Car Insurance Industry: Fraud

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Wednesday 22nd April 2026 Westminster Hall

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

It is again a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Lewell. We are going for a hat trick this afternoon, and we are on a roll.

I thank the hon. Member for North Shropshire (Helen Morgan) for allowing me to come and highlight the pressures my constituents are facing. I thank her for her incredibly detailed speech. I will give some stats for Northern Ireland—I always give a Northern Ireland perspective—so that hon. Members understand why the issue of fraud in the car insurance industry is so important to us.

We are often told that the high cost of living in Northern Ireland is a product of global markets or unavoidable inflation, but there is a hidden tax on our driveways: a fraud premium that every honest motorist is forced to pay. Fraud is not a victimless, white collar crime; it is a systemic crisis that is pricing our citizens—especially our youth—off the road.

Let us look at some of the cold, hard facts from Northern Ireland. The 2025 Police Service of Northern Ireland annual report showed that motor insurance was the single largest motoring offence group detected in the last year. We are talking about 6,453 detections—17%, or nearly a fifth, of all motoring offences in Northern Ireland, which gives hon. Members an idea of the problem. Behind that number are thousands of people who think it is acceptable to drive without valid cover or to lie on an application to save a few pounds, but saving a few pounds for the individual means a massive loss for the collective—for everyone else.

Across the United Kingdom, motor insurance fraud is a staggering £576 million industry—that is massive. In practical terms, it adds roughly £50 to every single one of our premiums. That is £50 stolen from our pockets by ghost brokers on social media, those who front the policies and those who stage crash-for-cash scams. The situation in Northern Ireland is particularly dire. Although England and Wales have seen some reforms, we remain a litigious outlier. A shocking 40% of claims in Northern Ireland reach the courts, compared with just 3.5% here in the mainland. The environment of high legal costs and high settlements creates a perfect storm for fraud to thrive.

The real victims are not the big insurance corporations, but our young people— people such as my grandchild, who is just starting to drive. As of January 2026, the average premium for a young driver in Northern Ireland is £1,470. That is for third party, fire and theft; fully comprehensive insurance is over £3,000, with a black box—a box in the car that tells the company if the person is doing something they should not be doing. If they do something they should not be doing, their insurance is withdrawn. Those are the second highest premiums in the whole of the United Kingdom, surpassed only by London. We are effectively telling our young people and students that mobility is a luxury that they can no longer afford, because we have not clamped down hard enough on the dishonest few.

We cannot continue to treat insurance fraud as a victimless shortcut. It is not—the stats tell us that. In Northern Ireland, many young people want to drive but find that the premiums are too expensive, never mind the cost of the car. It does not matter how expensive the car is; if they get third party, fire and theft, the whole cost is in their insurance. That is a drain on our economy, a burden on our police and a direct tax on the honest driver.

I believe, as the hon. Member for North Shropshire said, that it is time for stricter enforcement, better education and a refusal to accept that fraud is just part of the system. The Government must prosecute to the fullest extent of the law all those who have broken the law and who have driven up prices for law-abiding citizens. We must also stop the insurers from capitalising on this through higher premiums, but that is a debate for another day.

Mountain Rescue

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Wednesday 22nd April 2026 Westminster Hall

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

It is always a genuine pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Lewell. I give a special thanks to the hon. Member for Hazel Grove (Lisa Smart) for not only introducing the debate but doing so exceptionally well. I also thank the hon. Member for Bolton West (Phil Brickell) for his thoughtful proposals, to which the Minister will hopefully give some response.

In her introduction, the hon. Member for Hazel Grove spoke about the bravery and dedication of our mountain rescue teams, and I am sure the Minister—it is always a pleasure to see her in her place—will encourage us to support all mountain rescue teams across the whole United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.

We stand today at a crossroads in public safety. In the hills and valleys of Northern Ireland, from the granite peaks of the Mournes to the wild expanses of the Sperrin mountains, a silent, professional and entirely voluntary army is keeping us safe. However, while their dedication is limitless, their resources are not.

I want to highlight what we do in Northern Ireland and some of the things we are involved with, and also to make a plea to the Minister. We have not only mountain rescue teams but a K9 search and rescue team; they do exceptional work in finding missing people, and their dedication is incredibly impressive.

For decades, teams such as Mourne mountain rescue and North West mountain rescue have operated on the generosity of the general public. They are tasked by the Police Service of Northern Ireland, and integrated into our emergency response, yet they remain charities, forced to shake buckets to pay for the fuel in their Land Rovers and the technology in their radios. We have been told about the Barnett consequential; it is not the Minsiter’s responsibility, but I want to mention it. It is the mechanism that ensures that Northern Ireland receives its fair share of UK-wide spending. When Westminster increases funding for emergency services or health in England, for which I am always grateful and thank the Minister and Government, Barnett consequentials go on to our block grant. The problem with the money that comes is that there is no direct link; although the money arrives at Stormont, it is not necessarily earmarked for the rescuers on the mountainside. That needs to be done centrally in Westminster.

