Household Support Fund

Debate between Jim Shannon and Stewart Hosie

Wednesday 31st January 2024 Westminster Hall

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I congratulate the right hon. Member for East Ham (Sir Stephen Timms) on securing the debate and on setting the scene so well. We have had marvellous contributions from right hon. and hon. Members. From the outset, I want to be clear that Northern Ireland has a different method of allocation —it is a different system. Our access to the household support fund ended with the energy costs support, and our constituents are directed to find equivalency in the discretionary support fund, as we have no existing household fund.

The funding in Northern Ireland is deliberately so pared back that people can claim discretionary support for only a small number of reasons. Simply being unable to cope is no longer one of them. It should be, but it is not. Those who suffer domestic violence and have to leave all their goods in the middle of the night cannot access good enough support. That is just one example.

Yet again, the ordinary person in Northern Ireland is still paying more to be part of the Union. If only we got all the benefits of being part of the Union! I am very supportive of it, but I think it is time that that was looked at. The Government committed today in the Chamber to looking at the Barnett consequentials and seeing whether we can have the equivalent of the Welsh provision. If we do, that will be a step in the right direction.

I have outlined in another debate how money in the local economy shrinks. The hon. Member for Tamworth (Sarah Edwards) mentioned food banks; I will speak about my food bank, to give some equivalency. Take a middle-class family with two working parents who perhaps used to take a wee weekend holiday once every quarter. The hotel now misses out on its income from them, so it cuts back the hours for the cleaner it employs, and the cleaner loses their income. The family no longer go to the restaurants they used to go to, so that money is pared back. Where do they end up? I will tell you where they end up, Mr Hosie: they end up at the food bank.

An answer has to be given to explain why the cost of gas and oil is substantially lower, and yet the savings are not being passed on. As an example, one family I know have paid £250 for their gas bill. They are a small family with two children. If they cannot manage it, there is no way in the world that pensioners can. The Government must step in with help for energy costs, not simply for those on benefits who need the help, but for all people who are struggling in every working and non-working capacity.

The Newtownards food bank, which is based at the House church in Newtownards in my constituency, is the first ever Trussell Trust food bank in Northern Ireland. The stats tell a story—I will finish with this point, Mr Hosie, because I know you are looking at the clock. The food bank helped to feed 1,272 people in December 2023, compared with 988 in December 2022. That is an increase of almost 29%. Many of those were new referrals: people who had never been before. That shows where we are. Poverty in Northern Ireland has risen, and people who have never had to claim before simply cannot meet the escalating costs. Action is needed, and action is needed now.

[Stewart Hosie (in the Chair)]

I call Vicky Foxcroft—five minutes.

Trade Bill

Debate between Jim Shannon and Stewart Hosie

Report stage & 3rd reading & 3rd reading: House of Commons & Report stage: House of Commons
Monday 20th July 2020 Commons Chamber

[Stewart Hosie (Dundee East) (SNP)]

There are four significant flaws with this piece of legislation: the absence of devolved consent, real protections for the NHS, the preservation of food standards and meaningful parliamentary scrutiny. I believe that our amendment 10 and new clauses 7 and 8 deal with the first three, and that new clause 4, tabled by the hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr Djanogly), deals with the final issue.

I wish to speak to amendment 10 and new clauses 7 and 8, which are in my name, and I will start, slightly in reverse order, with amendment 10. It relates to the powers of the devolved Administrations, or as I said in Committee,

“more accurately, the ability of the UK Government to make regulations under subsection (1), which makes provisions within devolved competencies, without the consent of Scottish or Welsh Ministers or a Northern Irish devolved authority”––[Official Report, Trade Public Bill Committee, 23 June 2020; c. 237.]—

granting consent. It strikes me as fundamental that if we are to genuinely respect the devolved settlement in the UK, Ministers must self-evidently gain the consent of the devolved Administrations before making changes to regulations that directly affect them, possibly in a negative way, or in a way that runs counter to those Governments’ policy objectives.

I am aware that in the previous Trade Bill, under consideration between 2017 and 2019, there was a problematic provision for regulation-making powers to be available to the UK Government, but the good news is that those provisions have been removed from this Trade Bill. It is the case, however, that there remains no statutory obligation for the UK Government to even consult, let alone seek the consent of, Scottish Ministers before exercising the powers in this Bill in devolved areas.

