Manufacturing and Engineering (Northern Ireland)

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Thursday 6th February 2025 Commons Chamber

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I usually have the graveyard shift down in Westminster Hall on a Thursday afternoon. I think this exceeds that, given the time. It is a pleasure to have this important debate. I am pleased to see the Minister for Industry, the hon. Member for Croydon West (Sarah Jones), in her place. She has seen my asks, so I hope she can respond to them. I am also pleased to see the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland here, too. I will try to focus on the pluses that we have, and I then have a number of questions to ask the Minister. As she has seen those in advance, I hope we can have a positive glass half-full debate. That would be great.

It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Madam Deputy Speaker. It is not often we get to share time together, but you have me whether you like it or not, for at least half an hour or thereabouts. I am so appreciative of this time in the House to highlight the needs of the manufacturing and engineering industry in Northern Ireland. Northern Ireland has fast become a giant in aerospace. We have a skilled workforce, lower overheads and the perfect connectivity for business investment. That is what we have and that is what we do.

We have not only the manufacturing giant Spirit AeroSystems, but Wrightbus, Harland and Wolff and Thales—the list goes on. They are all supplied with specialist parts by a plethora of skilled smaller engineering firms that dot throughout the Province, in particular in Strangford. I must make clear from the outset that when I talk about the manufacturing industry today, I do not just mean the big firms; I am thinking of all the smaller firms that rely on this business. The impact on the local economy is massive. Indeed, Invest NI has highlighted that manufacturing accounts for some 11% of employment and 15% of gross value added, making it a key sector in the Northern Ireland economy. I underline that it is a key sector, and I cannot underline that enough. It is vital for Northern Ireland.

Northern Ireland is home to five companies with the SC21 supply-chain quality system gold award, out of a total of nine across the United Kingdom. Northern Ireland is again, as the Secretary of State will know, kicking on and working above the standards that many have for the United Kingdom. With five out of nine, we have more than any other UK region. We offer a reliable, successful, and competitive supply chain, with expertise in key technologies.

For automobiles, we are the world-leading region for the supply of tyre pressure monitoring systems, and we have leading capability in the manufacture of complex aluminium castings, as well as key strengths in the production of composite vehicle bodies for leading sports car brands. We do much in Northern Ireland. We have world-class solutions in the design and manufacture of mobile bulk processing and wet-processing equipment. When people buy from Northern Ireland, they buy 60 years of leading the world in mobile bulk materials processing equipment, and we manufacture more than 40% of the world’s mobile crushing and screening equipment. Again, I want to say these things because Northern Ireland often leads the way, and it is always a privilege to come and tell not only the world, but this Chamber about that.

The low-carbon sector employs more than 12,000 people in more than 300 companies, with an annual turnover in excess of £1.7 billion. Northern Ireland companies have the capability of providing a range of innovative products and services to address the specific needs of the various energy and water supply chains. The wastewater sector in Northern Ireland had a turnover of £1.1 billion in 2019, a GVA of £0.8 billion and 7,000 employees.

Northern Ireland is one of the most diverse consumer goods sectors in the UK, offering a wide range of design and manufacturing-based companies. More than 4,800 people are employed in the sector. Our companies have developed manufacturing capabilities and design or technology-led products and continue to remain competitive in a global marketplace. While that is the foundation of the big picture of manufacturing in Northern Ireland, I also highlight that we are yet to meet our potential, which simply cannot be met without greater investment, knowing that for every penny spent, the local economy reaps the benefit in pounds.

With that in mind, I have been in contact with and met the GMB and Unite unions representing Spirit, who have indicated the support needed in the sale of business transition. Spirit AeroSystems facilities in Northern Ireland produce parts for a variety of aircraft manufacturers, with about 45% of production on the wing and fuselage for Airbus. That work employs—

--- Later in debate ---

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—(Gen Kitchen.)

[Jim Shannon]

I knew what was happening there; I just had not looked up at the clock. It is a pleasure to continue the debate.

I referred to the Airbus fuselage and how that work employs 33% of the 3,700-strong labour force. Labour-intensive contracts equate to some 47% of production—work for Bombardier and small aircraft manufacturers such as HondaJet and Rolls-Royce—and the remaining about 20% of work is in engineering IT, human resources, quality assurance and so on.

It is really important that we focus, if we can, on where we are. Boeing’s interest in purchasing Spirit is primarily about consolidating its own supply chain to ensure quality control. It has no interest in retaining production for its primary competitor, Airbus. Currently, Airbus’s intention is to take control of Spirit operations in its own supply chain; it has no interest in production for other aircraft producers.

Further challenge is posed by the fact that operations across Spirit sites are integrated. Workers are employed across different projects for different clients, so even if a division of activities under separate ownership were possible, it is unclear whether those operations could be sustained. That is one of our concerns. I look to the Minister and to the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland for some help on that. I believe the opinion of the unions is that the facilities must remain under one owner, as that is the only option that would guarantee and safeguard production. Airbus already operates a model that would make the retention of highly skilled jobs in Northern Ireland possible through, for instance, integration into the Airbus Atlantic group. That would include production sites across five different countries—that gives flexibility and strength across continents. Airbus already operates contracts with a variety of partners including, again, Bombardier, Dassault Aviation and ATR.

The Northern Ireland facilities are critical to Airbus and its future growth. Belfast is a vital supplier to the A220, and it cannot risk any disruption to production by taking control of the entire site. A single owner could avoid the outsourcing problems that have plagued Boeing, and disruption could also bring liability for hefty financial penalties. I have to underline that the workers in Belfast, who have given many years of service—their blood, sweat and tears—were the innovators and builders of the Airbus project. The unique expertise in Belfast cannot be easily replicated elsewhere. It is unique to us in Belfast, and it is important that it is retained as such.