Currently, the Department of Justice back home provides roughly £100,000 to be shared among nine different search and rescue groups. To put that into perspective, a single new rescue base for the Mourne mountains has spiralled in cost to over £1 million, so that money does not even scrape the scab—if I can use that word—of what is needed. As in the case of the rest of the United Kingdom, we are not simply asking for a handout—it is not about that. We are asking for strategic investment, and we need to have it, especially when we look at the cost of the Mourne mountain rescue base that is being put together.

We need a dedicated, ringfenced portion of Barnett-derived funding that is specifically allocated to Northern Ireland search and rescue. My request to the Minister is, when it comes to the allocation of money through the Barnett consequential, can she ensure through discussion with the relevant Minister that money is specifically earmarked for mountain rescue back home?

Volunteers should be training to save lives, not spending their weekends writing grant applications or worrying about whether they can afford to replace an aging ambulance. We have seen the Scottish Government provide significant, reliable annual grants for their teams, which the hon. Member for Hazel Grove referred to in her introduction. It is time that rescue teams throughout the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland were put on that solid footing, and not the slippery slope of making do with what they are currently clinging on to.

When someone is lost in the dark, or injured on a cliff edge, they do not ask about the funding model of the person coming to save them; they just want help. Our volunteers provide that help without hesitation, 24 hours a day, 365 days a year. It is time that our Minister and Government showed the same level of commitment. I am not saying that commitment has not been given, but we need to step up strategically in relation to where we are. The hon. Member for Hazel Grove set that out incredibly well in her introduction. Let us use the resources we have to ensure that those who save others do not have to save themselves from financial ruin.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lilian Greenwood]

I thank my hon. Friend for making that important point. Indeed, I met Warwickshire search and rescue when Lowland Rescue visited the House of Commons earlier this year or late last year.

The partnership embodied in UK Search and Rescue, or UKSAR, brings together Government Departments, statutory responders and voluntary organisations from across the United Kingdom. Through its strategic board and operators group, it provides a forum that supports alignment between policy, operational delivery and those who respond on the ground. It is an important mechanism for ensuring that different parts of the SAR system—maritime, inland and specialist—can work together effectively while respecting the different responsibilities and remits that apply.

Through UKSAR, a wide range of workstreams are taken forward to support volunteer search and rescue organisations. As has already been acknowledged, they include mountain rescue, lowland rescue, cave rescue, independent lifeboats and others that collectively form the backbone of our national response capability. That work spans interoperability, national operating guidance, medical response, volunteer support and the recognition of SAR organisation. While much of that work is necessarily technical and often unseen, its purpose is simple: to support volunteers to operate safely, professionally and effectively when the public needs them most. UKSAR has provided guidance on insurance for voluntary organisations, which is available on gov.uk. Indemnity requires a much wider discussion across Government, but I will ensure that the question about insurance is addressed by my colleagues.

My hon. Friend the Member for Stirling and Strathallan (Chris Kane) recognised that responsibility for different aspects of search and rescue sits across Government. Inland search and rescue is not within my Department’s direct policy remit. However, that does not lessen the depth of respect that we have for those who deliver these vital services, nor does it diminish the importance of recognising the practical support that Government can provide where it is appropriate to do so. It is very welcome that the APPG for volunteer rescue services is bringing the issues facing services to our attention. I am sure that the Minister with responsibility for search and rescue will respond to my hon. Friend’s kind invitation to join a future meeting.

In that context, it is right to highlight some of the tangible progress that has been made in recent years to support volunteer SAR organisations across the UK through the work of UKSAR. A significant milestone was announced in the recent Budget, as has been acknowledged in the debate: a vehicle excise duty exemption for volunteer search and rescue services. That exemption will apply to mountain rescue, lowland rescue, cave rescue, independent lifeboats and the RNLI. It is the outcome of sustained and collaborative work led by UKSAR and the all-party parliamentary group for SAR volunteers, and it reflects a clear recognition of both the public value of search and rescue volunteers and the practical costs they bear in carrying out their vital work.

Volunteer SAR organisations have also benefited from the VAT rebates introduced in 2015, which remain an important element of financial support. In addition, practical enablers are in place to assist operations on the ground, including access to radio spectrum at reduced or nil cost. That access allows teams to operate compatible communications during incidents, improving safety, co-ordination and effectiveness through the UKSAR band plan. Those measures might not always attract attention—they sound a bit techy—but they matter enormously to those who rely on them in the field.

[Jim Shannon]

First of all, I thank the Minister for those suggestions and for the direct help from Government. I know that this is not in the Minister’s remit, but I ask her to ringfence the moneys being sent to Northern Ireland in Barnett consequentials, because if they are ringfenced, they go to where they should be.

[Lilian Greenwood]

I note the hon. Member’s question, and I understand that support is provided to mountain rescue services within Northern Ireland, but that is a matter for the Northern Ireland Assembly.

