Commonwealth War Graves Commission

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Tuesday 10th May 2016 Westminster Hall

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I congratulate the right hon. Member for Broadland (Mr Simpson) on his graphic and detailed presentation of the case, which we appreciate. The Commonwealth War Graves Commission is as relevant now as it was when it was founded, which is testimony to the hard work and determination of those involved.

Neither a soldier nor a politician, the commission’s founder, Sir Fabian Ware, was, at 45, too old to fight, but he became the commander of a mobile unit of that fabulous organisation, the British Red Cross. Saddened by the sheer number of casualties, he felt driven to find a way to ensure that the final resting places of the dead would not be lost forever. His vision chimed with the times and has continued to this day. Under his dynamic leadership, his unit began recording and caring for all the graves it could find, and by 1915 its work was officially recognised by the War Office and incorporated into the British Army as the Graves Registration Commission. That work continues today, and Sir Fabian Ware’s vision is now a reality. The initial aim of ensuring that the final resting places of the dead would not be lost forever has been successful.

As others have said, the Commonwealth War Graves Commission does a staggering amount of work, and it has some 23,000 memorials and cemeteries in 154 countries, making it a truly global organisation. In my constituency of Strangford, we have between 60 and 70 graves that are looked after by the commission. I went around the graves with one of the commission’s officers to see its work. A young British Army soldier who died in the 1916 uprising is buried in Greyabbey, and another young soldier from the first world war, Pritchards, was lying in an unattended grave. The commission will look after graves, but it needs the permission of the families. We need to ensure that Ware’s vision can continue to be fulfilled and that war graves are maintained and looked after from Strangford to South Georgia. From the Menin Gate and the Thiepval memorial to the India Gate in Delhi and the Helles memorial in Turkey, the commission tends some of the most iconic architectural structures in the world. From tiny cemeteries containing just a handful of graves to the Tyne Cot cemetery in Belgium, where there are 11,000 burials, the commission ensures that the memory of all those who perished is preserved with the utmost respect.

The commission cares for the cemeteries as a whole, so conservation and reconstruction can, and often does, involve teams from different disciplines. It is not just a matter of tending graves; it is much, much more than that—horticulture, headstone carving and manufacture, and the architectural maintenance teams. They are people with skills, love, affection and commitment to their job. The cemeteries are the sum of their individual parts, and teamwork at all levels helps to maintain their overall appearance.

Even the most durable materials require maintenance, especially when they are used in constructions that are nearly 100 years old. Climate change, pollution and vandalism all take their toll. The background information mentions deliberate vandalism in places such as Libya, Iraq and Beirut, and the commission has made it its business to reinstate those graveyards, as the right hon. Member for Broadland said. Structural renovation projects can involve anything from reroofing buildings to drainage systems. Headstones, memorials and sculptures are kept in good order by a regular cycle of maintenance—a lot of good work is done. To ensure that the quality of materials and the craftsmanship remain a priority, the commission employs specialist masons and runs its own workshops, in which many of the replacement headstones are made.

Barry Edwards, the commission’s architect, was asked to construct a brand-new cemetery at Fromelles to take the remains of 250 Australian and British servicemen who lost their lives at the battle of Fromelles in July 1916. It is amazing to think that, a century on, the commission is still making a difference in the proper remembrance of those who lost their lives in the first world war.

With gardeners and horticultural experts working in 154 countries, the commission has an enviable track record of innovation and expertise. More than half of the 1,750 acres of ground under the commission’s control is given over to fine horticulture, making maintenance a year-round task for its 900 gardeners. That might mean bringing seeds from Nepal to use in Gurkha cemeteries, or bringing maples from Canada for Dieppe. Even in horticulture, the commission goes the extra mile to ensure that each nation’s war dead are remembered properly.

Today, the work continues to the highest standard with the restoration of the Thiepval memorial. I have seen the memorial and remember it well. It is a fitting tribute to the fallen of the Somme. I could not conclude my speech without mentioning the Somme, which means so much to Ulster men and women because of their ancestors’ sacrifice. It is always good to remember that the 36th (Ulster) Division fought alongside the 10th and 16th (Irish) Divisions, when it was the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland. The battle of the Somme resonates. Many streets and many Orange lodges across the Province are named after the battle. The banner of my lodge depicts the battle of the Somme too. This year, the battle’s centenary will be commemorated across Northern Ireland, and people from all community backgrounds in the Province have connections to the battle. As a Unionist of Ulster, I find it hard to think of something more deeply embedded in our psyche as a people than the Somme, which is seen by many as the people’s blood sacrifice in the pursuit of our self-determination.

The final stage of repointing on the Thiepval memorial has been done, and pointing work has started on the natural stone. The new coping stones and stone garlands are being repointed with a specific mortar that is close to the colour of the stone. The memorial is now equipped with a new distribution board for all the new electrical installation, and work continues on the top roof. It has been waterproofed to ensure that it is watertight.

On 15 March, the new flags flew again on top of the memorial. To mark the occasion, Lieutenant Colonel Kian Murphy, representing both France and the UK, rendered the military salute. The next step is placing the British and French crowns on top of the flag poles and cleaning the memorial from top to bottom. It will not be long before we see the final result. We commend the Commonwealth War Graves Commission for all that it has done for its workers and staff, and for commemorating battles of many years ago, particularly the battle of the Somme.

Fixed Odds Betting Terminals

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Tuesday 26th April 2016 Westminster Hall

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered fixed-odds betting terminals.

Fixed odds betting terminals are a big issue, and a big crowd of hon. and right. hon Members are here to speak about them. There is a lot of concern in the House about the issue. There are probably some hon. Members here today—perhaps not so many—who will not be speaking with the same level of concern as me, but Opposition Members intend to take the issue further in their speeches today.

Fixed odds betting terminals are touch-screen roulette machines found in betting shops across the whole United Kingdom. Gamblers can play casino-style games with a maximum stake of £100, which can be wagered every 20 seconds. That is a possible total of £300 a minute. We have more than 35,000 fixed odds betting terminals in the United Kingdom’s bookmakers. FOBTs are disproportionately found in the poorer parts of the United Kingdom and generate some £1.7 billion of revenue for bookmakers. Campaigners have labelled the machines the crack cocaine of gambling, and that is what they are. The issue is of great importance.

Bookmakers have a powerful lobby and powerful friends. They have kept arguing that we need more evidence, despite the obvious case for regulation, in order to protect their huge profits made at the expense of the vulnerable. We are here to speak for the vulnerable, for legislative change and for better protection.

[Fiona Bruce (Congleton) (Con)]

The hon. Gentleman is bringing forward the debate with his characteristic compassion. Does he agree that it is a matter of social justice that we address this issue? Those affected are not just those who are addicted, but their families, and in particular their children. It is primarily for them that many of us are here today.

[Jim Shannon]

As always, I thank the hon. Lady for her intervention—she is an hon. Friend, too. She speaks with heart and compassion, and she speaks for me as much as everyone else here.

Our Prime Minister told Parliament more than 12 months ago that FOBTs are a serious issue, and that he would act as soon as there was more evidence. Since then, two tragic cases of suicide have been linked to the machines, and there are numerous reports of the terrible impact they are having on the most vulnerable, but the Government are yet to act. The Minister is here to respond to the debate, and we look forward to hearing the ideas that he will put forward in response to what we have to say. There is no place for £100-a-spin games on the high street in bookmakers that have little or no supervision. There is a simple answer to protect the vulnerable, as the hon. Lady said, and that is to reduce the stake.

[Mark Tami (Alyn and Deeside) (Lab)]

While a lot of us have worries about what is going on in betting shops, does the hon. Gentleman agree that we do not know enough about the people who gamble at home on their phones and on the internet? There is no control over that at all, and they are being equally affected.

[Jim Shannon]

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. We have many concerns. Today’s debate is fixed primarily on the fixed odds betting terminals, but I accept that control is needed elsewhere.

The lack of regulation of FOBTs has meant that they have clustered in areas of high social deprivation. They can prey on the young and vulnerable. There is strong evidence that the high stakes on FOBTs in the low-supervision environment of a bookmaker have led to increased problem gambling. Recent Responsible Gambling Trust research on FOBTs showed that 37% of players exhibited signs of problematic gambling. At stakes of more than £13.40 a spin, that rose to 80% of players exhibiting problem gambling behaviour. One third of problem gamblers calling the national problem gambling helpline cited FOBTs as their issue. Let us be clear that the debate is about fixed odds betting terminals and the blight they cause on society.