According to reports, Spirit Belfast will be profitable if production increases to the planned-for 14 aircraft a month in 2025. The non-Airbus work at Spirit Belfast could be viewed as a bonus for Airbus, not a burden. Spirit Belfast has also recently signed two promising new contracts with successful aerospace companies that are likely to improve the plant’s profitability. Bombardier, which represents some 30% and growing of the work done at Spirit Belfast, has also been a customer for 35 years. There is clear continuity on the base and among the workforce.

All local political representatives and all parties across all of Northern Ireland, Spirit management and the Department agree with our demand for a one-owner solution as the best outcome for all workers, the aerospace sector and the wider Northern Ireland economy. However, to date, disappointingly—I say this with respect; I always do because that is the person I am—the chief executives of all the respective companies and the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland have failed to engage with senior stewards or the workforce. If that has changed, I will be more than happy, but whenever I met them a few weeks ago, that had not happened. They appear to be leaving thousands of jobs and livelihoods at risk or of being dictated to by the market.

This decision is not acceptable; neither is it in the best interests of the 3,700 workers impacted. It is imperative that the next course of action is to maintain and future-proof the highly skilled jobs and the approximately 7,400 jobs intertwined via the supply chain in the Northern Ireland economy. That would continue a vibrant and historic aerospace sector in Northern Ireland. The workforce need the support of central Government. I am quite sure that the Minister and the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland will reassure us.

Why is this important? Spirit AeroSystems is a linchpin of the economy in the greater Belfast area. Statistical analysis from the Northern Ireland Statistics and Research Agency, “Structure of the Northern Ireland Economy 2020”, published in September 2024, estimates that for every job sustained in the non-automobile vehicle production sector in Northern Ireland, almost two more jobs in the broader economy, local services and the supply chain are sustained through indirect and induced employment. For every one job, there are two more out there, so we get three for the price of one. Considering the high value-added nature of Spirit’s activities, with very developed local supply chains both regionally and across Britain and Ireland, that ratio is even higher. It is estimated that the 3,700 jobs at the company’s site in Northern Ireland sustain a further 7,400 indirect and induced jobs in the wider service economy and supply chain, based on the NISRA type II employment multiplier for manufacturers of other transport equipment.

The data is clear, and we need the help. Any threat to Spirit’s operations in Northern Ireland translates to a potential threat to more than 11,000 jobs in the wider economy. Such a threat would be devastating for the Northern Ireland economy, as the wages bill for the Spirit workforce alone amounts to approximately £250 million a year, contributing a large percentage of the region’s total economic consumption. It is not small fry; it means a lot to the Northern Ireland economy, as does the skill factor of those jobs.

The total expenditure of the company is estimated to be at least £600 million a year. The loss of this productive activity would have a huge impact on the Northern Ireland economy. This is key, vital and really important. Based on the 2024 NISRA estimate from a type II economic multiplier for the manufacture of other transport equipment, a reduction of £600 million in demand would reduce Northern Ireland’s gross value added by £1.4 billion. That is more than 3% of the region’s total annual economic output. That illustrates the vital importance of this sector.

Spirit’s production is also a critical element of Northern Ireland’s heavy industrial base and a key driver for exports. It is vital to the realisation of any regional manufacturing or industrial strategy that may be agreed at the Stormont Executive. These jobs represent some of the best employment opportunities for individuals who come from the working-class areas of Belfast and the wider community. The Secretary of State and the Minister know that—we all do. The cross-community employment at the sites benefits all working-class areas, with the jobs created having a profound impact on the transition away from a conflictual society. I know the Secretary of State is committed to that. I want that for our society. This is part of how we do that: we give people jobs and opportunity across the community, to help the community to heal and to move forward. I would certainly like to see that.

Youth employment opportunities in the aerospace sector are always attractive to young workers from all communities who are seeking to improve their lives. Just before Christmas, my right hon. Friend the Member for Belfast East (Gavin Robinson) and I visited the Thales factory. I was really impressed by their commitment to opportunities for apprentices. They are helping apprentices to earn a wage, and they look after student fees. They do not want just an apprentice; they want someone for their entire working life in that factory.

I am concerned that any loss of these skilled jobs would cast a very dark cloud over communities in Northern Ireland that are still emerging and transitioning from the legacy of conflict, at a critical juncture in the history of Northern Ireland. I never doubt that the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland is committed to finding a way forward. This is part of the healing process, moving forward and bringing us together. I ask the Minister gently to get involved—I do not mean that aggressively—and I ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland to expend every effort to advance a one-owner entity and ensure that, whoever buys Spirit AeroSystems’ operations in Northern Ireland, the vital social and economic importance of the jobs that it provides is fully recognised and safeguarded. That is in the interests of all stakeholders, and this great mother of Parliaments of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. It must be the overriding priority in the coming weeks and months.

I thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, and all those who have attended tonight: the Minister, the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, and his shadow, the hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Alex Burghart), who has a deep interest in Northern Ireland. I speak as the MP for Strangford, and on behalf of the business and homes involved. It is not just about jobs; it is about every one of the 11,000 people who have a home, a mortgage and a family. Those people contribute to Northern Ireland, and want to contribute positively going forward. They are supported by the manufacturing industry, which, importantly, needs the involvement of the Government to secure a good deal. With a new US Administration and a desire to enhance relations between our nations, I believe that now is the time for action. I look to the Minister with the greatest respect, in anticipation of what she will tell us.

[The Minister for Industry (Sarah Jones)]

I thank the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) for introducing today’s debate in his usual style of gentle persistence, and for the birthday message that he sent me back in December. I think he is the only Member of Parliament who sends birthday messages to every MP. The care with which he treats all of us is an example to us all.

I have a list here of all the good things about Northern Ireland manufacturing. The hon. Member has listed most of them already. For the benefit of the House, I will not repeat the case that he has made; I will just set out a few things about the Government’s approach. First, the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland and I, and others, were in Northern Ireland when we were able to announce a successful outcome on the Harland and Wolff deal. When we first came to power last July, it was one of the early industries in distress that came across our desks. We were faced with the possible collapse of Harland and Wolff, and there was absolutely no way we could allow that to happen. We all worked very hard to ensure that there was a deal that worked both for the Ministry of Defence, in terms of the fleet solid support contract for Navantia, and its commercial interests and what it could do, and for the workers of Harland and Wolff.