As a number of hon. Members have rightly said, it is important to recognise that resilience is not only about equipment or interoperability; it is about people. Search and rescue can be physically demanding, and the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Tim Farron) mentioned a search and rescue volunteer who sadly lost his life. I certainly offer my condolences to him and his community, who will have been affected by that terrible incident. We know that it can be incredibly physically demanding work, but it can also be emotionally challenging, particularly for volunteers who balance the responsibility alongside family life and employment. That is why mental health and wellbeing principles for SAR volunteers have now been published on gov.uk, setting out expectations and guidance to support those who so often run towards risk on behalf of others.

All that sits alongside the central truth that has been reflected throughout the debate: volunteers lie at the very heart of search and rescue in the UK, and nowhere is that more evident than in mountain rescue. Mountain rescue volunteers operate in some of the most challenging conditions that our country offers: remote terrain, hostile weather, long and often complex incidents, frequently far from the spotlight and always without expectation of reward. They respond at night, in severe weather and in circumstances that demand both technical excellence and personal resilience, and many do so at considerable personal cost, stepping away from families and working lives at a moment’s notice, carrying responsibilities that most of us thankfully never have to shoulder. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Whitehaven and Workington (Josh MacAlister), who, as has been mentioned already, volunteers with the Patterdale Mountain Rescue Team.

It is right that we acknowledge the pressures that volunteers face. As we have already heard, demand is rising, incidents are increasingly complex and volunteers are balancing that extraordinary service with the realities of modern life, including cost of living pressures and the cumulative emotional impact of repeated exposure to traumatic incidents. Those challenges are real, and they deserve to be recognised honestly and respectfully. Despite those pressures, mountain rescue volunteers and volunteer search and rescue teams more broadly continue to respond with professionalism, humility and compassion. They are not a peripheral part of our emergency response system; they are one of its greatest strengths, and they exemplify public service in its truest sense. I am proud to be here on behalf of the Minister responsible for maritime search and rescue, and I am proud of the volunteers and supporting organisations that form such an important part of the UK search and rescue community. I pay tribute to those who respond on the frontline and to those working behind the scenes to ensure these life-saving services continue to be there whenever they are needed.

My hon. Friend the Member for Bolton West (Phil Brickell) asked a number of questions in support of Bolton Mountain Rescue Team, which I know does vital work in his area. I concur that Winter hill and Rivington pike offer many beautiful walking routes. He raised a number of questions about the high cost of insurance, access to rehabilitation services, and medical supplies. Although those issues are not within my Department’s remit, I will ensure that they are drawn to the attention of relevant ministerial colleagues who can write to him on those matters. The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) called for greater support for mountain rescue, and I hope I have set out how the Government are responding to the needs of the mountain rescue community.

The hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale and the right hon. Member for Dwyfor Meirionnydd (Liz Saville Roberts) represent some of the UK’s highest and most popular mountain regions. They rightly drew attention to the dangers of exploring not only the fells and ridges, but caves and quarries, particularly if doing so without proper equipment and without knowledge and guidance.

Social media does bring our wild places to wider attention, but we know that it is also leading to more people, particularly younger people, putting themselves in danger. That means that we need to look carefully at the channels that we use to ensure that safety guidance and warnings reach the people who need to see them. There is of course experience in Government of doing that—I speak as the Minister with responsibility for road safety, where we are trying to reach young men aged 17 to 24, who are particularly at risk. We are using completely different channels than perhaps we would have used in the past, because we know that we can reach them better through social media or YouTube or other methods. Perhaps the same can be applied to the sorts of warnings we are offering about the hills, mountains and caves.

I conclude by once again thanking hon. Members for raising these important issues. I thank the hon. Member for Hazel Grove for securing today’s debate and giving the House the opportunity not only to debate Government support, but to recognise and celebrate the remarkable contribution of our mountain rescue volunteers.

SS Richard Montgomery: Masts

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Tuesday 21st April 2026 Commons Chamber

[Kevin McKenna (Sittingbourne and Sheppey) (Lab)]

Madam Deputy Speaker, I am really grateful to you and the House for this opportunity to discuss something that is of immense importance to residents in Sittingbourne, and especially on the Isle of Sheppey. It should also be of real concern to Members of this House, since the wreck that I am about to talk about, which lies at the mouth of the Thames estuary, also presents a danger to the physical wellbeing of the Houses of Parliament themselves.

For those who do not know, the Richard Montgomery, which lies just beneath the water at the mouth of the Thames, contains potentially the largest amount of explosives that could explode in peacetime anywhere in the world that has not been a nuclear test. This amount of explosives could, if they all went off at the same time, throw a plume of water 3,000 metres into the sky, setting off a tsunami that would obliterate vast swathes of the Kent and Essex coastline and shoot all the way up to London to flood all our colleagues who might be drinking on the Terrace of the House of Commons. This is obviously a real concern. I have to say that that was based on calculations done in the 1970s. More recent assessments of the wreck are not quite as dramatic. Nevertheless, there is a significant amount of munitions on the floor of the sea, just at the mouth of the most important river in our country, the River Thames.

