather conditions, but do not secure any return from their catch because it all goes on fuel.

[Jim Shannon]

Part of the point expressed by the hon. Lady relates to fuel, but also to the price of the commodity being less than it was three years ago and to restrictions from Europe on days at sea. Those reasons, along with the fuel increase, are why the fishing industry is in dire straits today.

[Sheryll Murray]

I could not agree more, but I want to stick to the issue of the price of fuel, which is having an effect on our farmers, our hauliers, our fishing industry and on small businesses in my constituency. In South East Cornwall, most businesses are tiny and cannot stand the impact of increasing fuel prices on their cash flow for much longer—it cannot continue.

To sum up, Cornwall has a large number of residents who have no access to the mains gas supply, or other, cheaper alternative supplies of heating. The increase in fuel duty affects the ability of a lot of my constituents to provide heating in their homes.