[Lady Hermon (North Down) (Ind)]

There is evidence that the terminals have been used for money laundering. Will the hon. Gentleman reflect on the involvement of paramilitary organisations in money laundering through the terminals in Northern Ireland?

[Jim Shannon]

The hon. Lady is absolutely right. There is evidence of that, and I will give examples shortly. I am sure others will, too. Whenever there is misuse and a dirty laundering system, that has to be addressed.

More than half the UK population plays the national lottery, and they lost £7.2 billion last year. That compares with the less than 4% of the population who play FOBTs, who lost £1.6 billion. The unemployed are twice as likely to play the machines as someone in work. The demographic that bookmakers target with FOBTs are also the least likely to have access to bank accounts, debit cards and credit, and thus have restricted access to remote gambling sites. Bookmakers and the gambling associations are clearly targeting those who are vulnerable to start with, but who are perhaps in some difficulties with money, too.

Bookmakers are using the cover of account-based play, which was instigated by the Government, to provide cash top-up cards that facilitate access to their online sites; the hon. Member for Alyn and Deeside (Mark Tami) mentioned such sites in his intervention. The gambling lobby says that we need more evidence, but it is clear that the evidence is out there. It is comprehensive, and it consistently lines up on the right side of the argument: we need to protect the vulnerable and enact regulation. I hope that, arising from this debate, we will have a chance to enact regulation that will filter out from this House to the whole United Kingdom, including Scotland and Northern Ireland.

FOBTs are useful for money laundering, as the hon. Member for North Down (Lady Hermon) said. The machines have a few filters, but the money launderers know them and work within the limits. Supervision is low and closed circuit television is poor, so it is a safe way to money launder. Low-level drug dealers clean cash in case they are pulled over by the police. Generally, they are younger lads with smaller amounts of cash. In one West Yorkshire case, the police uncovered £18,000 of FOBT tickets being held by one drug dealer. The machines are used for underworld criminal activities by those whose thoughts are nothing but criminal and outside the law.

Using the proceeds of crime to fund a gambling addiction, or cleaning the cash obtained from a crime, is common. The most common use of FOBTs since they landed on the high street is for getting rid of dyed notes obtained during robberies on armoured vans, cash machines and so on. The notes are sprayed with an irremovable dye that is an immediate alert as to their origins. They are therefore not exchangeable. However, they are still identified as legitimate currency by note accepters on gaming machines. The machine with the highest cash transaction capability and ticket pay-out facility would be the preferred option for laundering, and that is the fixed odds betting terminal.

The bookies and the suppliers adapted the software controlling ticket pay-outs to identify where less than 40% of the cash put in is wagered—that is where people either put cash in a FOBT and then print a ticket straight out, or stake a minimal amount of the total cash inserted—so that staff are alerted when people cash those tickets. Launderers have adapted to that by using minimal-risk wagering. The bookies are now making it easier for criminals by allowing them to put cash winnings on to a pre-paid credit card. They are not just hiding the cash, but making it electronic. Never ever think that the criminals and evildoers have not got ideas as to how to get around the law, how to work it to their advantage and how to launder some of that dirty money.

Following on from weaknesses in money laundering policies at Ladbrokes in 2013, Paddy Power was recently the subject of a high-profile money laundering investigation. That investigation resulted in the Gambling Commission reprimanding Paddy Power and imposing a £280,000 penalty; there were also serious failures in social responsibility. The Government are considering including betting shops in the European Union’s fourth money laundering directive. That would require the identification of customers transacting over £1,500 in a 24-hour period. The bookmakers are lobbying to be excluded from that, despite recommendations that they should be included first being made in 2001 in the Budd report.

The lack of FOBT regulation is a huge issue that cannot be ignored, and I am keen to ensure that the debate highlights it. Gambling the world over has evolved into a consistent structure, with the hardest gambling reserved to highly regulated venues such as casinos, where customers go with the knowledge and expectation of experiencing a harder gambling environment. Casinos have very high levels of player supervision and therefore protection. Players tend to be occasional visitors, and the casinos tend to be viewed as a destination leisure venue with more than just gambling on offer.

The Gambling Act 1968 put in place a regulatory permit for gambling. This set out that high-stakes gambling should take place in highly regulated and highly supervised environments such as casinos, and low-supervision environments should have lower stakes and require lower levels of supervision. Those principles were reaffirmed in the Gambling Act 2005 by Sir Alan Budd. Other countries follow this model. The UK is alone in offering very-high-stakes gambling of £100 on Britain’s high streets in the low-supervision, easily accessible environment of a bookmaker. Little or no monitoring and little or no supervision means vulnerable people can be taken advantage of. The regulation of fixed odds betting terminals is out of kilter with the principles of gambling regulation. They offer very-high-stakes gambling in an unregulated environment.

The only material restriction is that bookmakers are allowed four fixed odds betting terminal machines per shop. The result of this is that bookmakers have opened multiple betting shop branches in close proximity. That is a concern. When we look at the streets of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, we sometimes wonder whether we are in a gambler’s paradise—if there is such a place—because betting shops seem to be prevalent everywhere.

The bookmaker Paddy Power has focused its branches in areas with high immigrant populations. We have seen a 43% increase nationally in the number of betting shops located in town centres.

[Mr David Nuttall (Bury North) (Con)]

On the number of machines allowed in each shop, is the hon. Gentleman arguing for fewer in each shop, or for more in a smaller number of shops?

[Jim Shannon]

I seek a lesser number in the shops, and fewer shops as well. We agree on many things, but we do not agree on this topic. The opinion that I express will win: ComRes did a survey of MPs seeking their opinion, and of the MPs who responded, seven out of 10 want FOBTs regulated. They want a reduction in the number of machines and shops. It was quite clear. If a private Member’s Bill is brought before the House—some in this Chamber are of a mind to do that—we can tackle the problem.

[Patricia Gibson (North Ayrshire and Arran) (SNP)]

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that reducing the maximum stake to £2, which is opposed by betting shops, would be a good way forward?

[Jim Shannon]

I thank the hon. Lady for that; it is one of my concluding points. I know that other Members are of the same opinion. Yes, the maximum stake should be lowered; then we could manage the issue, so that people are not deprived.

The regulation of FOBTs is out of kilter, as I have said. The only material restriction is the four machines per shop. We have seen an increase nationally in the number of betting shops in town centres, and last year the Government stepped in and imposed a £50 staking threshold on fixed odds betting terminals, above which players are required to identify themselves to staff or sign up for a loyalty card. The objective of this measure is to help players stay in control. I suggest that that has not happened. The measure is non-evidence-based and the Department for Culture, Media and Sport failed to quantify what impact it would have on players other than the £17 million reduction—1%—in bookmaker revenue from the machines. Secondary research based on the British gambling prevalence survey 2010 estimates that up to 40% of B2 revenue comes from at-risk and pathologically addicted players—higher than all other combined gambling activities—so the Government predicted very little impact. There is also evidence that bookmakers are using the player registration as a mechanism to market FOBTs further.

An evaluation of the DCMS assessment of the £50 measure so far, carried out by Landman Economics, highlighted issues with the quality of the data provided by the bookmakers; it also noted that DCMS could not assess changes in staking, mentioned the absence of a pilot scheme so that the measure could be evaluated better, and noted that the evaluation omitted key questions that it is important to consider when looking at the success or failure of the £50 regulations. For example, the question why fixed odds betting terminal machine players might wish to remain anonymous is not discussed. Despite the Government measure, players are still able to stake up to £100 per spin, and it appears that bookmakers are using the change as an opportunity to further market products to vulnerable gamblers. Even £50 is still materially out of kilter in the normal gambling world.

[Kevin Foster (Torbay) (Con)]

I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on securing this important debate. Does he agree that the issue is also about making sure that players can make a genuinely informed choice? If a sign was required to be displayed that said, “A machine of this type made on average £825 a week in profit for its owners in 2012”, would people be inclined to gamble on it? In short, it would be a bet not worth having.

[Jim Shannon]

Absolutely. I thank the hon. Gentleman for his wise words.

I am conscious that many people want to speak, Sir Alan. I gave you an undertaking that I would not speak for too long, but I want to set the scene, and then I will give other Members an opportunity to participate.

