Budget: Pre-announcement of Provisions

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Tuesday 26th October 2021 Commons Chamber

[Mr Clarke]

I really do not know what the hon. Gentleman is implying with his question, but clearly no impropriety has occurred. All announcements are made as usual through the normal Treasury and cross-Government processes to make sure that those announcements are released to the media.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

Does the Minister agree that being drip-fed Budget snippets from the press rather than in this House makes it more difficult for right hon. and hon. Members to fully consider the principles without the biased slant of the media? Is he prepared to consider allowing Members access to the Budget the night before, under strict embargo, to enable consideration of the documentation rather than media presentation?

[Mr Clarke]

I thank the hon. Gentleman, who is of course one of the most assiduous Members of this House. Clearly we all look to make sure that the Budget documentation is as full and as frank as possible—we have the work of the independent Office for Budget Responsibility as well—to make sure precisely that the Budget debate that follows can be as fully informed as possible as to the full implications of all the measures that are announced.

Fossil Fuel Industry: Regulation of Investments

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Tuesday 19th October 2021 Commons Chamber

[Zarah Sultana (Coventry South) (Lab)]

In 1998, a PR consultant was working with big fossil fuel companies. He was grappling with a problem: the Kyoto protocol had just been signed. This landmark agreement reflected the scientific consensus that human-made carbon dioxide emissions were driving global warming and threatening climate catastrophe. It committed Governments to cutting carbon to avert this calamity. But for the PR consultant and fossil fuel companies, this was not a step forward—it was an existential problem. If Governments cut carbon, that would mean less oil bought and sold. It would mean smaller dividends for big oil’s shareholders and smaller bonuses for executives. Profits for fossil fuel companies were under threat, and they could not have that.

So the PR consultant devised a plan. In a memo to the trade association of the fossil fuel companies, he outlined a plan: a comprehensive, international campaign to change public opinion on the climate emergency. The plan aimed to cast doubt on the scientific consensus, by funding think tanks and media campaigns, and buying off a tiny minority of scientists. The campaign aimed to manufacture doubt about the science of the climate emergency. The PR consultant wrote that the goal of the project was for the public to “recognise that significant uncertainties exist in climate science.”

Victory, he said, would be achieved when

“those promoting the Kyoto treaty on the basis of science, appear to be out of touch with reality.”

But it was not that the fossil fuel companies were ignorant of the science—far from it. In 1979, a paper from the global oil giant Exxon said that the burning of fossil fuels

“will cause dramatic environmental effects in the coming decades.”

A few years later, another memo warned of the “potentially catastrophic” consequences of a refusal to cut emissions. In 1982, an internal document admitted that the science was “unanimous”. But because their profits were threatened, fossil fuel companies buried the truth. Just as the PR consultant advised, the companies poured millions into think-tanks, scientists and politicians who spread climate denial. In 2001, when President George W. Bush rejected the Kyoto protocol and its ambition to cut emissions, he told a fossil fuel-funded lobby group that his decision was

“in part, based on input from you”.

Today, although the fossil fuel industry’s methods might have been updated, its aim remains the same. More than 95% of the expenditure of fossil fuel giants such as BP is on oil and gas, but they spend millions on advertising campaigns that boast about their meagre low-carbon energy output.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I thank the hon. Lady for bringing this important issue to the House for this Adjournment debate. Does she agree that our eco-responsibility can and does extend into all aspects of our lives? Does she accept that we have a fiscal responsibility to ensure that any divestment of pension funds does not result in slashed pensions but enables investors to be beneficiaries in not only conscience but finance?

[Zarah Sultana]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that contribution. I will come on to our pension fund and our responsibility to divest, especially as we are hosting COP, which brings urgency to that.

Shell has spent $84 billion on fossil fuel exploration and development in the space of a few years, but it then asks its social media followers what consumers need to do to cut carbon. As a Harvard expert on the fossil fuel industry’s lobbying put it, these companies have gone from “blatant” denialism to

“more subtle and insidious forms of delayism.”

This is just the tip of the iceberg. The fossil fuel industry’s historical record is being uncovered, showing how it has spent decades propagating climate denialism and disinformation—protecting its profits while endangering our future. There is no doubt about it: these companies do not have our welfare at heart. They do not have the same interests as my constituents. What is good for fossil fuel billionaires spells disaster for children in Coventry’s schools. If there are profits to be made, these companies will extract and exploit, burning fossil fuels and our planet along with them.

Next month, Britain hosts COP26. We have a responsibility to show leadership on the world stage, demonstrating that we will rise to this historic challenge with the bold actions needed to avert climate catastrophe, taking on fossil fuel executives and transforming our economy for people and planet. Here is how the House must contribute to this historic task. First, Members of this House past and present are automatically members of a pension fund—a fund that invests in climate-destroying fossil fuel companies. Put simply, our pensions fund environmental destruction. For younger Members like me, on current trajectories, by the time I am old enough for my pension, temperatures will have soared well above the 1.5°C required by the Paris agreement, collapsing food systems, melting ice caps and causing extreme weather to become the norm.

With the world’s eyes now on us, we in this House can demonstrate real leadership by divesting Parliament from fossil fuels, and showing public commitment to taking our money out of the deadly fossil fuel industry and instead putting it to the public good and investing in the green technologies of the future. More than 360 current and former MPs from all parties in the House have pledged to support the Divest Parliament campaign. Under that pressure, and after letters from myself and colleagues, investments in the fossil fuel industry have fallen, but they have not been eliminated. There is still no plan to align our pensions with the 1.5°C global heating limit, and the full portfolio of investments remains a secret. So, as we prepare to host COP26 we in this House are still funding climate destruction. Here is my message to the pension fund trustees today: reveal the fund’s full investment; divest fully from fossil fuels; and show that this House will lead the fight to save our planet.

Back-Bench Members can do only so much. Real change must come from those on the Government Front Bench, because while the Government hide behind empty slogans and meagre promises, they back investment in new fossil fuel projects—from the Cambo oilfield where 170 million barrels of oil are set to be extracted, which will emit more than 10 times Scotland’s annual carbon output, pouring fuel on the fire of a burning planet, to investments abroad such as the Mozambique liquid natural gas project, to which the Government pledged more than $1 billion in financial support, fuelling not just climate breakdown, but human rights abuses, too.

Then there are the subsidies that the Government provide to the fossil fuel sector, recently estimated to be as much as £12.8 billion a year, ranking the UK as one of the worst of the OECD nations. These subsidies mean that, while Shell reportedly paid the Norwegian Government £1.3 billion in taxes in a year, in the UK, Shell itself was paid a rebate of £72 million of public money. That is scandalous. The Government cannot hide behind misleading definitions and technicalities and they must stop subsidising an industry that is killing our planet.

