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.

Postal Services: Rural Areas

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Wednesday 4th February 2026 Westminster Hall

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Stringer. I thank the hon. Member for South Shropshire (Stuart Anderson) for allowing us the opportunity to speak in this debate. I say well done to him for setting the scene incredibly well, although it does not give us any joy to highlight Royal Mail’s failings in communities, particularly rural communities.

I wish to preface my remarks by highlighting that my own Royal Mail workers are great. I spent some time with them at Christmas, and I know most of them—I probably grew up with most of them. I know where the problems lie, and it is not in the staff, but in the surroundings. The building is not fit for purpose; there are parking spaces for 30 vans, but there are 50 vans that need to park; and there is not enough space for sorting, so it is little wonder that the post in some of my areas is taking up to a month to get through. There is a priority for parcels, which Royal Mail does not try to hide. I understand that it puts them first and the delivery of letters is downgraded as a result.

On staffing levels, which the hon. Member for Yeovil (Adam Dance) spoke about in his intervention, when I spoke to the Royal Mail guys, they told me that one of the problems is maintaining and holding on to staff. If Royal Mail gives staff members the minimum wage and no more, it is not going to keep them, because they will always be looking for a different job that will give them better payment. That has to be addressed as well, and I know that the Minister does his best whenever it comes to addressing these things.

In my constituency of Strangford, all the villages have problems. To give one example, in Portavogie, one gentleman had no mail at his house for a month, and then got 29 letters the next day, which included three about hospital appointments—he missed them all. His health has unfortunately been poor, and that had a detrimental effect on his health. It is not just a matter of not getting a monthly bank statement; in some cases, health is at stake. I believe that it is necessary that Royal Mail makes an investment in sorting offices to be able to get facilities in place and once again facilitate a routine post service that is fit for purpose.

To give another example, the heater in my office broke over Christmas, and it amazed me to see that one of my staff had ordered a heater and it was delivered the next day. I did not pay one penny for that delivery. I do pay £7.99 a month for unlimited free delivery, but it astounds me that I pay more than £1 for one letter, and it takes weeks to make it, but other things can be delivered in a short time. It cannot just be the facilities in Newtownards that are not up to scratch, because I have listened to every other Member present saying the same thing. We need root-and-branch changes, and we need the Minister to stand firmly with us as we press for those changes.

Officially, the Royal Mail website says that it is reducing second-class delivery to alternate days—Monday, Wednesday and Friday one week, and Tuesday, Thursday and Saturday the next week—and that first-class letters will continue to be delivered six days a week. The service we are seeing is nowhere near that, and Royal Mail must be held accountable. It is not easy to answer all these questions, but I look forward to what the Minister has to say in his response.

--- Later in debate ---

[Blair McDougall]

I will come to that point on other parcel delivery providers shortly.

Before the takeover of Royal Mail, we secured commitments from its new owners, EP Group. In addition to retaining a golden share in Royal Mail, we secured a commitment to prevent further value from being taken out of it until the quality of service improves.

[Jim Shannon]

I thank the Minister for responding to all the questions that we posed. One of mine was about the minimum wage. If a business wants to retain staff, it has to pay them a decent wage. The problem in Newtownards is that some of the staff who have been there for many years are not getting the minimum wage, so if something better comes up, they are away. We cannot blame them; if someone has to pay bills, they have to do that. Instead of Royal Mail paying a fine, which could be used to pay wages, would it not be better and more sensible for it to give workers a decent wage, retain them and improve the service from the bottom up? Is the Minister in any way able to encourage it to do that?

[Blair McDougall]

The hon. Member makes a really important point about staff retention. Obviously, management and the workforce are working on implementing not only reforms but the pay deal. Hopefully, that will play an important role in helping to tackle what he has just spoken about.

In addition to my discussions with Royal Mail, I have had detailed discussions with Ofcom, which has an essential role in improving standards. As the hon. Member for Strangford has just pointed out, Ofcom has told Royal Mail that it must publish a credible improvement plan that delivers significant and continuous improvement, and made it clear that, without such a plan, it is likely that fines will continue to be imposed.

