Civil Service Pension Scheme

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Tuesday 15th September 2026 Westminster Hall

[Ian Byrne]

That excellent point is well made, and I will raise it in my speech.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

The civil service pension scheme is not delivering for the people who have put faith in their hard-earned income, as the hon. Gentleman said. When Capita took on the scheme, it was already facing a backlog of cases and was likely ill-equipped for the task. Serious questions must be asked about whether a sufficiently thorough assessment of Capita’s capability to take on such an important responsibility was undertaken before this transfer occurred. Should its capability to do the job it was tasked with not have been ascertained?

[Ian Byrne]

A point well made.

James Burke works for the Department for Work and Pensions in the Child Maintenance Service. James entered partial retirement, reducing his working week salary by about 20%, with his pension intended to replace the lost income and provide a lump sum. Neither has arrived. With his mortgage due for repayment on 30 July, his borrowing increased and his provider told him it could not offer a new product. James made nine calls to the helpline, sometimes waiting around two hours. He was promised resolution, then told payment was imminent before being informed that no timescale could be provided.

Oral Answers to Questions

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Thursday 10th September 2026 Commons Chamber

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

When it comes to lobbying, Northern Ireland has a peculiar circumstance where one party can be involved in politics in Northern Ireland and at the same time be involved in politics in the Republic of Ireland. When it comes to the accountability that the hon. Member for Kensington and Bayswater (Joe Powell) is calling for, can the Minister assure us in this House and in Northern Ireland that the rules that apply here will apply equally in Northern Ireland, including to those political parties that traverse the border between the north and the south?

[Mark Ferguson]

It would not be a first outing at the Dispatch Box without a contribution from the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), so I welcome his question. We will, of course, consider that in the response to the EIC.

EU Membership Referendum: Impact on the UK

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Wednesday 2nd September 2026 Westminster Hall

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Butler. I thank the hon. Gentleman for Perth and Kinross-shire (Pete Wishart) for securing this debate. He and I know that we will not agree on this subject, but we are good friends and Gaelic cousins. I appreciate his point of view; my point of view will be very different.

Ten years ago, the people of the United Kingdom made a historic sovereign decision to leave the European Union. They voted to take back control of our laws, borders and cash, but as a proud Unionist and staunch Brexiteer, I stand here to declare that the impact of the referendum is uncertain because the job is not yet finished. There is still work to be done.

I will outline some of the issues in Northern Ireland. The Windsor framework does not fix the problem; it institutionalises it. It leaves a border in the Irish sea, dividing us from our biggest market and tearing at the economic and constitutional fabric of our country. How can we say we have fully left the EU when Northern Ireland is still subject to laws that it has no say in making and that are judged by a foreign court? How can we say that we have taken back control when our hard-working farmers face losing half their vital veterinary medicines simply because Brussels dictates what can and cannot cross the Irish sea? That is a fundamental denial of democracy.

How can we talk about the result of the vote when it is a constitutional outrage that our own Government’s ability to support British businesses in Northern Ireland is legally handcuffed by European competition courts through a ban on state aid? How can we talk about the vote and the UK when every time a consumer in my Strangford constituency picks up a pint of milk stamped with “Not for the EU” they are looking at a badge of foreign interference in our internal UK market?

True Brexit means Brexit for the whole of the United Kingdom, not just for the mainland of Great Britain. We have been trapped in a dynamic alignment. If the mainland innovates and cuts red tape, Northern Ireland is legally forbidden from joining them because we are chained to the EU customs code. That is not the best of both worlds; it is economic partition.

[Mr Gregory Campbell]

Does my hon. Friend agree that a classic example of that, which we had some time ago, was when companies selling plants and seeds in Great Britain could not supply them to Northern Ireland, but people could buy them here and take them over on a plane? That was all down to the Windsor framework and the subsequent hash that Governments have made of the Brexit vote.

[Jim Shannon]

I absolutely agree. I was going to come on to that issue, but he has done it for me so I will leave it at that.

