Science Facilities and Laboratories

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Tuesday 1st September 2026 Westminster Hall

[Alison Hume (Scarborough and Whitby) (Lab)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the future of science facilities and laboratories.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Wishart. Few debates can boast such an out-of-this-world subject as the search for dark matter; it is up there with the incredible physics of the Higgs boson, black holes and the big bang, and it is a field in which the UK has traditionally led the world.

My own interest in particle physics was sparked when I came up with the idea for a children’s science fiction television show called “The Sparticle Mystery”, which follows a group of children after an experiment at a cut-price British version of the large hadron collider goes wrong, sending everyone aged 15 and over into a parallel dimension—a kind of “Home Alone” planet Earth.

During the development of the series, I immersed myself in physics, spending lots of time researching at laboratories and science facilities, including visiting the ATLAS—A Toroidal LHC Apparatus—project at CERN in Switzerland and filming a series finale inside the ISIS science facility near Didcot. Little did I know that my adventures would continue when I became the Member of Parliament for Scarborough and Whitby; the incredible Boulby underground laboratory is located just on the edge of my patch—and just on the edge of making discoveries that will change our understanding of the universe.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I commend the hon. Lady on securing this debate. This is an immense issue: it is about providing the world-class science facilities and laboratories of tomorrow. Does she agree that, when it comes to spreading the moneys across the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, Queen’s University Belfast and Ulster University in Belfast should be key places to ensure that money is available? The NHS, future science, apprenticeships and helping agri-tech—all those things come off the back of what she is saying.

[Alison Hume]

I thank the hon. Member; he is right that those areas of academic expertise must continue to be a hotbed for physics talent.

Boulby underground laboratory, nestled between Saltburn and Whitby on the north-east coast of England, is the UK’s only deep underground science facility. Located 1.1 km beneath the Earth’s surface, in a working polyhalite and rock-salt mine, it is the deepest laboratory in the UK and one of only a dozen such facilities worldwide. I will never forget visiting the lab for the first time and descending for what seemed like an hour—it was actually about eight minutes—in a tiny lift towards the centre of the Earth, before walking out towards a pristine laboratory sitting in the dusty, science-fiction-like moonscape.

Inside, Boulby lab is home to an extraordinary range of research, from environmental science and biology to quantum physics. The lab’s greatest advantage lies in its depth: a quiet place in the universe, where studies can be carried out almost entirely free from interference from natural background radiation, including the search for dark matter.

British Steel

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Thursday 16th July 2026 Commons Chamber

[Blair McDougall]

We did not take the decision lightly, and we would have preferred commercial options. We are now 11 hours and 12 minutes into ownership of the company. We are deeply committed and open to private sector partnerships to ensure the future of British Steel, and that is an essential and early part of the conversation.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

As always, the Minister is positive and giving us encouragement. I welcome the steps that have been taken to secure the wider British steel industry, but I will press the Minister on the critical issue facing manufacturing in Northern Ireland. As the Minister will know, under the Windsor framework, businesses in Northern Ireland are being hit by a double whammy of 50% tariffs on imports exceeding the slashed quotas. That is catastrophic for our engineering firms, so will the Minister commit to urgent discussions with the Northern Ireland Executive and local businesses to resolve the tariff anomaly, protect internal UK trade, and ensure that Northern Ireland’s manufacturing backbone is not broken by an unintended own goal?

[Blair McDougall]

Having got through this urgent question without making any commitments on behalf of my hon. Friend the Minister for Industry, I will give one now and say that I am sure he would agree to the meetings the hon. Gentleman suggests. There are specific arrangements within the trade measures we have taken that are intended to ensure the flow of steel into Northern Ireland, and there is advice for GB companies taking steel products into Northern Ireland. The hon. Gentleman’s question again highlights the importance of having that ongoing conversation with the EU, because we are not the EU’s problem when it comes to steel, and it is not ours.

National Energy System Operator: Blackout Risk

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Wednesday 15th July 2026 Commons Chamber

[Michael Shanks]

The hon. Gentleman asks a number of important questions about the role of data centres in the future of the country. First, there is a real opportunity if we get this right, but I take his challenge about properly planning where they should go. Data centres are an opportunity to soak up some of what we are currently constraining, which will actually bring down bills. If we can deploy them in the right places, we get a greater customer base for electricity, rather than consumers paying to switch off.