The Richard Montgomery came over during the 1940s. It was full of munitions that were being given to Britain to fight the Nazis in the second world war. Tragically, it lost its anchorage and drifted on to a sandbank. When the tide fell, it broke the back of the ship, leaving it marooned in the mouth of the Thames. Since then, it has been a major landmark that is used by ships to navigate their way up and down the River Thames and a warning to people not to get too close to the explosives. It can be seen from Sheerness, where it is only about a mile and a half out to sea. People who have grown up on Sheppey know this story. It does not just connect them to the second world war and the support we got from our American allies at that time; it also has a powerful story, because of the threat of the explosives, as people grow up around it and feel that they might be in danger of a catastrophic explosion occurring.

In recent years, the wreck, which is a steel vessel, has been gradually deteriorating and corroding. Concerns have been raised about what would happen if the vessel should disintegrate completely and scatter the explosives across the sea or, even worse, if any of them were to be triggered. I have spoken to explosives experts and bomb disposal experts in the Royal Navy and the general feeling is that, when vessels such as this were set to sea, all the explosives and munitions on board were made safe. The detonators would have been kept separate from the high explosive charges and the risk is comparatively low, but we cannot say that there is zero risk.

One of the concerns that has been raised in recent years is that, as the three masts that stand proud of the water erode and rust away, they could fall on the wreck and destroy what is left of the Richard Montgomery, either triggering an explosion or scattering the explosives. Over several years, the Government and the previous Government looked at what could be done to make it as safe as possible, and the decision was made to remove the masts. The Government have finally now signed a contract with the removal company that will dismantle the masts. This landmark will be lost forever to people from Sheerness, and the emotion and those stories are at risk of being lost locally.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I commend the hon. Gentleman for bringing forward this debate. He has illustrated the issue and the concerns over the explosives, although the second and up-to-date assessment seemed to indicate that maybe the threat is not the same. I want to ask him about marine and maritime history and the three masts. Does he agree that the ultimate goal is to protect local maritime history by creating a lasting public display for locals and tourists alike? Does he not further agree that our maritime history—my constituency of Strangford has incredible maritime history—should be promoted in schools across the United Kingdom and that schools should be encouraged to visit these masts, as we do in Northern Ireland with the Titanic museum in Belfast, to gain a better understanding of our strong history? He should be congratulated on bringing this issue forward. None of us—not me—would have known about it but for his knowledge.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

I congratulate the hon. Member for creating a link back to the topic.

Hidden Credit Liabilities: Role of the FCA

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Tuesday 14th April 2026 Westminster Hall

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

As always, it is a real pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Roger. I give special thanks to the right hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell), who is a doughty champion for his constituents, and they are fortunate to have him as their MP—well done to him for all that he does in this House.

It gives me great pleasure to be a voice for the households and businesses in Northern Ireland that have, for too long, been navigating a financial landscape filled with hidden pitfalls and undisclosed liabilities. It is also a pleasure to see the Minister in her place. I have three asks of her, and I hope she will be able to accommodate me, and indeed others in the asks they have.

Although this is a UK-wide issue, the weight of hidden credit falls heavier across the Irish sea, in Northern Ireland. We are a region where 20% of all adults are struggling with over-indebtedness—the highest proportion in this kingdom. When we talk about hidden liabilities, we are talking not just about accounting entries or numbers, but about families in Belfast, Londonderry and Fermanagh who are discovering that the car finance they took out years ago was padded with secret commissions they never agreed to and had no knowledge of.

For our SMEs—the small and medium-sized businesses that are the absolute backbone of the Northern Ireland economy—the scars of the past run deep. Hon. Members may remember the Ulster Bank scandal. I remember it well, as will my hon. Friend the Member for East Londonderry (Mr Campbell). Derivative swaps were sold as protection, but instead acted as a noose around the necks of those who had taken them out. Those people found themselves constrained by what took place, and indeed they still are. Today, many of our small firms still find themselves trapped by complex credit lines and by break costs that were never clearly explained. With that mist, darkness or cloud hanging over those agreements, people find themselves—even today—trying to sort them out and find a way forward. The Financial Conduct Authority has a clear mandate to protect consumers and ensure market integrity, but protection that comes a decade too late is not protection; it is a post mortem. Those people found themselves in agreements where they had no idea about the small print or what it would do to them. Even today, the payments are mind-boggling.

In Northern Ireland, more than 50 bank branches have closed in just three years—11 of them were in my constituency—so the impact has been very real. As physical, face-to-face banks disappear, the digital shadow of credit grows. We see a banking void, where vulnerable people are pushed towards unregulated, hidden lending because the high street banks have abandoned them. That cannot be right. I therefore look forward to the Minister’s response. I am sure she grasps the issues, because there will be little or no difference between her constituency and mine.

We welcome the FCA’s current redress schemes, but on behalf of our constituents, we demand more than just retrospective apologies. Apologies are words; actions are what really matter. I therefore have three asks of the Minister. First, we want transparency by default and no more discretionary commissions hidden in the small print of motor finance. Secondly, we want SME equality. Our businesses deserve the same protections as retail consumers when dealing with complex credit products. In my constituency, and indeed across Northern Ireland, small and medium-sized businesses are the backbone of our economy; they are incredibly important. Thirdly—this is the big ask—we want regional sensitivity. The FCA must recognise that a one-size-fits-all approach does not work when Northern Ireland has the highest vulnerability rates in the United Kingdom. To add to that third point, I would ask the Minister to please engage with the relevant Minister and the banks in Northern Ireland—we need special consideration.