The hon. Member for South Shropshire mentioned the context for this debate, which is the change in consumer behaviour and communication. The average household now receives only four letters per week, down from 14, yet the number of addresses in the country has risen by 4 million. To protect the USO for the long term, Ofcom has introduced reforms that are projected to deliver up to £450 million in annual savings, helping to get Royal Mail on to a more financially sustainable basis. We now need Royal Mail to work with its workforce and unions to deliver the service that we all expect.

Several hon. Members raised concerns about now slightly notorious parcel providers other than Royal Mail. Ministers and Ofcom have made it clear that the way they are operating is not good enough and that they are on notice.

Oral Answers to Questions

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Thursday 29th January 2026 Commons Chamber

[Blair McDougall]

I am due to come to my hon. Friend’s constituency in little over a month—I do like to be beside the seaside. We often think of constituencies like hers as tourism and hospitality hotspots, but, as she said, they can also be a hive for the creative industries, of which she is such a champion. Through the £380 million creative industries sector plan, we are boosting innovation, skills and access to finance nationwide, which is helping firms, including in her constituency. She will know that businesses in her area also benefit from such a strong talent pipeline coming from her area’s great universities, and I look forward to working with her and learning more when I visit soon.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I thank the Minister for his positive, constructive and helpful answers. For Ards and North Down council in my constituency, the thrust of its economic growth strategy is tourism, and there have been many dividends from that. It is important that, right across the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, we have the chance to advance and do better. The Minister might not have had the opportunity to talk to the local Minister in the Northern Ireland Assembly, Gordon Lyons, on this issue, but I hope that he will do so, and thereby we can all gain from his knowledge of what we are doing back home.

[Blair McDougall]

I had a fantastic family holiday in Northern Ireland, driven by my son’s obsession with the Titanic—I had a very moving visit there. I have met my opposite number with responsibility for small businesses in Northern Ireland, and I am happy to have the discussion that the hon. Member suggests.

Meat Exports to the EU

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Wednesday 7th January 2026 Westminster Hall

[David Chadwick]

I am going to continue for a bit.

Welsh lamb is not a niche export; it is foundational to the rural economy. Welsh food and drink exports were worth £813 million in 2023, with around three quarters going to EU markets. The EU remains the destination for around a third of Welsh lamb exports, around 90% of Welsh beef exports and the vast majority of Welsh dairy exports. Markets such as Germany and the Netherlands matter because they are the natural entry points into the European food system, but lamb cannot sit at borders while paperwork is argued over. A delay of hours can strip value from a load; a rejected consignment can wipe out profit for a week. Farmers tell me it is now easier to export lamb thousands of miles away than to our nearest neighbours. That is not control; it is self-harm.

No doubt Ministers will point to headlines claiming that red tape has been slashed, but the reality for farmers tells a different story. Export health certificates are still required, veterinary sign-offs remain mandatory and checks are still taking place. Costs are still being borne by producers, and that eats into their profit margins. Because there is no settled SPS agreement, enforcement continues to vary from port to port and country to country.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on securing the debate. To add to the complexity of the matter—there is always more complexity —on 1 January, new rules for veterinary medicines took effect in Northern Ireland, meaning that 40% of veterinary medicine pack sizes available to NI farmers could be discontinued due to the requirement for separate authorisations from Great Britain and Northern Ireland. Does he not agree that the large part that Northern Ireland plays in the supply of lamb and meat—worth up to some £4 billion—must be considered as part of the UK’s discussion with the EU? We should not be taken as a third nation—that is no solution. I hope that the Minister will be able to answer that question.

[David Chadwick]

The economic impact of this issue is being felt across the United Kingdom, and that is because there is still no settled SPS agreement. That has resulted in uncertainty, and uncertainty is poison for trade. Many smaller producers have already been cut out of EU markets, unable to cope with the administrative burden and added cost.

