Northern Ireland Hospitality Sector

Robin Swann Excerpts

Wednesday 15th July 2026 Westminster Hall

[Robin Swann (South Antrim) (UUP)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the potential merits of a VAT reduction pilot for hospitality businesses in Northern Ireland.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dr Murrison. I welcome the opportunity to speak in support of a pilot scheme to reduce VAT for the hospitality and food sectors in Northern Ireland. This proposal enjoys support from across the political spectrum and the commercial sector. It has the backing of businesses, Hospitality Ulster, the Northern Ireland Food To Go Association, Ministers of the Northern Ireland Executive, Members of the Northern Ireland Assembly, and the Assembly’s all-party group on food to go, of which my party colleagues John Stewart and Diana Armstrong are both officers.

This is a request not for special treatment but for fairness, economic common sense and the opportunity to test a policy that could strengthen businesses, protect jobs and support communities across every part of Northern Ireland while providing valuable evidence for policymakers across the United Kingdom. Hospitality is one of our most important industries in Northern Ireland. It contributes approximately £1.4 billion to our economy in gross value added, accounts for 2.5% of our economic activity and supports roughly 50,000 jobs.

Those are not simply statistics; they represent family businesses, local employers, tourism operators, cafés, restaurants, hotels, pubs and food-to-go outlets. They are the very lifeblood of our towns, villages and cities, yet the sector is under immense pressure. Businesses have faced a perfect storm of rising energy costs, inflation, increased national insurance contributions, increases in the minimum wage and a continuing cost of living crisis that is reducing the disposable income of their customers.

Many businesses that I have met in my South Antrim constituency, from the Stone Hound in Antrim town to Brown’s Coffee in Ballyclare, the McKeever group of seven hotels and many more businesses that I do not have time to mention are being forced to make difficult decisions.

[Adam Jogee (Newcastle-under-Lyme) (Lab)]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend—he knows he is my friend—for giving way. I am enjoying his introductory remarks. Although I will not comment on the specifics of the pilot, I was married at the Dunadry hotel in his constituency, so I will take any opportunity to celebrate the hospitality sector in Northern Ireland. It is world-renowned, and it is loved by all those who get to enjoy it. It is second only to Staffordshire.

[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.

[Alex Easton (North Down) (Ind)]

I thank the hon. Member for securing this debate on an important issue. Does he agree that in my constituency and right across Northern Ireland, many pubs, cafés, hotels, B&Bs and local attractions are operating on extremely narrow margins? Targeted VAT relief would improve cash flows and strengthen their resilience, particularly amid rising wage, energy, food and insurance costs.

[Robin Swann]

I agree with the hon. Member. That is why many representative organisations think that VAT reduction would be a key enabler. It would not solve all those problems, but it would definitely help.

With regard to the cross-border imbalance, a family deciding where to spend their money, a couple booking a wedding reception, an organisation booking an event or a visitor choosing accommodation is increasingly influenced by price. Businesses on the other side of the border enjoy a tax advantage that can amount to tens or even hundreds of thousands of pounds each year, depending on their size. The result is obvious. Northern Ireland businesses are competing with one hand tied behind their back, and the problem is about to get worse unless action is taken.

It is especially striking that the United Kingdom’s 20% VAT rate for hospitality is increasingly an outlier across Europe. France applies 10%, Italy 10%, Croatia 13% and Germany is moving towards a reduced hospitality rate. Across Europe, Governments recognise hospitality as a strategically important sector deserving of support because of its role in employment, tourism and local economic development.

The question we are asking the Government is simple: if other countries are using VAT policy to support growth, jobs and investment, why are they unwilling to even test whether such an approach could work in Northern Ireland? That is why the proposal for a Northern Ireland VAT pilot is so compelling. A pilot is not a permanent commitment or a leap in the dark; it is evidence-driven policymaking. It would allow the Treasury to assess whether a reduced rate increases economic activity, protects employment, boosts tourism and stimulates wider tax revenues through income tax, national insurance contributions and corporation tax.

The advantages could be substantial. First, it would help businesses remain viable. For many hospitality operators, a VAT reduction would improve margins at a time when costs are rising dramatically. Some businesses would pass savings directly to customers through lower prices, while others may reinvest those savings into staffing, wages, training or expansion. Either way, the money would remain within the real economy. Secondly, it would support jobs. Hospitality is one of the largest employers of our young people, and it provides opportunities for people entering the workforce, developing skills or returning to employment. Protecting hospitality means protecting livelihoods in every constituency across our country.