The Government must take urgent action to regulate fixed odds betting terminals and reduce the stake that can be gambled from £100. The hon. Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Patricia Gibson) referred to £2; I think that many in this House would be happy with that. This is the only way effectively to tackle the growing problems that these machines are inflicting on our communities and on those who can least afford it. The Minister responsible for gambling has said that the Government want to reduce the stake for FOBTs, so let us hear what the reduction will be. A substantially lower stake would bring fixed odds betting terminals into line with machines in other low-supervision environments such as adult gaming centres and bingo halls.

The Gambling Commission has said that if staking levels were being set now, it would advise against the £100 stake on a precautionary basis. The previous Government said that a lower stake would bring adequate public protection. The Government should take this opportunity to control the gaming machines and the stakes and reduce significantly the numbers of shops and machines on the high street. The evidence is out there and is clear: the bookies are in the wrong. They are on the wrong side of the argument, and it is our job to put it right.

I want to say one quick thing in relation to Scotland, as hon. Members from Scotland are here. The Bill in Scotland gives some control to the Scottish Parliament, but if we were to bring forward a private Member’s Bill in this House to legislate for change, this debate today would be the first stage in that process. If that happens, that will filter its way out to Scotland and to Northern Ireland as well. We in this House today have the opportunity at least to start the first stage of that process. I believe that many in this House—seven out of 10 MPs—wish for that to happen.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

--- Later in debate ---

[Jim Shannon]

I thank the Minister, the shadow Minister and right hon. and hon. Members for their significant contributions. A significant proportion—higher than for any other product—of users of fixed odds betting terminals are problematic gamblers, and that has come out of this debate. Fixed odds betting terminals are the crack cocaine of gambling. They are totally addictive, destroy lives and focus on the vulnerable. What must we do? We must reduce the number of machines from four per shop to one, and we must reduce the maximum stake from £100 to £2. We must remove the table game content from fixed odds betting terminals, because the pace of the games is faster than in real casinos. We must reduce the spend frequency from 20 seconds to 60. Those are some of the things we can do.

I welcome the new all-party group on fixed odds betting terminals, and I thank hon. Members for their contributions. The Minister can be sure that Members here will return to look for change through legislation.

Motion lapsed (Standing Order No. 10(6)).

Finance (No. 2) Bill

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Monday 11th April 2016 Commons Chamber

[Seema Malhotra]

I will just continue on steel, because it is important also to talk about what is missing from the Bill. This is a serious missed opportunity to provide greater support for manufacturing and steel. The collapse of the steel industry could cost the Government £4.6 billion over the next 10 years. Some 40,000 jobs could be lost, devastating steel-making communities and industries that depend on British steel.

We welcome today’s news that a buyer has been found for Tata’s Scunthorpe steel plant, and we congratulate Unite, Community, the GMB and others who played an important role in the negotiations leading to that deal. However, against that background comes the revelation of a U-turn on business rates by the Chancellor. Before the Budget, the Engineering Employers Federation made a strong case for giving companies an allowance on business rates for plant and machinery, which could have applied to assets such as the blast furnaces in the steel sector. However, we learned from The Times that although the Chancellor was planning to act, he then pulled plans to give Britain’s struggling factories tax relief on business rates.

Why did he do that? The answer, analysts suggest, is that British manufacturing has been sacrificed on the altar of the Chancellor’s obsession with getting a £10 billion Budget surplus in the final year of this Parliament. We wait to see what actually materialises from today’s statement and what actual support comes forward from the Government, particularly for Port Talbot.

The Office for Budget Responsibility revealed that the decision was taken so late that there was no time to change the calculations in its economic and fiscal forecast. That means that its forecast for the level of business investment in this Parliament could well be an overestimate.

Families in Britain are to suffer as a result of another missed opportunity—on housing. By 2025, nine out of 10 Britons under 35 on modest incomes will not be able to afford a home. Rents in the private sector are soaring. So much, again, for a Budget for the next generation.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

On that subject, the hon. Lady will be aware that the Residential Landlords Association put forward to the Government some ideas for changes, but those have not happened. One was to give people the chance to buy their houses, and the association was happy to do that, but we have not got that in the Bill. Does the hon. Lady feel that something could be done on that to help?

[Seema Malhotra]

The hon. Gentleman makes an important point, and there are many measures we should explore, particularly as we go into Committee, to support house building and home ownership.

We know from the English housing survey that 201,000 fewer households own a home now than did at the start of the Chancellor’s tenure. That compares with an increase of 1 million under Labour. As of last year, the housing benefit bill is forecast to be £350 million more than the Chancellor intended. It is clear that this country needs a massive programme of capital investment in new affordable homes to rent and buy—nothing less will do if we are to tackle the growing housing crisis. That is why Labour has far more coherent plans to build homes and to make sure we tackle spiralling housing costs. That is the way to control the housing benefit bill.

Today’s report from the Women’s Budget Group shows that female lone parents and single female pensioners will, on average, have seen their living standards fall by 20% by 2020. Women are now set to bear a staggering 86% of the cost of changes and cuts to taxes, tax credits and benefits by 2020. That is worse than the figure of 81% identified last year.

The tax cuts in the Bill are likely to benefit men more than women. It is surely time that the Government conducted a full gender impact analysis of their proposals. That would give the opportunity for greater parliamentary scrutiny.

When it comes to measures on capital gains tax and corporation tax, the Bill must pass two tests: are they fair and are they effective? The Bill confirms that the main rate of corporation tax will be cut further to 17% from 1 April 2020, which will be worth £945 million. If corporation tax, which is already the lowest in the G7, can be reduced yet further, perhaps money can be found and the Government can think again about cuts to working age benefits and public services.

More importantly, a cut to corporation tax will not address the underlying weaknesses of our economy, such as the challenges in productivity, skills and the investment required in infrastructure. Businesses that talk to the Minister as well as to us say that these are the biggest issues affecting their future growth. Connectivity and new technology also require investment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Seema Malhotra]

The hon. Gentleman makes a very important point. That is one of the concerns. It is assumed that the proceeds from those tax cuts will go directly into investment, but the evidence for that does not necessarily stack up. In fact, an estimated £500 billion is not invested in this country at the moment. That is an important point, which is why greater analysis and scrutiny are required, as well as conversations with businesses about what will actually make a difference for them in the long term.

The basic rate of capital gains tax is to be reduced from 18% to 10%, and the higher rate from 28% to 20%. That is set to cost £735 million in 2020 and £2.7 billion over the forecast period. Capital gains tax was paid by only 200,000 taxpayers in 2013, which means that about 0.3% of the population will benefit from a giveaway of more than £600 million in total from the first year. That was not called for or expected. In fact, the Financial Times described it as an “unexpected gift” for wealthy investors. In 2010, the Chancellor told the House that raising capital gains tax was necessary to

“create a fairer tax system.”—[Official Report, 22 June 2010; Vol. 512, c. 178.]

It would be interesting to hear perhaps during the Exchequer Secretary’s wind-up speech what has changed.

[Jim Shannon]

The Residential Landlords Association was keen to see the extension of the capital gains tax relief so that landlords could sell property to their tenants. That is a small thing that could incentivise the whole housing market if it was done in the right way.

[Seema Malhotra]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his comments, but I think he will agree that the key issue in addressing the housing crisis is the rapid building of new homes and the strategy to deliver that effectively.

I want to make a few comments about entrepreneurs relief and the Government’s new investor relief. We welcome the endeavours to encourage investment, particularly long-term investment. The question will be whether the measures pass the test of what business is looking for: simplicity, stability and a strategic approach to fiscal policy. Our concern is that tinkering is no substitute for a clear, long-term strategy to support investment. That is why we are undertaking a review of tax reliefs to see what the evidence is for what incentivises business investment and provides real value for money. Our aim is to ensure that there is a strategic approach to supporting investment and the transparency around it. Those are questions we will pursue as we go forward into Committee.

We also welcome clauses on the reduction in oil and gas corporation tax and petroleum revenue tax. The Chancellor announced that he would reduce petroleum revenue tax from 35% to zero, and that he would reduce the corporation tax supplementary charge from 20% to 10%. There is no doubt that the struggling North sea oil and gas industry needs support. In fact, we think that the Chancellor could have gone further and announced the measures that Labour has called for. Our bold new proposal to invest in the industry is based on the creation of a new public body, which would be called UK Offshore Investment Ltd, to identify areas for temporary public investment. The purpose of that new body was spelled out last month by the Scottish Labour leader, Kezia Dugdale. It would conduct an open-book review with the Oil and Gas Authority to identify assets that have long-term viability and profitability. That, in turn, would provide the evidence to allow UK OIL to commit to public investment in strategic infrastructure and potentially profitable assets.