Secondly, AI is a huge opportunity for us as a country and it will become increasingly important to have sovereign capability here in the UK. In the energy space, there is a real opportunity to utilise AI to run the system in an even more efficient way. The hon. Gentleman is right to say that we have to get this absolutely right so that local communities get the benefits and not any downsides. We are working through a data centre strategy with my colleagues in the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology. On the energy side, we are working to ensure that we are getting the best possible locations for the benefit of the energy system and consumers.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I thank the Minister, as always, for his answers and for his solution-based responses. My constituents watch developments with absolute dread, when every day families and vulnerable pensioners face skyrocketing bills. The very least they deserve is the truth about whether the lights will stay on this summer. The Minister will know that that NESO recently signed a major partnership with the system operator for Northern Ireland to deeply integrate our grids and balance system resilience, so a crisis of integrity at the top of NESO is a crisis for the whole United Kingdom network. Can the Minister guarantee that the allegations will not undermine energy security or grid stability in Northern Ireland?

Peak Cluster Pipeline and Project

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Wednesday 15th July 2026 Westminster Hall

[Esther McVey (Tatton) (Con)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the impact of the Peak Cluster Pipeline and project.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Roger.

It is good to see the Minister in his place. I hope to get some meaningful answers from him today on this project; up until now, those have proved elusive from his Department and the Government. The Peak Cluster is a carbon capture and storage project. It will take carbon dioxide from cement and lime plants in Derbyshire and Staffordshire, pressurise it, and transfer it 125 miles across Cheshire, Wirral and then off the coast from Wirral, where it will be stored beneath the seabed. It has been made clear to me by scientists and engineers that the project is wrong-minded and wholly unnecessary.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I fully support the right hon. Lady’s efforts on behalf of her constituents. I have an understanding of the issues. Does she agree that any final approval for the Peak Cluster project must include cast-iron, legally binding guarantees to protect landowners’ rights, and that local environmental objections and community safety fears must be genuinely addressed rather than bypassed by central Government?

[Esther McVey]

I agree, but none of that has been forthcoming to the public, no matter how hard they have tried, and the public do not want the project. Right across the region, there have been demonstrations and councils have voted against it. At a recent public meeting in Byley, close to one of the proposed pipeline routes, the failings were laid bare. The local communities of Cheshire, Wirral and Derbyshire know this, and that is why they are calling for the project to be stopped. The project is completely unnecessary. It is a madness of a project—a net zero vanity project.

I stand here today on behalf of all those members of the public calling for the Peak Cluster project to be stopped. I call, too, for the Government to answer the most basic of questions about the project, and to stop treating the public like mushrooms, keeping them in the dark and feeding them absolute rubbish. The Government cannot dodge responsibility and accountability for this project, as they seek to by ducking parliamentary questions and freedom of information requests.

Last week I raised a point of order on the Floor of the House about the woeful responses on this matter, only for the Minister to reply that the project is nothing to do with the Government. He said:

“It is a private project.”—[Official Report, 7 July 2026; Vol. 789, c. 175.]

Really, Minister? If one delves a little bit deeper into the Peak Cluster project, it is revealed that it has deep, direct, structural and financial links to Government, with the final sign-off being from none other than the Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero.

If the Government are still trying to say that they have made no estimate of the overall costs, that they have not worked out how much of the bill will land on the taxpayer, that they have done no cost-benefit analysis of it, and that they have made no assessment of the environmental impact—in fact, that they have not even bothered to work out whether the project is necessary at all—then that is a disgrace. If the Government are really trying to say that they have done no homework whatsoever on the project, then they really do need to do some, because if they did, they would come to the same conclusion as the public: that it is not necessary.

Instead, the Government, in ignorance or in full-throttle support, are pushing ahead with the project. In fact, they have deemed it a nationally significant infrastructure project, which means that the local authorities cannot either approve or reject it, despite significant objections from local constituents; rather, it falls for sign-off to the Government. The storage of the carbon dioxide beneath the seabed will require approval from the North Sea Transition Authority, another Government quango—wholly owned by the UK Government—which has responsibility for offshore carbon dioxide storage.

Greenhouse Gas Removals Sector

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Wednesday 8th July 2026 Commons Chamber

[Edward Morello]

My hon. Friend and neighbour is absolutely right. There are many exciting nature-based solutions for which I have high hopes. In my role as chair of the all-party parliamentary group on climate technology, my focus today is mainly on the engineered solutions, but we need to consider all solutions to meet the challenge ahead.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I commend the hon. Member for securing the debate. I spoke to him today about this subject and I congratulate him on highlighting environmental issues. Does he agree that we must ensure that all areas of the United Kingdom, including Northern Ireland, receive a fair share of investment? Does he also agree that the Government must ensure that the GGR strategy supports our rural communities, utilising natural land-based solutions rather than just financing large industrial projects elsewhere? Above all, we must protect local jobs and ensure that common sense always prevails.