Then there is the role of British banks. The Government like to boast about London being the heart of the global financial system, but forget to mention that British banks are world leaders in funding fossil fuel companies. UK banks Barclays and HSBC rank among the worst in the world, having provided £158 billion in fossil fuel finance since the Paris agreement was signed, handing the likes of Shell and BP the fortunes they need to extract the fuels that are setting our world alight.

If we are to avert climate catastrophe, in place of a financial system that puts fossil fuel profits before people and planet we need a wholesale rewiring of financial institutions, putting capital to work for the public good, not private greed. We need a much wider economic transformation, too. We need a programme of change to avert climate catastrophe and to transform our economy and society in the interests of the many. That is the green new deal. I am proud to be co-sponsoring the Green New Deal Bill, alongside colleagues including the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas) and my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich South (Clive Lewis).

The green new deal recognises the urgency of tackling climate breakdown, with a 2030 net zero target—not the 2050 target that condemns us to climate catastrophe—and it would reach that target through decarbonisation with the interests of working people front and centre. Yes, it means rapidly winding down and repurposing the fossil fuel industry by taking majority public stakes in fossil fuel companies, but doing so while every worker impacted gets a Government-backed jobs guarantee, ensuring that they get a well-paid, unionised job and are not left on the scrapheap as has happened in past industrial transitions.

The green new deal would not stop there. It would initiate a massive state-led programme of investment in green industries, from building the wind farms and solar panels to power our future to generating the low-carbon jobs in care and teaching that our communities need. Our Bill spells out how this programme would create millions of good, well-paid unionised jobs, and it would not be paid for off the backs of our workers. It spells out that a green new deal would raise income taxes only on the highest earners and introduce a wealth tax to make the super-rich pay their fair share. To transition from an economy that relies on fossil fuels that kill our planet, it would bring industries such as rail, energy and water into public ownership to rapidly cut carbon, building a high-tech, low emissions, publicly owned transport of the future.

So long as this Government and this House—us MPs—fund the fossil fuel industry, backing new projects such as the Cambo oilfield and pipelines across southern Africa, they can speak with no authority at COP26. They are not part of the answer to the climate emergency; they are simply part of the problem. Instead of investing in fossil fuels, it is time to invest in a green new deal. There is no time to waste.

Working People’s Finances: Government Policy

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Tuesday 21st September 2021 Commons Chamber

[Kirsty Blackman]

I am going to come on to that, because I am thinking there is a divide across this Chamber: the constituency cases we on the Opposition Benches are seeing do not appear to be reflected in the cases being seen by those on the Government Benches, or they would not be making this cut. If they were sitting around those tables with people crying because they are living in absolute poverty and destitution, they would not be choosing to cut this £20 a week.

Some 72% of families who need food bank help have at least one parent in work. In my constituency more than four in 10 families will be hit by the UC cut. Aberdeen has been hit by a triple-whammy: the oil price crash has meant many people have been made redundant; we have seen the reduction in the reliance on oil; and we have seen both covid and Brexit. All those things are having a significant impact on the people of Aberdeen, and particularly my constituency. We have seen massive house prices in our city, too, so people have not been able to save money, and they have not been able to get council houses because of the right to buy, which we have, thankfully, cancelled now in Scotland. They have not had the opportunity to get back on the housing ladder, and they are doing the kind of insecure work my great-granny’s mother was doing: they are cleaning hospitals and working as porters and carers. I defy anyone to tell me those people are not working hard; these are hard-working families, yet they are being slammed consistently by this Tory Government.

We are talking about absolute destitution. My hon. Friend on the Front Bench, the Member for Glasgow Central (Alison Thewliss), mentioned prepayment meters. I do not know how many Members have had a prepayment meter, but I lived in a flat with one when I had hardly any money. If a prepayment meter goes £20 into the red, it stops working—the electricity stops—and people do not just need a fiver to bring it back; they need to pay the full £20 to get back into the green. Many of my constituents are faced with those numbers ticking towards that negative £20 and wondering, “What on earth are we going to do about this? How are we going to pay for the electricity so our children have heat and do not freeze?” We had a guy come into my office one day. This chap was on universal credit, and he was one of those single people on universal credit who is literally destitute. That is a significant portion of single people on universal credit; they are living not just below the poverty line but below the line of destitution. This chap came into my office to say that he did not know what to do. He had not eaten in three days. His dog had not eaten in three days. He had sold every single item of furniture that he had in order to try to keep them both fed. He had sold his bed, so we managed to source a bed for this chap.

That should not be happening in 2021. We should not be having those conversations with people, yet Government Members talk about £6 billion and say, “Oh, we’ve given £80 million to this scheme” or whatever. It does not matter if they have given £80 million to that scheme; it does not make a difference. What makes a difference is ensuring that these folk have enough money to eat—enough money to feed themselves and to clothe themselves. The hon. Member for Bury North (James Daly) talked about hope and aspiration. How can someone have hope and aspiration if they spend every single moment of every single day—

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

Worrying.

[Kirsty Blackman]

Worrying—exactly. Worrying and thinking about what on earth they are going to do tomorrow, and what they are going to do the next day. Half of people who go to Trussell Trust food banks are in debt to the DWP because the universal credit system is so rubbish. People are in debt because they have had to take crisis loans due to the universal credit system.

That is before we talk about the £20-a-week cut. That is absolutely a cut for people who have been going through the hardest times. Government Members can talk about the £6 billion all they like, but the reality is that the damage that this cut will cause to people—the number of hospital admissions we will see and the number of people who will die as a result of the cut—will be far more and cost far more than £6 billion.

[Liz Twist (Blaydon) (Lab)]

Let me start by saying that I make no apology for referring to a subject that I have talked about very often in this House and in questions—universal credit and child poverty, which are inextricably linked. I want to talk again about the serious and really disproportionate effect that ending the universal credit uplift will have on people in my constituency of Blaydon and across the north-east.

Many constituents have written to me expressing their concern about the cut—the loss of the £20. I have heard both from people who receive universal credit themselves and know what a huge difference that has made to them, and from those who are concerned about other people in their community who will be affected by the cut. There is a real and genuine concern about how people will suffer as a result of the loss of that £20.

One of the many constituents who got in touch with me, Stacey, will, after the cut, no longer be able to afford to take her child to their hospital appointments as the travel fare is too expensive, leaving her, she says, to choose between buying food and accessing healthcare. Stacey’s story highlights perfectly what we know from the data and what we hear from charities across the region. Forty-six per cent. of families with children in the north-east will be affected by the universal credit cut, and that in a region that already had the second highest level of child poverty in the country before the pandemic. The cut will leave families worse off.