Clause 115 gives the Government power, through a statutory instrument, to reduce the VAT rate on women’s sanitary products from 5% to zero. That is welcome, as are the Minister’s comments. I am glad that the Chancellor has finally recognised that women’s sanitary products are not a luxury. However, it is crucial that the clause should set a firm deadline for the VAT reduction, and although the Minister’s comments signalled moves in that direction, they did not go quite far enough. I am sure that we will continue to address the point as we move forward in Committee and beyond. I congratulate Labour Members, particularly my hon. Friend the Member for Dewsbury (Paula Sherriff), and campaigners inside and outside Parliament on their hard work in forcing the Government’s hand on the issue. It is a sad indictment of the Government that it took a Labour amendment and an embarrassing Government defeat to achieve that result.

Where in the Finance Bill is a clause to reflect the Government’s other U-turn, which was on VAT on energy-saving materials? The Government accepted our amendment to the Budget resolution, which allowed the Government to legislate on the matter in the Finance Bill. The lack of legislation and the contradictory and noncommittal answers from Ministers are causing uncertainty in the industry. We simply call on the Government to make a commitment that they will not include a VAT rise for solar or other green energy measures in this or future Finance Bills.

On tax avoidance, the two key issues we face are structural reforms and public confidence. The rhetoric today, as in the past, has sought to be impressive—in the past, the Chancellor has said that aggressive tax avoidance is “morally repugnant”—but the reality has yet to match the rhetoric. Indeed, the tax gap has grown under this Government to £34 billion. Serious measures to tackle tax avoidance, which is estimated to account for £7 billion of the tax gap, will be even more critical.

It is two years since the Prime Minister wrote to UK overseas territories and Crown dependencies calling on them to publish a public register of firms and individuals sheltering money there, yet virtually no progress has been made so far. Today’s statement did nothing to move us forward on such a public register of firms and individuals. Fundamentally, this issue is about a rotten system that undermines the faith of ordinary families in the fairness of our tax system. Indeed, a definitive analysis by the Financial Times shows that the corporate tax avoidance measures that the Labour Government brought in will still raise 10 times as much as those introduced during the last Parliament.

While we broadly welcome the measures in the Bill, we think that they simply do not go far enough. We believe there must be far greater transparency and enforcement in relation to those who try to hide their wealth and profits in tax havens. As ever, the Chancellor and the Prime Minister give the impression of acting tough, while in reality they are proposing half-measures. Instead, as Labour have set out in our tax transparency enforcement programme, we require the introduction of a general anti-avoidance principle that proactively looks at intent and does not need the consent of the tax profession before it can be used.

Our programme includes an immediate public inquiry into the Panama papers, and more resources for HMRC. Staff numbers having been cut by 6,000 and then added to by 670, we can see that there has been a return of about 10% of those whose jobs were cut, and real concerns have been raised about the impact on tax collection as a result. We have called for a specialised enforcement unit and for greater co-operation with European partners on country-by-country reporting and protection for whistleblowers.

Budget Resolutions and Economic Situation

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Monday 21st March 2016 Commons Chamber

[Mr Stephen Hepburn (Jarrow) (Lab)]

This sorry excuse for a Budget is falling apart in front of our very eyes, just like the Chancellor’s reputation. Harold Wilson said that a week is a long time in politics, and by heaven doesn’t the Chancellor realise that today? Just one week ago, the Chancellor was standing at the Dispatch Box flaunting himself as a future Prime Minister, but now what do we see? His credibility is devaluing faster than a banknote in a banana republic.

I do not see the former Work and Pensions Secretary, who threw the towel in, as any comrade in arms in the fight for fairness and decency. I welcome his conversion to our cause after six years of the most brutal attacks on the welfare state since its creation: attacks on the lower paid, the unemployed, the disabled, the young, the vulnerable and the weakest members of our communities; and the bringing in of policies such as the bedroom tax, which has seen three-quarters of the people affected having to cut down on food to be able to afford to pay it.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

Parkinson’s UK and Arthritis Research UK say that 682,100 people currently claim PIP. Of those, 200,000 have a musculoskeletal condition, which means they cannot dress or go to the toilet unless they receive help. That is just one example of disabled people who need help. Have the Government forgotten about these people?

[Mr Hepburn]

Yes, they have forgotten about them and such cases are replicated right across the UK.

The introduction of a benefit cap will cast an extra 40,000 children into poverty. There have been cuts to employment and support allowance, tax credits and housing benefit, and with the botched universal credit, more than 2 million families will see their benefits cut by £1,600 a year. The infamous work capability test targeted terminally ill cancer patients and those with severe learning difficulties to reach targets. I welcome the change of heart from the ex-Work and Pensions Secretary, who finally realises that it is morally reprehensible to persecute people who need help to just wash, dress or go to the toilet.

What is more, we are sick of the spin from the Chancellor, whether the northern powerhouse guff he keeps coming out with or him pretending to be the builder of the infrastructure in this country. Bob the Builder was funny, but George the builder is not, Lurking in factories or loitering on building sites wearing shiny hard hats and high-vis jackets, his trips around the country are nothing but public relations trips funded by the taxpayer.

All this is happening at a time when we are facing a housing crisis in this country. I remember first coming down to London and seeing people out on the streets as rough sleepers. We all thought that was disgraceful. Labour cleared that up, but what do we see now as we walk into Parliament these days? The very same thing we saw when the Tories were in power in the ’90s—rough sleepers. It is a scandal that the fifth-wealthiest country in the world sees its priorities as cutting welfare for the weakest and increasing the number of rough sleepers by 50%, while lavishing tax cuts on the very rich.

I am proud to be a member of the Union of Construction, Allied Trades and Technicians. I joined when I was a building labourer, long before I became a Member of this House. I want to see the building of houses to sort out homelessness and the housing crisis, and I want to see infrastructure built for the benefit of everyone. But what do I see under this Government? I see rent rises in the private sector, council sector and housing associations brought about by a Government who persecute tenants. I see disgraceful threats to end the security of tenure to families who can be kicked out of their council houses, with kids ripped out of school and communities destroyed forever. I see the privatisation of housing association properties when the Government force them to be sold on the cheap. I see councils being forced to sell their best properties to spivs and speculators, depriving parents and children the chance to live in a nice area. I see the ludicrous first-time buyer scheme and the ridiculous belief that ordinary people can get on the property ladder by purchasing a house costing up to £450,000, which must be something like 18 times the average wage in my constituency.

I pay tribute to South Tyneside Council and Gateshead Council, who cover my constituency, for the work they have done to protect people from the cuts that have happened in the past and for what they will do in the future. Instead of building up the country and building a future for everyone in society, we have a Chancellor who is just digging his own political grave.

Budget Resolutions and Economic Situation

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Wednesday 16th March 2016 Commons Chamber

[David Rutley (Macclesfield) (Con)]

It is an honour to follow the hon. Member for East Antrim (Sammy Wilson), who spoke with characteristic passion and commitment to his constituents.

I follow other Members who have welcomed the new sugar levy announced today. I have long campaigned hard to make sure we tackle public health challenges, particularly those facing young people and children. Individuals who get a chance to look at the sugar smart app will see how much sugar is in so many of the products we and our children consume. The levy is a positive step forward.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I am pleased to hear that the hon. Gentleman welcomes the sugar tax, as do I. I have long felt we should introduce it. The Chancellor referred to the next generation and the £27 billion we could save. The levy will bring savings to the NHS, change people’s attitudes and address levels of obesity. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that if ever there was a good reason for a sugar tax, that is it?

[David Rutley]

I completely agree. The hon. Gentleman and I have been involved in numerous debates about promoting outdoor recreation and physical activity—for older people as well as young people—and the levy is a positive step further forward. I pay tribute to the Government for taking forward its sport strategy and to the Under-Secretary of State for Health, my hon. Friend the Member for Battersea (Jane Ellison), for her work in taking forward a very proactive public health agenda.