[Edward Morello]

I believe that we should back any and all solutions that help us face the challenge, and Northern Ireland is as well placed as any part of the UK to offer innovative solutions.

Technology such as direct air capture and engineered removal methods will become an essential part of moving beyond net zero towards net negative emissions. Those technologies are nascent. The businesses that will develop them need to be founded today and to scale over the next decade. They need investment, certainty and confidence if they are to become globally competitive and properly supported.

The encouraging news is that Britain already possesses almost everything needed to succeed. We have world-class universities that produce cutting-edge research, exceptional engineers, innovative start-ups and university spin-outs, globally respected financial services and investors, and advanced manufacturing capability.

The UK’s GGR sector already contributes about £1.2 billion to the UK economy. It has the potential to contribute between £7 billion and £9 billion to GDP by 2050 while supporting more than 100,000 skilled jobs. The countries that build those technologies first will not simply reduce emissions at home; they will be central to global emission reductions for decades to come. Britain should aspire to become the global centre of carbon removal innovation, the home of future climate tech unicorns and a leading exporter of GGR technologies.

Summer Jobs

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Tuesday 7th July 2026 Commons Chamber

[Gareth Davies (Grantham and Bourne) (Con)]

I beg to move,

That this House regrets the combination of the rise in employers’ National Insurance contributions, the impact of the Employment Rights Act 2025, and the regulations that make it more difficult for young people to get their first job; further regrets the destructive impact that the Government’s policies have had on entry-level, flexible and seasonal work in particular; also regrets the Government’s plans to give Mayors powers to introduce an overnight visitor levy, making staycations in England less attractive and less affordable, while risking jobs in the tourism and hospitality industries that depend on domestic visitors; calls on the Government to change course to support summer jobs, flexible working and seasonal work, on which the hospitality, leisure and retail sectors depend; and further calls on the Government to abolish business rates for high street businesses, to boost the economy and save summer jobs.

We know that a good start in life is critical, and that is certainly true in the world of work. Everyone remembers their first job—sometimes fondly, other times not. A first job, however, is not just a first wage; it is the first time a young person learns the world of work. It teaches them that it will pay them for what they can do, that they have a role to play, that they are needed and that they belong. It is where they learn to turn up on time, to look a customer in the eye, and to take pride in a shift well worked and a wage honestly earned. So this debate is not insignificant; it is about whether the next generation gets that same chance or whether the Government pull the ladder up behind them. I contend that, rung by rung, that is exactly what they are doing.

As a Conservative, I have always believed in the dignity of work, of the security and freedom that a regular wage brings, but today too many people are being held back. For their sake, it is important that we reflect on why. They are not being held back by a lack of their own ambition—that exists in abundance. Nor are many people being stopped by their parents, schools, colleges or universities—they all want them to succeed. Instead, more often than not, as the chief economist at the Institute of Directors has pointed out, it is Government policy that, in her words, is

“choking off work opportunities for young people”.

Over 1 million young people aged 16 to 24 are now not in education, employment or training.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I congratulate the Opposition and the hon. Gentleman for bringing forward the debate. I can well remember my first job. It was not just about the pocket money, because it was not much in those days; it was about punctuality, turning up, social engagement and meeting people—all those things were important. Nowadays, my constituents in Strangford tell me that it is business rates, energy costs—all the things that prevent them from employing somebody, not just for a Saturday job, but for a student job. They just cannot do it any more. Does that responsibility fall on the shoulders of the Labour party?

[Gareth Davies]

I am always grateful to the hon. Gentleman. He clearly learned in his first job the importance of showing up and he certainly does every single day in this place, which I commend him for. I agree with him, and I will set out in detail what I believe are the causes of the situation we find ourselves in today, with 1 million young people aged 16 to 24 not in education, employment or training.

Oral Answers to Questions

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Thursday 2nd July 2026 Commons Chamber

[Chris Bryant]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right to raise El Niño. We believe that it has already started, and we are conscious of the issues that may arise from it. We are closely monitoring it and trying to ensure that we have resilient policies in place in every single sector, including agriculture and fisheries.

