Finance (No. 2) Bill

Jim Shannon Excerpts

2nd reading
Tuesday 16th December 2025 Commons Chamber

[Alison Taylor (Paisley and Renfrewshire North) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to contribute to this important debate. Members on both sides of the House have eloquently set out their views on the provisions of this Budget. From my own experience of running a small business, I empathise with entrepreneurs working hard to build something, to employ people and to be willing to take on the risk of building a business. In my constituency, as in many others, small businesses are an important part of the local community. Obviously, they provide a source of local employment. They make our high streets into destinations. Many of them lend their expertise to local charitable and social organisations in the community, including local sports teams and volunteer organisations.

Paisley and Renfrewshire North benefits from the generosity of local businesses in lending expertise, making donations or providing sponsorship. This Budget provides a sure foundation for the services that our entrepreneurs need to establish their business. We need a firm foundation of laws, police to enforce them and courts to oversee the process. We need transport infrastructure and public transport by which workers and customers can get to work places or shops and deliveries can be made.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

One of the concerns that probably all of us in this Chamber have, including the hon. Lady, is the squeeze of the middle class and the working class. Many of my constituents have told me—I wonder whether her constituents have also told her—of their concern that that squeeze is going to be felt even more. The people who are paying the most are the working class and the middle class, who cannot afford it.

[Alison Taylor]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his point. We need a balance about fairness, and there are a lot of things in this Budget that will balance things out in the round, including all the investment in infrastructure. In Scotland, and in my constituency, that is really important for driving economic growth.

We need a workforce with the education to produce our goods and services and to drive our business ecosystem forward. This Budget sets a fair balance between taxes and services, a fair balance between benefits and responsibilities, and a fair balance between meeting immediate needs and investing in the future. I know that people are still suffering the hangover from the last Government, and I hope that they will start to really feel the benefits of recovery from this Budget.

Last week I was at the Paisley Christmas market. I expect it is quite like markets up and down the country: a mix of established local businesses and young and family entrepreneurs testing out a business idea, or making Christmas gifts or treats for a little extra income. In 2026 some of those stallholders will grow their businesses locally. Some will be taking steps in wider markets and new products, and my constituency of Paisley and Renfrewshire North is a suitable place to do that. Recently named Scotland’s town of the year, Paisley has a supportive infrastructure for new and growing businesses. New net zero commercial property developments across my constituency are making it one of the most welcoming places in the country to locate or grow a business. This Budget gives them a firm foundation on which to build.

The Budget’s demonstration of the Government’s commitment to fiscal responsibility is keeping borrowing costs down and bringing much-needed stability to the economy. In education, we are focusing on skills and increasing the availability of apprenticeships. We are negotiating exciting trade deals across the world, attracting important new orders for ships to be built on the Clyde and so much more.

I am in no doubt that much more still needs to be done, and I look forward to what my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer and colleagues across Government can achieve in 2026.

OBR: Resignation of Chair

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Wednesday 3rd December 2025 Commons Chamber

[James Murray]

The Government take this matter very seriously indeed and will move urgently to take forward that recommendation of the report, working with the National Cyber Security Centre. Cyber-security is an important matter for the OBR, and indeed for all Government Departments and bodies all year round, but the forecast is especially market sensitive, so it is particularly important to ensure that it is not published prematurely. That is why we take so seriously what happened last week, what seems to have happened in the spring, and what may even have happened at previous fiscal events.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

The OBR’s assessments have an incredible impact on households and businesses in Northern Ireland, and indeed across the whole United Kingdom. Can the Minister please outline what steps will be taken to ensure full transparency around this resignation and to safeguard trust in the OBR’s future work, so that public confidence in our economy is in no way undermined?

[James Murray]

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right to point out the importance of trust, and not just in the economy but in the public finances. In the Government’s view, the OBR’s role is a critical part of that trust. It is because of that role that the OBR plays in our robust and transparent fiscal framework that we take the premature release of this information so seriously and are following up the matters it raises so urgently.

Office for Budget Responsibility Forecasts

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Monday 1st December 2025 Commons Chamber

[James Murray]

Can the hon. Gentleman tell us why he backed Liz Truss for leader?

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

The Chancellor announced that her plans aim to fund public services, avoid austerity and invest for the future, portraying a positive future and spending that seems manageable. Meanwhile, the OBR forecasts that if borrowing increases in the short term, it could have a potential impact on future spending in terms of welfare and debt interest, which could erode the economy. What steps will the Treasury take after the Budget to ensure that, through the Chancellor’s plans, we are not sacrificing long-term stability?