On other areas of the Budget, I felt that the Chancellor set out a clear, strong package of measures to help go on delivering the long-term economic plan and to make Britain the best place in the world to start up and grow a business. I have long talked about the importance of an enterprise economy. To achieve one, we need to focus on some key groups of people who make that happen: the entrepreneurs, the exporters, the employers and, of course, the employees who help put the pieces of that jigsaw together to create the enterprising economy that we want to see in Macclesfield, Cheshire and right across the country.

In recent years, I have also been campaigning hard on behalf of the self-employed. It is fascinating to see how self-employment is moving forward. I have been working with Demos and the RSA on various policy initiatives in this area, and it is clear that there is a long-term trend towards more self-employment—4.6 million, up from about 4 million in 2010. It is clear from the RSA’s own work that the pull factor is bringing more people into self-employment; there is not just a push factor. On the back of that, it is important that we welcome the Chancellor’s announcement on abolishing class 2 national insurance completely, to simplify the tax system for the self-employed.

The Chancellor also talked a lot about productivity, which the Government are absolutely committed to improving. For decades, the UK’s productivity has lagged behind that of other major economies. We need to address that. As a result of the drag from the financial crisis, the OBR has forecast lower productivity in the UK, as the OECD has done in the vast the majority of countries. That is why the Chancellor is absolutely right to keep an unrelenting focus on productivity and to take the strong action we need to take to bolster our economy now and for the next generation.

Colleagues should turn to page 61 in the Red Book to see the vast array of activity being taken forward to encourage more investment: lower taxes to boost enterprise, investment in infrastructure, as called for by Opposition Members, and a strong focus on science and innovation, which I believe is vital for the country and certainly for Cheshire.

I join the long list of colleagues on the Government side—and, I hope, Opposition Members, too—who welcome the fact that the Chancellor has set out that business rates will be reduced, which will have a huge impact on many small businesses. Capital gains tax has been cut; corporation tax has been further reduced to 17%. Stamp duty is to be reformed, not just in the residential sector, but in the commercial sector. These are vital steps in ensuring that we improve opportunities for investment. When we drive productivity further forward, it means more jobs and more skilled employment, which, when combined with the national living wage, will lead to higher wages, too.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Jacob Rees-Mogg (North East Somerset) (Con)]

In broad terms, the Budget is extremely welcome. It continues the extremely sensible policies that the Chancellor set out as long ago as 2010, the essence of which is on page 127 of the Red Book, which sets out receipts and expenditure as percentages of GDP. Tax receipts will run at 35.7%, 36.3%, 36.9%, 36.9% and 37% of GDP over the next few years, which is in accordance with the normal long-run averages. Only in the highest years of tax receipts, going back to the 1970s, has taxation in this country managed to get as high as 38%. That sets out a limit for public expenditure if there is to be a balance, which it is obviously important to achieve when the economy is going well. We therefore see that public expenditure will be managed in line with the receipts that will come in, so that expenditure will be less than receipts by the end of the period.

That is absolutely what the Chancellor promised all those years ago when he said that he would mend the roof when the sun was shining. A glimmer of sun has come through the clouds of international crisis and the Chancellor has been busy on his ladder fixing the roof with his nails, his hammer and his wood. The process is now nearing completion, for which he deserves a great deal of credit.

Turning to the details of the Budget, the Chancellor also deserves much credit for his reforms of corporate taxation. It was Napoleon who first called us a nation of shopkeepers, and I noticed that the Chancellor quoted Napoleon in his speech. That may say something about his European ambitions, with which I am in less agreement, but we are indeed a nation of shopkeepers. Reducing the burdens of rates, VAT and bureaucracy is only to be welcomed and is thoroughly desirable. Ensuring that multinationals pay taxation according to law is also desirable, but it is always worth remembering that tax avoidance is perfectly legal. If tax is being avoided, it is for this House to change the law so that tax must be paid. It is not some moral virtue to pay more tax than the law requires, so removing loopholes is to be much commended.

I fully support the broad thrust of what the Chancellor is doing. He has got it right, and most of his tax measures are welcome, particularly his changes to personal taxation, an area in which I would like him to go further. Having made £8 billion from cutting the top rate of income tax from 50p to 45p in the pound, he should go further in an exuberant, Laffer-like fashion and cut it back to the rate at which Gordon Brown had it throughout his period as Chancellor.

The area with which I find the most disagreement is found on page 19 of the Red Book, which sets out the economic opportunities and risks linked to the UK’s membership of the European Union. [Interruption.] I am delighted that the nationalists, who so crave independence for themselves, none the less wish to be shackled to the European Union—it is one of their idiosyncrasies that many of us find so charming. If I may, I will deal with that extraordinarily tendentious page, strewn with errors, overstatement and over-egging the pudding. Let us start with the very first line, which states:

“Membership of the EU has increased the UK’s openness to trade and investment”.

That is entirely disputable. In fact, all our membership has done is put us in a customs union with very high levels of regulation and a high external tariff. The tariff on dairy products coming into this country is 42%, much to the disadvantage of our friends in New Zealand. So EU membership has not made us more open; it has closed us to some areas.

Page 19 continues with the statement:

“The UK’s full access to the single market…clearly increases the openness of the British economy”.

There is a word for that, and it is “balderdash”. What access to the single market does is put the dead hand of regulation on the 95% of British businesses that never trade with the continent. They are suffering from that regulation, and their business is made harder to do. This has nothing to do with openness; it is to do with burdens.

Then we get to a bit that I think shows the Chancellor’s wonderful and sophisticated sense of humour. He says:

“At the February 2016 European Council, the Prime Minister secured a new settlement for the UK in a reformed EU.”

It has to be said that the EU was most certainly not reformed at that Council, and our settlement in it was so small as to be hardly noticeable. At the same time it gave away our ability to veto any treaty for fiscal union to follow the monetary union. We said we would do nothing to obstruct that, so we gave away our strongest negotiating hand for nothing—for thin gruel.

[Jim Shannon]

It is always a pleasure to listen to the hon. Gentleman’s contributions in the House—we enjoy them very much. Does he agree that one thing the Prime Minister did not secure was anything for the fishing sector, and that he also secured very little for the farming community? Does he agree that the Prime Minister should have tried to get a settlement with those two things at the forefront of his agenda, to try to achieve things for those sectors? Those were just two sectors that he neglected.

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

I agree with the hon. Gentleman entirely that fishing and farming—the common fisheries policy and the common agricultural policy—are two of the great disasters of the European Union. The fact that they are not reformed and take so much of the budget—40% in the case of agriculture—is a considerable disgrace.

Enterprise Bill [Lords]

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Wednesday 9th March 2016 Commons Chamber

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Is it in order for the Minister to proceed with a promise of legislation that is not on the amendment paper for us to consider, and for Members therefore to vote on something that they do not have in front of them? The measure we are voting on is not promises; it has to be in front of us, so that we can discuss it here in this Chamber.

[Mr Speaker]

Let me explain the position to the hon. Gentleman, to whom I am genuinely grateful for his point of order, and for the benefit of the House. There is nothing disorderly in the Minister giving an indication of how the Government would propose to proceed. If a Minister wishes to say to the House, “Our intention is to proceed with pilots”, it is perfectly in order for the Minister to do that. But of one thing, procedurally and constitutionally, the House needs to be made again aware: Members are voting on that which is on the paper and which the Speaker has selected. Members are not voting on a Government proposal or words about pilots; they are voting on that which is on the paper. The matter under discussion is the amendment standing in the name of the hon. Member for Enfield, Southgate (Mr Burrowes). We are voting on that, not on a Government proposal, and I hope that that is clear.

--- Later in debate ---

Our society is becoming more atomised and divided. I say to my hon. Friends that there is a sound, traditional, Conservative case for putting the family first and voting for the amendment.

[Jim Shannon]

It is a pleasure to speak on this matter and to be one of the 70 signatories to the amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Enfield, Southgate (Mr Burrowes). I want to be clear that my party supports the amendment and we will be in the Aye Lobby with the other signatories to ensure that we win the vote tonight. I am quite convinced that we will.

Before becoming a Member in this place, I served as a Member of the Northern Ireland Assembly and, as such, have some knowledge of how devolution works. I have been fascinated to see how the Government have energetically sought to make the case for changing Sunday trading rules using the language of devolution.

[Clive Efford]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

--- Later in debate ---

[Jim Shannon]

I apologise, but I cannot. The Speaker has been very clear.