I should underline that the launch of the supply chain centre is an important moment for us. For the first time, we will have a body that can anticipate future supply risks, identify the inputs the UK needs, build domestic resilience and foster resilience through global partnerships. Those are important ways of ensuring that the UK has strong supply chains.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I thank the Minister very much for his answer. As the Member of Parliament for Strangford, I am particularly concerned about the problems that the Windsor framework has created for those trading across our borders and between our ports—he has answered my questions on this on other occasions. Businesses continue to report increased costs, administrative burdens, disruption to supply chains and delays. As a result, businesses have stopped trading into Northern Ireland. Given the likely negative economic consequences of that, will the Minister consider further steps to reduce those burdens and ensure smooth trade into Northern Ireland?

[Chris Bryant]

We are doing that all the time, and that is why we bring the issue of resilient supply chains into consideration in all our international trading relationships. For instance, particularly important to Northern Ireland is our relationship with the European Union, to which the hon. Gentleman referred in mentioning the Windsor framework. I am keen to ensure that resilient supply chains are looked at in the relationship between the EU and the comprehensive and progressive agreement for trans-Pacific partnership, because it is not just what happens on the continent of Europe that is important; it could be what happens in the Gulf or the situation in Ukraine, which had dramatic effects on supplies of fertiliser around the world. We take specific action to ensure that we guarantee those supply chains.

Nationally Significant Energy Infrastructure Projects

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Tuesday 30th June 2026 Westminster Hall

[Jenny Riddell-Carpenter (Suffolk Coastal) (Lab)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the contribution of nationally significant energy infrastructure projects to communities.

It is a privilege to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Vaz. I am grateful for having secured the debate, and I welcome colleagues across the House who will want to contribute.

With this debate I seek to ask two simple questions. First, what contribution should nationally significant energy infrastructure projects make to the communities that host them? Secondly, how should communities be supported when they face disruption from significant energy projects? As the MP for Suffolk Coastal, a constituency that shoulders more of the burden than perhaps any other part of the country, I am well placed to ask those questions on behalf of my constituents.

It is often said that up to 30% of Britain’s future energy will be generated in or transmitted through Suffolk Coastal, if planning permission is approved. We will host multiple significant infrastructure projects within a 10-mile radius, including LionLink at Walberswick; Sea Link near Aldeburgh; Sizewell C, which is Europe’s largest energy project, in Leiston; and converter stations at Friston and Saxmundham. All those projects sit in or cut through nationally important landscapes: sites of special scientific interest, the Suffolk heritage coast and Royal Society for the Protection of Birds reserves, all served by B roads and country lanes and all arriving at once, without any co-ordination, and some projects without any serious community benefit.

I have raised this issue many times in the House, and the Minister has heard about it in much detail, both in this Chamber and one to one. He will be glad to know that I am here not to repeat many of those points but to set out new challenges and alternatives. I remind him, though, that my constituents are not opposed to clean energy—many are proud that Suffolk will be leading the charge against climate change in our drive towards green energy and away from fossil fuels—but they are taking on enormous disruption.

Suffolk Coastal’s dashboard is now flashing red, and we are asking for more help. Businesses, people, community and nature are all asking for more help. The community investment programme should be the main opportunity to provide it, but we need better leadership. I ask Government to do what the previous Government failed to do: to provide leadership, which will sometimes mean challenging developers and telling them that my community and this country deserve better.

I want to set out what the Government have done, and I do not want my case to be mistaken for opposition to their policy. In March 2025, the Government published the “Community funds for transmission infrastructure” guidance, which included £200,000 per kilometre of overhead line, £530,000 per substation or converter station, and bill discounts of up to £250 a year for 10 years for nearby households.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I commend the hon. Lady; I spoke to her beforehand to ascertain her intentions. The Government proposals for mandatory community benefit funds and local bill discounts are a welcome step forward, and we should look at the positives. Working families see only increased energy prices and no benefit. Does the hon. Lady agree that robust statutory enforcement mechanisms should be put in place to ensure that developers cannot simply tick a corporate social responsibility box? Does she further agree that the Government must guarantee that such projects deliver real, permanent economic legacies, such as localised grid upgrades, direct household bill reductions and long-term apprenticeships? If they do those three things, we will go a long way. I ask the Minister to make it better.

[Jenny Riddell-Carpenter]

I agree with a lot of what the hon. Gentleman says. The projects that we are discussing should deliver that as part of their long-term investment, and many of those things do not need to sit within the community investment programme itself.

The guidance also included an obligation for the transmission owners, National Grid and ScottishPower Renewables, to run grant programmes, ranging from £10,000 grassroots grants up to £500,000 strategic grants. Importantly, the guidance rests on five key principles, including lasting legacy and transparent outcomes. If the developers depart from the guidance, they must explain why. It is a serious framework and the Government deserve credit for it. But the rates are recommended rates, not diktats. They should be the minimum, not the maximum. In Suffolk Coastal, we are seeing the minimum rather than the maximum far too often.