[James Murray]

Long-term stability is at the heart of the fiscal rules that the Chancellor introduced at the Budget last year, which were met at the spring statement earlier this year and were met again at the Budget last week. As many hon. Members have mentioned today, the fact that we are meeting those fiscal rules with far greater headroom—£21.7 billion in this Budget—gives us greater stability, helps to bring down the costs of Government borrowing and protects us from future shocks.

Budget: Press Briefings

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Monday 17th November 2025 Commons Chamber

[James Murray]

The hon. Gentleman will be aware of the Government’s red lines on not rejoining the customs union. I can reassure him that, in approaching this Budget, the Chancellor’s commitment to her fiscal rules will ensure that we prioritise having extra resilience in terms of headroom, reduce inflationary pressures and get the costs of borrowing done.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

Last week, VAT was to increase; this week, it is not. Pensions increases were to feature in the Budget; then they were not. Income tax was to feature; then it was not, and then it was again. The one thing that we are sure of is that retailers faced £7 billion in extra costs from the 2024 Budget, with employers responding by increasing prices and slashing jobs. How are the Government and the Chancellor going to breathe life into our high street and not sound the death knell for struggling small businesses? There is a very real fear that this Budget will bring a different kind of Black Friday for businesses across the UK in the form of closing down sales, which can never be allowed to happen.

[James Murray]

It does not count as me engaging in speculation if I assure the hon. Gentleman that, as we have already preannounced, we will set out our new business rates multipliers at the Budget, with permanently lower business rates for retail, hospitality and leisure businesses, in order to help high streets across the country. That is a really important measure for us to take to support those businesses; more widely, however, it fits within the economic stability that we will provide, which is so important for businesses. That is why, as well as meeting our iron-clad fiscal rules, it is so important that we ensure that the public finances are more resilient, reduce inflationary pressures and get the costs of borrowing down.

Taxes

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Wednesday 12th November 2025 Commons Chamber

[Sir Mel Stride]

I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman would follow up what was not the strongest first question with that.

The Government are naive enough to think that by simply buying people off with no strings attached, the problem would go away. It is like feeding meat to the wolf: when the wolf is fed meat, it will come back to the door the next day, and that is precisely what has happened here. Industrial relations are not improving at the moment. We have various unions in the public sector threatening to strike, including in the NHS, where the hon. Member for St Austell and Newquay (Noah Law) started in his first question.

Where has all this led? It has led to lower growth. No matter how much those on the Front Bench may trumpet increased growth, the reality is that growth per capita—[Interruption.] The hon. Member for Bishop Auckland (Sam Rushworth) says it is the highest in the G7, but our growth per capita is the second lowest in the G7. What matters is growth per capita, because that is what drives an improvement in living standards. [Interruption.] I have more bad news for the hon. Gentleman, who continues to chunter from a sedentary position: the IMF says that growth per capita will deteriorate even further next year and be the lowest in the G7.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I commend the shadow Chancellor and the Conservative party for bringing forward this debate. Is he aware of the stat that the average British family is as much as £15,000 poorer than they were five years ago? The biggest increases have been in energy and food, of course, and while there have been wage increases, all that has been swallowed up by the cost of living. Does the shadow Chancellor share my concern for middle and working-class families, who are worse off now than ever before, including those in my constituency, that any tax increases from the Labour party will push them towards the poverty line? It could mean that some of them will be unable to pay the bills that they are just about paying at the moment.

[Sir Mel Stride]

I agree. Of course, higher taxes are bearing down on living standards, but so is inflation. We have the highest level of inflation in the G7 and are forecast to have the highest in the G7 next year, too. Within that sits food inflation, which is running way above the headline rate of inflation. Who does that impact the most? It impacts the very people that Labour professes to stand up for the strongest: the poorest in our society. It is a direct consequence of the policies pursued by this Chancellor.

Independent Lifeboats: Government Support

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Wednesday 29th October 2025 Westminster Hall

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

It is always a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mrs Harris. I commend and congratulate the hon. Member for Hamble Valley (Paul Holmes) on bringing this debate to Westminster Hall and thereby giving us all a chance to participate.