There is also a clear imbalance in how trade is being managed. Under the border target operating model, checks are meant to be risk based, yet medium-risk products of animal origin imported from the EU into Great Britain face physical inspection rates of around 1%, while equivalent UK exports to the EU face inspection rates of between 15% and 30%. That is not a level playing field. It places heavier costs on UK farmers, while leaving them exposed to unfair competition from imports.

That imbalance is compounded by repeated delays to the UK’s own border controls. The transitional staging period for the border target operating model has been extended again, this time to January 2027—the sixth delay already. Farming unions have warned that, without effective border checks, the UK remains vulnerable to animal disease. Those concerns have been echoed by Parliament’s own Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee.

None of this is accidental. These barriers exist because the UK chose to leave the single market. That choice was driven by a Conservative party that was willing to sacrifice British farming, and it was championed by Reform, who promised farmers frictionless trade while delivering friction at every stage of the export process. Welsh farmers were told that they would keep their markets, that nothing would change for them and that they were taking back control, but what they got was more paperwork, higher costs and fewer buyers. In Brecon, Radnor and Cwm Tawe, farming underpins entire communities. When lamb exports become uneconomic, investment stalls, confidence drains away and young farmers begin to question whether there is a future for them. Rural Wales is hollowing out through constant, grinding pressure on farming communities and the wider supply chains that they support.

Efforts to restore relations with our nearest trading partners and pursue an SPS agreement with the EU are welcome, but such an agreement must be developed in close collaboration with industry, and it must be delivered urgently. Farmers cannot wait indefinitely while negotiations drag on. Any agreement should be concluded as soon as is practical and no later than the end of this Parliament, in order to protect market access and prevent further damage to the sector.

Welsh farmers were promised certainty, continuity and opportunity. Instead, they got the Conservatives’ and Reform’s Brexit, and a deal that still does not exist. This debate is about facing that reality, owning the consequences and finally doing right by the people who feed this country and sustain our rural communities. Backing Welsh and British farming means more than slogans; it means restoring access to markets.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kate Dearden]

My hon. Friend makes an important point on animal welfare in the SPS agreement, which I will get to.

The figures I mentioned show the strength of this sector and why smooth, predictable trade with the EU really matters. The Department for Business and Trade has been working hand in hand with the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and with industry—led by the Agriculture and Horticulture Development Board—to drive meat exports, and will be supporting meat exporters at SIAL Paris, the largest European trade show for food and drink, in October. We also have two DEFRA agri-attachés, based in France and Spain, actively working with DBT staff to unblock market access issues for food and drink producers exporting to Europe, including exporters of lamb and meat.

The Government’s goal is clear: to make trade with the EU cheaper and easier while keeping high standards. That is why we are pursuing the UK-EU SPS agreement, which will create a common SPS area to cut border friction and boost competitiveness. Negotiations on the agreement have already begun. This is a major step forward. The deal will deliver real benefits, scrapping export health certificates for most consignments—saving up to £200 for each one—and ending routine SPS border control checks so that fresh meat moves faster with less paperwork. It will also reopen the EU market for trade in products like fresh sausages and burgers. These changes will strengthen supply chains, cut costs and help meat exporters grow.

We are not lowering standards. Border regimes protect animal and public health, and every consignment must meet rules for entry. I am really proud of the Government’s animal welfare strategy, which colleagues across the House welcomed. The European Commission recently announced tougher checks on food, animal and plant products, including more audits, closer monitoring of non-compliant goods and a new taskforce for import controls. Those reinforced checks reflect long-standing EU policy. For British exporters, the message is clear: meeting standards is essential, and we will keep supporting businesses to get it right. Every consignment faces documentary, identity and sometimes physical checks before it can be allowed into the EU. Our strategy is to make those interactions faster and more predictable by cutting the need for certificates and routine checks through an SPS agreement, while giving traders clear guidance to keep standards high.

I need to be clear that the Government are not seeking a customs union with the EU. Our focus is on SPS, food safety, animal health and plant health. We will stay outside the EU customs union. What we want is a practical alignment where it makes sense, including to cut friction in meat trade while keeping control of our own rules.