Of the 20 constituencies with the highest increases in child poverty between 2014 and 2019, 17 are in the north-east. In my constituency of Blaydon, 27% of children live in poverty. That is data from before the pandemic.

[Jim Shannon]

The hon. Lady is bringing forward the very important issue of child poverty. Charities have indicated to me that child benefit is a godsend, but they also say that the benefit cap has remained the same since 2013 and that, in the same period, inflation has been 17.56%. That means that people who have been on the same wage for eight years will find that if they go to their boss and ask for a wage increase, they will lose their child benefit. Does the hon. Lady agree that it is time to address that too?

[Liz Twist]

I thank the hon. Member for his intervention; of course, I absolutely agree with the important point he makes.

Some 7,320 households in my constituency of Blaydon, or 21%, will be affected by this cut, which represents a combined loss for low-income households in Blaydon of £146,400 a week. That is £146,400 being sucked out of the local economy each week, virtually overnight. Is that levelling up for my community? I thank the North East Child Poverty Commission for the important work it does to produce such figures, which graphically illustrate the problems we are facing.

We have talked a lot about jobs as well, because universal credit is as much an in-work benefit as it is an out-of-work benefit. Some 40% of those on universal credit are in work, many doing really important key worker jobs that did so much for our society during the last 18 months of the pandemic. This is not about people being lazy and wanting handouts. Low wages, poor-quality jobs, zero-hours contracts—they all mean that being in work is no longer enough to be out of poverty in this country.

Brexit: Opportunities

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Thursday 16th September 2021 Commons Chamber

[Michael Ellis]

Of course, we are always listening to business. The point that the hon. Gentleman makes is one that we are focusing on. He will also recognise that there are issues around Europe and, indeed, in countries around the world of a similar nature. We are all faced with issues following the pandemic and other circumstances that have arisen and we will continue to support business in all the areas we can.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

First, I welcome the Paymaster General to his position and wish him well. I remind him of his comments when he referred to eliminating the Brexit burden for the United Kingdom, especially for Northern Ireland. Can he outline what steps are being taken to address the disgraceful Northern Ireland protocol regulations, which see empty shelves, increased cost for every Northern Ireland citizen and disregard for the constitutional position of Northern Ireland? I remind him of the petition with 100,000-plus names that came to this House. Will he take the readily available opportunity to resolve this issue and trigger article 16?

[Michael Ellis]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question. If I may make a personal remark, my mother was born in Northern Ireland and I understand the issues that he refers to. His support for his constituents and the people of Northern Ireland is something that everyone in this House recognises. The Government recognise the importance of our Union and of Northern Ireland and everything will be done that needs to be done to continue to support Northern Ireland.

Levelling-up Agenda

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Wednesday 15th September 2021 Westminster Hall

[Dan Jarvis (Barnsley Central) (Lab)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the Government’s Levelling-up agenda.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Robertson. I am grateful to see Members and the Minister here today. I would completely understand it if the Minister wants to keep her phone on. I am sure we all wish her well with the reshuffle. We will see what the next hour or so brings.

I declare an interest: I am a metro Mayor. I have always supported the Prime Minister’s intention to level up the country, but it is outrageous that the UK has the worst regional inequality of any comparable developed nation. The gap is stark, from life expectancy to income, from unemployment to education, from productivity to health, and covid is making it worse. That is not a small thing. It is an injustice—a stain on our country—and tackling it should be a matter of raging and persistent urgency, not some optional extra in the national political agenda. I continue to want to work with the Government to do that, but as the Minister knows well, it is not words that count but action.

To be fair, it is not that the Government have done nothing. I acknowledge the help that we have had through the transforming cities fund and the getting building fund, among others. There have been some welcome policy shifts too, such as devolving adult education, reforming the Green Book and creating the UK Infrastructure Bank, but tackling deep-rooted inequality requires a special sort of intervention. It demands scope, endurance, resources, a national strategy and local leadership.

So far, the Government have fallen well short. First, transformative ambition needs transformative resources. Instead, we have old money relabelled as new and distributed with more concern for politics than progress. The flagship levelling-up fund, worth £1.3 billion a year on average, replaces a local growth fund that was worth 14% more, and half its budget this year is taken from the towns fund. Even worse, the levelling-up fund puts the Chancellor’s Richmondshire constituency, ranked 251 out of 317 in England’s deprivation index, in a higher category of need than my constituency of Barnsley, which is ranked 38. That is no one-off. A third of English areas due to get funds are not in the top third of the most deprived regions.

Likewise, the shared prosperity fund is supposed to match the historical EU support that it is designed to replace, but EU funds were due to increase sharply this year, so many areas, including my own, will miss out. I ask the Minister: will the Government compensate us for that? Almost a third of the English areas selected to receive money under the SPF’s precursor programme, the community renewal fund, are not among the most deprived local areas. Almost all of them are entirely represented by Conservative MPs. Meanwhile, of the 45 places receiving a share of the towns fund spending, 39 are represented by Conservative MPs. The Public Accounts Committee found that the fund’s earlier selection process was not impartial.

We are starting to see a pattern develop, and it gets worse when we consider that these politicised, fragmented and inadequate funds also come against a major backdrop of cuts elsewhere. As we saw in the Chamber this afternoon, the Government are intent on ending the £20 uplift in universal credit, cutting income for 5.5 million families by more than £1,000 a year and taking billions out of the economies of more deprived areas. That of course follows the £15 billion of cuts to local government in the past decade, which has fallen hardest on the poorest areas.

The Government trumpet their spending through the national infrastructure strategy, but it is unclear how much will go to deprived areas and when it will arrive. What we do know is that the Government are wobbling in their commitment to two of the biggest projects in the north: HS2’s eastern leg and Northern Powerhouse Rail. For them to be postponed or scaled back would make any claim of concern for levelling up utterly risible. I ask the Minister to assure us today of the Government’s commitment to those two huge projects.

When the debate concludes, I will hit “send” on South Yorkshire’s bid for £660 million of city region sustainable transport settlement funding. If the Government want to end the long-standing bias in transport investment towards more affluent areas, I hope that they will back that bid in full, and those of other relatively deprived areas such as mine.

It is not just how much money and where it goes that matters; it is how it is spent. It is alarming that the Select Committee on Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy described levelling-up policy and funding as

“lacking in any overall coherent strategic purpose”

with little clarity about who is responsible, how progress will be measured or, indeed, what the objectives are.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on bringing this forward. The Government’s policy of levelling up is to benefit all the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. Unfortunately, we do not see that coming our way in Northern Ireland. We believe that, if it is a levelling-up agenda, we should benefit as well. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that there should be projects across the whole of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, to benefit us all, whether they are specific projects, or businesses that can qualify for projects that are happening elsewhere in the United Kingdom?

