Social Enterprises and Community Ownership

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Wednesday 18th March 2026 Westminster Hall

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

It is a real pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir John. I thank the hon. Member for Leigh and Atherton (Jo Platt) for highlighting the wonderful benefits of social enterprises and community ownership. She is back with a bang—well done to her for securing this debate. I wish to give a Northern Ireland perspective and set out some of the exceptional ways in which we are doing things there.

We are at a transformative moment for Northern Ireland. For too long, our economic story was told through the lens of what we lacked or what had been lost. Today, it is a joy to tell the story of the 1,200 social enterprises across our townlands. It is a story of resilience and innovation, with £933 million in annual turnover that stays in our communities. If that is not a good story to tell, I would like to know what is.

In Northern Ireland, social enterprise is not just nice to have; it is foundational. In my constituency—from the Gatelodge café at Ards hospital, which provides training and employment for young people with learning difficulties, to the Comber farmers’ market, a volunteer-led initiative that provides a platform for local producers while serving as a vital social hub for the town—we are seeing what happens when local people take the keys to their own future.

Community ownership is how we reclaim our disused barracks, our closed pubs and our historic halls and turn them into hubs of health, heritage, hope and vision. To truly unlock that potential, we must move beyond the grant reliance trap. We need a dedicated regional community ownership fund tailored to the unique needs of local community infrastructure. We also need legislative support to strengthen our right to buy, so that no community asset is lost simply because the paperwork is too complex. We need progressive procurement to ensure that the £3 billion that our Government spend every year prioritises businesses that deliver real social value back to our streets.

Our sector is mature. Over half of our social enterprises have been trading for more than a decade. They are led by women—there are plenty of women here, as an indication of that. They are led by people with lived experience. They are motivated by a shared belief that profits should serve people, not the other way round. Let us not just build back; let us build ours. Let us ensure that every pound spent in Northern Ireland works twice as hard: once for the service it provides, and once for the community it empowers. The drive and the ability are there. What is needed is the support.

I look forward to the Minister’s speech. We must invest in local communities, understanding that every pound invested will not only have its returns in tax but, more importantly, fire up a generation to make their living doing something that they are passionate about and that helps their local community. We all have that desire. Working together, we can make those dreams a reality.

Royal Mail: Performance

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Wednesday 18th March 2026 Westminster Hall

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

It is a real pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Twigg. I thank the hon. Member for Exmouth and Exeter East (David Reed) for providing the opportunity to speak about this issue.

We are seeing the breakdown of vital services in my Strangford constituency and in Ards. We are hearing stories of cancer screening invitations arriving a week after the appointment date. We are seeing small business owners—the backbone of our local economy—having to apologise to customers for parcels that are sitting in the sorting office. We are seeing elderly neighbours waiting for pension letters or bank cards that never come.

The staff on the ground are working hard but they are being asked to do the impossible. A system designed for letters has been choked by the sheer volume of parcels and, in the race for profit, it is the humble first-class letter—the one containing peoples’ hospital results or bills—that is being left on the floor. We are told it is a recruitment issue. We are told it is the weather. For the people of Northern Ireland it feels like a postcode lottery. A letter could be a contract or a connection. We are not asking for the world; we are simply asking for a postal service that works for everyone, regardless of their address.

I have a quick example of how things are going wrong. I am currently dealing with a child with diabetes who has been accepted for a personal independence payment, but due to Royal Mail delays—it is not the child’s fault, but someone else’s—his form is late and his parents are missing out on more than a month’s worth of payments that they should be entitled to. It is clear that Royal Mail needs to buck up its ideas. Ofcom recently fined Royal Mail £21 million for missing national delivery targets, but that will not get my constituent the backdated PIP money that they are due.

Email is beyond many of our older people, and they depend on the so-called snail mail, which must return to being dependable once more. The staff are phenomenal, but root-and-branch changes must take place. The Minister is a good man and I spoke to him about this issue yesterday. We need it sorted Minister; the ball is at your toe.

--- Later in debate ---

[Blair McDougall]

Seriously, though, it is galling that Royal Mail is increasing the price of its services but is not meeting delivery targets. Our constituents rightly expect that, if they are paying more, they should get the service and deliveries on time. It is simply not good enough.

[Jim Shannon]

The Minister is always very responsive; I appreciate his responses today and in the past. I spoke about a person who applied for PIP and found that there was a delay in the post. That young boy, a type 1 diabetic, was denied one month of his benefit as a result. Will the Minister please look at that?

[Blair McDougall]

I will happily look at that. It is another example of a service that is simply not good enough.

As was mentioned, I recently met Royal Mail’s chief executive to press these issues directly. He was left in no doubt about the level of anger and concern across the House, and he was clear that the service is not where he wants it to be. He gave me a firm commitment that he will work towards restoring confidence in the service.

Where service has fallen short locally, whether due to staffing pressures, which the hon. Member for Upper Bann (Carla Lockhart) mentioned, operational challenges or external disruption, customers need to see sustained and structural improvement, not just short-term fixes. I understand that the hon. Member for Exmouth and Exeter East has met Royal Mail to discuss these issues. I have been advised that there are currently three vacancies in the Exmouth office, and I expect that Royal Mail will fill them to ensure there is an improvement in service locally.