Thirdly, it would strengthen tourism. Visitors do not separate hotels, restaurants, cafés and attractions from their overall experience of Northern Ireland, so a more competitive hospitality sector would help to create a stronger visitor economy. Recent successes in attracting major international events have demonstrated Northern Ireland’s potential to attract visitors and generate significant economic returns, and a more competitive VAT regime would build on that success. Fourthly, it would support our high streets and local communities. Hospitality businesses create footfall, bring people into town centres and occupy premises that might otherwise stand vacant. Every restaurant, café or takeaway that survives and prospers contributes to the wider vitality of our communities.

However, there is another important question: can this be done legally? The answer is yes. Too often, discussions about Northern Ireland are dominated by what cannot be done because of the protocol or Windsor framework. On this occasion, the legal advice is clear that neither the VAT provisions that apply to Northern Ireland nor state aid considerations would prevent the UK Government from introducing a reduced VAT pilot for the hospitality sector in Northern Ireland. Indeed, article 8 of the Northern Ireland protocol specifically envisages a situation where VAT arrangements may diverge to address competitive imbalances with the Republic of Ireland, which is the case here. The legal route, the economic case and the practical mechanism exist. What is required now is the political will to act.

Of course, we have to be honest about the challenges. A reduction of VAT would have an up-front fiscal cost. The purpose of such a pilot is to measure whether increased economic activity could offset some or all of that additional revenue loss over time through growth, investment and employment. The question before us is not whether there is a cost, but whether the cost of doing nothing is greater. What is the cost of businesses closing? What is the cost of jobs being lost? What is the cost of investment leaving Northern Ireland? What is the cost of allowing a widening competitive gap between businesses north and south of the border? Those questions deserve answers, and a Northern Ireland pilot would provide them.

Northern Ireland has often been described as unique. In this case, our unique circumstances provide a unique opportunity. We have a clearly defined geographical market, face a distinct cross-border competitive challenge and have an obvious comparator in the Republic of Ireland. That makes Northern Ireland the ideal test bed for a hospitality VAT pilot. If successful, the lessons learned could inform policy across the wider United Kingdom. This proposal is pro-business, pro-worker, pro-tourism and pro-growth. More importantly, it is practical and evidence-based and deserves to be tested rather than dismissed.

The incoming Prime Minister talks of more devolution. Here is an opportunity for the Minister to put such a case in front of him. The Northern Ireland Affairs Committee has opened an evidence call for an inquiry on this subject, so it will not go away at the close of this debate. I therefore urge the Government and the Treasury to work with the Northern Ireland Executive, industry representatives and local businesses to establish a reduced VAT pilot for hospitality businesses in Northern Ireland. Let us give this vital sector a fair chance to compete, protect jobs and investment, strengthen our tourism offering and demonstrate that creative economic policy can help to unlock Northern Ireland’s full economic potential.

Oral Answers to Questions

Robin Swann Excerpts

Tuesday 23rd June 2026 Commons Chamber

[Rachel Reeves]

When we were in opposition, I promised the biggest wave of insourcing in a generation, and we are now working in government to deliver exactly that. The Government Property Agency contract that expires in 2028 will come back in house, so people working at around 40 locations across government in London and around the country will find that instead of being employed by an outsourcing company, they will be employed directly by the Government. They will have the same terms and conditions as other civil servants, making a huge difference to them and their families.

[Robin Swann (South Antrim) (UUP)]

In an earlier answer, the Minister ruled out a VAT reduction for hospitality businesses across the United Kingdom. Will he at least meet me, Hospitality Ulster and the Northern Ireland Food to Go Association to discuss the concept of a Northern Ireland-specific pilot?

[Dan Tomlinson]

I would of course meet the hon. Member.

Clause 1

Robin Swann Excerpts

Monday 12th January 2026 Commons Chamber

[Dan Tomlinson]

Conservative Members keep repeating, “14 months”. I should use that as an opportunity to remind people of the 14 wasted years that their party put farmers and rural communities through; of the trade deals that they implemented, which made life worse for our farmers and farming communities; and of the hundreds of millions of pounds that went underspent in the farming budgets over 14 years, and which could have benefited rural communities and farmers. 