The hon. Member for Perth and Kinross-shire is a friend of mine, but we fundamentally cannot agree on this issue. I believe in accepting a democratic vote, not ignoring it. When we believe that we know better than the people, it is no longer a democracy; it is a dictatorship. Hon. Members are allowed to hate that result, but they are not allowed to overrule it without due process. We need to finish the job that the people voted for in 2016. That means removing the Windsor framework, stripping away the remaining vestiges of EU interference and fully restoring the internal market of the United Kingdom.

We must solidify our precious Union. We are undeniably stronger together; I am sure my friends in the SNP and Plaid Cymru will take note of that. Our economic, cultural and political bonds are what makes this nation great. Our focus must be on strengthening the ties between Belfast, Edinburgh, Cardiff and London, not managing an artificial barrier forced on us by Brussels. Let us stand firm, deliver on the full promise of 2016 and secure a truly United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland for generations to come. We are always better together.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Bernard Jenkin (Harwich and North Essex) (Con)]

As a rather lone voice in this debate, I do not complain that it is not going to be a balanced debate, but somebody has to make the case.

[Jim Shannon]

There are four of us.

[Sir Bernard Jenkin]

Indeed, there are a few of us, but what we are hearing is a group of aggrieved remain supporters who have never come to terms with their grief and remain ideologically committed to rejoining. To anybody who wants to have another referendum, I do not say, “Bring it on,” because that is the last thing the public want, but I say that we would win again. When it comes down to the crunch, the British public do not want to hand back control of our laws to the European Union, and all the polls show that. If we ask them in a poll, “Do you want Westminster or Brussels to control farming policy?”, or whatever policy it is, people always vote for Westminster to maintain control.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Minister for Intergovernmental Relations and European Relations (Mr Hamish Falconer)]

It is an honour to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Butler. I extend gratitude to the hon. Member for Perth and Kinross-shire (Pete Wishart) for providing a rich opportunity on our second day back. Much history has been discussed: two referendums and what should have been in our manifesto. I was disappointed to see colleagues from the right unwilling to enter into greater detail of the debate about Maastricht and John Major. I must confess that I suspect our constituents are slightly less interested in going through the entrails of the history. It is important to focus on the future.

I will quickly say three things about my overall position regarding the negotiations to come. I will also try to answer some of the specifics raised. Some hon. Members may wish to intervene, which they are welcome to do, but I will try to cover a little ground initially. First, I want to pay an enormous tribute to my predecessor, who did incredibly important work in resetting our relationship with the European Union. In the spirit of unity, I will resist the temptation to respond to the accusation from the hon. Member for Kingswinford and South Staffordshire (Mike Wood) that I am providing “a masterclass in the art of the bad deal.” My predecessor faced a true masterclass of a bad deal left to him by the previous Government, and he did incredible work on a reset.

I want to be clear on three points. First, I want to go even further and faster than my predecessor. There is great urgency to address the shortcomings in our arrangements. Secondly, there are challenges facing Europe of security, defence and the economy. I discussed those challenges with my European counterparts in Austria this week. Thirdly, Britain is part of Europe. We are Europeans. European security is British security. We must be a close partner with our European friends in dealing with shared challenges.

[Jim Shannon]

First of all I thank the Minister, who always tries to answer our questions. In my contribution, which was specific to Northern Ireland, I asked him whether he had had an opportunity to consider the issues and the impact of the Windsor framework on Northern Ireland and how it affects our trading with the United Kingdom and Europe. Also, I thank him for coming back from his honeymoon to his new position.

[Mr Falconer]

I am glad that someone is grateful for my coming back, and I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman’s courteous tone. Of course, the Windsor framework is important. As he and many people across this House know, it is an incredibly complex arrangement that seeks to preserve the delicate balance in Northern Ireland. I have heard comments from all sides of the debate. I look forward to visiting Northern Ireland soon. It is vital that the people of Northern Ireland get the benefits of both. I understand the criticisms that he made during his remarks, but at the moment it is the one part of the UK that benefits from both, and I want to see that benefit maximised to the absolute fullest.

I was saying a little about European challenges. As the Prime Minister was clear yesterday, there are challenges for our economy, as there are for other European economies—I discussed that during my time in Austria, and the Foreign Secretary will discuss it with his counterparts. There are of course real conversations to be had with our European friends on the whole range of issues that have been discussed.