Across the country, our constituents deserve visible improvements in reliability, and that expectation underpins every discussion that I and other Ministers have with Royal Mail. That is why, before the takeover of Royal Mail, we secured significant commitments from the new owners of the business, including a commitment to prevent dividend payments until quality of service improves.

As many hon. Members said, service improvement is also intimately linked to workers’ terms and conditions and the reform of Royal Mail’s operation. It is critical that the Royal Mail workers are on board with the operational changes, and that their experience informs that work. The Government continue to engage with EP Group on that; that is why my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State convened a joint meeting with the owners of EP Group and the CWU last month to help to unblock the outstanding issues. That engagement continues.

Hon. Members also referred to my detailed discussion with Ofcom last week about its expectations of Royal Mail and the steps it is taking to protect consumers. I highlighted hon. Members’ significant concerns about the delivery performance and the negative real-world impact that that is having on our constituents. It is fair to say that Ofcom has heard the strength of concerns, particularly those expressed in the Chamber last week. One outcome of that meeting is that Ofcom is clear, as it has been for some time, that Royal Mail is required to publish a detailed improvement plan that results in significant and continuous progress, and that it expects that one should appear within days of an agreement with the union. Where failures continue, Ofcom will not hesitate to act again, and last year’s £21 million fine was a clear signal.

We are in a context where, as has been said, the performance of many other parcel providers makes Royal Mail’s performance look positively glowing, and Ofcom is also looking at that wider context. None of us is blind to the wider context and the structural pressures. Letter volumes have halved over the past decade. As hon. Members have said, to ensure that the USO is sustainable, Ofcom has made changes to Royal Mail’s obligations.

However, as my hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough and Thornaby East (Andy McDonald) made clear, those changes and reforms cannot be imposed from the top down. Royal Mail must work constructively with its workforce and unions to ensure that operational changes translate into better services for customers across the country—a point also made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Oxford East (Anneliese Dodds), and my hon. Friends the Members for Stafford (Leigh Ingham) and for Glenrothes and Mid Fife (Richard Baker).

There is wisdom in every sorting office; staff there understand how the business works. We have taken a close interest in the negotiations, the new operating model and workers’ conditions. I mentioned that the Secretary of State recently met with EP Group and the CWU; a further meeting is scheduled for tomorrow. I am hopeful that Royal Mail’s owners and the union will work together in the interests of Royal Mail’s employees, its customers and the business.

Several hon. Members raised concerns about the impact on postal votes. We have sought strong reassurances from Royal Mail on that issue. There have been meetings with the chief executive of the Electoral Commission to discuss plans for the upcoming elections, and a similar meeting is taking place in Scotland with Ministers there. My hon. Friend the Minister for Building Safety, Fire and Democracy is having a further meeting with Royal Mail to discuss postal votes, and we are leaving Royal Mail in no doubt about our expectations in that space.

Oral Answers to Questions

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Thursday 12th March 2026 Commons Chamber

[Kate Dearden]

I thank the hon. Member for raising this important question in the House today. We are committed to ensuring that every parent feels secure at work, particularly breastfeeding mums when they are returning to the workplace. She will know of the different bits of legislation we are introducing through the Employment Rights Act 2025 to help women back into work, whether that is making it more unlawful to dismiss pregnant women and mothers on maternity leave or making it easier for people to work flexibly and for employers to make those provisions in the workplace. I would be keen to hear more about the work that the hon. Member and other Members from across the House are doing on the APPG.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I thank the Minister for that very positive answer. There is nobody in this House or further afield who does not welcome the improvement of parental rights at work. I had a chance to speak to the Minister beforehand, so she will know where my question is coming from—I ask it on behalf of the small and medium-sized businesses that may find it difficult to cover those who are on parental leave. Has anything been done to help businesses, especially the small ones, that might find it difficult to put someone in place to cover those people’s jobs when they are off?

[Kate Dearden]

I agree with the hon. Gentleman that family-friendly workplaces strengthen our workforce and our economy, and are important in reducing the turnover of staff and retaining high-quality staff. That is why it is really important that we are working with businesses, small and large, on our wider parental pay and leave review. In every area of my work, I am very conscious of the need to work closely with businesses in different areas, recognising that we share the same goal of keeping people in work, and especially of supporting parents and making sure that workplaces are much more family-friendly.

Royal Mail: Universal Service Obligation

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Wednesday 11th March 2026 Commons Chamber

[Blair McDougall]

My hon. Friend makes a powerful case about how delays and failings in Royal Mail standards impact on so many different aspects of his constituents’ lives. I will certainly use those examples when I next meet with Royal Mail.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I want to make a quick point about hospital appointments. When someone misses their hospital appointment, they go to the back of the queue and start again, and might have to wait another two years. When the Minister has his meeting with Royal Mail today, can I ask him to convey to its representatives that they should have meetings with health trusts, patient groups and representatives of Northern Ireland to ensure that those who miss appointments due to delays in the Royal Mail will not be disadvantaged, which they clearly are at the moment?

[Blair McDougall]

The hon. Gentleman makes an important point. As I mentioned a moment ago, we are working with the Department of Health and Social Care here to ensure as many health bodies as possible take advantage of the barcode service, to make sure that their letters get through. I will certainly make sure that the issues he has highlighted are raised in Northern Ireland.

Energy Security and Net Zero: Scotland

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Wednesday 4th March 2026 Westminster Hall

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I commend the hon. Lady for bringing this debate forward; she is absolutely right to do so. The devolved institutions’ contribution to net zero targets are important, and I am pleased to hear of Scotland’s success. I look forward to the Minister’s response.