We did not do that because we are good people and we did not want to see job losses, although those things are true; we did it because the four Harland and Wolff sites are of incredible strategic importance to us. As it happens, I was in Methil yesterday, the Harland and Wolff site in Fife, where there is a huge future for offshore wind. The site can build part of that future. Sometimes we look through misty eyes at what has happened in the past in Belfast, and what Harland and Wolff used to be. The way we see it is: let us look at what it can be in the future, and how important it is. Of course it is important for people to have good well-paid jobs, but it is the talent and expertise they bring—which I see in spades in Northern Ireland every time I go; the enthusiasm, the talent, the training and the apprenticeship programmes—that mean we can build the future we want to see. They will be very important for our defence, but the whole ecosystem the hon. Gentleman talked about is very important for our future.

What support can the Government bring to ensure that people continue to flourish and thrive? First, we want to work collaboratively across the nations in a way that is productive and useful. I chair the business and industry inter-ministerial group in the Department for Business and Trade. At our first meeting, the hon. Gentleman’s colleagues in Northern Ireland, Wales and Scotland were there, too. What we can do collectively that helps all our nations is really important.

Secondly, the Government set the structure, through the industrial strategy, and a direction of travel that industry can understand. The hon. Gentleman will know that we are developing the industrial strategy. There are eight growth sectors where we think there is the biggest capacity for growth. We are working on honing down what the sub-sectors are within that. Advanced manufacturing, defence and green energy are all key areas that we have identified as opportunities for growth and Northern Ireland has such a role to play in that space. That architecture, which will provide the long-term stability over the next five to 10 years, will be really important and helpful.

The third bit of architecture is our universities, colleges, catapults, Innovate UK and all the other networks that help us to come up with new ideas and new businesses. I met Catapult Network chief executives this morning. They told me about—they were keen that I mention it in this debate, as I said I was coming here—some of the innovative work going on through the catapults in Northern Ireland. They are working with Invest Northern Ireland on hydrogen, which will accelerate supply chains for the hydrogen economy. They are working with Queen’s University Belfast to ensure that Northern Ireland’s manufacturing businesses can connect into national capabilities and help address future challenges. There is a lot of good work going on there.

The next bit of architecture is how we help all those businesses in Northern Ireland to export. I was in Saudi Arabia two weeks ago, alongside Invest Northern Ireland and Northern Ireland businesses, which were taking their huge talent and, I hope, doing some good deals. There was a business—I might get this wrong and have to tell Hansard to correct this—that makes kit that washes sand. It has washed 99% of the sand that needs to be washed—I am going to stop trying to go into detail!—in Qatar. It was a very small business in Northern Ireland that was, basically, providing a service to Qatar that nobody else could do. That was quite extraordinary, but that is the talent we have coming out of Northern Ireland and we want to work with Invest NI on that. We need to get the right architecture in place to ensure the future is bright.

I think what the hon. Gentleman also wants me to talk about is how we protect what we have. He made a very good case on Spirit and how it is not just the jobs, but the supply chain and all interactions. He used some very interesting statistics on the potential impact of closures. What I will say in this space is, first, that we all want the same thing. Secondly, just to correct the record, the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds South (Hilary Benn) has met the trade unions to talk about that. I was at Spirit on 19 December and talked about the future. I have talked to all interested parties in this space. Collectively as a Government—the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland and the Secretary of State for Business and Trade, my right hon. Friend the Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (Jonathan Reynolds)—we are trying to do what we can. It is a complex situation, as we know, and there are layers of complexity in terms of who does what. We are trying to do what we can. Government can only do what they can in trying to bring people together, come up with solutions and talk to those interested parties, but I think we are pushing in the right direction. Although I cannot click my finger and have the answer that the hon. Gentleman wants this evening, I can give him the commitment that we are doing what we can. If he has suggestions as to further meetings we could hold and things we could do, of course, I would be very happy to do that. I am having conversations regularly on Short Brothers and Spirit AeroSystems, as the hon. Gentleman would expect. I am talking to the aerospace industry, Boeing and all the interested parties.

[Jim Shannon]

I thank the Minister and the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland. I am happy that the meeting has taken place. Whenever I met them—it would have been three or even four weeks ago—they informed me that the meeting had not taken place. I am glad that it has, because that is better. When it comes to moving forward in Northern Ireland, things only ever happen when we all work together. That is important.

I also thank the Minister and the Secretary of State for what they have done in relation to Harland and Wolff. We appreciate that. I know it was complex and difficult, and that there were things they could not say when we asked in the past and things were happening behind the scenes. Could the Minister be involved in those contacts with Spirit and Unite and the GMB unions, again with the Secretary of State? That contact is important. I say to the Minister that she should bring people with her. If we bring people with us, we always win the case.

[Sarah Jones]

I am always happy to meet the trade unions. I think I spend more time with trade unions in government than I did in opposition. We are forever meeting, usually in very happy circumstances where we are all trying to push to the same end in terms of building industry and creating growth. I am therefore always happy to meet and to do that. Of course, it is not just Ministers who are in conversation; I should say that the officials are also talking to all the interested parties, just to see what can be done. But I will not deny that it is a challenge.

The two-pronged approach of trying to ensure we have the architecture to build our manufacturing and our industry in Northern Ireland, alongside trying to see if we can find a solution when it comes to Spirit, is the right thing to do. We should not ignore one or the other; we need to try with both and that is what we will do.

Encouraging new investment into Northern Ireland is also part of the picture. The Government’s investment summit and the work through the Office for Investment and the Minister for Investment really focuses on the strengths of a region and an area—the strength of a nation in this case—and the wonderful manufacturing ecosystem that we should be able to build on and which should be a very attractive proposition to investors who want to come in and expand.