I want to confirm a few things. First, to colleagues who spoke up for their farmers, I understand the pressures on British farmers. I understand the support that I have heard this morning for concluding an SPS deal. I intend to do so with British farmers’ interests at its very heart. I heard some of the specifics, including the barriers and costs that have accrued when seeking to export. I do not like to disagree with my hon. Friend the Member for Stourbridge (Cat Eccles), but there was a suggestion that sausages were not the most important thing. As a Lincolnshire MP, I would like to say that they are, and their easy export is a priority for me and would benefit not just Lincolnshire and Europe, but the whole of the UK.

I also heard the other important points that were made. I will again try to strike a brief moment of unity with the Opposition: we have great strengths in services. Many European firms look to the UK for those strengths. It is a shame that those arrangements and services remain as immature as they are. That was a frustration before 2016 and it remains a frustration afterwards. It is in the whole of Europe’s interest to free up the services trade within Europe. I discussed that with my counterparts just this week.

Rewiring the State

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Wednesday 2nd September 2026 Commons Chamber

[Louise Haigh]

The Prime Minister has been clear that we do not want to impose anything centrally on areas that do not want to combine areas. I am sure that we can facilitate a meeting or discussion in No. 10 North to ensure that we get the right authority, powers and resources for the hon. Gentleman’s area.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I welcome the First Secretary to her new role and wish her well. The hon. Lady’s appointment comes at a critical time for the United Kingdom. She will know that the fundamental pillar of our Union is fairness, and right now the funding model for Northern Ireland is anything but fair. The current Barnett consequential framework is fundamentally broken. It fails to account for the unique, severe and acute objective needs of our public services, health sector and infrastructure in Northern Ireland. Does the hon. Lady, as the Minister for the Cabinet Office and co-ordinator of Government policy, agree that rewiring the funding formula must be treated as a priority cross-Cabinet issue, and will she commit to working across the Treasury and the Northern Ireland Office to replace the outdated mechanism with a needs-based funding floor?

[Louise Haigh]

As the Prime Minister said in Prime Minister’s questions earlier, the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland has opened a negotiation process with Stormont to look at funding and the funding pressures that have emerged. Fundamental to that negotiation will be reform of the decisions that Stormont makes and the way that the Executive have made decisions historically, which has repeatedly led to funding pressures. We need to ensure that these negotiations result in true reform, so we do not end up in this position again.

Oral Answers to Questions

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Wednesday 2nd September 2026 Commons Chamber

[Stephen Kinnock]

I agree with my hon. Friend that co-operation between the UK and Welsh Governments is essential for addressing child poverty in Wales. The UK Government worked closely with the previous Welsh Labour Government on the design of the child poverty strategy, which will lift 550,000 children out of poverty across the UK by 2030, delivering the largest expected reduction in child poverty since records began.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

The Secretary of State is right to recognise the reduction of child poverty in Wales, but of course the Government here took the decision to reduce child poverty not just in Wales but in Scotland, England and Northern Ireland as well. Does he agree that when it comes to recognising the good work the Government have done in reducing child poverty, the whole House should come together and say thank you to the Labour party for doing that, taking 60,000 families out of poverty in Northern Ireland?

[Stephen Kinnock]

I absolutely agree with the sentiment of the hon. Member’s question. Let us look at what the Welsh Labour Government delivered: breakfast clubs offering free, healthy breakfasts for children in primary schools; baby bundles; more than 50 million meals served since the introduction of universal primary free school meals; an expanded childcare offer; free prescriptions; and hospital parking to help with family finances. That is the difference a Labour Government make.

Sovereign Grant

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Tuesday 1st September 2026 Commons Chamber

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I thank the Minister for his introduction, and for setting the scene for the motion. Clarification is needed, and the Minister has provided that in a way that I think is transparent. The nation needs to know as well.

Do the Minister and this House agree that although we must always ensure absolute value for money for every single taxpayer in my constituency and right across the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, the monarchy provides an immeasurable service, stability and global prestige that far outweighs the costs?

Looking at the figures, we see that the Treasury is rightly acting to reduce the overall sovereign grant to £99.9 million for the 2027-28 financial year. Will the Minister acknowledge that that demonstrates a clear commitment from the palace to be transparent and to tighten its belt alongside the public, and that it will ensure that the continuous maintenance of our historic national heritage can continue?