As the MP for a coastal constituency with a very large length of coast—the name of Strangford is the giveaway and tells the story—I am incredibly familiar with the role of lifeboats and the vital nature of having a well-trained and well-equipped lifeguard in post. We have lifeboat stations dotted throughout the coastline. Indeed, Portaferry—on the Ards peninsula, where I live—has one of seven RNLI lifeboat stations operating a lifeboat funded by viewers of the BBC television programme “Blue Peter”. I am old enough to remember the first “Blue Peter” programme, and it has had a commitment to lifeboats ever since.

In the last 10 years, the lifeboats of the charity’s 10 lifeboat stations in Northern Ireland have launched some 9,500 times. Their volunteers have saved 1,535 lives and come to the aid of thousands of other people. There is so much they have done and so much more they can do. In the last five years, there have been almost 3,000 incidents. The lifeboats have come to the aid of 3,500 people, and 47 lives were saved. If anyone wants a reason for backing this, that is what it is all about—the lives saved and the commitments given. The coastguard operates from Bangor marina, in the neighbouring constituency, but without charitably funded lifeboats, it simply could not handle the need and the load. It is sad that the RNLI really is the last emergency service, yet—I say this very respectfully—the Government pay less than 1% of its funding. I believe that the service deserves more than that.

As well as the RNLI, which I argue is basically independently funded, Northern Ireland has independent lifeboat services, such as Lagan Search and Rescue in Belfast and Lough Neagh Rescue. These services operate on inland waterways and estuaries and are not part of the RNLI, but are part of the focus that the hon. Member for Hamble Valley put forward at the beginning. Other independent groups, such as Foyle Search and Rescue, also provide water rescue services, and many are recognised by the coastguard as declared resources.

Part of our tourism strategy for Strangford is to try to highlight the availability of great family fun on the water, and a lot of that is found on the beautiful waters of Strangford lough, in my constituency. I live just on the edge of it, so I am very privileged to be able to wake up in the morning and look out across the lough. The activities range from paddleboarding to standard sailing and from jet skis to canoes. Anyone who drives around our coastal areas will see people enjoying the lough in all seasons.

However, with all that fun must come safety, and we know how much we rely on the good men and women who volunteer on the lifeboats. The availability of those crews means that we can welcome families to the lough and know that there will be help if the worst happens. That offers great reassurance for me as the MP for the area, but also for those who want to mess about in the water. I think there is a song that goes along those lines. I probably can remember it very well. I can even sing it, but if I sing the rain comes so that would not be a good idea.

The fact of the matter is that the lifeboat service really should be recognised as an emergency service and funded accordingly. Whether we are talking about the coastline in Scotland, England, Wales or beautiful Northern Ireland, as people have less disposable income to give to charities, the need for Government to step up will increase. I am pleased to see the Minister in her place; I wish her well. In her reply, maybe she can indicate what the possibilities are to help lifeboats. There might be some law that prevents it, but she will clarify that when the time comes.

My last comment will be to once again thank every volunteer, past and present, who gave their time and talent to fundraise and co-ordinate fundraising events, every person who so generously gives and every volunteer who gives their time and puts their life on the line to carry out the rescues. There is nothing quite as dramatic as those RNLI lifeboat adverts that come on between the films on a Sunday afternoon. If we need a reason for supporting them, seeing the drama of the rescues that they do will convince people to do that. To them, I say: we could not do without you, and we respect you as we respect all those who serve our communities in emergencies.

Family Farming in Northern Ireland

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Tuesday 28th October 2025 Westminster Hall

[Carla Lockhart (Upper Bann) (DUP)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the impact of agricultural property relief and business property relief on family farming in Northern Ireland.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Efford. I am very grateful for the opportunity to bring forward this debate on an issue that cuts right to the heart of rural Northern Ireland and indeed Britain.

The proposed changes to agricultural property relief and business property relief will have devastating consequences for family farms across our nation. Agriculture is not just another sector in our economy; for Northern Ireland it is our very foundation. It sustains our rural communities, feeds over 10 million people annually, underpins our agrifood industry and provides work for tens of thousands of families. I make no apology for repeating a comment that I have made previously, and that my grandfather tells me every Sunday at the dinner table: if the farmer is not doing well in this country, no one is.

In Northern Ireland we have over 26,000 farms. They form the backbone of our rural life—

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I commend my hon. Friend for that point. She is absolutely right to underline the impact on family farms of the Chancellor’s proposals. In tandem with decisions being made by the Department of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs Minister in Northern Ireland, they will leave many farmers feeling that their generational family farms have no future. My hon. Friend will probably have seen “Countryfile” on Sunday. It highlighted two things for farmers: first, the mental health impact and that there have been suicides; secondly, the generational loss of the farms. If farms are not working, they are not viable, do not produce the food and the impact is great. The Government really need to sit down, take account of where we are and change the decision.