I could talk more about some of the other examples of good practice and exciting things that are happening in Northern Ireland, but I do not want to keep the House longer than is necessary. The hon. Member has made the case very well, and I agree with everything that he has said.

[Jim Shannon]

I suppose the thrust of all the good things—we do not deny them but welcome them because they are good things—is to have the sale as one entity. On behalf of the workers, I especially ask the Minister to commit to looking at what more can be done for the Spirit workers. They are skilled, they are experienced and they are critical to Northern Ireland’s manufacturing base. That is my request to the Minister: to sell it as one entity and keep the workers.

[Sarah Jones]

I thank the hon. Member for that intervention. He is now looking at his phone. I do not whether the unions are messaging him during the debate, but if so, it is very effective.

Of course I will do whatever is useful in this regard. Commercial decisions are being made; we cannot influence all of them, but we can do what we can, and we are trying. We have a very skilled workforce that we do not want to lose, and I am happy to meet, work with and walk alongside our colleagues who are working in Northern Ireland.

I thank the hon. Member for initiating the debate. It is always a joy to talk about what is happening in Northern Ireland, and even more of a joy to be there and see it. I look forward to doing that again soon.

Question put and agreed to.

Closure of High Street Services: Rural Areas

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Wednesday 5th February 2025 Westminster Hall

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

Good answer!

[Jamie Stone]

I thank the hon. Gentleman.

Although the challenges are significant, they are not insurmountable. We must be positive about this. To address the problem, we must adopt a multifaceted approach, which hon. Members are hinting at, involving Government intervention, community action and ownership, and private sector collaboration. We need innovation; we cannot just say, “Oh well. We’ll carry on doing things in the way they have been done in the past.” We cannot; we have to do things differently in the future.

The Government must support local councils and prioritise investment in high streets through grants or subsidies for small businesses. An overhaul of the business rate system or rent caps could make it more feasible for entrepreneurs to operate in rural areas. For example, establishing a commercial landowner levy and taxing only the land value of commercial sites, not productive investment, would remove physical capital from taxation. That would, in turn, boost business investment, increase productivity and—of attraction to us all—boost wages.

By championing community action, essential services such as post offices or supermarkets could be preserved through encouraging community ownership models. By pooling resources and sharing risks, residents can feel more supported and in control of what is happening in their local area—something they do not feel at the moment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Furniss. I thank the hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Jamie Stone) for bringing this debate to Westminster Hall today. I am thinking back to when my mum and dad were shopkeepers. This was 1959, when I was only four years old—that is my age out now. I remember our shop in Ballywalter, in the country. It was the shop where people bought everything. They could buy all their groceries. They could buy anything from a nail to clothes—my mother dealt with that side of the shop. We had coal. We had venetian blinds—my goodness, can you remember venetian blinds? We also had all the meal for the cattle. Those were the shops that people had way back in those early days.

I am blessed to have not one but two great high streets in my constituency. Ballynahinch has wonderful shops, yet we all know that it would massively benefit from the proposed bypass to allow people to nip into town and come out without worrying about the commuter traffic. Newtownards, the central town for the constituency, has been a market town since its inception in the 1600s. It has a great history. It has one of the UK’s oldest market crosses—an indicator of the business carried out over hundreds of years. Indeed, we still have a thriving Saturday market. We also have independent boutique retailers that can kit people out—man and woman; boy and girl—with everything. That is the sort of shop we have.

Unfortunately, what we also have now is a rise in store closures. That is something we did not have in Newtownards for a long time, but we have definitely had it over the last year.

[Catherine Fookes]

Will the hon. Member give way?

[Jim Shannon]

If the intervention is very quick, given Ms Furniss’s comments.

[Catherine Fookes]

I thank the hon. Member for allowing the intervention. His mention of that store brought to mind a wonderful store in my constituency called Handyman House, which still serves people with all the different things that he mentioned. Is the hon. Member concerned also about libraries—the fact that we must keep our libraries open, not reduce their hours? They are incredibly important for our high streets as community gathering spaces and also a space where, obviously, people can read books.

[Jim Shannon]

Absolutely. We are fortunate to have a number of libraries in my constituency—in Ballynahinch, Killyleagh and Newtownards. The draw of the libraries is really important, and I thank the hon. Lady for that intervention.

Ards truly has it all. It has won Northern Ireland High Street of the Year on multiple occasions. But we have lost a number of bank units. We lost the Halifax, Bank of Ireland and First Trust, but we retain Nationwide, Danske Bank, Santander, the Progressive Building Society and Ulster Bank, and long may that continue. I always give a Northern Ireland perspective to the debate. I am trying to be really quick, Ms Furniss. I look forward to the Minister’s response. Perhaps he can outline, as he always does, the contact with the Northern Ireland Assembly back home to ensure that we can learn from here and there can be lessons from us to people here as well.

If the Minister does not mind my respectfully saying this, I have to express concern over the issue about national insurance contributions and what that will do to all the small shops. Some of the small shops have told me about how it will affect them, and it really is quite worrying. One shop employs eight people. The profit margin of 15% comes down to 1% with all the rates, rent, employment costs and so on, but the owner still has to feed his family. The bigger stores—the Tescos and Matalans—can do better.

I will finish with this, Ms Furniss; I am ever conscious that many people want to speak. I am thankful for the Newtownards chamber of trade and its innovations, from evening markets to children’s fun days, in co-operation with the local council, Ards and North Down borough council. They are there to keep Ards thriving. I just do not see, unfortunately, the same energy top down. I hope that this debate is the beginning of changes for the high street retailers and Government working to retain and enhance their place in this country. When I speak here, I speak for every shop, not just in my constituency, but across this great United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, because that is where the benefits are. I look to the Minister for a positive response.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade (Gareth Thomas)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Furniss. In the usual way, let me, too, congratulate the hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Jamie Stone) on securing this important debate.