After continued engagement from Ministers across the Government, including in the Treasury and the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, as well as the Prime Minister’s engagement with important representatives in this space, the Government made a change—the change that the Government amendments will enable this Committee to legislate for, if it wishes, and I do hope it does. This change will strengthen the public purse by around £300 million.

[Robin Swann (South Antrim) (UUP)]

I want to take the Minister back to his earlier commitment on Scotland. Will the Government give the same commitment to farmers in Northern Ireland? We have a very different family farm structure from that in the rest of the United Kingdom, and the engagement of and representations by the Ulster Farmers’ Union and the Young Farmers’ Clubs of Ulster should bring this Government to a realisation that their last proposals did not sit well with farmers across this United Kingdom.

[Dan Tomlinson]

A few weeks back, I had the pleasure of attending a Westminster Hall debate focused on farming and farmers in Northern Ireland. It was a good, productive debate, and I took away many of the points raised. The hon. Member will know that the Government have made a change to increase the threshold.

--- Later in debate ---

[Carla Lockhart]

I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention. Indeed, 25% will still be hit, including some world-class producers in Northern Ireland. The dairy sector will be hit hardest because of our land values, which I will speak about now.

New clause 7 seeks to address a glaring omission in the Government’s approach: the failure to index-link or uprate the APR allowance. Agricultural land values have risen sharply over many years. In recent months, land in my constituency of Upper Bann was sold for £32,000 per acre, demonstrating the value of land in Northern Ireland and the impact that this Bill will have on our farms. Those land values do not arise from the effort of the farmer, and farm incomes have not kept pace. A static threshold in a rising land market guarantees that more and more family farms will be dragged into the inheritance tax net year after year. Index-linking is not radical; it is common sense—something that this Government appear to be lacking.

In the same spirit, I also want to highlight amendment 43, which would retain 100% business property relief where a property has been owned for at least 10 years as part of a genuine, actively operated family business. It recognises long-term stewardship and intergenerational responsibility, and it draws a clear distinction between established family enterprises and short-term or speculative ownership. If the Government’s aim is—as they have stated—to target avoidance rather than to punish genuine businesses, then this amendment deserves serious consideration.

There is a profound unfairness at the heart of this policy, which the Government have yet to explain or justify. A single farmer receives a £2.5 million threshold, while a married couple can pass on £5 million free of inheritance tax. Two identical farms of identical value can face vastly different tax outcomes purely on the basis of their ownership structure.

[Robin Swann]

That is an important point, and one that the Minister needs to clarify. The Government’s online advice actually says that it is not simply a married couple or those in a civil partnership; it says:

“Two people (such as siblings) who jointly own a farm will be able to pass on a farm up to £5.65 million tax free.”

The Government have to provide clarity on that.

Agricultural Property Relief and Business Property Relief

Robin Swann Excerpts

Monday 5th January 2026 Commons Chamber

[Dan Tomlinson]

We heard what farmers were saying and that is why we have come forward with the changes we announced last month.

[Robin Swann (South Antrim) (UUP)]

The Ulster Farmers’ Union and the Young Farmers’ Clubs of Ulster made many representations here with regard to the damage that this policy would do to Northern Ireland farms, but there is one specific point I want to ask the Minister about. He has mentioned a number of times the allowance being passed between couples and civil partnerships. Example 2, in his own Government paper, states:

“Two people (such as siblings) who jointly own a farm will be able to pass on a farm up to £5.65 million”

under the allowance. If there is a father and daughter, uncle, aunt, niece and nephew in that partnership, can they pass on that allowance, too—seeing as he is the tax Minister?

[Dan Tomlinson]

They can each pass it on up to £2.5 million to whomever they choose to pass it on to. In the inheritance tax system more broadly, it is the case that the various bands and allowances are only fully transferable between spouses, and this is consistent with that policy. But it would be the case that if a farm was owned, say, by a brother and a sister, the brother could pass up to £2.5 million to whomever he wished and the sister could pass up to £2.5 million to whomever she wished. That is what example 2, which the hon. Gentleman is referring to, gets at.