[Carla Lockhart]

I thank my hon. Friend for his consistent voice on this issue. I will come to “Countryfile” later in my speech.

The vast majority of our farms in Northern Ireland are family run, often handed down proudly through several generations. The farm is not just a business: it is a home, a heritage and a legacy. That is why any policy that affects how farms are passed on to the next generation goes to the very core of who we are as rural people. For many families, the dream is simple: to see the next generation take over, work the same land and continue the proud tradition of stewardship. The reality of that dream is now under threat like never before.

Agricultural property relief has existed for a reason. It recognises that farming is asset-rich but cash-poor, or as we would say in Northern Ireland, “We are asset-rich but penny-poor.” A farm may be worth millions on paper, but that value is tied up in land, livestock, machinery, buildings and—most concerningly for many farmers—debt. Farmers spend money and they thrive in advancing. But for what—when they see what this Government are doing to them?

Stamp Duty Land Tax

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Tuesday 28th October 2025 Commons Chamber

[Kit Malthouse]

No, the people best positioned to decide where houses should go are local people. That is why, for many years, I have been a strong proponent of neighbourhood planning. It has been proven time and again that neighbourhood planning produces more houses—15% to 20% more—than other forms of planning, especially local plans. If we get the design right and put power in the hands of local people, they will very often make the right choices, not just for their community but for the next generation.

A point that the shadow Chancellor has made powerfully is that we should recognise that a gummed-up housing market, which is currently stagnating, suppresses the renovation and construction supply chain. When people move house, they invest in redecoration; they invest in extensions, put a new roof on the house, build on the side, and do all sorts of things to their new house that are good, valuable, productive economic activity. At the moment, we are missing out on that activity.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I commend the right hon. Gentleman for what he is saying, and I commend the Opposition on bringing forward this debate. In Northern Ireland, house prices have risen by 7.7%, which is the highest in all the United Kingdom. What is happening in my constituency—I suspect other Members have had this—is that young people are coming up to me and saying, “I cannot get a mortgage.” They need help. I hope that the proposal brought forward by the Opposition can give that hope. The right hon. Gentleman refers to the aspiration, which I have as well, that every person wants to own their own house. This proposal would be a method of ensuring that young people have that opportunity.

[Kit Malthouse]

I understand the hon. Gentleman’s hope for the next generation, and I completely agree with him. As somebody with three children, I hope they get the same housing opportunities and economic opportunities as I did. Sadly, given how the housing market has gone and is going, it does not look as if that will be the case, but he neatly makes the point that I made in opening my speech. To get young people on the housing ladder, a subsidy scheme would see us come full circle. Instead, we should think again about how we can have a deregulated free market that functions for them and allows the houses to be built that can accommodate them. Taking tax off young people and then giving it back in the form of housing subsidy is nonsensical.

To return to my point on the supply chain, thousands of small builders around the country are desperate for this kind of work and are seeing the housing market stagnating and their work reducing. Worse than that, in areas of high property value, those who do have capital decide, instead of moving, to build down, up or out. We therefore get densification, particularly in areas such as central London, which often causes significant problems.

Moving on, this tax does not work very well for Government either. First, as Members will know, it is pro-cyclical and crashes when the Government need it most. During the 2007-08 crash, stamp duty receipts fell by 60%. We saw a surge in stamp duty receipts during the window a year or so ago, but since then, they have been falling significantly. The Chancellor, who is facing significant fiscal problems, will see that fall even further, so the tax does not work for Government on that basis.

Secondly, stamp duty is a bad tax because of its salience. Economists have this idea that taxes have a salience, which is how much people notice they are being taken. VAT has low salience, because we do not really notice it. It is in the prices that we pay. Income tax and pay-as-you-earn have low salience. Stamp duty is enormously noticeable at a moment when people are making a huge decision about their lives. They are trying to progress their families and wham, here come the Government saying, “We are going to have a slice of your wealth.”

Financial Inclusion

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Wednesday 22nd October 2025 Westminster Hall

[Martin Rhodes]

I agree that we need to do more to encourage savings, but we also need to encourage the incomes that are required for people to make those savings.