The Minister has regularly said that the Government’s position is to trust local communities to make the decisions that are best for them. For anyone who really believes in devolution, however, there is a fundamental problem with that argument. If the Government believed in real devolution, if they really trusted communities to make the right decision, that is what they would have proposed, but that is not what they have offered today. They have proposed to trust communities to make decisions if that decision is to liberalise Sunday trading. That is not real devolution, which would allow communities to extend or restrict Sunday trading; it is simply Sunday trading liberalisation masquerading as devolution.

There are many serious objections to the proposals. While they might lead to job creation in big shops, they will result in large job losses in smaller shops. They will contribute to the further erosion of Sunday premium pay. There are serious problems with the opt-out as a means of protecting people who do not want to work on a Sunday. I believe that many Members on both sides of the Chamber will agree that this is an attack on people of faith, on people of conscience and on those who do not want these changes. In a national opinion poll, 67% of the general public said that they did not want any change whatsoever in Sunday opening—no change on liberalisation. Some 60% of chief executives said that they wanted Sundays to stay as they are.

We must also look at some of the statistics relating to staff: 91% of the 10,000 retail staff who were asked opposed the Government’s plans to relax the current laws; 58% of shop workers—we must remember that they vote for people in this Chamber—in large stores are already under pressure to work more hours on Sundays; and 35% want less Sunday work and 72% suggested that they would face further pressure if regulations changed to allow shops to open longer.

I love this country and the things we stand for, and I feel very proud of our institutions, but as I have looked at the way this Government have handled this issue procedurally, I have become deeply saddened by the tactics they have employed; perhaps one issue on its own could be overlooked, but this has been sustained. These controversial proposals came with no manifesto mandate. The consultation on them was rushed and was held in the middle of the summer holidays, yet despite that some 7,000 responses were submitted, demonstrating that this is indeed a matter of great controversy and public concern. Rather than taking the hint and treading more warily, the Government then took the decision, not once but twice, to introduce this legislation through a Bill that has already been through the House of Lords.

I am very conscious of the time and where we are in the debate, so I conclude by saying that we are already deeply concerned about public disaffection with government and politics, yet in issuing this answer the Government have, in effect, told 7,000 people who engaged in this consultation in good faith that the Government do not understand what they said and so have not been able to take on board their comments. I suggest that a cross-party Committee of Members of this House should be established and given the task of reviewing the 7,000-plus submissions to discern whether it is possible to ascertain whether a submission supports or opposes the Government’s proposals in line with question 1. This is dead simple, so let us do that.

I strongly support amendment 1, because of the risks being posed to small businesses; the threat to the high street, as this will shift more retail to larger out-of-town developments; the pressure that will be placed on shop workers and their families; the considerable problems with the so-called “opt out” and schedule 5; and the serious procedural infelicities that have accompanied the way in which the Government have sought to advance these proposals. I commend the amendment to the House and ask everyone to support it.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

Pilgrim Fathers (400th Anniversary)

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Wednesday 9th March 2016 Commons Chamber

[John Mann]

I thank the hon. Gentleman. Should hon. Members, following the usual rules, deign that to be appropriate, I would be honoured to join him. The Bassetlaw-Plymouth amalgam cross-party group would be a powerful way to spread the message of the values and principles of the Mayflower Pilgrims.

The key 16th-century village of Scrooby was, as it is now, on the Great North Road. This tiny village was called

“a pleasing land of drowsyhead…broad meadowlands…hummocky plots of stiff soil”

and

“a raised area served by the River Idle.”

The postmaster—an important position in such a strategic transport route—was John Brewster, and the real story of the pilgrims begins in 1587, when his son, William Brewster, returned to the place of his birth and childhood. It was at the manor house that William Brewster created the religious separatist church, the Pilgrims, and held its first sessions. Who were the neighbours in attendance? Along with William Brewster, there was John Robinson, of Sturton le Steeple. The separatist church named after him in Gainsborough was opened in 1896 by the US ambassador, the honourable T.F. Bayard. That was the last time, but I am sure it will not be the only time, that an American ambassador visited the origins of the modern United States.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I am very interested in history, and I have come across the Pilgrim Fathers in my study of history. I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on securing the debate, and it is a real pleasure to take part. Who would have thought 400 years ago that the Pilgrim Fathers would do something that would last 400 years? Does he welcome the strong economic, physical, emotional, cultural, military, and political ties between the United States and the United Kingdom, which are also united by language?

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. I am not quite sure that that fits in with the Pilgrim Fathers on the 400th anniversary, and I think you need to sit down. We must be careful not to extend this debate beyond where the hon. Member for Bassetlaw (John Mann) wishes to take it, and I am sure that he will not be tempted that easily.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Evennett]

I note what my hon. Friend has said and will come to that point in a moment if I have time.

International tourism has grown spectacularly in recent decades. Obviously the Pilgrim Fathers took a long time to get across the Atlantic, but today that journey is very quick. International tourism is so important, and we are determined to capitalise on these opportunities to benefit the whole country.

The Prime Minister published the five-point plan last summer, within the first 100 days of this Government. One of our most important priorities has been to see greater collaboration between destinations in England. We have seen that this evening, with Plymouth and Bassetlaw working together on exciting opportunities and initiatives, and we also want our national tourism bodies, VisitEngland and VisitBritain, to work more closely together to promote holidays in England. That is why we have announced changes in the governance of VisitEngland and VisitBritain, and why we have announced a new £40 million Discover England Fund to incentivise destinations to work together. Having participated in a couple of regional roadshows for the Discover England Fund, I can say that it has been fantastic to see the creativity and energy of destinations when we all come together. I think that in this debate we have seen that creativity and the determination to celebrate this anniversary effectively.

[Jim Shannon]

In responding to the hon. Member for Bassetlaw (John Mann) the Minister has encapsulated my wish, which is that we do something for the whole United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, including the Ulster Scots in Northern Ireland, the Irish from the Republic, the Scots from Scotland and the Welsh from Wales. Together, in this great United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, we can come together to try to attract tourists from across the United States of America.

EU Referendum: Timing

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Tuesday 9th February 2016 Commons Chamber

[Mrs Main]

The hon. Gentleman has made a lot of interventions, and some of us have waited to make our remarks within our own speeches, so I will make some progress before taking interventions from those who have already intervened.

As I have said, I am not too discouraged by the designation process, but I can understand the right hon. Gentleman’s point. If several people knock on someone’s door and say why they wish to make the case for leaving the EU, it will only reinforce the views of that person and help them with their decision-making process when they cast their vote. None the less, I do understand that there is a concern for those of us who are waiting eagerly to see what date has been chosen.

I note that the word “contaminating” has been used in the motion. Although I would not use that word in relation to the date, I understand that it does give those who wish to remain in the EU a bit of an advantage. A lot of information will come out later in the year. I am not talking so much about the European Council meeting to which my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Philip Davies) referred. In a letter on subsidiarity, Mr Tusk said:

“The Commission will propose a programme of work”—

by which I believe he means the competences—

“by the end of 2016 and subsequently report on an annual basis to the European Parliament and the Council.”

Therefore, if we do have a vote in June, we will not know what the Commission is proposing on subsidiarity and on the competences that are being brought back. We will only know what our Parliament has control over after that vote. However, some of us in the Leave and Go campaigns believe that we can make the case already, but there will be very thin gruel, as my hon. Friend the Member for North East Somerset (Mr Rees-Mogg) has said, for us to consider.

Another matter that we need to know, but that we will not know by June—we will probably not know it by the end of the year or at any other date—is to do with the proposal that the Prime Minister is currently exploring with other EU countries on limiting benefits across the 28 countries. After looking into the matter, I have found that some countries have very different rules on child benefit. Some have no child benefit; some have benefits for one child; and some have benefits for multiple children. That will be a minefield to explore. We have no details on it at the moment. More to the point, the deal will be struck behind closed doors, so before the date in June we will not know whether any of the deals that may have been agreed will hold up. That is a concern, but I am not sure that we will be any the wiser the longer we leave it. Whichever treaty we have in place either guarantees EU nationals the rights to claim welfare in each other’s countries or it does not. If those treaties do guarantee those rights, I am not sure how legally binding they will be in the future; they could all fall apart two days after the referendum. However, pushing the date further down the road to later in the year will not make us any the wiser.