Family Farming in Northern Ireland

Robin Swann Excerpts

Tuesday 28th October 2025 Westminster Hall

[Carla Lockhart]

Absolutely. It does not take much arithmetic to work out the facts of that scenario.

In a recent joint letter to the Chancellor, signed by all MPs and peers from Northern Ireland, we set out a clear position:

“Agriculture is not simply an economic sector; it is a way of life. The removal or restriction of Agricultural Property Relief will place an unfair and unsustainable burden on family farms, jeopardising their ability to pass on their farms to the next generation and threatening the future of family farming.”

Those are not my words alone. They are the voices of rural Northern Ireland, speaking in unison in the House today.

[Robin Swann (South Antrim) (UUP)]

I congratulate the hon. Member on securing a debate that focuses specifically on Northern Ireland. Does she agree that what the Treasury and the Government have missed in the proposal is the unique nature of farms in Northern Ireland, where 99% are actually family owned? Even that promise of the opportunity to spread the tax bill over 10 years restricts families who want to invest in their farms, and puts pressure on not only the older generation who are concerned about the farm they are leaving, but the younger generation who are looking to the future.

[Carla Lockhart]

I agree with the hon. Member.

According to an estimate from the Department of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs in Northern Ireland, the policy will impact a third of all farms and three quarters of dairy farms. Think about that for a moment. Three quarters of our dairy farms—the heart of our agrifood export industry—could be hit by a tax change that would make succession financially impossible.

The knock-on effects will be vast. Meat factories will face reduced throughput and rising costs, forcing scale-back and possibly relocation. Feed and supply companies will see demand collapse, threatening jobs and investment. It is not just farms that will be hit, and this is not a matter of large estates or wealthy landowners. The average Northern Ireland farm is about 40 hectares. Land values in some counties, including my own, are in excess of £30,000 per acre. It does not take much arithmetic to see that many modest family farms would easily surpass the £1 million threshold.

Spending Review 2025

Robin Swann Excerpts

Wednesday 11th June 2025 Commons Chamber

[Rachel Reeves]

The work that this Labour Government are doing will reduce inequality. We are giving a pay rise to millions of workers and creating defence jobs that pay a decent wage, and GB Energy will be headquartered in Scotland. Today I have been able to announce additional investment in the seafront in my hon. Friend’s constituency, which will bring economic benefits.

[Robin Swann (South Antrim) (UUP)]

An NHS fit for the future—I congratulate the Chancellor and the Health Secretary on the investment in the health service in England. Given the money that has been allocated to Northern Ireland, will the Chancellor encourage the Executive to provide the same investment in the health service in Northern Ireland? The Executive have been working with single-year budgets since 2016. Does the Chancellor agree that this SR allows them to set a multi-year, recurrent budget that allows the transformation of health services and other public services in Northern Ireland?

[Rachel Reeves]

The hon. Gentleman makes a really important point. What we did today was not just set out money for next year; we have set out money for day-to-day spending for the next three years, and for capital spending for the next five years. Wherever people are in the UK, it is vital that local councils, the devolved Administrations and community groups can plan for the future with confidence. That is what we have done with this spending review, and I urge the devolved Administrations to do similar and make multi-year settlements in order to give certainty for the future.

Regional Growth

Robin Swann Excerpts

Wednesday 4th June 2025 Commons Chamber

[Darren Jones]

I thank my hon. Friend for campaigning for his constituency and for welcoming this historic funding of £2.4 billion today for the west midlands. He asked me about future projects. The good news is that the Mayor of the West Midlands has not spent all of this money yet, so there is definitely potential for lobbying him on how he might wish to spend the rest of that money in due course, and if there is anything I can do to help, I will be glad to do so.

[Robin Swann (South Antrim) (UUP)]

The statement says that stronger transport links are crucial, and the Department for Transport has already paid, through the Union connectivity fund, for a feasibility study on the reopening of the Lisburn-Antrim rail line, which would connect to Belfast International airport in my constituency. Unfortunately, they have already told me that they cannot allocate funding until the next spending review is announced, so they have beaten the Chief Secretary to that answer. Given that the £15.6 billion that has been allocated today roughly equates to £450 million as a Barnett consequential, would he agree that investment in that Lisburn-Antrim-Belfast International line would be a good investment in Northern Ireland railways?