The driving reason for this level of financial exclusion has been attributed to an increase in low or unstable incomes, lack of savings and life events such as loss of work or bereavement.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I commend the hon. Gentleman for securing this important debate. I am a firm advocate of local credit unions that provide access to affordable loans and help with learning how to save. Does he agree that financial inclusion must be available in small villages and towns through sound help and advice? Does he also agree that banks need to come back to the villages and stop the centralisation of services, which isolates people from the guidance they need?

[Martin Rhodes]

I agree that we need to look right across the board at the different ways in which people are excluded from financial services, including people living in smaller villages and towns. I also agree about the importance of credit unions to financial inclusion.

It has been reported that 41,500 people in Glasgow North are in financially vulnerable circumstances. That is 44% of the adult population, which is far higher than the national average of 38%. With financial exclusion increasing, the Government must take steps to mainstream inclusive policies and practices in our financial system, which is why I support the Government’s appointment of the Financial Inclusion Committee and the soon-to-be-published financial inclusion strategy.

Community Helipads: Rural Access

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Wednesday 15th October 2025 Westminster Hall

[Mr Angus MacDonald (Inverness, Skye and West Ross-shire) (LD)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered access to community helipads in rural areas.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms McVey. I am delighted to be speaking on an issue that impacts not just my constituents, but pretty well the whole of rural Britain.

I spoke in this Chamber earlier this year during the debate secured by my right hon. Friend the Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael) on coastguard helicopter services. At that time, I pointed out that search and rescue helicopters are an extremely valued facility; I think everybody who has had any dealings with them would respect the quality of people involved. I have personal gratitude to them, because my wife was going along a ridge and fell off and was scraped up by Arrochar mountain rescue team and flown to Glasgow hospital, where they fixed her up—which was good news, she tells me. In addition, my father was involved in the Glencoe mountain rescue team for the whole of my youth. He said the search and rescue helicopters were probably the biggest positive change for saving people’s lives in the mountains, so this is a very important debate.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I commend the hon. Gentleman for securing this debate. Representing a rural community, I, like him, understand how important this is. We are very blessed to have an air ambulance available for our communities in Strangford and Northern Ireland. It truly has been the difference between life and death for so many. However, there is a definite issue with safely landing and taking off. Does he agree that there must be access for that purpose alone? It is sometimes possible to land near where an accident takes place, but they must also be sure not to interfere with telephone lines or traffic, and safety must be paramount.

[Mr MacDonald]

The hon. Gentleman makes a very valid point. Safety is at the bottom of it all, but I will be talking about over-safety in one particular instance.

I am always pleased to recognise the dedication of the helicopter crews, but there is one specific case I want to talk about, in Portree on the Isle of Skye. The Portree and Braes Community Trust manage the helipad, not NHS Highland or anybody else. The helipad is a community venture; the trust raised the money and built it. It was set up 30 years ago and has been refurbished in conjunction with the coastguard, NHS Highland and other bodies, so it is very much an approved helipad. The ambulance can drive right up beside it; there are lights that can be turned on from the helicopter; it has windsocks; it is fenced off; it has special paint demarking the H—it has every facility one could want from a helipad.

Despite that, members of the community trust tell me that the helicopter is not allowed to land on that H. It has to land on the boggy, wet hillside beside it. It is not allowed to use that helipad. That sounds quite extraordinary; I am sure everybody here is wondering why, so let me inform them. The aviation regulations have been updated, meaning that the helipad is no longer functioning for search and rescue. It is being used by air ambulance and other helicopters, but not by the Bristow search and rescue helicopters. Understandably, that is causing a lot of confusion and irritation for mountain rescue, the community trust and the wider Portree community.

What is behind this? In March 2022, a lady attending an appointment at Derriford hospital in Devon was knocked over by a downwash from a helicopter and died tragically from a head injury shortly thereafter. Following that tragic incident, safety guidance was tightened—but in practice the new approach has gone too far, and has created a fear of litigation rather than a focus on safety.

In April 2024, the Civil Aviation Authority published the third edition of its guidelines, “CAP1264: Standards for helicopter landing areas at hospitals”, which some Members may have read. In August 2024, following the CAA’s publication, Bristow helicopters undertook a thorough review of all helicopter landing sites and helipads that may be used for hospital purposes, to assess their compliance. The review highlighted that the majority of those sites were not compliant with the new guidance, and so Bristow withdrew from operating on the non-compliant helipads. Out of fear of litigation after the Derriford tragedy, Bristow insists that it needs legal authority to operate from sites that are not CAP1264 compliant. The problem is not the quality of Portree helipad; it is the red tape around liability and the ownership of risk.