The motion talks about a rush to the referendum, but I think that there is a compression. For those on the Front Bench with Eurosceptic leanings who currently feel constrained to speak, the compression gives them less opportunity to cite their views in favour of removing this country from the European Union. On that basis, I can see why having a date early might constrain some of our colleagues on the Conservative Benches who are waiting to hear what the Prime Minister delivers on 18 February. That is probably the only conspiracy theory that I can see going around. I personally think that the public would rather get on with this matter. Our Conservative manifesto promise is delivering this referendum. I pay tribute to the Ulster Unionists for their long-standing campaign.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

It is the Democratic Unionist party.

[Mrs Main]

I mean the DUP. I am so sorry. I pay tribute to its long-standing campaign. If we push this matter even further into the long grass, none of the questions that I have about treaty change or about what Mr Tusk and his colleagues will allow us to bring back in terms of subsidiarity will be answered until 2017. One of my biggest concerns as a Eurosceptic is that we constantly have to ask 28 countries what they think. Trying to get three or four countries to agree to anything is pretty difficult, but getting 28 countries to agree is almost impossible, which is why I want to leave. We will not have the clarity that the Democratic Unionist party seeks today.

Although I have a slight concern about the designation process, I do think that the groups will sort themselves out. On the May elections, let me offer a scrap of comfort to those who say that the Remain campaign would benefit from an early referendum. I suggest that that campaign may be experiencing voter fatigue. Those of us who feel passionately and strongly about this matter—I add that many of our Conservative Associations feel the same way, even if some of the Members do not—have been out talking to our constituents. I did so on a market stall over the weekend and at various meetings, including one with my Conservative ladies yesterday. I will be out there to vote—it will not matter that we have had a vote six weeks before—because I feel very strongly that, for the first time, I will be able to ask myself, “Do I wish to be in this European Union as it is with all its failings and all its flaws?” My answer will be, “No, I want to leave.”

Those campaigning to go or to leave, however that is framed, will be more agitated and more wishing to get out the front door on whatever date is chosen than those who may feel voter fatigue as a result of being involved in all those other elections. In short, I am reasonably encouraged that people may feel that they have had enough of voting in local elections, mayoral elections and all the other elections and will just sit at home and watch the Romanian rugby match or whatever is on the television on the day. I do not think that we will ever get the clarity that we want. I will be sticking with whatever date is picked, because I would like to get on and resolve this matter. It is a shame—I mean not that it is shameful but that it is an issue for me—that colleagues on the Front Bench who see the matter our way will have such a short amount of air time and a short amount of time to campaign and put their case.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

It is a pleasure to speak in the debate. It is good for the Democratic Unionist party to propose a debate on an issue that concerns our constituents, whether in the Northern Ireland Assembly, where we are the party of leadership, or in the House, where we are the party of leadership when it comes to these issues.

It is concerning and, indeed, saddening, that the Prime Minister is happy for people in the devolved regions of the greater United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to be second-class citizens in this once-in-a-lifetime decision on the future of our country. Welsh, Scottish and Northern Irish citizens of this great unitary state are set to be punished for having devolved Assemblies and making local decisions at a local level. That is how we feel, and that is how many of my constituents feel as well.

We will have just over half the time to campaign, consider and make this huge decision in the devolved regions. The proposed referendum date is a huge insult to voters in Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales, and if we cannot secure a reasonable accommodation—nothing stands in the way of doing so—that will rub salt into the wounds. My colleagues in the House and our Scottish countrymen will have just over half the time to campaign and make that major decision on the future of the United Kingdom than they had when they voted to maintain the Union. In the Scottish referendum they were given some 540 days. I am not saying that we should have 540 days for this referendum, but hon. Members can see the difference between those two referendums.

With the general election last year, local government elections the year before last, and now an Assembly election and the biggest referendum in a generation, the proposed referendum date risks not only a democratic deficit in campaigning but voter fatigue. Many Members have mentioned that, and we cannot ignore it. We are constantly pressing for better voter engagement and participation, and we are constantly working to improve voter turnout and engagement in the Province. If the Government continue to take the same approach to the EU referendum date, that will only hinder the positive work that has been done.

I think that we have had 14 elections in 14 years in Northern Ireland, so we are electioneered almost to the max. The British people, including the Scots, the Welsh and the Northern Irish, gave the Prime Minister time to renegotiate, and now he will give millions of British citizens just six weeks to consider something he took months to obtain and which, in reality, amounts to nothing at all. One of his MPs, who is not in the Chamber—the hon. Member for North East Somerset (Mr Rees-Mogg)—described it as “thin gruel”. It certainly is: there is nothing that has been negotiated so far that gives us any hope, but it stops us having the referendum at a time when all the citizens of Great Britain and Northern Ireland have democratic equality.

I have been contacted by many of my constituents, who are in a state of dismay, and I want to speak in the remaining couple of minutes about the fishermen and farmers across my constituency and Northern Ireland who will be disadvantaged. Fishermen and fisherwomen in Northern Ireland, Scotland, Wales and parts of England, to a man and woman, will vote to leave the Union, because they are burdened with red tape, bureaucracy and restrictions on fishing. The hon. Member for Ochil and South Perthshire (Ms Ahmed-Sheikh) referred to the common fisheries policy, which should change, as we need regionalisation. We need responsibility back in our own hands. That is a huge issue for fishermen and fisherwomen, and it requires consideration, as it directly affects their livelihood. Normal, hard-working, everyday folk are the backbone of our nation, and they should be given the same democratic rights as farmers and fishermen in England. With Assembly elections around the corner, my hard-working constituents in that sector have enough on their plate.

Farmers are up to their eyes in paperwork, regulation, rules and laws. Quite simply, the fishermen and farmers want to know what is going on. We put £19 billion into the European Union, and I understand that the common agricultural policy costs £15 billion. That is the debate that we need to take to the farmers, so we can let them know what we are going to do for them and make sure that they understand.

The Prime Minister has signalled that he intends to visit Northern Ireland as part of his attempt to convince Eurosceptics that his “thin gruel” is palatable. It will never be palatable as it does not suit the energy or taste of anyone in Northern Ireland. The proposal completely disregards the democratic rights of citizens in our corner of the United Kingdom. There is no good reason or excuse for not having a referendum on a different date—even four weeks later, or whenever. We have not heard anything to convince us as citizens in Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland that we will not be at a disadvantage in the referendum.

In conclusion, the Prime Minister and the Minister need to take these comments on board and listen to their fellow countrymen and women in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, give them the respect that they deserve, and make sure that the people there have the same ability to participate in the referendum as their counterparts in England.

Real-time Credit Scoring

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Tuesday 2nd February 2016 Commons Chamber

[Chris Evans]

My hon. Friend speaks with some expertise. I pay tribute to the amount of work she has done on payday lending and raising the issues associated with it. She is right. The real problem is that the banks have a stranglehold on lending. They jealously guard their data and they are suspicious of the Data Protection Act. They therefore keep out of the market major competitors who could bring down interest rates, which is what we all want to see.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

The hon. Gentleman is very gracious and I thank him for giving way. Credit risk is one of the top issues in financial services and there is a need for services to be automated. Is there a possibility through real-time credit scoring to provide new, exciting jobs in a well-paid high-end market? That would be a plus, if it was done in the right way.

[Chris Evans]

The hon. Gentleman is right. The more competitors there are in the market, the more jobs and the more specialised jobs there will be. I pay tribute to the hon. Gentleman, who speaks on every single topic. We have often joked privately that Westminster Hall is his lounge in the morning, as he speaks there so often. Coming from Northern Ireland and Wales, which have great similarities—both are heavily reliant on public sector jobs—the hon. Gentleman and I know that real-time data sharing and more competitors in the market would bring the private sector jobs that areas such as mine, his and the north-east are crying out for.

Currently, consumers pay the high costs in two ways. Consumers who can afford credit pay more than they should, and consumers to whom lenders ought not to lend are able to access credit even when it is not affordable. Better data would reduce both these problems, to the benefit of all concerned. So who would be the big losers if the Financial Conduct Authority acts? The banks and the incumbent lenders, but I do not think they would be losers. They would have to up their game and offer innovative products such as those that the hon. Gentleman mentioned. The FCA should also be ready to act in the teeth of resistance and entrenched interests, to further the interests of the consumer and our constituents.