We have heard a series of powerful speeches from Members from Northern Ireland and from the Liberal Democrat Benches, and some particularly strong speeches from my hon. Friends the Members for Na h-Eileanan an Iar (Torcuil Crichton), for Rushcliffe (James Naish), for South West Norfolk (Terry Jermy), for Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket (Peter Prinsley), for Monmouthshire (Catherine Fookes) and for Scarborough and Whitby (Alison Hume). I note in passing that not one Conservative Back-Bench MP or Reform MP is present to champion rural areas. I gently say to the shadow Minister that if the previous Government had done a slightly better job, this debate would perhaps not be necessary.

I will address as many of the points that have been raised as I can, but let me first say this. It goes without saying that our high streets play a vital role in providing a place for communities to come together, work, socialise, shop and access essential services. I very much share the passion of Members across the Chamber for ensuring that all communities in rural areas have access to those services, wherever they are in the UK. Rural areas offer significant potential for economic growth. More than half a million businesses are registered in rural areas, and the rural economy contributes more than £315 billion a year in England alone. The Government are committed to improving the quality of life for people living and working in rural areas, in part so that we can realise the full potential of rural businesses.

If a high street or town centre is to flourish, residents, businesses and councils must work together to develop their own unique offer for the high street that resonates with the local community. That is why this Government are focused on our five-point plan to breathe life back into Britain’s high streets: addressing antisocial behaviour and retail crime, reforming the business rates system, rolling out banking hubs, stamping out late payments, and empowering communities to make the most of the vacant properties with which rural communities, and indeed urban ones, are all too familiar. We have already made progress on that plan.

My Department is working with others across Government to ensure that we do all we can to create thriving high streets now and long into the future. Our small business strategy, which we will publish later this year, will set out further plans to support small businesses on the high street and beyond. We want to support efforts to ensure that all our high streets are places for our businesses, local people and visitors, creating jobs and economic growth wherever they are in the UK. When thinking about solutions to the future of the high street in rural areas and more generally, we need to recognise that no two high streets are the same, and that the way we live and work is evolving quickly.

A series of hon. Members raised the issue of high street banks and branch closures. The UK branch network is now below 5,000—half what it was in 2015—and although the banks point to the increasing use of digital channels for day-to-day banking, access to cash and in-person banking services are still essential for many, not least the elderly and the vulnerable, who often need face-to-face engagement to get their banking sorted.

[Jim Shannon]

I commend the Minister for his response. My constituency has lost the most banks—I think we have lost 12 over the years. It is obscene and immoral that the banks are making exorbitant profits, in the hundreds of millions, at the same time as they close branches and deny pensioners and vulnerable people the right to bank access. Has the Minister spoken to the banks about their immorality in relation to their profits, and their dedication and responsibility to vulnerable people?

[Gareth Thomas]

We certainly want the banking industry to do more to work with us as a Government to ensure that there is much better access to financial services, in particular for small businesses. Too often, one of the big pressures facing small businesses is accessing the finance they need to expand and thrive. We know that good access to finance for small businesses is not universal; that is a challenge not only in rural areas, but more generally. We will continue to press the financial services industry generally, and banks specifically, in that space.

The Government have said that accessing physical banking services is important, which is why we are working closely with banks to roll out 350 banking hubs to provide people with critical cash and banking services on their doorstep. The hubs offer basic counter services, provided by post office staff, that allow people and businesses to withdraw and deposit cash, deposit cheques, pay bills and make balance inquiries. Many hubs also have dedicated rooms where customers can see community bankers from their own banks to discuss things such as staying safe from fraud, adding a lasting power of attorney, making payments or registering for online banking.

High Street Retailers

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Wednesday 5th February 2025 Westminster Hall

[Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered Government support for high street retailers.

This subject has concentrated minds for a number of years, and we are all affected by the problems associated with high street retailing. In fact, Mary Portas said that the future of the high street will involve

“less retail but better retail”—

that was about three years ago. I am afraid that those who say there are difficulties or problems in the high street are mistaken, because unless towns across the United Kingdom are different from the towns I experience in Northern Ireland, high street retailing is in more than just difficulty. Unless there is dramatic, innovative intervention, the high street in the United Kingdom as we know it will die.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I commend my hon. Friend for securing the debate. He is right to say that about the high street, and retailers across this United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland are saying the same. Does he agree that the only way for the high street to survive is for it to adapt and move along with the times? That takes technology, innovation and a support system to which Government are committed.

[Mr Gregory Campbell]

I fully agree with my hon. Friend. Innovation will be the key. In many towns—I am sure that this is applicable across the UK—there are enough coffee shops and charity shops, and both of those are admirable additions to our high streets. In fact, when I am on constituency work, I find coffee shops very convenient, especially if I do not have much time to get a bite to eat. They offer a facility, as do charity shops, but the high street has to be much more than that.

This is not about the higher-end retailing that exists in, for example, Regent Street or Oxford Street, and I say that not to minimise the high streets across our country. They may be doing well—by the looks of Christmas just past, they are doing well in central London—and much of that is down to money that comes in from outside the United Kingdom.

Oral Answers to Questions

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Thursday 30th January 2025 Commons Chamber

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I thank the Minister for his positive response to that question. In Strangford, small businesses are the backbone of the community, and many people in those businesses work from home. The business growth policy may be specific to England, but what discussions has the Minister had with the Department for Business and Trade in Northern Ireland to ensure that we benefit?

[Gareth Thomas]

The hon. Gentleman has always been a great champion of small businesses in his constituency and in Northern Ireland more generally. We want the business growth service to complement the support that the Northern Ireland Executive and the Welsh and Scottish Governments already give their businesses, to improve the quality of advice and support available to all businesses in all parts of the UK.