[Mr Laurence Robertson (in the Chair)]

Order. Interventions need to be shorter. Mr Jarvis.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jonathan Gullis (Stoke-on-Trent North) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship for the second time today, Mr Robertson, and I congratulate the hon. Member for Barnsley Central (Dan Jarvis) on securing this important debate. I will read out some statistics, because for too long, sadly, Stoke-on-Trent was talked about in a negative light by my predecessors, so I will talk about how great Stoke-on-Trent actually is and what it has been doing under not only a Conservative Government but a Conservative-led city council, led by the fantastic Councillor Abi Brown.

Stoke-on-Trent was ranked first for jobs growth in 2020. Between 2015 and 2018 it saw wages increase by 11.7%, with a 3.9% annual increase. In 2019-20 we built over 1,000 new homes, of which 97% were built on brownfield land. We are the eighth fastest growing economy in England, which includes London. We have created over 8,000 jobs in the last five years. We have the Ceramic Valley enterprise zone, which is one of the most successful enterprise zones in the UK. I am delighted that Tunstall Arrow phase 2 is effectively already under way and bookings are being made. The city council has done a fantastic thing by carrying on the business rates relief, using its own finances to encourage more businesses to come to the area. There is a fantastic story here for Stoke-on-Trent.

I am very sorry to get into the petty party politics, as some people might accuse us of, but I do so because when the Labour party lost Stoke-on-Trent North, Kidsgrove and Talke, it was because it spent too long talking the area down and never talked it up. It spent too long telling people how poor they were and how deprived they were, but never offering a solution to the problem. In fact, Labour’s legacy in Stoke-on-Trent was to build a hospital—the Royal Stoke University Hospital—with a disastrous private finance initiative debt, which means £20 million a year is being stolen from the frontline to pay that debt. Labour built a hospital with 200 fewer beds than the old hospital, which is even more insane.

We saw jobs and ceramics enterprises being shipped off to China, which means I am very grateful still to have Churchill China, Steelite International and Burleigh Pottery in my constituency. They are still doing well, but sadly that industry dying meant that towns such as Burslem and Tunstall, two of the five original towns of Stoke-on-Trent, are now in a much worse state. Those places were forgotten, because for 70 years they had Labour Members of Parliament.

I am the first ever Conservative Member of Parliament for my constituency. What has happened over time, as we have seen that transition from Labour to the Conservatives, is that things are now happening. By the way, that does not mean that I do not acknowledge that there are challenges in Stoke-on-Trent. As I say, the mother town of Burslem has one of the highest number of closed shops anywhere in the United Kingdom. The town used to thrive off Royal Doulton and many other Pot Bank factories, but now that is simply not the case. I am trying to find a future for that town. I was delighted to have spent my summer handing out a survey asking residents for their views—over 300 responses have come in—and I am working with the city council to create a vision, perhaps for an arts and creative culture that will link in with Middleport Pottery.

In Tunstall, the high street is predominantly privately owned. I know that because I rent my constituency office on that high street—it is in an old shop. The top end of the high street is falling into disrepair, but I am delighted that the city council is working with me to hold private landlords to account for allowing their shops to fall into disrepair.

However, to offer the Minister more evidence of levelling up, it is the Conservative-led Stoke-on-Trent City Council that has invested £4 million into Longton town hall, in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent South (Jack Brereton), and it is spending over £4 million on Tunstall town hall in my constituency of Stoke-on-Trent North, Kidsgrove and Talke. That will see council offices, a police post, a children’s centre and much more bringing this heritage building back to life, which will bring more footfall to the town centre and hopefully see it rejuvenate.

There is so much more opportunity. I fell in love with the city back in 2018, when I first started campaigning there, because I saw what others did not, which is a people who were desperate for change but just needed someone to go and fight for them. I am absolutely delighted to be their champion, as I have said many times.

I know that we have just heard some hon. Members talk about the town deal fund. I am a member of Kidsgrove’s town deal board. It is important to remember that these towns got this money before I was even elected as a Member of Parliament, but it was a Conservative Government who decided that the town of Kidsgrove, which is linked with Talke and Newchapel, would benefit from a town deal fund that, in total and including the advance town deal payment, came to £17.6 million. I can tell Members that when I go out door-knocking in Kidsgrove, the people there cannot believe what that money has done.

We have invested £2.75 million in Kidsgrove sports centre, which means that this facility will reopen in spring 2022. Rather than building a new one at higher expense to the taxpayer, the existing one will be refurbished and reopened. Why is that so important, Mr Robertson? In 2017, the then Labour-run Newcastle-under-Lyme Borough Council was offered the sports centre for £1, and it said no. There was a fantastic, community-run campaign led by Mark Clews, Dave Rigby, Ray Williams and Councillor Gill Burnett, who was a Labour councillor but has since become a Conservative over the decision on the sports centre. They got the borough council behind it, and they certainly got me behind it. Ultimately, we will see that facility reopened, which means swimming and a gym will return to Kidsgrove, which has one of the highest childhood obesity rates in the country.

We are also seeing the upgrading of the town centre with the new indoor town centre hub, which will hopefully have a new GP surgery in the middle, as well as a post office, and will link in with the job centre based in Kidsgrove. This will hopefully bring a bit of a coffee culture to the town centre. That will also be linked with Kidsgrove railway station. I give credit here to my predecessor’s predecessor, Joan Walley, who secured £5.5 million from the Access for All fund for the station, which now has a new footbridge. I decided that we should use the town deal board money to upgrade the ticket office, which will have a community café and more space for the volunteers, who do a fantastic job of looking after the station. There will also be 200 car parking spaces and a bus terminal, after the bridge was strengthened, meaning we will have a better integrated transport system. There will also be one hour’s free parking for people to do the three-minute walk to the town centre.

We are going to unlock the Chatterley Valley West employment site with over £2 million of investment, which could bring up to 2,000 jobs to the local area. It baffles me that the Labour councillors in Talke & Butt Lane—the ward where I live—moan that this money has been spent about 200 feet outside the Kidsgrove parish area. They are moaning that we have invested more than £2 million in a strategic employment site that will bring 2,000 jobs to the area. Again, in Stoke-on-Trent North, Kidsgrove and Talke, Labour is showing that it is far more interested in seeing money not spent in our local area, and not championing the local cause.

We have built one of the UK’s leading pump tracks at Newchapel recreation ground, which has had visitors from Worcester and Scotland, while BMX riders such as Kyle Evans, a former Team GB European champion, have used the facility. For £100,000, it has created a buzz in Kidsgrove, giving young people access to more facilities. When I was elected, I was told that there was nothing for young people to do. Now the sports centre is coming back and there is a new pump track.