[Darren Jones]

The hon. Member rightly alludes to the fact that because the Labour Government are increasing investment here in Westminster for the whole country, the nations of Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland benefit, both through Barnett and direct spending from this Government, to make sure we are investing in every nation and region of the country. We have already seen significant amounts of funding—I think the highest level of funding since devolution began—into Northern Ireland, as well as Scotland and Wales, and further details will be published next week at the spending review.

Spring Statement

Robin Swann Excerpts

Wednesday 26th March 2025 Commons Chamber

[Rachel Reeves]

Just two week ago, I was able to announce £2 billion extra for UK Export Finance specifically to help defence companies in the UK to export. As countries around the world, particularly in Europe, increase defence spending, I want to ensure that we get those contracts here in Britain to support our proud defence industry, including in places such as Livingston and Rosyth, where I met Babcock just a couple of weeks ago.

[Robin Swann (South Antrim) (UUP)]

The Chancellor’s statement referred to people who were listening. The president of the Ulster Farmers Union was in the Public Gallery to hear her statement, which did not reference agriculture or farming at all. It talked about the country’s security and safety, but there was nothing on food safety. It spoke of not writing off a generation of young people, but her family farm tax will write off a generation of young farmers. What confidence can she give our agricultural sector?

[Rachel Reeves]

With specific reference to agricultural property relief, people will not pay extra tax unless they have a farm worth around £3 million. More than two thirds of farms are not affected at all by the changes in that relief. For those who do pay the tax, it is at half the rate that anybody else pays, and they can pay it, interest-free, over a period of 10 years. That is very different from the inheritance tax bills that anybody else pays.

Inheritance Tax Relief: Farms

Robin Swann Excerpts

Monday 10th February 2025 Westminster Hall

[Robin Swann (South Antrim) (UUP)]

The Government have said they are listening. I also hope they hear the tractors and farmers from across this country outside this building today. They are showing their disgust at this proposal.

I want to bring the Northern Ireland angle to this debate. Some 150,000 petitioners signed the petition. I had the pleasure of presenting a similar petition, on behalf of the Ulster Farmers’ Union, signed by 15,000 people from Northern Ireland who oppose the Government’s proposal, which will decimate the Northern Ireland family farm and family farming industry. Because of the structure and size of our family farms, it will hit us disproportionately compared with the rest of the United Kingdom.

This is where the Treasury’s figures do not match up with those of the Northern Ireland Department of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs, or the Northern Ireland Rural Valuers’ Association. We have recently had bare agricultural land sell for £28,000 per acre. I want to emphasise that that is per acre because, when this proposal was first made, some in the Treasury got acres and hectares mixed up. That price of land starts to put the bare minimum small family farm in the scope of this financial grab, which will see the end of what generations of farmers have built up.

Figures from our own Department, DAERA, show that 80% of Northern Ireland’s total farmland, 90% of its dairy industry and 70% of its beef and sheep farming will fall within this scope, so when it comes to the wrecking that this proposed financial tax-grab will do to Northern Ireland farmers, as well as farmers across the United Kingdom, this Government have not fully listened to what has come out of DAERA or DEFRA here. It is, as a Member said earlier, simply a Treasury grab at a balance. It looks at a spreadsheet, but does not have a true understanding of the impact that this will have on families and generations across our country, so I ask the Government and the Minister to engage—and to make sure that the Treasury engages—with the farm unions across this nation, because they do not fully grasp the impact that this will have.

National Insurance Contributions (Secondary Class 1 Contributions) Bill

Robin Swann Excerpts

Committee of the whole House
Tuesday 17th December 2024 Commons Chamber

[Pippa Heylings]

I agree with the hon. Member. I know that the Government are in conversation with GPs, but GPs are writing to us saying that they are seriously concerned.

The GP in Harston said:

“GPs cannot raise prices or operate at a loss.”

They have not had clarification or confirmation from the Government about how funding that is to be given to others in the public sector will be available to them. Just at the critical time when GPs are coming to their annual spending reviews and budgeting, the Government are bringing them this uncertainty. GPs do not feel that they are getting the right messaging or any kind of clarity that will save people’s jobs.