Solar Farms: Agricultural Land

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Tuesday 28th January 2025 Westminster Hall

[Dr Savage]

I thank my hon. Friend for her intervention. I totally agree and will be coming to that point shortly.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I commend the hon. Lady for securing this debate. I suppose the issue is twofold. First, the farmers who sign up to solar farms are committed to a long-term lease, and that will impact the family inheritance tax potential. The second point comes in relation to using land better for food production, as it should be used, so that only land that is of a lesser quality, or rocky land, would be more suitable for solar farms. Does the hon. Lady agree that that is the way forward?

[Dr Savage]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention and I agree that that is the way forward.

Let us consider the facts. Our agricultural land is dwindling at an alarming rate. We are down to 14.8 million acres of arable land, the lowest amount since world war two, and we are losing nearly 100,000 acres annually. We already import nearly 60% of our food. Do we really want to increase that dependency on foreign supply chains?

Unionised Workers in the Housing Sector: Pay Discrimination

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Tuesday 28th January 2025 Commons Chamber

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade (Justin Madders)]

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Knowsley (Anneliese Midgley) for securing this debate and for her excellent speech. She has a long and proud record in the trade union movement, which she has brought to the fore today.

I want to start by setting out the Government’s approach to the important subject of industrial relations. We want employers and trade unions to come together to grow our economy. We know that the world of work is fairer and more productive when people can come together to negotiate fair pay and decent conditions. That is why we are resetting industrial relations through the Employment Rights Bill. We are repealing nearly every part of the Trade Union Act 2016, which tried to smother trade unions in form-filling and red tape and prevent them from doing their core job of negotiation and dispute resolution.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I commend the hon. Member for Knowsley (Anneliese Midgley) for bringing forward this debate. I spoke to her beforehand, and I understand what she is trying to do. She has clearly outlined the case for the unions in her contribution tonight. When I started work for Henry Denny’s in Belfast in my early 20s, they asked me if I wanted to join the union. To be honest, I was not sure, but the guy told me it was compulsory, so I said, “That’s okay.” But here’s the story. I had the union on my side when I first started work at Henry Denny’s; I had it to back me up whenever I needed something. I had had a different opinion about what unions were and what they could do for me. The hon. Lady has outlined what the unions can do, I understand personally what they can do, and I look forward to hearing the Minister tell us what he is going to do.

[Justin Madders]

I am grateful to the hon. Member for his support for unions. I was a little worried when the debate started because he was not in his normal place. I thought there was going to be some sort of national emergency because the hon. Member for Strangford had not attended the Adjournment debate, but I am glad he is here and that he has spoken very positively about the benefits of joining a trade union.

I shall go back to some of the work we are doing to improve the industrial relations landscape. We are of course repealing the Strikes (Minimum Service Levels) Act 2023, which, to our mind, only increased tensions and failed to prevent a single day of industrial action. We are going further in strengthening the voice of working people by making it easier for trade unions to get recognised, giving them the right of access to workplaces and making sure that they have enough time to represent their members. When the rights of working people are flouted, our new fair work agency will be empowered to investigate. We have recently run a consultation on modernising trade union laws so that they are fit for the modern workplace and the modern economy. That consultation closed on 2 December and we are currently analysing responses. We will publish a Government response to the consultation before Report stage of the Employment Rights Bill.

This is a transformative package that marks a new era for working people and I hope that hon. Members are in no doubt about the Government’s commitment to marking this new way forward. It is a way that brings a new deal for working people, making jobs more secure and family friendly, banning exploitative zero-hours contracts, supporting women in work at every stage in their life, and providing a genuine living wage and sick pay for the lowest earners. There will be further and faster action to close the gender pay gap, to ensure that rights are enforced and that trade unions are strengthened, to repeal anti-worker, anti-union laws, to turn the page on industrial relations and to end fire and rehire, while also giving working people the basic rights that they deserve at work from day one. This is a pro-business, pro-worker, pro-growth Bill from a pro-business, pro-worker, pro-growth Government.

As we know, a range of protections exist for workers against inducements and detriment related to trade union membership or activities. Of those, I will mention three that may be relevant to this particular situation. Section 146 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 protects workers against detriment being imposed by an employer for the sole or main purpose of preventing or deterring the worker from being a trade union member or taking part in union activities, or penalising them for doing so.

Through clause 63 of the Employment Rights Bill, we are enhancing protections against detriment by conferring a right on workers not to be subjected to detriment

“for the sole or main purpose of preventing or deterring the worker from taking protected industrial action, or penalising the worker for doing so.”

Section 145A of the 1992 Act protects workers against offers made by the employer for the sole or main purpose of inducing the worker not to be a trade union member or not to take part in union activities. Finally, section 145B of the 1992 Act protects members of trade unions that are recognised, or are seeking to be recognised, by their employer against offers made by the employer for the sole or main purpose of resulting in workers’ terms and conditions not being determined by a collective agreement negotiated by the union.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Knowsley indicated, we cannot comment on the extent to which existing legislation applies to a particular case, as that is ultimately a matter for tribunals and courts to determine. However, I hope it has been helpful to state clearly some of the existing protections that may be relevant.

It is also worth putting it on record that this Government expect employers to work in partnership with unions to resolve disputes through negotiation. We certainly do not believe that pay offers should be framed in a way that requires an individual to confirm that they are not a member of a trade union. At the very least, as my hon. Friend said, that goes against the spirit of good industrial relations.

I recognise that disputes are sometimes difficult to resolve, and I take this opportunity to highlight the important role that ACAS plays in this space. Its remit is to promote good employment relations, to advise employers and employees on workplace matters, and to resolve individual and collective workplace disputes. Employees and employers in a workplace dispute may wish to contact ACAS to get advice on employment law and workplace relations, and to help resolve their dispute.

Of course, resolving disputes through ACAS requires both parties to participate, and it is disappointing to hear from my hon. Friend that not only will Livv not engage with her on this matter, but it does not appear that it will engage with the trade union either. I hope Livv reconsiders because, through our “make work pay” agenda, we have been clear that it is our intention to ensure that workplace rights are fit for a modern economy, empower working people and deliver economic growth.