Finally, we have worked with the King’s Church of England Academy, which now has FIFA-standard 3G AstroTurf pitches. The schoolchildren can use that facility during the day and the school can open it up to the community during the evenings and weekends, bringing revenue to the school to invest in the community.

This is what a town deal has done for my area, and I am proud to be part of it. I will benefit from the fact that the swimming pool exists—as a Kidsgrove parish resident, my daughter, who is just over a year old, will be able to learn to swim in her local swimming facility. Every pound invested by the community into that sports centre is going straight back into it, because the community group that ran the campaign are taking over the day-to-day running of that fabulous facility.

Not only have the Government done all of that, but they have delivered on the second largest announcement of civil service job moves of any Department, after Darlington. I know that the Home Secretary looks forward to spending her time up there on occasion. However, she might not be aware that, under the Places for Growth programme, 550 jobs are coming to Stoke-on-Trent via the Home Office. A new innovation centre will provide jobs at all career stages, including apprenticeships to help Stokies get into great civil service careers. Initially, there will be 50 caseworker roles, with a further 200 jobs at an asylum co-ordination hub, and that will expand to about 560 jobs by 2025. In addition to the caseworker roles, the centre will include operational, IT, policy and corporate functions, and will offer exciting career paths to local people. There will also be a number of senior civil service roles in Stoke-on-Trent, meaning that the people there will have a voice in Government. If anyone wants to understand why the people of Stoke-on-Trent voted overwhelmingly to leave—by 73%, in my constituency—it is because they thought that if London did not care about them, then Brussels would not have a bloody clue about their local area. That is why we are finally seeing a big change there.

What can the Government continue to do? The shopping list has not ended unfortunately, Minister. Stoke has had an appetiser and a bit of a main course, but we are still hungry for more, and dessert will come in the form of the levelling-up fund bid that we have submitted. We are lucky to be rated as a grade 1 priority area. We thank the Government for listening to our calls and understanding the deprivation.

[Jim Shannon]

It is hard not to be enthused by the hon. Gentleman’s energy. I congratulate him and his colleague, the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central (Jo Gideon), who is no longer present but was here for the previous debate. Does he agree that it is very important to have a partnership and relationship between the MP and the local council, and that it is part of the success story that he refers to?

[Jonathan Gullis]

I am very grateful to the hon. Gentleman, who I love taking an intervention from—it is a parliamentary privilege. He is right: the relationship between the local council and the local MP is so important, because if we end up butting heads nothing will happen. That is not benefiting the people who have elected us to serve them.

I take the fact that those votes will end. I do not sit here arrogantly; they were lent votes, and if I do not deliver, I will be sacked. Every single one of my constituents is a Lord Sugar, so they will hire me or fire me. I take that responsibility absolutely seriously. I say on every doorstep that I do. That is why I do not stop banging on about my local area. That is why the Minister must be bored to death of hearing about Stoke-on-Trent from me and my hon. Friends the Members for Stoke-on-Trent Central (Jo Gideon) and for Stoke-on-Trent South—the Stoke mafia, as we have come to be known in the Tea Room. We will keep fighting for our local area. Councillor Abi Brown is a tour de force—a young, dynamic, forward-thinking council leader paving the way, and now having a major role in the Local Government Association as well.

Let us go over the levelling-up fund bid, which for me is a litmus test of the Government’s commitment. It is a £73.5 million bid. Some £3.5 million will go into Tunstall, which will turn an old library and swimming baths back into a mixed-use facility, including flats, a multi-purpose exhibition space and a café. It will turn one of the largest city centre regeneration areas in the west midlands into a thriving hotel, flat accommodation and hopefully indoor arena that will specialise in e-sports. There is so much potential in those fantastic bids, which are in with the Treasury. I know that the Minister wants to make my Christmas. One way that she can achieve that is by ensuring that we deliver on those bids. We have bid for the transport elements as well.

We have also bid on the Stoke-to-Leek line through the Restoring your Railway fund. It is a fantastic bid, with four constituency MPs bidding for it jointly. It will unlock people being able to commute around north Staffordshire, meaning that we finally have better transport. I hope that, alongside rail, we will get some Bus Back Better opportunities, because 30% of the people of Stoke-on-Trent do not have access to a car, and the current bus service is not good enough.

Health and Social Care Levy Bill

Jim Shannon Excerpts

2nd reading
Tuesday 14th September 2021 Commons Chamber

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

Thank you for calling me to speak, Mr Deputy Speaker. Like many others, I am put in a difficult position by the Bill. I believe that there must be big changes to create an influx into the NHS for the reform that we are desperate for, but I have seen too many broken families who have lost a loved one who was waiting for mental health support, who could have been saved if their cancer diagnosis had come in time, or who are awaiting support to make their child’s educational journey positive, not a hellish nightmare without the support that they need.

I am torn, because I see the need for reform. I see mentally and physically exhausted staff at the end of themselves, trying to meet their obligations in the NHS, and desperate trusts putting up advertisements for off-duty staff to come in because of dangerously understaffed wards. All those things tell me that there is need for reform, but I do not and cannot support this method. I cannot support the middle class and the small businessman bearing the brunt of the cost again. I cannot wrap my mind around the concept that someone earning £15,000 a year will have the same amount taken away in national insurance contributions as someone on £150,000 a year.

I make it clear that I am not a socialist; there is nothing wrong with being a socialist, but I am a capitalist. I believe that the system that we have is important. I understand that big business must have big results to support the big workforce, but I believe that when raising money, the easiest way is not always best.

We must ensure that we do not continue to squeeze the middle class. The Government have not been able to assure me or my colleagues that their proposal is the best way or that it is better than a graduated system whereby those on huge wages paid an extra amount that they would not overly notice, instead of families on the brink having to sacrifice and struggle each day.

I speak to constituents who are earning too much for support but not enough to live comfortably. They are the group who will be most affected, but the burden could and should be more judiciously shared. For those middle-class families, for the small businesswoman employing 11 staff and for the pensioner who has been taxed for their entire life, I do not think that the proposed method is the best one, and I do not feel that I can support it.

From the refusal to lift the child benefit threshold above £50,000, which is preventing families from taking a pay rise for fear of losing the monthly child benefit payment that pays for necessities for their children, to the situation facing pensioners who thought that they had set aside enough to last, only to deal with an increase in the cost of living along with a raid of the pension in their savings account, life is uncomfortable for those who have worked hard and who believed that they would retire in peace. Those people are all willing to make a contribution to the NHS, but is it fair that they should feel the brunt alone? I feel that that is what is happening; it is not right and I cannot support it.