We must keep the industry competitive while negotiations continue, and EU markets can still buy high volumes and premium cuts from Britain. In 2024, beef exports to the EU rose in value by almost 11%, with volumes up by nearly 5%. That shows the strength of British quality and brand recognition in the EU. In the first 10 months of 2025, British export values grew further, even with tight domestic cattle supplies. For lamb, France remains our biggest market, and overall export value is up. These figures prove that with smoother borders our exporters can do even more.

[Jim Shannon]

I do not want to put the Minister in an awkward position—it is not the way I do things—but I asked a fairly complex question, in support of the hon. Member for Brecon, Radnor and Cwm Tawe (David Chadwick) but also to highlight the peculiarities of the Northern Ireland farmer, about the fact that, through some of the veterinary medicine controls, we will find ourselves disadvantaged and perhaps unable to sell our beef and lamb to the UK and, ultimately, the EU. If it is helpful to the Minister, I would be quite happy for her to come back to me with an answer.

[Kate Dearden]

I thank the hon. Member for his intervention. As he knows, the negotiations are ongoing and we cannot comment on them. We are working hard to cut red tape for exporters. I will be happy to follow up with him on his specific point, and I thank him for raising that important issue.

Agrifood exports to the EU remain below 2018 levels in real terms. That is why practical steps such as an SPS agreement matter. They tackle the real-world frictions that hold back meat exports.

Although the focus of the debate is exports to the EU, colleagues know that Great Britain has introduced risk-based controls on imports, set out in the border target operating model. Those apply to goods entering GB and do not change EU rules for our exports. They ensure a level playing field and protect biosecurity, which is vital. Medium-risk EU animal products entering GB face documentary checks and risk-based identity and physical checks at border control posts, and high-risk products face full identity and physical checks. That is proportionate risk management that mirrors the system that our exporters encounter at EU posts, and shows our commitment to safe, fair trade.

DEFRA has worked closely with processors, hauliers and certification bodies to prepare for SPS talks and keep trade moving. We have expanded guidance on required standards and on intensified official controls for sites facing extra checks. We regularly meet the British Meat Processors Association and other trade groups to explain processes, gather feedback and fix issues quickly. Our goal is simple: to help businesses meet EU requirements the first time, so consignments are cleared without delay.

Our meat exporters have shown real resilience. The Government’s job is to cut unnecessary barriers, keep confidence in our systems and open up opportunities in our closest markets. An SPS agreement with the EU is a practical way to do that, and I am glad that we are leading the way. It will cut costs and paperwork, reducing delays and helping British businesses to sell more, while protecting standards and respecting our independent trade policy. This is about a sensible alignment that benefits farmers and processors across the UK, and I look forward to working with Members across the House, our European partners, industry and stakeholders to deliver an agreement that makes a real difference to meat exporters, strengthens our crucial supply chains and supports jobs and prosperity in every part of the country.

Question put and agreed to.

Employment Rights Bill

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Consideration of Lords message
Monday 15th December 2025 Commons Chamber

[Kate Dearden]

We are absolutely determined to get this legislation through, and I urge colleagues in the other place to pass this Bill for the reasons my right hon. Friend outlines: 1.3 million people will be entitled to statutory sick pay from as soon as April. That is significant, and it is why it is so important to get the legislation on to the statute books.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

My colleagues in the other place all expressed concern about open-ended, unlimited compensation. That is a concern not only for them and for colleagues here, but for businesses back home. I know the Minister means well, but for goodness’ sake, this will not work for business.

[Kate Dearden]

If hon. Members allow me to make some progress, I will get to the background and reasoning for the compensation cap.

Continued delay to the Bill will put implementation at risk, which creates insecurity and uncertainty for workers and employers alike. I hope the other place acknowledges the importance of this and will let the Government deliver the Bill, which is backed by an electoral mandate, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Angela Rayner) said. We have been engaged in ping-pong for far too long, and further delay is in no one’s best interests. I hope the arguments I make today will address the reservations of those Members of the other place who have been engaging in good faith when they have had genuine concerns about the Bill.