Fraud Strategy 2026-29

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Tuesday 7th July 2026 Westminster Hall

[Adam Dance]

They are good things and I will come on to them later, but we do need more support for vulnerable adults and young people—something I will also come on to.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

We need to get a balance. I spoke to the hon. Gentleman beforehand, and we must be incredibly careful not to let the state overreach in the process. Does he agree that a law-abiding citizen should be able to walk into their local bank and spend, withdraw or transfer their own hard-earned money without being treated like a criminal suspect? We must ensure that the fraud strategy does not become a nanny-state charter that forces ordinary people to prove to a bank clerk why they want to spend their own money.

[Adam Dance]

I agree with some of what the hon. Gentleman said, and I will come on to talk about why banks should have more face-to-face contact with people instead of sending them online.

It is even simple, little things. One constituent was scammed into paying a clean air zone charge, which does not exist, because it popped up on a sponsored page on Google. Another agreed to send Amazon vouchers to their elderly mother, but they actually sent them to a scammer.

In April, in response to this problem, the Government came forward with the 2026 to 2029 fraud strategy. They have committed £250 million to the plan over the next three years. There is a lot to welcome in the strategy, particularly the establishment of the fraud victims charter and the new Report Fraud scheme to replace Action Fraud, which was totally useless.

Historical Forced Adoption

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Thursday 2nd July 2026 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

I thank my hon. Friend for raising that. I think it is really important that we learn those lessons and draw where we can on the examples of other apologies and the legacy. He is absolutely right to highlight the fact that there is not just the initial injustice; there are all the further injustices at almost every twist and turn—those who were adopted being told when they try to find their parents, “It wouldn’t be good for your mother if you tried to find her,” or that they cannot have access to their own records, which would have helped with their identity and sense of worth. All of these injustices build on the initial injustice, and they are not all so historical, either; some of them are much more contemporary. If we are really going to deal with this, we have to recognise that with our eyes wide open.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I thank the Prime Minister for his statement, for his very careful and softly spoken words and for the apology. An apology, while vital for healing, is only a first step; it must be followed by tangible, compassionate action. We owe the survivors nothing less than the total truth and structural redress, as well as our compassion for a lifetime of sometimes feeling unloved and unwanted, when that could not be further from the truth. We cannot give their years or their relationships back, but we can be honest and step up. What concrete steps are being taken to guarantee streamlined, free access to original birth records? What co-operation is there with the Northern Ireland Assembly and the other devolved Administrations to ensure that survivors across the entirety of the United Kingdom can and will receive the same standard of tracing services and therapeutic support?

[The Prime Minister]

The hon. Member is absolutely right: there has to be tangible action, and it has to be streamlined, as he described. We need to work with the devolved Administrations. What we cannot do now is add a further injustice to all the injustices we have been describing, by doing anything that makes it harder from hereon in for people to get the support and information they need. We need to action what we are saying today, and we will do so.

MPs’ Second Jobs: Prohibition

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Wednesday 1st July 2026 Westminster Hall

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Western. I thank the hon. Member for Leeds East (Richard Burgon), who often brings forward subjects that are close to all of our hearts. I would like to share some personal experience, and I think other Members will want to do the same. This is an important and complex issue that depends greatly on context. While I agree with what he and others have said, he mentioned some things in his speech that honestly concern me greatly, and I would gently say that we should look at individual cases.

As the Member of Parliament for Strangford since 2010, I am deeply committed to serving my constituents to the best of my ability. I believe that to deliver for my constituents is my priority in this place. When I became an MP in 2010, I decided that the best way for me to fulfil that responsibility was to give up my other jobs. I am not better than anybody else—

[Matt Western (in the Chair)]

Order. Can I ask the hon. Gentleman to speak a little bit more loudly? We seem to be having a few issues with the audio today.