I have one more small comment to make, which is about the £420 million that will be allocated to Northern Ireland through the Barnett formula. Whatever process the moneys come through, I would like to see them ring-fenced, because as Departments bid for funding, there is every possibility that the money will be deflected from doing good to simply being abused. In Northern Ireland, it could be used for the machinations of other parties, while teenagers suffer from eating disorders and while child and adolescent mental health services teams cannot prevent children from hurting or abusing themselves. I have watched as the Northern Ireland Office has been strong-armed into funding endless legacy investigations to the tune of Sinn Féin, which wishes to rewrite history.

I have not heard that the Bill will prevent the misappropriation of central funding, so I cannot support it. That goes against the grain for me, because I believe in the principle of reform. I would welcome reform if a different method of raising funding were put forward, but I simply cannot agree with the Government’s method. I ask them, even at this late stage, to revisit the methodology and allow us all to support our NHS, as people want to, without further squeezing the middle class. That cannot happen.

Health and Social Care Levy

Jim Shannon Excerpts

1st reading
Wednesday 8th September 2021 Commons Chamber

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

We are all aware that the NHS is the pride of the UK, and we are similarly aware that there is a grim possibility that it may become our biggest loss. I am therefore very much focused on health issues. That loss would be because of historical underfunding as well as the unseen pressures that covid has placed on every facet of the NHS, from dentists, physios and surgeons to waiting lists, assessments and operations.

I will not take the path of some others and seek to score political points because that is not what I am about. I am will think of the constituent who, at the age of 53, came to my office almost immobilised having waited four years for a hip replacement. I will think of the parents desperate to get respite for their disabled children. I will think of the mums watching their daughters—and increasingly their sons—who are killing themselves with eating disorders and cannot get the help that is needed. I do not want to score points, but I do want to get it right.

There are rightful questions about who will bear the brunt of what is undoubtedly a necessary evil. My real fear is that for small businesses who in recent years have taken on the burden of paying statutory sick pay to staff, increased wages under the minimum wage and are paying more to ship their products to Northern Ireland due to the disgraceful Northern Ireland protocol, what seems like a small increase may put them off hiring that new staff member. That is a real concern, and when that is weighed along with fact that big businesses with their expensive accountants can find a loophole to prevent them from paying what they can well afford, it seems that the middle class will again be the ones feeling the squeeze. I therefore share the concerns of my right hon. Friend the Member for East Antrim (Sammy Wilson), who highlighted the unfair nature of this blanket tax.

Whatever method is used to raise money—I need this to be heard clearly—this money cannot be diverted by way of the Barnett consequential to any other Department, as moneys have been in the past. We need to reform our health and social care or we will lose the NHS, but, in Northern Ireland, the funding make-up means that funding cannot be ring-fenced. As my right hon. Friend said:

“Northern Ireland will benefit by about £420 million per year by this increase in National Insurance but there is no indication that the Executive”—

the Northern Ireland Executive—

“will be required to spend it on the purpose for which it was raised since the Government cannot ringfence money”.

Before the debate, I spoke to the Minister for Care to seek assurances, and she will seek those assurances from the Treasury. Since the relevant Minister is not here at the moment, I put these questions to the acting Ministers on the Front Bench. Can that money for Northern Ireland be ring-fenced? Will all future moneys that come to Northern Ireland for this purpose also be ring-fenced? That is what we need to know. We cannot have a system whereby—as has happened on multiple occasions—this salvation funding for the NHS is used for putting, for instance, an Irish language or Ulster Scots sign up on a street. How do we ensure that the money goes on reform and is not used by others to promote their political goals and aspirations?

We undoubtedly need to take the bull by the horns and swallow the pill for the increase. However, we will never be forgiven if in five years’ time we are still in the same position. What guarantees do we have that the sacrifice of every single employed person, every single pensioner and every single business owner will bring about the necessary change and not be lost in the ether of politics at Stormont? Many are willing to make the sacrifice for care—not anything else—and we need binding legislation in place for us to believe that any guarantee given will not be waylaid by political machinations.

The future of the NHS is worth the change to legislation. Let us get it done. I want to see something happen from which we can all benefit across the whole United Kingdom, and I need that to happen for us in Northern Ireland.

National Insurance Contributions Bill

Jim Shannon Excerpts

3rd reading
Monday 6th September 2021 Commons Chamber

[The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Jesse Norman)]

I am sorry that the hon. Member for Ealing North (James Murray) was not able to revisit his greatest hits from Committee or other previous stages of the Bill, but unfortunately he is required to speak to the new clauses and amendments before us, which is what I will do.

The Scottish National party has tabled new clauses that would create a new zero rate of secondary class 1 NICs for employers classed as “green manufacturing companies”, including those that produce wind turbines and electric vehicles. As the House will know, the Government take support for the green economy extremely seriously. For example, since 2013 the Government have provided £150 million per annum to the Aerospace Technology Institute—investment match-funded by industry—including £84.6 million of investment to develop zero-emission flights and further support for other potential zero-emission aircraft concepts.

In addition, the Government are to spend nearly £500 million in the next four years to support the UK’s electric vehicle manufacturing industry as part of our commitment to provide up to £1 billion for the development and mass production of electric vehicle batteries and the associated supply chains. The funding is available UK-wide and will boost investment in the UK’s strong manufacturing base.

Of course, the Government have also stated their ambition to deploy 40 GW of offshore wind capacity by 2030, alongside a commitment to invest £160 million in ports and manufacturing infrastructure. The goal of that investment will be to encourage up to £20 billion of much-needed private investment in coastal areas and to support up to 60,000 green manufacturing jobs by 2030. The Government’s commitment to support green manufacturing is therefore quite clear.

Unfortunately, new clause 1 would introduce a major change to the tax system of a magnitude that would require the careful consideration of costs and benefits and, in fact, goes far beyond what should be included via amendment in a Bill such as this one. The design of a sector-focused tax relief is not straightforward and would add complexity to the tax system. By contrast, there has been no consultation on, costing of or impact assessment made in relation to the measure proposed in new clause 1. For those reasons, I urge the House to reject it.

On new clause 3, covid-19 has proven to be the biggest health and economic threat faced by the UK in decades. Key workers, including NHS staff and social care workers, have done extraordinary things, as the House recognises, to keep the public safe in the continuing fight against the virus. For their part, the Government hugely value and appreciate such important contributions to the covid-19 response. However, as I will explain, the Government do not believe that the new clause is appropriate or necessary. Under long-standing rules, any payments made in connection with an employment incur income tax and national insurance contributions. Such payments also count as income for the purposes of calculating entitlement to certain benefits.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

In Northern Ireland, we have done something just a wee bit different. It is a £500 bonus, and if the 20% of tax and the national insurance at 12% are added in, that means that the Northern Ireland Executive is paying £735 per individual. Is the Minister aware of that, and would he replicate it in the rest of the UK?