Northern Ireland shares the commitment to a net zero future by 2050, but our smaller grid, limited renewable capacity and reliance on imported electricity means that achieving that goal is more challenging. Does the hon. Lady agree that we must make sure no part of the United Kingdom is left behind? I wish her well for Scotland, but all devolved nations must be given the necessary tools to succeed in the green energy transition.

[Susan Murray]

I absolutely agree. Although I am focusing on Scotland, it is Scotland as part of the UK and not Scotland alone.

We want to make sure that we do not lose the skilled labour that is vital to a successful transition, because we would then have to pay more later to import the labour and expertise that we should have retained to do the work.

I want to be clear about a point that is often overlooked or used by those with a vested interest against renewables: the UK will need oil and gas for the foreseeable future, even as we decarbonise. In that context, and to secure our own energy security, we should meet as much of the demand for hydrocarbons as possible from a secure, well-regulated domestic supply, rather than simply importing more and losing or exporting jobs.

Importing more does not stop consumption; it simply shifts production elsewhere, often to jurisdictions with lower standards and higher geopolitical risk. Domestic supply, properly regulated, can be the safer bridge while we build out our new low-carbon system at scale and ensure security of supply. Will Ministers pull together existing work into a single transition pathway that links North sea decisions to a workforce plan, covering skills mapping, retraining and support where needed?

If we want a managed transition, we also have to be honest about the urgency of the whole-system needs of a clean grid. A net zero system is essential—Scotland shows that it is possible, and it should be the goal—but a renewables-heavy system needs predictable, low-carbon power alongside renewables, storage and interconnection. That is why I support nuclear, and why small modular reactors should be part of the plan to achieve net zero in Scotland.

The SNP Government’s position is that they do not support building new nuclear power plants in Scotland under current technologies. Meanwhile, the UK Government have confirmed Wylfa in Wales as the site for the UK’s first small modular reactor. The risk is obvious that Scotland will end up hosting more of the infrastructure footprint of the transition but without the benefits, while other parts of the UK will capture more of the firm power investment and the supply chain jobs.

In Scotland, the devolution framework really matters. Nuclear market frameworks and regulations are reserved, while planning and community impacts, along with local skills delivery and many aspects of economic development, are devolved. This cannot work without co-ordination.

Will Ministers request UK-Scottish Government talks on Scotland’s nuclear policy, with SMRs explicitly on the agenda, to highlight the positive economic benefit for Scotland, and to push for equal access to jobs and development across the UK? Scotland hosts major clean power generation and transmission infrastructure, but fairness must follow that footprint.

Energy Developers Levy

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Wednesday 25th February 2026 Westminster Hall

[Jenny Riddell-Carpenter]

I am looking forward to the Minister’s response, but I agree that the whack-a-mole strategy, which I have talked about, needs far better strategic oversight.

A dedicated energy co-ordination fund for affected host areas would be established and delivered through a locally accountable team. That is important, because all too often developers are headquartered elsewhere; they do not live in the areas with the repeated traffic disruption and the cumulative land take. Local institutions— the local council, for instance—must have the capacity to co-ordinate what developers currently are not required to.

The fund would support four priorities: shared modelling and evidence; design co-ordination, such as corridor planning and joint construction scheduling; strategic mitigation for nature, such as landscape-scale habitat restoration and long-term management funding; and the community impact reduction—stronger traffic enforcement and transparent liaison, for example.

Alongside that, there should be a statutory co-ordination board, independently chaired, that could set binding co-ordination objectives that applicants would have to respond to in their DCO documentation. Some may argue that the existing DCO obligations already address that issue; I tell Members explicitly that they do not. There is no statutory requirement for co-ordination between NSIPs.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I commend the hon. Lady for bringing this debate forward. I spoke to her beforehand; she is certainly making a name for herself in this place for being assiduous and hard working. Does she agree that the consumer cannot afford greater cost-of-living increases through energy prices and that any levy cannot simply be handed on to the consumer, bearing in mind that energy costs are still a third higher than they were five years ago?

[Jenny Riddell-Carpenter]

I thank the hon. Member for his well-timed intervention; I have that heard said before and was just coming to that issue. I suspect that the Minister may have similar concerns. As the hon. Member points out, there may be concerns that a levy would increase consumer bills. That grates on me given that the National Grid reported an adjusted operating profit of £2.29 billion for the six months ending 30 September last year.

Let us be clear. This is not about asking bill payers to shoulder more of the burden; it is about asking developers, when they are developing multibillion-pound investments and returning substantial profits, to absorb a proportionate cost and ensure co-ordination.

Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Tuesday 24th February 2026 Commons Chamber

[Ed Davey]

I am grateful for that intervention. We must build a culture of transparency and accountability; I think that is essential. I hope that we as a House will look at ending the archaic “negative privilege” rules that Paul Flynn spoke about, and remove the bandages from our mouths. Today, we are free of those bandages, when it comes to Andrew. Our motion focuses on finally getting out the truth about his role as a special representative for trade and investment.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

First, I commend the right hon. Member and his party for bringing forward the motion, and for the way that he interviewed on TV this morning. Certainly, he speaks not just for this House, but for this nation. We are all greatly shocked at what has taken place, but does he agree that King Charles, Queen Camilla, Edward, Sophie, William and Kate are members of the royal family who need our support at this time? Does he also agree that now is perhaps the time to tell them that we in this House love them, and that this nation loves them? We understand the pain they are suffering, and we support those members of the royal family who are above reproach on this.