As I told the House last week, I convened a series of constructive conversations on the unfair dismissal provisions, which resulted in a workable agreement with trade unions and business representatives and was the subject of Government amendments made last week. I can assure hon. Members, as someone who was in the room during the negotiations, that the agreement between unions and business representatives was made with good will and in good faith by all sides.

As those representatives of the British Chambers of Commerce, the Chartered Institute of Personal and Development, the Recruitment and Employment Confederation, Small Business Britain, the Federation of Small Businesses and the Confederation of British Industry said in today’s letter to the Secretary of State, the “outcome” of the

“dialogue…represented a significant step forward which will have a positive impact on growth and opportunities.”

The amendments tabled in the other place undermine that agreement, as the compensatory award cap would not be removed and instead the Government would conduct and publish a review of the impact of the cap. The removal of the cap would then require further primary legislation.

Industry and Exports (Financial Assistance) Bill

Jim Shannon Excerpts

2nd reading
Monday 15th December 2025 Commons Chamber

[Chris Bryant]

There are funds. Especially when there is a new free trade agreement, as in relation to India at the moment, we help lots of businesses. Businesses in the beauty industry, which I know my hon. Friend knows a lot about, have gone to a recent exhibition in India, because under the FTA, India will be taking the tariff down from, I think, 20% or so to zero. That is a big opportunity for British businesses. There are sometimes funds available.

I will look at how the ceramics industry in particular is treated. As my hon. Friend knows, I would like to establish stronger support for the ceramics industry in general, because we should be proud of it. As he also knows, I am looking at the presents that we as Government Ministers give to other Government Ministers; we could be a bit more ambitious about ensuring that they are things that people really want, and perhaps they could come from one of our creative industries, such as ceramics.

Free trade agreements can get rid of tariffs, and that is a very important way of enabling more exports, but we can also often do a great deal by getting rid of the non-tariff barriers that exist in many countries. Export ambition, even from companies that would like to export, often needs financial assistance. That is precisely what UK Export Finance is there for.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

rose—

[Jim Allister (North Antrim) (TUV)]

rose—

[Chris Bryant]

The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) was there first, and then I will take an intervention from the hon. and learned Member for North Antrim (Jim Allister).

[Jim Shannon]

I welcome what the Minister has said; he has clearly underlined that all parts of the United Kingdom can benefit. As the Minister will know, we are very fortunate in Northern Ireland to have a very strong agrifood sector, which promotes itself wherever it can across Europe, across the mainland and further afield. The defence sector is also active, and the Government help to create extra procurement and extra apprenticeships is very welcome. However, there are also small and medium-sized enterprises, which are mostly involved in engineering, and this group of businesses could do more. I ask the Minister, very kindly, whether he could give us an idea of what can be done for them. We want to encourage them to be involved and to export.

[Chris Bryant]

The hon. Member is absolutely right that the vast majority of the companies we will be talking about are SMEs—88% of the companies that benefit from UK Export Finance are SMEs. We are bringing forward this Bill because we are getting to the limit of what is allowed under current legislation and we need to expand that. I have specifically spoken to UK Export Finance about looking at new ways to support SMEs. The retail banking sector in the UK also sometimes needs to understand better how it can support small and medium-sized enterprises to export around the world. One of the things that I have been trying in my own small way is to do a supermarket sweep when I have been abroad for trade missions: to see whether Rose’s lime marmalade, Walker’s biscuits, Marmite, Irn-Bru or Penderyn whisky—or whatever it may be—is available around the world. The more we can encourage businesses to export, the more likely they are to prosper.

One of the advantages in Northern Ireland in particular is that, because of the Windsor framework, it has an opportunity to enter into an EU market much more readily than elsewhere. One of the sadnesses of Brexit is that 16,000 fewer businesses in the UK now export, and that is largely because they have given up on Europe. That is one of the things I radically want to change.