I know that the Minister has said that these powers would not normally be used without seeking consent, and his predecessor did offer a number of a non-legislative commitments to the Scottish Trade Minister Ivan McKee in March. I am genuinely pleased that the Minister, during the Bill Committee, committed to honouring those non-legislative commitments. He said:

“I restate the commitments made by my right hon. Friend, when he was a Minister, in his March letter to the Scottish Minister Ivan McKee”,

and that is genuinely very welcome. However, he went on to say, in opposing what was then amendment 8 and similar Labour new clauses that dealt with the same issues:

“In short, we are already delivering the engagement envisaged by proposed new clause, and we have achieved that while continuing to observe the important constitutional principles enshrined in the devolution settlements.”––[Official Report, Trade Public Bill Committee, 23 June 2020; c. 240-241.]

I disagree. Giving the UK Government the ability to directly effect devolved powers without the statutory requirement to even seek consent is not observing the devolved settlement.

[Jim Shannon]

Our trading ability is something that concerns each and every one of us across the whole United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. Would the hon. Gentleman be prepared to support new clause 4, which would give the authority to the devolved Assemblies and the Scottish Parliament, and further, would mean that proposals came to the Floor of the House for ratification? Surely supporting new clause 4 would be a step to making that happen.

[Stewart Hosie]

I am more than happy to support new clause 4, not least because I have signed it, but it is a slightly different thing.  Ensuring parliamentary scrutiny, about which I shall say a little more later, is important, but it is different from the seeking of consent from those Administrations whose policy direction may be affected by a UK Government decision.

When we debated the identical new clause in Committee, the Minister went on to say that

“this proposed new clause would give the devolved Administrations a statutory role in the reserved area of international trade negotiations, which would be constitutionally inappropriate.”––[Official Report, Trade Public Bill Committee, 23 June 2020; c. 241.]

He was partly right, in that it would give the devolved Administrations a statutory role, but only in so far as the provisions of a trade deal affected devolved competences. That is not constitutionally inappropriate; it is a matter of good administration and respect.

The Minister’s key argument against what was proposed was that it was not “practical”. He said:

“It would lock us and the”—

devolved Administrations—

“into prescribed ways of working under the existing intergovernmental memorandum of understanding, a document last updated in 2013.”––[Official Report, Trade Public Bill Committee, 23 June 2020; c. 241.]

Well, that may be an argument for revisiting the MOU, and it might also be an argument to say that the Government should adhere to the terms of the MOU under any circumstances, but it is a strange argument for opposing this amendment. Surely it is better to base negotiations on an agreed framework, or better still an agreed statutory framework, rather than to leave them to chance, make up the rules on the hoof and give an impression of UK Government acting in an arbitrary way.

The Minister’s key argument was as follows:

“As parts of these agreements touch on devolved matters, this legislation will create concurrent powers. We have sought to put in place concurrent powers to provide greater flexibility in how transitional agreements are implemented”.

So far so good; however, he went on to say:

“This approach permits greater administrative efficiency, reducing the volume of legislation brought through the UK Parliament and through the devolved legislatures.”––[Official Report, Trade Public Bill Committee, 23 June 2020; c. 241.]

It cannot be right that the UK Government intend to legislate, or can legislate, in areas of devolved competence for the sake of administrative efficiency. There are far bigger and wider principles at stake than that.

Let me turn to new clause 7, tabled in my name. We know that trade deals can put pressure on food standards and lead to the importation of low-standard food. For example, the US Administration has made it clear that they want the UK to lower its food and animal welfare standards. The new clause includes a ban on the importation of food that is produced to standards lower than that in the UK. We know that the US and other countries have far lower animal welfare standards and adopt practices—including chlorine-washed chicken, hormone-fed beef and the use of various pesticides and GM crops—that are illegal in the UK for health and environmental reasons. None of that is a great surprise to anyone in the House. We believe that the quality of Scotland’s food and drink produce and, indeed, of food and drink produced elsewhere in the UK, and the related standards, are essential to the maintenance of our established international reputation in those areas.