[Ed Davey]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his intervention, and I think he probably speaks for the whole House. Indeed, the intention of this debate is to bring this House together. The changes that we think are necessary would protect the royal family and strengthen the monarchy, which in some places has been criticised. That is important, and it is why we need these reforms.

The motion focuses on the start of this—on the appointment of the former Prince Andrew to this role back in 2001. We have seen reporting that says that the King, then the Prince of Wales, expressed his concerns about that appointment. More alarmingly, we have read that Peter Mandelson wrote to the then Prime Minister, Tony Blair, as his former Trade Secretary, pushing for Andrew’s appointment—one friend of Epstein lobbying for a job for another friend of Epstein, and a job that might help Epstein enrich himself. We clearly need to get to the bottom of that appointment and the role that Mandelson played in it, and only the papers demanded by this motion will allow us to do that. We need them published as soon as possible, without delay.

There are many questions about Andrew’s conduct in the role, which is now subject to a criminal investigation. As you said, Mr Speaker, we clearly do not want to jeopardise that investigation through anything we say today. We must let the police get on with their work, especially for Epstein’s victims, survivors and their families, who deserve to see justice done at last. However, I would highlight one example of the way that Jeffrey Epstein sought to use Andrew’s role as a trade envoy to enrich himself.

Industry and Exports (Financial Assistance) Bill

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Committee of the whole House
Monday 23rd February 2026 Commons Chamber

[The Minister for Trade (Chris Bryant)]

It is good to see you in the Chair, Mrs Cummins. I welcome all Members to this slightly unusual Committee. Normally, a Committee of the whole House is awfully contentious, with everybody shouting at one another, but it will not be so contentious this afternoon—certainly not as regards the main body of the Bill. I will introduce the Bill now, and at the end I will respond to the debate, and on the amendments that several hon. Members have tabled.

Clause 1(a) will increase from £12 billion to £20 billion the aggregate limit of financial assistance that can be provided under section 8(1) of the Industrial Development Act 1982; this is to reflect inflation adjustments since the limit was last raised in 2009. Clause 1(b) will raise from £1 billion to £1.5 billion the level of incremental increases that can be made in an order by the Secretary of State; again, this reflects inflation adjustments since the limit was last raised in 2009. The parliamentary scrutiny arrangements for these incremental increases will remain precisely as they were, namely that they will be subject to the affirmative legislative procedure.

Clause 2 will amend the financial assistance for exports and overseas investment under the Export and Investment Guarantees Act 1991. It will make four changes to the Act: it will raise the commitment limit from £84 billion to £160 billion; it will simplify the legislation by expressing the limit in sterling, rather than in special drawing rights; it makes provision for the limit to be increased by increments of up to £15 billion through secondary legislation, as the need arises; and it will remove the limit on the number of occasions on which the commitment limit can be raised.

Clause 3 outlines the territorial extent of the Bill. I can confirm that the Bill does not engage the legislative consent motion process. My Department had discussions, prior to the introduction of the Bill, with all the devolved Governments; they confirm that the legislative consent motion process is not engaged.

I hope all hon. Members will agree that all three clauses should stand part of the Bill. I look forward to hearing the debate on the amendments.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

Will the Minister give way?

[Chris Bryant]

I was about to sit down, I am afraid. I had finished.

[Dame Harriett Baldwin (West Worcestershire) (Con)]

This is a short Bill, but it involves potentially raising and spending a huge amount of public money, so in the interests of thorough scrutiny, I will speak to Opposition amendments 3 and 4 to clause 2, concerning the use of public finance for exports that may ultimately be re-exported to sanctioned destinations. Our amendments would prevent the Government from providing export finance or insurance where there is reason to believe that goods may be re-exported to Russia, or to any other country subject to UK sanctions. In such cases, the Secretary of State’s financial commitments would be capped at zero.

These amendments are not abstract. They respond to a very real problem in our world today that has been highlighted by independent analysis. For example, Sky’s Ed Conway has done extensive reporting showing that although direct exports to Russia have collapsed since sanctions were imposed, goods of UK origin are still reaching Russia through third countries. Exports to states such as Kyrgyzstan, Armenia and Uzbekistan have surged by extraordinary amounts—sometimes more than 1,000%. Obviously, these are not normal market movements; they are clear indications of diversion routes being used to circumvent sanctions.

These are not just trade flows on a spreadsheet. Sky News has shown that components of UK origin have been found inside Russian military equipment used on the battlefield in Ukraine. Among the items that have been identified in Russian systems are British-made microchips found in Russian drones, UK-origin electronic components inside Russian missiles and dual-use technology that should never have been able to reach Russia under the sanctions regime. Those components were not exported directly from the UK to Russia; they were routed through intermediary countries, often the same countries to which UK exports have suddenly spiked. President Zelensky has publicly raised concerns that UK goods are still making their way into Russia, despite sanctions.

That is why we believe that amendments 3 and 4 are necessary. They represent a simple but important safeguard. The UK must ensure that its export finance system does not inadvertently support supply chains that undermine our sanctions regime. In the case of Russia, we must be absolutely certain that no UK-backed goods are being diverted in ways that could support its illegal war against Ukraine.