[Robin Swann (South Antrim) (UUP)]

I thank the hon. Member for giving way; she has been generous with her time. Does she realise that this is not just a problem in England, Scotland and Wales? It is a significant problem in Northern Ireland, where we have already seen a high number of GP practices returning their contracts. At this time when the solution was meant to be to move to multidisciplinary teams, the increase in national insurance contributions for GPs as employers is putting additional stress on their contracts, given the amount of money they are receiving from central Government. In Northern Ireland, 75% of our domiciliary care and home care is provided by private suppliers, and this additional cost will be added to them as well.

[Pippa Heylings]

I agree with the hon. Member. In my constituency of South Cambridgeshire, we had the tragic situation of four much-loved, much-respected family doctors handing back their contracts. It happened at East Barnwell surgery, to the distress of those GPs and all their patients. That is because of the contract, and due to failures by the previous Conservative Government to understand in the GP funding formula what deprivation as well as age demographics mean in that contract. On top of that, the hikes in employer national insurance contributions have driven them over the edge.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Chairman]

I know that colleagues read about how we manage the Chamber, so they will know that I cannot put speaking limits on individuals contributing in Committee of the whole House. However, if the last two Members speak for around five minutes each, the Minister will have time to respond before we have to conclude business, so please be mindful of that.

[Robin Swann (South Antrim) (UUP)]

I will shorten my speech on your guidance, Ms Ghani. I encourage all Members of the House to follow the example of the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Adam Jogee) and sign up to the Antrim Guardian—a very good local publication from my constituency that carries good articles.

I rise to come back to the topic of the debate, employers’ national insurance contributions, because we have covered many subjects this afternoon. I support the amendments that look to alleviate the punishing implementation of, and increases to, employers’ NICs, especially for our family health service and social care providers. Unlike other speakers on the Opposition Benches who have looked to blame the Government for the increases, I do not think the Government are to blame. I think this is more about the Treasury than the whole Government.

I want to pick up on a point raised, I think, by the hon. Member for Isle of Wight East (Joe Robertson). I have a lot of respect and sympathy for the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, the right hon. Member for Ilford North (Wes Streeting). When he announced his 10-year plan for the national health service, there were three main platforms: to move from analogue to digital, to move from sickness to prevention, and to move from hospital to community. The increases to NICs for community-based health providers will put many of those services at risk and under pressure. This is where there is a disconnect between what the Government are trying to do and what they are actually going to do and achieve. I think that was the point described by the right hon. Member for Beverley and Holderness (Graham Stuart). If we put the additional charges on our GPs, community pharmacies, opticians, domiciliary care providers and social care providers, that will come back, in a circular route, in how we fund our health service.

On the specifics for Northern Ireland, we are looking to transform and modernise a health service that has been largely underfunded and under pressure for quite a number of years, and trying to exist on single-year budgets since 2016. We are doing that by introducing multidisciplinary teams, where a general practice has a psychologist and a social worker all within its practice. General practices are asking for that to be extended across Northern Ireland, but the increase in ENICs will increase wage bills and pressures on the pharmacies and general practices that have already taken that step.

The right hon. Member for Beverley and Holderness also made a point about the introduction of social care within the health service. We already have that in Northern Ireland, and 75% of the provision is done by the private sector. One thing this House needs to address, especially those on the Labour Benches, is that when we talk about private provision, they are not organisations making massive amounts of money. In my constituency they are often family-run social care practices that look after two or three homes. Nearly all nursing and residential care homes are privately owned too.

[Josh Fenton-Glynn (Calder Valley) (Lab)]

The hon. Gentleman makes an important point about the problems in the social care market. However—this is a point I have made before—a lot of that is owing to the fact that nothing has been done since Andrew Dilnot’s report in 2011. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman could point to where he has spoken out about that in the past.

[Robin Swann]

When I was Minister of Health in Northern Ireland—for four years—I looked to the Dilnot report, and I tried to introduce parts of it there because of the differential that exists: in our system, health and social care services are the overall responsibility of the Department of Health. I know what point the hon. Member may have been trying to make, but I think he failed to make it directly in that intervention. The impact of not only the Dilnot recommendations but the introduction of employers’ national insurance contributions on those services would actually run counter to anything that Dilnot was recommending, because he was talking about a funded, integral part of domiciliary care as part of the health service, which we already have, but that would put pressure on our health services at the moment.