In conclusion, I say this to the Minister and the regulator: the people of Northern Ireland are not asking for handouts; they are asking for a fair game plan. It is time to pull back the curtain on these hidden liabilities and to ensure that the consumer duty is a reality in every town across Northern Ireland, Scotland, Wales and England. It cannot be just a slogan in London; it has to be for everyone.

Rural Roads

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Tuesday 17th March 2026 Westminster Hall

[Stuart Anderson (South Shropshire) (Con)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the condition of roads in rural areas.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stringer, especially on a topic as important as road conditions in rural areas such as South Shropshire. We will all know that there is no place like South Shropshire, with its outstanding beauty, vast countryside and beautiful winding country roads—but those country roads are where we see the issue.

A dangerous trap has arisen for many of my residents and many of the people who come to see such a beautiful area: its beauty has been blighted by potholes, which are causing a major issue. I have in my area some roads that are now damaging the tyres of tractors when they are travelling along them—let us imagine what that would do to a moped or bike. My constituents do not have to imagine, however, because it has happened numerous times; the son of one constituent in Ludlow hit a pothole recently and wrote off his moped.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I commend the hon. Gentleman. I spoke to him beforehand about this issue. Insurance claims due to potholes, damage to car rims and tyres, and bicycles driving into potholes and riders going over the handlebars and getting injured—those are just some examples of what has happened back home in my constituency. Insurance claims are going through the roof against the roads Department. Does he agree that the present strategy is penny wise and pound foolish, and that a major strategy to improve rural roads is urgently needed to ensure that people do not get injured and their vehicles do not get damaged?

[Stuart Anderson]

The hon. Member raises a very good point. I will come on to the preventive measures and what can actually be returned to the economy to help the Department fix this major issue.

Potholes are one of the biggest issues raised with me since I have been an MP, and I am sure the same will be true for many other Members. Obviously when we get bad weather, we see them increase more and more, and that causes a major issue.

There are multiple areas that I would like to cover today. I am not raising one or two anecdotal concerns or bits of evidence; I am raising the more than 2,100 road defects reported to Shropshire council in January alone—that is, in one month. That is almost triple the number of reports in the previous month and double the number in January 2025. I have been told that potholes are not getting fixed quickly enough, which is causing roads to deteriorate and some to become impassable.

Banking Hubs: Rural and Post-Industrial Communities

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Tuesday 24th February 2026 Westminster Hall

[Ann Davies (Caerfyrddin) (PC)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered banking hubs in rural and post-industrial communities.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Desmond. It is unfortunate really that this is a 30-minute debate. So many people have been in touch to make interventions or speeches, including the right hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Sir John Hayes) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Dwyfor Meirionnydd (Liz Saville Roberts), but as you mentioned, Sir Desmond, it is impossible to fit everybody in.

I am pleased to lead the debate on this important topic. Access to cash and banking services is a pressing issue in rural and post-industrial communities. I hope to outline why we desperately need to increase the availability of services through banking hubs in those areas.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Ann Davies]

I will. This is one of three, Sir Desmond.

[Jim Shannon]

I will just say that so many people are here because the hon. Lady has brought up a subject matter that is worth more than 30 minutes of debate. Does she agree that the only goals that banks seem to have are bigger dividends and more profit? When they close branches there is a dramatic effect on rural life in her constituency and in mine. Is it not time for banks to look not at profit, but at the people and customers that they should be supporting?

[Ann Davies]

I totally agree, and I will come on to that later. In 2006, cash accounted for 62% of all payments in the UK. It now accounts for around 14%, with some forecasts taking it down to 6% in 2031. However, if we look beyond those percentages, we can see that cash still plays a vital role in people’s lives. For many, cash is indeed king.

New figures from Link, which accounts for 77% of the UK’s entire ATM network transactions, show that cash continues to be central to how millions of people manage their money. In 2025, £76 billion was withdrawn from Link ATMs, in 1.27 billion transactions recorded across the year. Link notes:

“While ATM use naturally evolves as more people choose digital payments…cash remains a trusted and widely used option.”

Link data shows that the most popular places in which to use cash remain convenience stores, supermarkets and payments between friends and families.

Social Security

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Tuesday 10th February 2026 Commons Chamber

[Dan Tomlinson]

The draft Child Benefit and Guardian’s Allowance Up-rating Order sets the rates for both child benefit and guardian’s allowance, and will ensure that those benefits, for which Treasury Ministers are responsible and which are delivered by His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs, are uprated by inflation in April 2026. The draft Social Security (Contributions) (Rates, Limits and Thresholds Amendments, National Insurance Funds Payments and Extension of Veteran’s Relief) Regulations 2026 set the rates of certain national insurance contributions classes, and the level of certain thresholds, for the 2026-27 tax year. The regulations also make provision for a Treasury grant to be paid into the national insurance fund if required for the same tax year, through a transfer of wider Government funds to the NIF, and extend the veterans employer national insurance relief for two years, until April 2028.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I welcome what the Minister is saying, which is positive. This is a good step for guardians, carers and veterans. Sometimes people come to me and ask me questions. They say that they cannot get any help with the changes that have come in and how they are affected. When they are given more money, sometimes they fall into a higher tax bracket. Is help available for those who receive an increase in their guardian’s allowance, carer’s allowance or veteran’s allowance? We need to make sure that somebody can help them through the process. It is almost like walking through a muddy field: they just do not know where to go next.