That is why we have introduced the Employment Rights Bill, which represents the biggest upgrade to workers’ rights in a generation. We will always listen carefully to any arguments on how the law on inducements or detriment could be improved, and we always welcome views on how we can reset industrial relations to create a modern framework that is fit for a modern economy and modern working practices.

I would welcome the opportunity to hear more information from my hon. Friend about the specifics of this issue, and I urge Livv to engage with her and the trade unions. I am open to looking at the case in more detail to understand what action, if any, is necessary, and I am always happy to work with my hon. Friend to ensure that trade union rights are properly observed in this country.

Question put and agreed to.

Competition and Markets Authority Chairman

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Wednesday 22nd January 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

Mr Grady, I think you have asked a question. [Interruption.] I think the Whips need to be advising you a bit more.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I thank the Minister for his answers. The role of the CMA chair is essential in the current economic climate, as we watch how our allies in the USA approach their trading and their deals. We need a message of strength; we need to relay the fact that we are ready and open for international business. Does the Minister believe that this interim measure sends that message, and how quickly can we get the right person in place to promote our business standing?

[Justin Madders]

We are really serious about growth. This is about sending the message that we want to make sure that Britain is open for investment, and that we will work with partners across the world to encourage investment and get the growth that we want, for the benefit of the entire economy. This is just one part of the plan.

Harland & Wolff

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Thursday 19th December 2024 Commons Chamber

[Jonathan Reynolds]

I share the hon. Gentleman’s aspirations and recognise his calls for UK shipbuilding to have a higher priority in future than it has in the past. To be specific on what I was saying in the statement, there has been a revision to the value of the fleet solid support contract; it has required a little bit of additional support—but not greatly and on commercial terms—in order to deliver it. There are not promises of additional work packages on top of the contractual agreements made by the previous Government, but because Navantia UK is such a world-renowned expert builder of shipping of all sizes, as well as the investment that comes with this deal and the more competitive nature of the yards in future, there are genuine grounds for optimism. I see real opportunities in fabrication and maintenance, but particularly in energy. I also think that a little bit of competitive diversification in the military shipbuilding sector’s supply chain is welcome, creating better value for money in procurement. Across the board, this is a positive story for Harland & Wolff and its employees, but as the hon. Gentleman has described, it is also a positive story for UK shipbuilding.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

This announcement is really good news, and everybody across the House will welcome it. It is probably time to break out the Christmas cake and the mince pies early, because there is good news coming and the Secretary of State has delivered it today. This morning I spoke to my right hon. Friend the Member for Belfast East (Gavin Robinson), who has worked tirelessly with the company to secure this progress. We all agree that it is great news, particularly for the 1,000-strong workforce in Belfast, and especially in the run-up to Christmas—well done. My right hon. Friend will be at the yard with the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland this afternoon, probably in about an hour’s time.

If the national shipbuilding strategy is to mean anything, it must be that the Government invest in skills and capacity throughout the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. Does the Secretary of State agree that more could be done to increase research and innovation support across the United Kingdom and, in particular, in Northern Ireland?

[Jonathan Reynolds]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for asking what I think will be my last question of the year. I would particularly like to recognise what he said about his colleague, the right hon. Member for Belfast East (Gavin Robinson). Obviously, he has a constituency interest and a leading role in Northern Ireland, and I think he understood the decisions we had to make. We had to explain in confidence to all colleagues affected why the initial decision on the guarantee alone was not the right way forward, but that we were committed to the kind of solution we have announced today. I am extremely grateful for being able to work with the right hon. Gentleman on that. It is great news that he is going to the yard today; my colleagues the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland and the Minister for Industry are also in Belfast today, and I understand that the Secretary of State for Scotland will be at one of the yards in Scotland too.

On the hon. Gentleman’s point about innovation and research and development, that is the basis on which we have to compete. Whether in the sectors of aerospace, automotive or shipbuilding, what we need is high-end, sophisticated R&D, innovation and world-leading products. That is what we have in many of our advanced manufacturing sectors, but it is such a competitive world that we have to maintain that edge. In particular, R&D is an area where core support and core funding between Government and industry has real benefits. We have seen that in lots of sectors—maybe not to the degree we have needed in shipbuilding, but let us look at that for the future and approach the next year with some real positivity.

Employment Rights: Terminal Illness

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Wednesday 18th December 2024 Westminster Hall

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

It is a real pleasure to speak in this debate. I commend the hon. Member for Corby and East Northamptonshire (Lee Barron) for giving us the opportunity to participate, and congratulate him on his introduction, which showed an understanding of what the issue means to his constituents. I hope I will convey that too.

This is an opportunity to highlight the much-needed help and support that the Government must facilitate. I am pleased to see the Minister and the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Mid Buckinghamshire (Greg Smith), in their places, and look forward to their contributions. I believe that the Minister understands the necessity for this debate, and I understand that the Government are going to make changes; the Minister will respond to that later.

This is one of those bread and butter issues, which I love because they make a difference to people’s lives. There are important constitutional and foreign policy issues but these matters are the ones we deal with every week in our offices. These are not just bread and butter issues; they are literally life-and-death issues, and the hon. Gentleman has set that scene so well.

I want to advocate for the tremendous work of the wonderful charity, Marie Curie. We all deal with many charities in our constituencies, as others will mention. I have lots in my constituency, but I am a supporter of Marie Curie in word and deed. I am not better than anybody else—I never claim to be and I never will be—but I support that charity’s work financially and in other ways. I have been to the Marie Curie centre in Knock, Belfast, where the staff provide real help to each person and their family. That must be an incredibly hard job and every Marie Curie nurse deserves credit.

I am thankful for the support that Marie Curie gives to patients and families in the throes of cancer journeys. Those are journeys that I and constituents have dealt with over the years. I am also grateful for the information that Marie Curie consolidates and provides us with to enable our fuller understanding. Information from those in the thick of funding and practical issues is invaluable. We need to dig deep individually and collectively within our constituencies. When loved ones pass away, they often leave something in their will to Marie Curie or other charities, which helps them do more for other people on life’s last journey.