The Minister has spoken about the need to expand UK Export Finance’s capacity and to support small and medium-sized enterprises in particular. We agree that export finance has an important role to play, but it must be deployed responsibly. I am sure that the whole Committee agrees that public money should never be used in ways that conflict with our foreign policy or national security objectives. Our amendments would ensure that the Government exercise due diligence, and that UK Export Finance support is aligned with the UK’s sanctions framework. I am sure that the Minister will agree that that is a constructive and proportionate proposal, and will want to support it tonight.

New clause 2, in the name of His Majesty’s Opposition, is about the steel industry. We can all agree that steel made in the UK is a strategic foundation sector for the United Kingdom. It supports thousands of skilled jobs and underpins supply chains across manufacturing, construction and defence. We did not oppose the Government’s emergency legislation last April, although we warned that it was rushed, and that the Government did not have a proper plan. Nearly a year on from that emergency legislation, and nearly two years into this Government, we are still waiting for the long-promised steel strategy.

The Government have still not been able to agree a deal with the Chinese, despite the Prime Minister’s visit to China. There has been secret meeting after secret meeting between Ministers and Jingye—meetings on which the Government have refused to update Parliament. New clause 2 would simply require the Secretary of State to publish an annual report on the impact of the increased financial assistance limits on the UK steel industry. That report would set out, first, the amount of financial assistance provided each month to UK steel undertakings under section 8 of the Industrial Development Act 1982, and secondly, the number of full-time equivalent steel jobs that, in the Secretary of State’s view, would have been lost without the increased limit. It is a straightforward accountability measure. If public money is being used to support the steel sector, Parliament and the public deserve to know how much is being spent, why it is necessary and what outcomes it is delivering.

The Government have repeatedly spoken about the importance of steel, and we agree that steel is very important, but without a clear strategy or transparent reporting, it is impossible to judge whether interventions are effective, and whether they represent value for money. How do we know that we are not providing a limitless amount of funding that will crowd out support for other industries, and how can we assess whether it is good value for the taxpayer? New clause 2 would not constrain the Government’s ability to act; it would simply ensure that support is justified, targeted and effective. I hope that the Minister will recognise the value of this additional transparency and accept the new clause.

I turn to amendments 1 and 2, tabled by my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith). We believe that they are sensible and straightforward. If the Secretary of State has reason to believe that modern slavery or human trafficking is likely to be present in the supply chain of a business receiving export-supported goods, obviously the amount of public financial support should be zero. That is surely the only responsible position that this House can take. We are inherently supportive of the need for transparency in supply chains, and will support the amendments.

I turn to new clause 1, tabled by the hon. and learned Member for North Antrim (Jim Allister). Providing transparency on the amounts that are allocated across the whole United Kingdom would seem to be helpful assistance to this House.

[Jim Shannon]

May I commend the shadow Minister for what she has said? The Minister referred to discussions with the regional Administrations. UK Export Finance’s industrial support has helped a number of companies in Northern Ireland, including Wrightbus, with guarantees for international sales, to the tune of hundreds of millions of pounds. We in Northern Ireland are of the opinion that we still adhere to EU rules. Does the shadow Minister agree that this needs to be clarified, and that we need the transparency to which she has referred, so that the EU cannot continue to dictate terms to this nation through the back door of Northern Ireland? Does she agree that that is very important, and that the Minister and Government must respond to that?

[Dame Harriett Baldwin]

The hon. Member makes a very important point, and I know that the House will be eager to hear how enthusiastic the Minister is about all the amendments that have been tabled. I am sure we will shortly hear whether he supports them, or why he does not and why he will urge his colleagues to vote against them this evening.

Onshoring: Fashion and Textiles

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Thursday 12th February 2026 Westminster Hall

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Leicester South (Shockat Adam). He and I support the same football team, although I am afraid that they are not doing that well at this moment in time—we hope for better things in the future.

I thank the hon. Member for Hornsey and Friern Barnet (Catherine West) for setting the scene so well. She referred in her introduction to many places in the United Kingdom, and I am going to refer to Northern Ireland, where linen was one of our major industries—it is something that we are very proud of. I could never be called a fashion icon; I might be a dedicated follower of fashion, but that does not make me a fashion icon by any means. But I can certainly appreciate good craftmanship, which is part of the history and legacy of Northern Ireland, with its world-famous linen industry. The legacy of quality linen work continues to this day throughout Northern Ireland.

I am old enough to remember—it is probably no secret that I am the oldest person in this room—when my constituency of Strangford, particularly in Newtownards, had somewhere between 15 and 20 factories producing textiles, fashion, linen and threads. They are all away now—I think we have only one left. Indeed, it was not unusual for someone to leave a factory on a Friday night and start a new job in another factory on the Monday morning, such was the opportunity, but the world has changed—although I will refer to others in Northern Ireland that still do incredibly important work.

The fashion and textile industry in Northern Ireland has shifted from mass production and is now a specialised, high-end and innovative sector, focusing on luxury linen, technical textiles and advanced garment manufacturing. The remaining firms thrive through digital, sustainable and specialised technology. William Clark and Sons, for example, is leveraging its 300 years of expertise. Key players such as Ulster Carpets use robotics, while others support the niche market for luxury in apparel and homeware.