[Dan Tomlinson]

The hon. Member is right: a range of reliefs in the national insurance system help particular groups, including young people and those who have served in our military. It is right that those reliefs are there, and I am glad that the Government took the decision to extend them by two years. The Government publish guidance on the way that the reliefs can be used. We aim to ensure that the guidance supports those who seek to employ young people and people who have served in the military, so that they are able to make employment decisions. Through the tax system, we want to support particular groups to be able to be employed. I thank the hon. Member for his question.

I turn to the detail of the Child Benefit and Guardian’s Allowance Up-rating Order 2026. As hon. Members will know, the Government are committed to delivering a welfare system that is fair for taxpayers while providing support for those who need it. These regulations ensure that the benefits for which Treasury Ministers are responsible, and which HMRC delivers, are uprated by inflation in April 2026. Child benefit and guardian’s allowance will increase by 3.8%, in line with the consumer prices index in the year to September 2025. Tax credits awards ended on 5 April 2025, so no changes to rates will be required.

I turn to the second set of regulations before us today. As announced at the Budget, the primary threshold and the lower profits limit threshold will be maintained at their current levels until April 2031. These regulations set the level for the 2026-27 tax year. Employees’ entitlement to contributory benefits, such as the state pension, is determined by their earnings being at or above the lower earnings limit. Self-employed people’s entitlement is determined by their earnings being at or above the small profits threshold.

These regulations uprate the LEL and the SPT. This is the usual process and maintains the real level of income where someone gains entitlement to contributory benefits. The upper earnings limit for employee NICs and the upper profits limit for self-employed NICs—the points at which the main rate falls to 2%—are aligned with the higher rate threshold for income tax. The thresholds will be maintained at their current levels, and these regulations set the levels for the 2026-27 tax year. As announced at the Budget last year, employer national insurance thresholds, including the secondary threshold, will also be maintained at their current levels.

We have already had a brief discussion about the employer NICs reliefs, including for under-21s, under-25 apprentices, veterans, and new employees in freeport and investment zones. The regulations that we are debating today keep the thresholds for those reliefs at their current levels. The regulations also make provision for the NICs relief for employers of veterans to be extended for two years until April 2028, during which time the Government will continue to consider the most effective way to support veterans into employment as part of the next spending review settlement.

Without these regulations, child benefit and guardian’s allowance would fall in real terms, and HMRC would be unable to collect NICs receipts. I hope that colleagues will join me in supporting them today.

Taxation: Small and Medium-sized Enterprises

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Tuesday 3rd February 2026 Westminster Hall

[Gregory Stafford]

I hope the Minister is listening; this is a problem not just for constituencies in the south but across the country. It is not just Conservative or Lib Dem Members raising the issue—clearly Labour Members have the same problem. The Minister should look at all good ideas, but current Treasury orthodoxy is to carry on with what it is doing, and to tax anything that looks like enterprise, business or job creation, which will destroy our economy and harm our high streets.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I commend the hon. Gentleman for bringing this matter forward, and he is absolutely right to outline this story. To reinforce the point, the Chancellor and the Finance Minister in Northern Ireland have rightly rolled back the proposed enhanced taxation because of its impact on tourism. However, that feels more like a stay of execution than a solution. This is happening everywhere, not just in England but in Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland, to a great degree. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the number of small uplifts—in rates, national insurance contributions, the price of goods and so on—can no longer be absorbed by knife-edge profit margins, and that unless we stop these tax rises, which is the Government’s responsibility, our local economy will pay a deadly price?

[Gregory Stafford]

I thank the hon. Member for, as always, bringing his experience from Northern Ireland. That emphasises the point that I was making: this is a whole-country problem. He is absolutely right that we are on a knife edge. We are at a tipping point for our small and medium-sized enterprises, and if they go under, the consequences will be dire. If one wants to speak Treasury speak, that means the Treasury will actually raise less money. The only way that the Treasury will raise more money is by freeing up businesses to expand, grow and employ more people. That is how we will get our economy going, not by taxing every single business until the pips squeak.

I turn now to hospitality, which has been a focus of mine since I was elected. It underpins community life and provides work for young people and for those who rely on flexible hours. Yet the Government slashed retail, hospitality and leisure relief from 75% to 40%—an ideological and damaging decision—which will be followed by eye-watering increases in rateable values from April this year.

UKHospitality data shows that the average pub will see its business rates rise by 15% in the first year, climbing to a 76% increase by year three. At the same time, online and out-of-town competitors are being protected. Distribution warehouses used by online giants will see increases of just 9% in year one and 16% by year three. This is not a level playing field; it is actively tilted against the high street.