I want to provide some background information to data sharing in consumer credit markets. An important interaction in the consumer credit market is the way in which lenders, particularly unsecured lenders—or, as we know them, high-cost, short-term credit lenders—assess a prospective borrower’s creditworthiness before agreeing whether to lend to them and setting the terms on which the loan is made. Lenders rely on information about a borrower’s creditworthiness from a range of services, including information supplied directly by the potential borrower as part of their loan application and information obtained from credit reference agencies.

Credit reference agencies aggregate information about the individual borrower’s personal information, past credit history and current credit commitments, and they supply that information to lenders on commercial terms. The three main credit reference agencies in the UK are Experian, Equifax and Callcredit. The way in which credit reference agencies aggregate and supply information is not regulated by the FCA, but operates on an industry-wide reciprocal basis. There is no requirement on individual lenders to share information, and although banks, which hold the most critical current account information, have the most detailed overview of a customer’s financial position, they do not in general supply data to credit reference agencies—of course not, because the data give them a leg up into the market and an advantage over other providers.

Veritec states that payday lenders have, as we all know, consistently failed to act in the best interests of consumers. Previous efforts to allow the UK payday lending industry to self-regulate have not succeeded, and tragic cases have come to light whereby individuals have become trapped in a downward spiral of debt through multiple, simultaneous loans. The actions of payday loan companies should be monitored by the FCA, and a database with real-time information on existing loans is required.

I do not want anyone to think that I want short-term lending to be banned. It is a massive industry that creates jobs for people. There is obviously a need for it, otherwise there would not be so much money in the market, but I believe that tools have to be made available so that decisions can be made about creditworthiness.

Crucially, not all lenders report data to more than one credit reference agency, and a reliance on credit reference agencies has played a key role in the downfall of the implementation of FCA rules and consumer protection. It is disappointing that the FCA will not consult on real-time data sharing requirements at this time.

Only a database with real-time information on existing loans will protect consumers from potential harm. A system should be considered real time only if every inquiry and every lending decision is updated instantaneously across 100% of the market. That would allow for lenders to know immediately if a consumer is eligible for a loan under the FCA’s responsible lending rules. However, the reciprocal principles that underpin data sharing require that lenders provide data to credit reference agencies “on a regular basis”, usually a minimum of once a month. Even where data are provided monthly, they can be as much as 60 days old by the time they are made available to other lenders.

The fact that lenders may routinely not have access to the most recent 60 days of a consumer’s credit history creates serious consequences for competition and, above all, consumer welfare, with the potential for unaffordable levels of debt. The question as to which lenders share information is an entirely commercial decision, and it is left to lenders to assess whether it is in their interests. They do not have to take into account any other information, such as the wider benefits to consumers.

Rather than just talking about affordability, it is very important to take a customer’s lifestyle into consideration, as happens when people take out mortgages. If we had real-time data sharing, that practice could be spread right across the board in personal lending.

Incumbent lenders, such as bankers, have no incentive to share data. Banks hold the most critical current account information, and the marginal benefit of sharing information and receiving reciprocal information is very small compared with the much larger marginal benefit to smaller lenders, such as unsecured lenders, or high-cost, short-term credit lenders. That creates a very important market failure. Having unrivalled access to credit data puts the banks in a unique position in considering whether to lend to consumers, and it allows them to lend at the most competitive rate. As a result, smaller lenders and new entrants are placed at a significant competitive disadvantage. That not only restricts competition, but distorts it in favour of one sub-market over another.

In addition, that risks cutting off some consumers from access to credit altogether. If they are unable to obtain a bank loan, such consumers must either rely on other forms of credit, such as unsecured lending or high-cost, short-term credit, or make do without a loan. Lenders want to lend to such under-served customers, but for lenders to be able to offer loans at reasonable interest rates, it is essential that they can minimise the risk of default. That means conducting rigorous affordability assessments, for which they require access to complete and up-to-date credit data.

The Competition and Markets Authority considered real-time data sharing in its payday lending market investigation. In its final report, it stated that it saw significant benefits to implementing real-time data sharing, but:

“We consider that further development of RTDS, specifically the frequency of updates, would benefit borrowers and lenders and that our recommendation is not redundant”.

In response to the report, the FCA was asked to consult on a range of issues, including real-time data sharing, in the high-cost, short-term credit market. In its consultation paper, the FCA stated:

“Although we see clear benefits to real-time data sharing, we do not propose to consult on introducing real-time data sharing requirements at this time.”

The FCA’s proposed approach is, in effect, to do nothing and assume that the issues associated with real-time data sharing will work themselves out through a combination of time and commercial pressures. It is true that entrepreneurial new companies are developing systems and services that use existing arrangements that are already available to consumers, such as online banking, to offer something approaching real-time credit data. Although there is scope for technology to make sharing faster and easier, unless real-time data sharing is supported by regulatory requirements from the FCA, it is likely to be opposed as a result of commercial pressures by large incumbent lenders to prevent more effective competition.

New technological solutions show that there are few material costs to implementing real-time data sharing. IT systems are already geared to real-time data sharing, and it is clear that financial institutions can mobilise their account information to support real-time data sharing for their own purposes without any difficulty. I have also been informed of the benefits of a regulatory database. A database would allow instant monitoring of loans and of the whole high-cost, short-term credit market, which can be simplified into a traffic light system for lenders and alerts when loans are made outside regulatory rules. If all applications were processed using the database, regulators would have certainty that the rules were being followed at point of sale in store or online. In addition, because the data are not shared among creditors and are used only by the regulator, commercially sensitive information and customer data are not bought and sold.

The Financial Conduct Authority should ensure that any real-time data are used to ensure compliance at every step of the lending process. That can be achieved only if all lenders of short-term, high-cost credit report data into a real-time FCA database. The payday loan market operates best, and consumers are best protected, when a database is in place. Alongside that, high-level scrutiny and enforcement activity are required to limit and prohibit illegal lending.

The absence of real-time data sharing is important for two principal reasons. First, it is a partial cause of unaffordable personal debt. Consumers may be granted loans which they cannot truly afford, because providers do not have up-to-date information about their most recent liabilities and missed payments. Secondly, it is a critical factor that limits the degree and effectiveness of competition within many overlapping consumer credit markets, because it discourages providers from entering the market and limits their ability to compete fairly if they do enter. The FCA must revise its proposed strategy and develop long-term, future-proof regulatory solutions that promote real-time data sharing and enable the innovative use of new technology.

In our society, many people, whatever their political persuasion, believe that the Government are no longer on their side. Real-time data sharing, to me, is absolute common sense, and it can be adopted with a few simple steps. It is time, through this simple measure, for the Government to show that they can stand up to large corporations and organisations that are quite clearly trying to rig the market in their favour.

Connaught Income Fund

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Tuesday 12th January 2016 Commons Chamber

[Guto Bebb (Aberconwy) (Con)]

Before we get into the detail of the questions I want to ask the Minister, I think it is important for me to provide some context and background on the issue.

The Connaught Income Fund Series 1 was established in April 2008. The aim of the fund was to invest in bridging loans, primarily through a company called Tiuta International Ltd. Regulatory demands resulted in the fund being operated by a Financial Services Authority-regulated firm. In the case of Connaught the initial operator was Capita Financial Managers Ltd.

Capita issued the first investment memorandum as the fund’s promoter under section 21 of the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 in April 2008. In September 2009 Capita Financial Managers resigned and the role of the operator was transferred to Blue Gate Capital management. At the time this decision was taken, a meeting between representatives of Capita Financial Managers and Capita plc was held. Minutes of this meeting, which are in the public domain, confirm that Capita was, at the very least, concerned about Tiuta’s financial viability and was aware of the false representations promoted to investors within the information memorandum. However, despite this level of knowledge and concern about the viability of Tiuta and the improper use of moneys invested in the fund, Capita, upon transferring the operator status to Blue Gate Capital management, did not inform existing investors of its concerns. That is despite the fact that Capita did write to existing investors informing them of the change of operator.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on securing this debate, and the number of Members who are present is an indication of the interest in this issue. Does he agree that the Financial Conduct Authority should publish the issues that resulted in it withdrawing from negotiations with Connaught and other parties so that, importantly, those who lost out in the collapse of this fund can know who they have cause to claim against and to blame?

[Guto Bebb]

The hon. Gentleman makes an important point that I will come on to. Indeed, the need for information as to why that decision was taken is something I will be asking the Minister to comment on.