[Jim Shannon]

I have moved the mic a bit closer, so hopefully that will catch my words. When I became an MP in 2010, I was also a councillor; I served on Ards borough council for 26 years. I was also a Member of the Legislative Assembly for 12 years. I would have loved to stay on as a councillor, because I loved the work and that was where my heart was, but I realised that that was not going to happen. I would not be able to jump on a plane and come across to Westminster and be home in time for a meeting that night. Looking at the physical practicalities of it all, I resigned from both of those positions. I did hold all three for two months, but that was during the summer months when there were fewer meetings. I also had my own business, which I started in 1985. I gifted that business to my son. Personally speaking, this is now my one job, and it is all I can do if I want to give it my best shot and do the best I can. None the less, I do not believe that all Members should automatically be required to give up outside employment if it has no impact on their ability to do their job here.

Members should be permitted to consider carefully whether any additional role could compromise their ability to carry out effectively their duties as an MP. Are they being lobbied by certain groups? I say this respectfully and kindly, because I have no evidence to prove anything and therefore I will not say anything more specific; that would be wrong, but I hope that having other jobs would not unnecessarily influence a Member’s capability to do the job that they are committed to here.

[Mr Gregory Campbell]

On the issue of any complexity adversely affecting a Member’s ability in the House, does my hon. Friend agree that while we all should be open and transparent and the register should be kept up to date, as the mover of the motion said, the final arbiter on all these issues has to be the voters? When the voters decide that a small number of MPs may be getting extraordinarily large, unacceptably large, sums of money, they decide at the election that they do not want that and they replace them with someone else.

[Jim Shannon]

Yes. Ultimately, our electorate makes that decision. That applies in any sphere and to any action that an MP may carry out. I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention.

In my view, a complete restriction on second jobs would be an unfair limitation on Members. What do I mean by that? I agree with almost 99.9% of what the hon. Member for Leeds East said; I just think that sometimes we need to look at the thing in a bigger way. I fully recognise that outside interests must be strictly regulated. There must be conditions; there has to be a declaration of all interests, and that has to be transparent. Wherever the things are, there must be an explanation, and it must fall within the rules of the House. Any changes made to the rules set by the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority and the House of Commons code of conduct should provide clear guidance for Members and constituents alike.

Many Members bring to the House valuable professional experience and expertise from outside interests. They bring knowledge. We all do that from our walks of life—individually, from the people we have represented over the years or perhaps just from the social circle that we move in. Maintaining links with professions when it is appropriate to do so has the potential to strengthen the quality of parliamentary debates, improve the scrutiny of legislation and ensure that Members remain connected to the experiences and challenges faced by people outside our offices and Westminster. That is the very thing that the hon. Member for Leeds East referred to—those experiences, and those interactions with our constituents.

On a personal note, my job and my business was selling bacon and sausage. I sold everything in the pig except for the squeak, and that is a fact, and it reared my family. It kept my wife at home to look after the children. We got a good holiday every year, and it paid the mortgage. We did well out of it, but way back when I was doing that—I have to cast my mind back—I was up at 5 am, went home and showered and was in the office for 9. My employee would carry on the run for the rest of the day. In all those years I was in the Assembly, we did that, but when I was elected to Westminster, I recognised that that was just never going to happen, so I gifted the business to my son. It was no longer a matter of nipping home after the run. I could not just nip home and go from Newtownards to London. It would be impossible to do the job well. I was able to do both back then, but I could never do that again; it just cannot happen. My duty was and should always be to my Strangford constituents. That is how it must be, and how it has been since 2010.

Members are ultimately elected in service of the public. Maintaining public confidence is of the utmost importance. The hon. Member for Leeds East referred to confidence, and I also think that is a critical factor. Transparency and accountability are two issues that must be at the heart of any reforms, but I think that public confidence may be the key issue. Constituents should have confidence that Members’ outside interests do not interfere with their primary responsibilities of representation in this place.

I want to also underline the fact that we pay Sinn Féin MPs to not take their seats here and carry out their most basic functions. If we are to change anything, perhaps it should be their eligibility for election.

I believe that those who can easily carry out a few hours of work must be able to do so, in so far as they still perform their roles in this House. I always think of that old adage, “If you want something done, give it to a busy person.” Perhaps we should allow Members to strike that balance. I have tried to strike that balance. I try to live my life in such a way that I practise what I preach. I can only do the one job; I cannot do any more, and I recognise that. Although I agree with 99.9% of what the hon. Member for Leeds East said, I do think it is better that Members should make their own choice.