I should have said that I am pleased to see the Minister in his place, as always. Expectations are high, but I am sure we will not be disappointed with his answers to our requests. It is also a pleasure to see the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Reigate (Rebecca Paul), in her place. She is doing a double run today—she did the earlier debate and now she is doing this one, so well done.

The industry has transformed from high-volume production to design-driven, specialised manufacturing. Many of our specialised companies are renowned globally for their luxurious products. We remain incredibly proud of the industry in Northern Ireland, because it does all the things we hoped it would.

The industry has contracted, as I illustrated in Newtownards, the main town in my constituency, although there are examples of factories in many others, including Comber, Ballynahinch, Ballygowan and Killinchy—they are all away, although there does seem to be a focus in Mid Ulster. However, the sector remains a notable part of the local economy. It still accounts for 2,000 firms in Northern Ireland and employs over 10,000 people, with employment heavily centred on textile manufacture—over 40% of that workforce—clothing manufacture and washing and dry-cleaning services. That is an illustration of how the sector has adjusted to the modern age and, at the same time, been able to survive, albeit in a smaller way in terms of the number of factories.

From the Cooneen Group in County Tyrone to individual fashion houses, Northern Ireland continues to produce quality goods with a growing global reach. I am thankful to those who promote the best of British brands globally. I know that the Minister will be careful to ensure that every part of this great United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland is included in British brand promotion—I know that is his commitment —and I look forward to the industry going from strength to strength.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Minister for Trade (Chris Bryant)]

It is an enormous delight to see you in the Chair, Ms Jardine—I cannot imagine a greater delight this afternoon. I warmly commend my hon. Friend the Member for Hornsey and Friern Barnet (Catherine West) for securing this debate, and for the passion with which she has approached the issue, not just today but over many months; indeed, it is one of the issues that she has talked about throughout her time as an MP. Burberry used to be based in my constituency, and then left, so I feel quite strongly about some of these issues, and I am delighted to stand in for my colleague in the Department this afternoon.

It was great to hear from the hon. Member for Leicester South (Shockat Adam). Of course, we all know of Leicester’s strengths in the garments industry over many decades. In fact, many different parts of the garments industry, including parts of the shoe industry, have been based in areas across the midlands and have been intrinsic to its economic success over centuries. We know about some of the problems there have been with working standards and labour standards, and he made a strong argument for his constituency.

The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) said that he is a dedicated follower of fashion. He was of course referring to the song by The Kinks from 1966, which he and I are old enough to remember. I remember one of the lines—it is a polite line; there are others that might not fit him so well—which goes:

“One week he’s in polka dots, the next week he’s in stripe”.

I think the hon. Member is pretty consistent in his attire: he is smart, elegant and to the point. He made a strong set of points on behalf of his constituents.

I agree with many points made by the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Sarah Olney). I am particularly conscious of the issue of people in artisanal or small businesses in particular—sometimes those are hobby business, but sometimes they are more substantial—trying to send packages into Europe and finding it very difficult to do so. That is one reason for needing to get to fiction-less trade—I mean frictionless trade, not the fictional frictionless trade that was promised by some people in another political party when they were in government—and we are seeking to do that as much as we possibly can.

I am focused on how we can enable the whole value chain in the UK to discover ways of exporting into the European Union, which still represents around 45% of our export opportunities, and more widely around the world. We know that a UK business that is able to find a second market and to export is more likely to pay its staff better, be more resilient, grow faster and still be there in 10, 15 and 20 years’ time. For all those reasons, we want to do everything we can to enable more of that sector to export.

The hon. Member for Richmond Park referred to responsible business conduct, which I will come on to a little later. I will also come to some of the comments made by the hon. Member for Reigate (Rebecca Paul), who has a slightly fanciful memory of what the previous Government was like, in my humble opinion—I think if we had a vote on that, we would win; it would be all versus one.

We all know that fashion is about as British as tea and crumpets. There are so many massive household names: Ted Baker, Paul Smith, Superdry, which I never knew was British, Barbour, ASOS, Alexander McQueen, Stella McCartney, All Saints, Dunhill, admittedly owned by a Swiss company at the moment but nonetheless a very British brand, and Richard James—and I am just talking about the clothes I am wearing today. [Laughter.] I am not wearing all those, obviously.

It is similar with shoes. I used to be the youth officer for the diocese of Peterborough, living in Northampton. In Northamptonshire, as well as in neighbouring counties, shoe manufacturing has been so much a part of their history. Whether it is Dr Martens, Dune, Cheaney, though I never know how to say it, Tricker’s, Joseph Azagury, Yull, Church’s, Clarks, Grenson, Loake, John Lobb, Crockett and Jones, or Jeffery-West—these boots were made for walking, and that’s just what they are going to do. Whenever we go anywhere in the world, we see so many British shoe brands on every major high street, in airports and elsewhere, and we are immensely proud of that. Quite a lot of those, though not all, are made in the UK.

It is easy to talk about big brands, but part of this debate is precisely to say that there are lots of smaller brands making their way, and that we as a Government must do everything we can to help. One of my favourites, which I have referred to before in the House, is Howies. It was originally based in London and is now in Cardigan in Wales. It is ethically based, and produces a whole range, including sporting clothing and other things. Original Fibres, too, is a London brand; it is ethically sourced, and is trying to bring forward the best in British styling as well as manufacture.