Steel Tariffs: Northern Ireland

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Tuesday 30th June 2026 Commons Chamber

[Chris Bryant]

If the hon. Gentleman is not prepared to take me at my word, I am sorry but I will never be able to satisfy him. The truth is that I have been very open: I came to the House to make a statement last Thursday; we laid a written ministerial statement as well, which is obviously available to all Members; and I made a commitment that any Member who wanted to meet me and my officials to talk about these things could do so. Sometimes it is other people’s diaries and sometimes it is my diary that is the problem. I will not make the specific commitment that he asks for, because I think all he is saying is that he does not trust me.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I thank the Minister for his answers and his endeavours to find solutions for Northern Ireland. Strangford is home to a robust network of engineering and construction firms that rely on global supply chains to remain competitive and fulfil their live contracts. As a result of the Government’s new steel quotas and out-of-quota tariffs, those businesses are facing cost increases of some 18% on active projects and crippling delays. Furthermore, due to the Windsor framework, our Northern Ireland businesses are uniquely vulnerable to a double whammy of UK tariffs and EU-related red tape. If Strangford’s engineering companies fold, the Treasury will lose corporation tax and pay-as-you-earn contributions, and will ultimately have to pay out benefits for staff made redundant. Given the gravity of the situation, respectfully—the Minister knows that I always do things respectfully—will the Minister commit to providing exemptions from these punitive tariffs for specific grade sizes and specifications of specialist steel that are not manufactured domestically?

[Chris Bryant]

We have always said that we want to provide protection for the categories of steel that are manufactured in the UK and that people can source in the UK. That is our primary aim. We need to keep that under review. As I said last Thursday—the hon. Gentleman will know this, as he was present—we will keep it under review from day one, and there will be a formal review process at the end of the first year. We need to make sure that that is true.

The hon. Gentleman referred to a double whammy. I would say that Northern Ireland also enjoys a double benefit, because it is both within the UK internal market and, in many ways, within the European market. That is a significant advantage for Northern Ireland that other parts of the UK do not necessarily enjoy. I am very happy to meet any Member—I have always held the view that no Minister should ever refuse a meeting with another Member. I made that offer last Thursday, as the hon. Gentleman knows, and that offer still stands.

Steel Trade Measure

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Thursday 25th June 2026 Commons Chamber

[Chris Bryant]

The hon. Lady is not the only person who has raised this point about fabricated steel with me, and it is one of the things that we do have to watch very closely. It is one of the things we will be looking at from day one. I cannot promise that that means we will suddenly include fabricated steel, but it is something we have to be careful of. I think only Canada has introduced a similar measure in relation to fabricated steel, but its steel measure is much tougher than ours and covers, I think, more categories. That is why it has also introduced a compensation scheme. I hope we will not need to go down that route. When some countries have suggested increasing fabricated steel, that provides a different incentive, which can be just as counterproductive, so again, there will be trade-offs in that sphere. Again, I am happy to meet her on Monday afternoon if she wants to come along.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I thank the Minister for his statement, and his clear commitment to defining the issues and making things better for us. It is a real pleasure to hear a statement with so much positivity. I want to ask a question about Northern Ireland. Will the Minister acknowledge the severe, disproportionate impact that stringent steel tariffs and red tape are having on manufacturing and emergency businesses across Northern Ireland? Will he commit to providing immediate financial mitigation or regular flexibility for Northern Ireland steel users, thereby ensuring that our foundational industries are not penalised by mainland trade policies and the complexities of the Windsor framework?

[Chris Bryant]

I have pages and pages on the Windsor framework in relation to this somewhere, but I have only two words on it here. Apart from anything else, part of our negotiations with the European Union had to be about how we ensure proper provision for Northern Ireland. When the EU announces its measures on Monday, I hope that the hon. Member will be pleased with where we have got to on all that. He asked about financial mitigation, which I think means compensation. I am afraid that I am not able to offer that; I want to be very straight with him.

As I say, there are trade-offs here. We need to ensure that we have a strong steel sector. I was thinking about my two grandfathers. One grandfather was a naval draughtsman and an architect on Clydeside. My other grandfather worked on the railways in the docks in Cardiff. For both of them, steel was absolutely essential. I am sure when they were working on Clydeside or in Cardiff, they would have expected all the steel to have been made in the United Kingdom. If we do not take this step today, we will find that we will not have any British Steel at all, and that is why we are keen to take the necessary and, I believe, proportionate steps that we are taking.