[Matt Western (in the Chair)]

With immediate effect, I ask Members to keep their speeches to around five minutes.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Ellie Chowns (North Herefordshire) (Green)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Western. I thank the hon. Member for Leeds East (Richard Burgon) for securing this very important debate.

Serving as a Member of Parliament is a huge honour and a privilege. It is more than a full-time job—and it should be, because it is a job that is about public service. That should be the only reason that anybody puts themselves forward for election to this place, and it should be the only reason that anybody has the privilege of serving in this place. One hundred per cent of our available time, energy and skill should be focused on serving our constituents—that and absolutely nothing else. It is really very simple: there should be no time available in an MP’s day for doing a second job, still less 16 second jobs. Our constituents’ needs for us to serve and represent them absolutely can fill every moment available, and more.

It is utterly shocking to me that the hon. Member for Clacton (Nigel Farage)—and yes, I notified him that I would be naming him in this debate—has apparently raked in £2 million over his past two years of “service” as a Member of Parliament. Just yesterday we heard that he was paid £270,000 for 12 hours of work. It is frankly obscene—

[Jim Shannon]

Immoral.

[Dr Chowns]

And, indeed, immoral that somebody is earning more in a couple of hours than the average person—well, more than the average person; nurses, teachers and others who dedicate their lives to public service—will in a year. It is extraordinary that in this day and age, this is still allowed. I agree with the hon. Member for Bolton West (Phil Brickell) that it is a hangover from centuries past. It is totally inappropriate for a modern Parliament. One hundred per cent of our time and energy should be focused on serving our constituents.

Why is it that this total anachronism endures and that those who do not have the interests of public service at heart are able to waft about doing all sorts of other things that do not contribute to the public interest whatsoever, but are motivated solely by what is simply personal greed? Let us call a spade a spade. If somebody is doing this sort of “work”, for these sorts of sums, there can be only one motivation: personal enrichment and greed. That has no place in a public servant, still less a public servant who has the honour of serving as one of just 650 MPs in this House, the mother of Parliaments. We must stop it.

I entirely agree with the hon. Member for Leeds East: we need a full ban on second jobs. Yes, we hope that Members will bring outside experience into Parliament, but let us achieve that by electing a far more diverse range of people, from all walks of life, to have the honour of serving here, and let us take steps in our parties to ensure that we do so. But once we are here, 100% of our time, energy and effort should be focused on serving our constituents. Otherwise, there is a total conflict of interest: are we serving ourselves or serving the public? We must be here to serve the public.

I call on the Minister and the next Prime Minister to finally end this outrageous, obscene anachronism. We must not count on the individual conscience of every Member, given that we can clearly see, unfortunately, that a tiny handful do not share a commitment to public service. Let us ensure that the baseline and benchmark is that nobody has a second job, and that everybody who has the honour of being here is 100% focused on serving our constituents.

Oral Answers to Questions

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Wednesday 1st July 2026 Commons Chamber

[Liz Kendall]

My hon. Friend is right that the bias in technology highlights why we need more women building it. We want more women in tech and more tech that works for women. That is exactly why we launched the women in tech taskforce. We will publish the results of its call for evidence next week. We have had a fantastic response, but we are not waiting to take action: we are launching a new tech first girls programme for 12 and 13 year olds, to help advance women’s careers by giving them minimum six- month placements, and we are putting our own house in order by ensuring Government Departments, such as the Ministry of Justice and the Home Office, help software developers return to work after 18 months.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I thank the Minister for her answer to the question put forward by the hon. Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire South (Johanna Baxter). Some companies are already setting aside a number of places—a quota—for ladies for the jobs they hope to introduce women to. Does the Minister think that it is time to set a quota for companies? We recognise some of the good work that companies do, but a quota for places for ladies might persuade many companies to go the extra mile.

[Liz Kendall]

I think the most effective way to get change is to show the results that have been achieved by the women who produce the brilliant science and technology that helps to create innovations and bring in the cash. Women founders of tech companies get only 2p in every £1 in venture capital funding, yet on average they present 35% higher returns. If companies want better science and tech and a better economy, they had better get more women on board.