There is Shrimps, Saint and Sofia, Talia Byre, Peachy Den, Black and Beech, and perhaps one for the hon. Member for Strangford, Sleazy Rider.

[Jim Shannon]

indicated dissent.

[Chris Bryant]

The hon. Gentleman is saying no to that, but he does not know what it is like.

In Edinburgh, of course, there are lots of other brands; perhaps the most famous is Pringle. We have talked a little about knitwear brands such as Beira, Rowanjoy and Mackenzie. We really want those smaller brands to prosper, because so many of them know that part of their key selling point is that they are British and bring something special to the market. They have a particular eye and source their materials in an ethical way. It just gives us a buzz to wear some of their clothes. That is precisely the kind of industry that we want to support.

When I was shadow Minister for Culture, Media and Sport, one of my best days was going down to see the Royal School of Needlework. Hon. Members may think of this as a rather posh thing that puts together items for royal coronations and things like that, but it is the only place in Europe where one can gain a qualification in needlework that is essential to some of the higher fashion brands in the UK. I thought I was going to meet lots of very posh people from Reigate or wherever it may be, but I was absolutely delighted when I walked in to find that the first two young women I met were both from the Rhondda. They wanted to go into the fashion industry, and they knew that by acquiring all the skills they could from the Royal School of Needlework, they were really going to flourish.

The sector is worth bazillions—that is an official term. The statistics people in the Department will probably want me to correct the record on that later. This sector is worth £62 billion to the UK economy, and it supports 1.3 million jobs and generates £23 billion in tax revenue every year. As the hon. Member for Reigate mentioned, there are major manufacturing hubs in many parts of the land—for instance, in Leicester, as we have already heard, across the midlands and in the highlands. I have not yet mentioned Harris Tweed, from which I have a very splendid waistcoat, or Favourbrook—another great British brand.

We are not just talking about textiles for clothing; camouflage has been mentioned, and high tech and new developments in the sector are really important. Yesterday, I met representatives of Panaz Ltd from Burnley, which produces a series of fabrics, including antimicrobial and fire retardant textiles. It is very much at the cutting edge—that sounds wrong, because that is a metaphor from the textile industry—of innovation in the sector, and it sells across the world, which is brilliant.

There are of course connections between the sector and many others we excel in. That is why they are integral to our industrial strategy. One has only to watch 10 minutes of “Bridgerton” to know that fashion and textiles are a really important part of what we are selling to the whole world. One could say the same about Bond, though I would prefer it if he wore British tailoring, even though Bond is now owned by Amazon.

Incidentally, British tailoring is so big that the biggest supermarket in Spain is called El Corte Inglés, which means “The English Cut”. Founded in 1890, it got its name because tailors in Madrid knew that the best tailoring in the world was British and they wanted to sell on the basis of that. It was bought up in 1934 and became an enormous chain in Spain. That just shows our connection. One final connection I would like to make is with British jewellery. We have some of the best jewellers in the world, and often the connection between fashion and jewellery is a really important part of the things that we excel at.

Some specific points were made about procurement. I had not heard the point about uniforms before. It is a really good one, and I am going to chase it down. My hon. Friend the Member for Hornsey and Friern Barnet does not have to go and metaphorically beat up the Ministers in the Ministry of Defence. I will do that for her, and I will get all the details. It would be good if more of our British servicemen and women were dressed in British uniforms. I remember once being in Sarajevo and being introduced to the new Italian uniforms, which I think are done by Dolce & Gabbana. They had previously been Armani, but they thought they would upgrade to Dolce & Gabbana, or it may have been the other way round. I am not sure—I might have to correct the record again. My hon. Friend spoke about the Procurement Act 2023, which gives public bodies greater ability to prioritise ethical and local sourcing. One would think that that would apply to the whole of Government rather than just parts of the Government, so let us see whether we can make that happen.

My hon. Friend asked about Government investment. We have set aside £4.3 billion to support manufacturers over the next five years, and up to £2.8 billion of that is for research and development. Quite often, the creative industries such as fashion are hesitant about seeking research and development money, because they think that there is nothing new under the skies and that they therefore would not qualify for it, but one has only to watch “Kinky Boots” to know that research and development is just as essential in fashion as it is in any other sector.

We have revamped our support for businesses to make it more effective, including through the development of the business growth service. I urge any business to seek help and advice when they need it. We are very keen on enhancing our trade promotion work. The spring version of London Fashion Week is coming up; unfortunately, it is just for women. I would like us to get back to having a spring fashion week that has both male and female fashions, though the economics of that do not necessarily add up at the moment. We are very supportive of the autumn London Fashion Week.

Of all the big fashion weeks around the world, the UK goes for the edgier part of the market, as Members may already know. That is precisely where we should be, which is why it is so important that we provide financial support for what we call “newgen”, which has produced a suite of new designers in recent years, many of whom are now breaking into much bigger markets. Of course, we continue our support through the British Fashion Council.

We also produced a small business strategy last year, which is really important, not only because many fashion and textiles businesses suffer from late payments, which is something that we definitely need to work on far more effectively than we have in the past, but because of the lack of availability of cash, whether that is for significant investment or for export investment. On both of those issues, we have set aside additional financial support to make sure that that is available for small and medium-sized enterprises.

I come on to the issue of responsible business conduct. Several hon. Members referred to issues such as forced labour or sustainability, but we have not talked about palm oil or deforestation or the production of cotton in different parts of the world, and so on. Hon. Members will know that we have been engaged in a responsible business conduct review, which is nearing completion. I hope we will be able to announce our conclusions fairly soon.