The Government’s so-called emergency pubs relief, announced this year, does little to address the scale of the problem. It is a sticking plaster, not a solution. Just one in 20 retail, hospitality and leisure businesses will benefit, and even then the average pub will still be paying £5,700 more in business rates than before.

Business rates are simply not being reduced, and those pressures are compounded by the changes to employer national insurance contributions introduced at the 2024 Budget. For the hospitality sector alone, that amounts to £1 billion every single year. More than 774,000 hospitality workers have been dragged into employer national insurance for the first time, disproportionately affecting part-time staff such as bar workers and waiting staff. Flexible work is being punished. Young workers are being hit hardest, and employing people is becoming more expensive at precisely the wrong moment. That is not pro-growth and it is not pro-work.

VAT policy has also failed small businesses. The £90,000 VAT registration threshold actively discourages growth and creates perverse incentives for firms to cap expansion. The Government have ignored repeated calls for a reduced VAT rate of 12.5% for hospitality, a policy that would support growth, improve competitiveness and align the UK with many of our European neighbours. The refusal to act is holding back an entire sector.

The Parliamentary Private Secretary, the hon. Member for Hitchin (Alistair Strathern), is chuntering from his seat. I am sure he will be able to hold his own debate at some point to tell us all what is going on in his constituency. I suspect that, if he were honest, he would tell us about the impact that his Government’s policies have had on the sector, and how they are absolutely destroying his high street, as they are mine.

These pressures are not theoretical; they are being felt by real businesses across my constituency. For example, at Birdies café in Farnham Park, business rates have increased by 450%—from £290 to £1,600 a month—a change that has already cost the business a member of staff. Energy bills have risen from £300 to £400 a month to £3,500 a month, while rising wage costs and changes to employment law have forced the owner into rolling three-month contracts—a worse outcome for workers, driven entirely by the Government’s pressure and policies. At the Bat and Ball pub, business rates are doubling from £800 to £1,600 a month. Minimum wage changes have added £56,000 a year to its wage bill.

Across my constituency, community businesses such as the Antiques Warehouse, the Packhouse, the Bluebell pub, Serina, the Six Bells, the Healy Group, and Hamilton’s in Farnham; Acorns Coffee, the Dairy, Issaya and Smallworld IT in Bordon; Oliver’s café and wine bar and Davids menswear in Haslemere; Passfield Stores in Passfield; Little Latte in Tilford; the General Wine Company and Stedman Blower in Liphook; and the Greatham Inn in Greatham have all written or spoken to me and are facing the same relentless squeeze from Government tax and regulatory decisions. These are not failing businesses; they are community anchors being priced out by this Government’s policies.

These issues are not confined to hospitality. Yesterday I met representatives of Medicines UK to discuss the impact of Government policy on suppliers of generic medicines. They raised serious concerns about the extended producer responsibility packaging tax. Packaging is obviously mandated by the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency for safety reasons, leaving companies with little ability to reduce their tax liability. As a result, costs are either absorbed or passed directly on to the NHS and therefore the taxpayer.

Transport in the South-East

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Tuesday 3rd February 2026 Westminster Hall

[Jess Brown-Fuller]

The hon. Gentleman will be pleased to hear that he is much closer to the Government than I am and has a brilliant opportunity to have his concerns heard by the Minister. He is right to raise the nonsense of having to go in and then out of London to reach vital pieces of infrastructure.

I am sure many hon. Members across the House will wax lyrical about their transport woes today, but it will come as no surprise that the focus of my contribution will be the impact that poor transport infrastructure has on my constituency. The Minister knows that the A27 is one of the busiest trunk roads in the UK and the main arterial route for those travelling down to the coast all the way from Wiltshire in the west to East Sussex.

Months ago, I invited the Transport Secretary during Transport questions, to come and sit in traffic with me, and I have no idea why she declined. My point was that it did not matter when she came—what time of day or day of the week—I could guarantee we would be caught in congestion. The Transport Secretary did offer me a meeting with the Roads Minister, the hon. Member for Wakefield and Rothwell (Simon Lightwood). I am grateful to him for sitting down with me so that I could explain the issue in more detail. If I were to pull up Apple Maps or Google Maps at this exact moment, there will almost certainly be a red ring round my city with traffic at a standstill.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I commend the hon. Lady for bringing this forward. I find myself in a similar, frustrating circumstance to the one she indicates. In my case, it is the proposed Ballynahinch bypass, which would breathe new life into the town. Like the project mentioned by hon. Member for Slough (Mr Dhesi), it has been postponed repeatedly since I was first elected in 2010. Does the hon. Lady agree that infrastructure projects, such as she seeks for her constituency, will have major local effects, boost the economy, clear up long waits in traffic and create jobs? They must never be relegated to a dusty shelf where they have clearly been for the last few years.

[Jess Brown-Fuller]

It is almost as though the hon. Gentleman has read my speech in advance. I will go on to a lot of the things he has just raised. If it is bad today in my constituency, it is hard to imagine how much worse it is on a sunny day, when tourists for the Witterings queue for miles to reach our lovely sandy beach or Goodwood hosts an event that attracts visitors in their thousands.