I want to focus heavily on the recently published report, “Dying in Poverty 2024”. If hon. Members have not had the opportunity to read it, I suggest it may be worth a look. It looks at the financial insecurity faced by many people at the end of life. Research found that some 111,000 people each year die in poverty. Wow; I can hardly take in that figure, especially in this modern society—this wealthy Britain—that we live in. That figure needs to settle into all our minds. The report also found that working-age people are at much greater risk of dying in poverty: 28% of those who died in 2023 died in poverty, compared with 16% of pension-age people. Anyone who is not shocked by those figures must be unfeeling—they must not understand—but I believe that everyone in this room is as shocked as I am.

For that reason, a lot of workers with a terminal diagnosis decide that they must continue working for as long as they can. The hon. Member for Corby and East Northamptonshire referred to one lady who wanted to keep working right up until the end, because work was where her social group was, even though she would have found doing so incredibly difficult. Unfortunately, the experience of many workers is that their employer either is unsympathetic—I am sure that some are sympathetic—or puts up barriers to their continuing in work. A 2022 survey of human resources decision makers found that only 44% of organisations and workplaces have policies in place for staff with a terminal illness. If businesses do not have those policies in place, they should. They have to prepare for that eventuality and be able to help workers through the process.

[Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP)]

A number of employers might either not have a policy or simply be unaware, for some reason, of the need to be more empathetic with people who find themselves in such a horrendously difficult position. The advantage of a debate such as this one, secured by the hon. Member for Corby and East Northamptonshire (Lee Barron) and supported by all hon. Members, is that it can raise awareness and hopefully bring action from Government Departments and employers, which need to take action and show support.

[Jim Shannon]

I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention; I do not want to give him a big head, but his interventions often capture the focus of a debate in one sentence. If the companies have forgotten or are unaware, it is time that they were aware. The question is how we can make that happen.

As I say, only 44% of organisations and workplaces have policies in place for staff with a terminal illness, so if a worker with a terminal illness loses their job, they lose their income. The impact could not be any more real: they may lose any death in service payments that they have earned through their lifetime of work, because those are payable only to those who die while still in employment. The hon. Member for Corby and East Northamptonshire referred to the lady who stayed at work for her social circle of friends. Perhaps it helped her—I am sorry to say this—to ensure that when she passed away she had the payments that she should have had.

I agree with the Marie Curie charity that there is therefore a need for strengthened employment rights for people with a terminal illness, alongside an improved safety net to provide safety or support through our welfare system. When the Minister responds, I am sure that he or his civil servants and staff will have some figures from Marie Curie; if there has not been engagement with the organisation, I suggest that there should be.

[Carla Lockhart (Upper Bann) (DUP)]

I commend the hon. Member for Corby and East Northamptonshire (Lee Barron) for raising this important issue. Does my hon. Friend agree that there also needs to be workplace protection for the parents of children who have been given a terminal diagnosis? When a child is given a terminal diagnosis in such tragic circumstances, parents are worried because they have to leave their work to care for their children. Does he agree that there needs to be better protection for them?

[Jim Shannon]

I thank my hon. Friend. Others might not have thought about that issue, because there are always the two adults—the mum and dad who are in a relationship—and it is their child, but if their child has a terminal illness, how does that impact them in work? They need to be there to take their child to the hospital, and to be there for their child in the last days of their life. I know that the Minister understands those issues; perhaps he can give us an encouraging answer to these questions.

Life is tough for families in full-time employment, never mind those with reduced income and greater costs. Changes must be made to universal credit— I know that that is not the Minister’s responsibility—to allow those in full-time employment to access help and support for their care and time off work. All my staff members understand the benefits system very well, but I am fortunate to have one particular staff member who spends every day of her five and a half days a week—the half day is probably voluntary, because she is a lady with compassion and understanding—working on benefits. As elected representatives, we try to offer all we can to our constituents. All Members do. That lady fills out universal credit applications, personal independence payment applications, employment and support allowance applications or, probably in most cases, attendance allowance applications, although sometimes it is for families with small children.

These are really difficult times. I do the forms myself; I am not better than anybody else. There is a box on the second or third page that asks whether the applicant has a terminal illness. When you tick that box, it moves you into a different system. I have to be fair to the Department: when that box is ticked, the Department moves immediately. I know that from cases that we have done through my office, and other Members will confirm it when they get their chance to speak. An urgency is put into the process and it quickly moves on.

The hon. Member for Corby and East Northamptonshire highlighted in communication to Members that the purpose of this debate is clear:

“The last thing someone with a terminal diagnosis and their family should be worrying about at the end of their life is how they will be able to pay the bills.”

Wow. The Government should remove that equation for people. Many people’s key social networks exist at work, and I believe that those who are terminally ill should have the choice of when they finish work. That is what the debate is all about.

I agree wholeheartedly with the hon. Gentleman’s view. More than that, I will work with him and with the Government to achieve that—to simply do more for those with terminal cancer. Just because charities do such an incredible job of raising funds and caring, that does not absolve our Government and our Minister of their responsibility; I say that with fairness and with respect. It is our duty to ensure that we fulfil these obligations. We must do better.

Oral Answers to Questions

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Thursday 12th December 2024 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

This will be a good example of a short question. I call Jim Shannon.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

Challenged already!

In the short time that the Minister has been in her role, she has shown quite clearly that she has a deep interest in Northern Ireland. Defence, light engineering and cyber-security are all vital to jobs and the economy in Northern Ireland, but what assessment has been made of the sustainability and efficiency of Northern Ireland’s agrifood sector, and will the Minister commit to promote the productivity of that industry across the United Kingdom and, indeed, across the world? That is as short as I can make it, Mr Speaker.

[Hon. Members]

More!