[Jesse Norman]

I think the hon. Gentleman knows that the £500 payment has been offered across devolved Administrations. It is important that he has made that point, and I recognise it, but that does not really affect the point at issue in relation to the new clause, which is about the £500 payments that the Scottish Government are making to health and social care workers, which they are using to function as a top-up to wages. We therefore consider that these payments are taxable as earnings under the normal rules.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

First, I put on record my thanks to the Minister and the Government for bringing forward the Bill. It is good to see the finished article. On behalf of my party, and given where we stand and what we want to put forward, may I say that we were very happy to support the Government tonight.

I will make a couple of very quick comments. The Minister and I had an exchange earlier about new clause 3, but I was dismayed and shocked to hear from a Marie Curie nurse that her covid thanks package was subject to tax and national insurance. The central office was administering that in Scotland. In Northern Ireland, we understood that the bonus was an income, yet the Northern Ireland Executive made the decision to make payments of up to £735 an individual. That meant that those who qualify for the full award, which many do, pay tax at 20% and national insurance at 12% and still receive approximately £500 in their pay packet at the end of the month. We very clearly made that decision, and I think the Government have recognised that, because it is a recognition that these public service staff deserve a substantial boost and need it.

I very much welcome the Minister’s comments about freeports. I know that the final decision lies with the Northern Ireland Assembly, and he has referred to that already. I very much look forward to us in Northern Ireland playing our part and taking advantage of what the Government have brought forward here tonight.

The right hon. Member for Hemel Hempstead (Sir Mike Penning) was right in his intervention that the first 12 months for any veteran are really important, because that is the time they need support most. I am therefore very pleased to see that measure. I also welcome the Minister’s decision to ensure that there is no ambiguity with regard to the Northern Ireland aspect of the Bill, as amendment 3 replaces a reference to the Social Security Contributions and Benefits Act 1992 with a reference to that Act and the Social Security Contributions and Benefits (Northern Ireland) Act 1992.

As I highlighted in my previous contribution on the Bill, it seems that we have to remind Europe almost daily in this House that Northern Ireland is an integral part of the UK. It is determined to treat us as a third nation when it suits for duty free and taxation, but not when it does not suit for representation and European healthcare. If I may, Mr Deputy Speaker, I put on record that this week, my party leader, my right hon. Friend the Member for Lagan Valley (Sir Jeffrey M. Donaldson) will be making a major statement on this issue. I hope that the Government will take note of what we are doing and what we are saying, because it has some effect on the future and where we are in relation to the Northern Ireland protocol.

I believe that the capacity is here to work together for all of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. It is always my hope that we do that, and I hope that that is what the Minister has put forward today will do. I look forward to working with the Minister through the Northern Ireland Assembly if that is possible and if it is still in place. We will wait to see what happens.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed.

Rural Banking Services

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Tuesday 20th July 2021 Westminster Hall

[Fay Jones (Brecon and Radnorshire) (Con)]

I beg to move,

That his House has considered rural banking services.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship this morning, Mr Gray. I am grateful to other Members for attending the debate. It is hot outside but there is no reason it should be hot in here. This does not need to be a divisive debate and I hope we can talk about the positives and the negatives of the issue.

I want to cover both the availability of cash and the importance of banking infrastructure in rural areas. There is no doubt that the pandemic has forced businesses to adapt and accelerated a wider move towards digital payments. That is to be welcomed and I thank businesses across the country that have bent over backwards and adapted their systems to ensure that they can provide a service to isolated or elderly customers. However, I am concerned that this has implications for some members of society, particularly older and vulnerable people, who are much more likely to use cash. Lower income households and those without internet access are likely to be the most affected.

During the pandemic, cash use has declined, often in constituencies with higher levels of deprivation. In my constituency, cash withdrawals dropped by 55% in the first six months of the pandemic and in areas such as mine, where our broadband and mobile coverage is poor, cash is extremely important for rural businesses and individuals. I am grateful that the Government are listening on this and are proactive, as I know the Minister will outline later, and we have already made some good steps in that direction.

In 2019, the “Access to Cash Review” report highlighted the need for different Government bodies and regulatory authorities to work together to protect access to cash. That was then followed with a commitment from the Chancellor in his Budget to legislate to protect access to cash. In April 2021, the Government accepted an amendment to the Bill that became the Financial Services Act 2021, which would allow consumers to withdraw cashback from more retailers without having to make a purchase. We have a real-life example of that amendment working well in my constituency.

I have been working with the community access to cash group in Hay-on-Wye, which is a group of volunteers who have gathered together to focus on the problem of cash availability. I do not know if you know my constituency, Mr Gray, but Hay-on-Wye is a beautiful town and has a wonderful culture of striking out on its own. In fact, in 1973, Richard Booth, who appointed himself the king of Hay, declared Hay an independent kingdom, so we did not need to go through the Brexit referendum—it really was that easy.

As a result, Hay-on-Wye has a culture of fixing its own problems. I want to commend the group of volunteers who have been organising this. They got together after the final bank left the town in 2018. At the same time, the post office has been going through some turbulent times after the postmaster, Mr Steve Like, stepped down from the business. I want to thank Steve and his family, who have owned the post office in Hay-on-Wye for more than 60 years. It was the end of an era when he stepped down in June.

With those two pressures in mind, a group of volunteers led by Josh Green got together to tackle the issue of cash availability. As well as creating a scheme where customers from different banks can speak to a representative from their bank in the parish hall one day a month, they have got together a large group of businesses that are now offering cashback after the Government stepped forward with the change to the Financial Services Act 2021. I want to celebrate what those volunteers have done. It is a meaningful difference and proves just how important cash is.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I congratulate the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnorshire (Fay Jones) on bringing forward this debate. My constituency of Strangford is similar to her own. We have had a number of bank closures and the latest one is Barclays in Newtownards, just 30 minutes away from Portavogie and Cloughey in my constituency. They are closed and the options are away. I agree with the hon. Lady that there is an important parallel between banking and broadband services. More time needs to be committed to improving internet services in rural communities to ensure that constituents can use online banking efficiently, in addition to doing it in person. It doesn’t suit everyone, but it will suit a whole lot of people. The option needs to be there, perhaps as an opportunity for banks and broadband to work together.