Tolled Crossings and Regional Connectivity

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Monday 2nd February 2026 Commons Chamber

[Anna Gelderd]

My hon. Friend makes an important point about the environmental impacts, which I will come to later. Geography amplifies the pressures, and the water boundaries bring a particular problem.

For a standard car journey, it costs £3 to leave Cornwall on both the Tamar bridge and Torpoint ferry. The Cremyll ferry charges £3 per adult for a single journey, and other crossings in that area charge a similar amount. Some local resident concessions exist, but recent proposed increases in admin costs triggered significant concern, because the total amount is unaffordable for many people.

The Tamar Toll Action Group, along with myself and other MPs, called for a rethink, and there was an extraordinary meeting of local authorities. Some may argue that the prices are not extreme, but they add up quickly. I was glad that the meeting happened and that changes were considered. Average incomes in South East Cornwall are around 20% below the national median, and residents cross have to use the crossing frequently, so the costs do add up for those in the local communities.

There is clear evidence of isolation across parts of South East Cornwall and wider Cornwall. Some communities fall within recognised measures of poor accessibility in both travel time and services. Digital connectivity adds to the pressure, as broadband and mobile coverage remain inconsistent, which limits remote working, access to online services and business development. That reinforces physical isolation rather than easing it.

Digital connectivity is increasingly important alongside physical transport. Research by the Department for Culture, Media and Sport highlights the negative impacts of poor broadband on farmers, including reduced productivity, compliance challenges, and limited market access, which is really important for South East Cornwall. High-speed broadband supports economic growth, productivity and educational outcomes.

We have the foundations for a modern, flexible economy in South East Cornwall. People want to live there, work there and build businesses there. The well-known “surf and code” model seen in places such as California and Portugal reflects a real opportunity to combine the quality of life in the coastal and rural areas of Devon and Cornwall with work, but that depends on sustained investment in physical connectivity and other types of connectivity, including digital.

Currently our public transport does not bridge the gap. Bus services are often infrequent, and ferry services are essential but shaped by the costs that I have mentioned. When disruption occurs, the system offers little flexibility. Bus services in South East Cornwall fell by around 50% between 2010 and 2023. The Conservatives stripped those in our rural and coastal communities of the ability to get around, and then systematically dismantled our public services too. Those pressures have gone on for far too long and communities like mine need support.

Cornwall’s rail connectivity depends on a single line through Dawlish. Recent storm damage again highlights the fragility of that route, following the collapse of the sea wall in 2014. Climate change is accelerating faster than our adaptation, and resilience must be built into long-term infrastructure planning. Phase 6 of the Dawlish resilience work and the reopening of the Tavistock line remain shared aspirations for Cornwall and Devon. What comes next must be credible, long-term and capable of carrying the confidence of south-west communities. Existing Department for Transport investment should be leveraged alongside local and regional funding to improve resilience and open new routes.

Anyone who has visited Cornwall will know and understand that our road network remains a challenge. Country lanes are often narrow, overgrown and dangerous. The A38, which remains the main route in South East Cornwall, has claimed too many lives—the recent safety upgrades are welcome, and I pay tribute to all involved in making them possible for our area. The transport constraints we face carry economic consequences. Businesses face higher operating costs and reduced labour pools. Tradespeople absorb toll charges that competitors elsewhere simply do not face.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I commend the hon. Member for South East Cornwall (Anna Gelderd) on securing this debate. We have a slightly similar issue in Northern Ireland with the connectivity between Northern Ireland and the Republic. If those crossing the border to go to work come to a toll, they have to pay that toll—it is the only way to get there. If people want to go to the airport or on a tourist trip, they have to pay the toll. Does she agree that information and an easy payment system must be in place to ensure that people from all areas, especially tourists, can access these roads without undue charges? We cannot control the charges, but we have to pay them.

[Anna Gelderd]

I agree with the hon. Member that the impacts on communities are difficult.

The situation is not a new one, and we continue to use historical funding models that reflect the priorities of their time. Over the years, there have been reviews, consultations and partial reforms, but no holistic restructure. Residents and businesses have continued to pay year after year while the underlying system remains unchanged. Elsewhere in the UK, similar situations have been resolved. Tolled crossings have been reduced, capped or removed. South East Cornwall now has a clear opportunity to act, firmly aligned with the national interest for growth across the UK.

The Tamar crossings are critical to our local economy and national defence. His Majesty’s Naval Base Devonport and supporting sites rely on a large mobile workforce and complex supply chains crossing the Tamar daily. Long-term Ministry of Defence investment depends on reliable connectivity between Cornwall, Plymouth and the wider region. Cornwall has deep ties to the armed forces. South East Cornwall has a high number of veterans and serving personnel, with almost 14% of the residents of Torpoint having served. Communities that contribute so directly to our national defence should not face barriers to their daily life. Local residents and businesses effectively support significant infrastructure, and Cornish waters are used for Navy testing and training. Twenty-three per cent of Babcock’s Devonport workforce live in South East Cornwall. As we look to the future, this connectivity must also be considered.