My aim is not to load businesses with more regulation but to try to make sure that the regulation they are subject to is truly effective. One of my anxieties is that sometimes we just get businesses to produce reports; somebody is employed to produce lots of different reports, which get bunged in the annual report and nobody in the world reads them ever. I just do not think that is as effective as other measures that we might be able to introduce. We are trying to curtail the regulatory burden, while at the same time making regulation more effective.

UK-India Free Trade Agreement

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Monday 9th February 2026 Commons Chamber

[Chris Bryant]

Yes, of course. I read the report from my right hon. Friend’s Committee over the weekend, and it is a very fine report; indeed, some of what I have already said was lifted directly from it. Broadly speaking, I have the impression that the House might be content to proceed with the agreement, and the Committee was certainly content to proceed with it. As my right hon. Friend will of course know, I guaranteed to him that we would have a debate during the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010 period, and we are now having a debate in the House during that CRaG period.

My right hon. Friend made a good point about trade remedies. In a whole series of sectors, we need to keep our review alert to that. He may wish to make some points later about labour in brick industry that are made in his report, but let me point out again that nearly 90% of ceramics imports from India already come into the UK tariff-free, so I am not sure that the agreement will lead to the particular problem that some in the sector expect.

The agreement goes well beyond India’s precedent in opening the door for UK businesses. As the Select Committee said in its report,

“The UK-India Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement (CETA) is the UK’s most economically significant bilateral free trade agreement since leaving the European Union.”

It boosts UK GDP by £4.8 billion, which is 0.13% of GDP. It boosts wages by £2.2 billion, and it boosts bilateral trade by £25.5 billion every year in the long run, by 2040. India will drop tariffs on 90% of lines, covering 92% of current UK exports, giving the UK tariff savings of £400 million a year immediately on entry into force, rising to £900 million after 10 years, even if there is no increase in trade. India’s average tariff will fall from 15% to 3%.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I thank the Minister very much for his enthusiasm and energy in doing this job. I think that we welcome the tariffs.

The agreement was projected to give Northern Ireland’s economy a boost of some £50 million. Three distilleries in my constituency— Echlinville, Hinch and Rademon—will take advantage of the reduction in the whisky tariff. The opening of markets for manufacturing and engineering has also been referred to. Let me say with great respect, however, that six months after the agreement, Northern Ireland has not yet seen much happen. I know that the Minister is keen to make it happen, but may I ask him, please, when it will happen?

[Chris Bryant]

I believe that the hon. Gentleman is a is a teetotaller. Is that right?

[Jim Shannon]

Sometimes.

[Chris Bryant]

Sometimes! Perhaps a tee-slightly-er or a tee-occasionally-er, but not total. [Interruption.] Yes, only in the early morning. Well, I got that completely wrong.

Anyway, I think all Members will want to celebrate the fact that we are managing to get the whisky tariff down from 150% to 75%, and then down to 40%. That will be transformational. Incidentally, this is not just about whisky itself; the other day I was with one of the founding members of Fever-Tree, who pointed out that it is also about soft drinks, including the soft drinks that go with the whisky, ginger ale being a classic instance. If we can get Fever-Tree ginger ale out to India at the same time, or for that matter—who knows?—perhaps even Indian tonic water, that will be a significant benefit for us.

The hon. Gentleman made a perfectly legitimate point about timing. Plenty of companies are asking me, “When is it all going to start?” We have to go through a ratification process, and what we are doing now is part of that. India has its own process, which is largely in the hands of Mr Modi directly, but I am very confident that that can happen fairly swiftly, and I hope very much that in the next few weeks and months we will be able to declare a date for entry into force.

There is always a slight moment between concluding the negotiations, the signature, the ratification and then entry into force. We cannot ever be precise about the date of entry into force until ratification has proceeded, but we are working as fast as we can. There is one other element that we always said we wanted to happen simultaneously: the double contributions agreement, which His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs is negotiating with India. As soon as all that is completed, I hope we will be able to get to entry into force. I will come on to the implementation.

I should just say that I slightly confused all my tariff lines earlier between steel and ceramics. We will tidy that up a little later, if that is all right with you, Madam Deputy Speaker.

Every region and nation will benefit from the agreement, including a £210 million boost for the north-west, driven by aerospace and automotive wins; a £190 million boost for Scotland, supported by cuts to whisky and satellite tariffs, and by financial services access; and a £190 million boost for the east of England, generated through tariff cuts and improved rules for medical devices and clean energy products. There are some big winners, and I have already talked about whisky. We estimate that whisky exports will increase by £230 million—an 88% increase. The tariffs on autos will fall from over 100% to 10% under quota, which will phase from combustion engines to electric vehicles. Auto parts and car engine exports are expected to increase by £189 million—a 148% increase.

The tariffs on cosmetics will fall from 20% to as low as 0%, which will boost exports by £400 million—a 364% increase. I talked to Charlotte Tilbury about this the other day, and she was absolutely—[Interruption.] The Whip is very keen on Charlotte Tilbury, so I will pass on her request for further information. I think you are putting in a request as well, Madam Deputy Speaker. The important point is that we need to make sure that businesses know that there is this new opportunity out there in India, and we need to maximise the exploitation of the new tariffs.