[Fay Jones]

I agree with the hon. Member. I hope the Minister will cover that in his summing up. As a beautiful constituency, we have one of the lowest broadband availability rates in the entire country, so those are twin-track problems that we need to fix at the same time.

Northern Ireland Protocol

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Thursday 15th July 2021 Commons Chamber

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I congratulate the hon. Member for Harwich and North Essex (Sir Bernard Jenkin) on setting the scene and on all right hon. and hon. Members on their incredibly important, vital and very detailed contributions.

Where do I start? How do I condense my thoughts into the short time that has been allotted to me? What fresh words do I use to elaborate on the terrible deal that has been made for Northern Ireland that I have not used on the 21 other times I have raised this issue in the House in the last number of months? What can I say to ensure that the intelligent and respected Members grasp what we as a party have warned about and argued against since the inception of the Northern Ireland protocol?

Because the title of the debate is “Northern Ireland Protocol”, I will give some examples of the issues that have affected my businesses. Small businesses have been unable to order stock from the mainland and unable to source pet supplies, and they are paying additional fees to the companies that will send the goods to Northern Ireland. A local discount shop owner told me that every order has an additional £30 administration cost. That does not sound like much, but, as his profit margin on a £1 good is 15p, he must sell an additional £200 of goods to pay for the Northern Ireland protocol fee.

Ask any importer and they will say that the increase in container costs from China, which range from $2,800 to $14,700, has seen prices increase to cover the difference to ship goods from 55p to 75p. That is difficult for businesses as it is. They try to absorb costs if possible, but Northern Ireland businesses are under additional pressure due to the insidious protocol. While big stores such as Tesco and Asda have used their exemption to continue to supply pet food and treats, smaller high street businesses have lost another income stream.

Does that feel like the best of both worlds? It does not to Cotters in Newtownards and so many other decent businessmen that have survived covid, only to fall victim possibly to the outworkings of what was proposed to be a paper exercise only. That is what we were told. Seven months in, businesses are in a worse position, not a better one. So, too, is the constituent who went to order a knee support on Amazon Prime day, only to be told that, as they live outside the recognised zone, the supplier would not send it to them. My hon. Friend the Member for North Antrim (Ian Paisley) gave an example of that earlier. My constituent must therefore purchase knee supports that cost an extra £9 due to their postcode. It does not feel like a better position for them, does it?

We think next of those who want to enjoy a staycation on the beautiful shores of Strangford, or of course anywhere in Northern Ireland. This guy is from across the water. He would come to my constituency regularly with his dog. His words sum up perfectly what the Northern Ireland protocol has done. He says:

“I write to you as a UK citizen who enjoys holidaying in Northern Ireland with my pet dog. This year, despite moves by the Northern Ireland Minister Edwin Poots to withhold checks at ferry ports until October, it would seem that I still must be in possession of certificates for rabies and tapeworm, which haven’t been recorded in the United Kingdom since 1922 at a total cost in excess of £200. Therefore I am not prepared to obtain these and I am unable to get a definitive answer to my question, namely, ‘Can I travel with my dog without the said certificates?’…This really will do much harm to Northern Ireland tourism.”

It does not feel better to him. Nor, indeed, does it feel better to my local economy, where he would have come on holiday. It would have benefited from his bed nights and spend in local shops and restaurants.

It does not feel better to the Unionist who has felt the abandonment—I say that respectfully—of the Government like at no other time in living memory. It is a harder pill to swallow when we have a Government who proudly state their belief in this United Kingdom. That is not a reflection on those who have spoken, because they are committed to the Union. Unfortunately, it has to start at a higher level.

I have not got time to give all the examples, but there are many others from businesses in clothes, food, farm machinery, cars, steel and engineering as well as nurseries and farmers. There are even individuals who used to order products but now cannot, or find the cost to be prohibitive. It is a difficult position for people when their own Government are a party to severing ties that affect not simply their business and income but their constitutional position. That causes those loyal to the Queen and Crown to ask why they cling to that when their loyalty is not reciprocated. The sacrifice of Ulster to the slavish demands of Europe engaged in petty warfare is clearly an acceptable sacrifice to make.

This is absolutely not the best of both worlds—unless that world is the eradication of the Union. For those who cherish the Union and honour the blood shed to stand against terrorism, and for the democratic right of the people of Ulster to determine their nationality, this is not the best of any world whatsoever. I have deliberately not referenced bangers from Bangor, although I could, because people in my constituency work for the company in Bangor that produces sausages. They are also on the frontline. I stand by the phrase “we are better off out”, but the preface of this is that we are better out together, and that is what I want to see—we are a package deal.

I am asking Government once more to put into action their phrase, “stronger together” and, for that to happen, to trigger article 16. Save the day in this Chamber and they will have the support of the Unionist community. Stop the European nonsense, allow Northern Ireland her rightful standing as an integral part of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland once more, and give us the same rights in Northern Ireland as the rest of the United Kingdom—parity and equal rights for all.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Harper]

My right hon. Friend puts it very well. There are serious risks here, which is why we need to address the perfectly reasonable concerns that many people have in Northern Ireland.

It would be helpful if the Minister could indicate when the Government will set out their thinking—obviously, there is not long to go before the recess—and whether that will be announced in such a way as to give us the chance to question Ministers. The right hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Sir Jeffrey M. Donaldson), who leads the Democratic Unionist party, set out its checklist for how it is going to test any proposals that the Governments bring forward. It would be helpful to know—I do not expect the Minister and the United Kingdom Government to completely agree with the right hon. Gentleman—

[Jim Shannon]

Why not?

[Mr Harper]

Well, they may. My request was going to be for the Minister to set out which of the tests that the right hon. Member for Lagan Valley set out the Government agree with and which they perhaps do not. Listening to his objectives, I do not think that that list can have come as an enormous surprise, so it would be helpful to get a bit of a steer about the extent to which there is some commonality.

My final point is that, very clearly, as several of my hon. and right hon. Friends have said, there was envisaged in the protocol and the political declaration the idea that the protocol was not a permanent solution but a temporary solution. Certainly, both sides—the British Government and the EU—said that they would take seriously alternative arrangements that could be put in place to enable businesses in Northern Ireland to have unfettered access to the Great Britain market, but just as importantly, to enable businesses in Great Britain to trade freely with Northern Ireland, for the benefit of both Northern Ireland businesses and consumers in Northern Ireland.

Even if one accepts—and I am not sure that I do—that those arrangements could not have been put in place several years ago when we left the European Union, saying that they can never be put in place and that, as technology and business procedures develop, we cannot develop our arrangements, seems unreasonable. Both the EU and the British Government should, working together, be able to take those forward. I look forward very much to listening, in the not-too-distant future, to the Minister’s response to what has been an excellent debate on both sides of the House.