Wind Farms: Protected Peatland

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Tuesday 21st April 2026 Westminster Hall

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

It is a real pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Alec. I say a big thank you to the hon. Member for Keighley and Ilkley (Robbie Moore) for his clear passion on this matter and for reaching out to all the political parties to try to engage them and bring them together in the way he always does through his politics in this place. I do hope he is successful in that; perhaps we have yet to find out whether that will be the case.

I rise to speak on a matter that touches the very heart of the Northern Irish landscape. From the Sperrins to the Fermanagh lakelands, our peatlands are not just scenic backdrops but our greatest natural asset in the fight for good environmental space and to be good stewards of our land. We are given the task to look after what we have today; we are indeed the custodians for those who come after. What we do will have an impact on our children, grandchildren and generations to come.

Peat removal has taken place over many years. At the turn of the 19th century in Northern Ireland, peat was the heat source for many cottages and houses, but in the last 60 years, there has been a change and a different focus. I adhere to and support what the hon. Member puts forward in relation to wind farm development on protected peatland. In Northern Ireland, we are currently working towards an ambitious goal of an 80% reduction in emissions by 2030. We understand that this is a mammoth task, one that the Northern Ireland Assembly recently debated. Regardless of where the target is set, we need renewable energy and a sensible way forward.

There is a balance. We have to restore and hold on to the peatland—that is important. I refer Members to early-day motion 3168 on World Curlew Day tabled by the hon. Member for North East Hertfordshire (Chris Hinchliff); if they look at the wording of it, they will see the importance of retaining that habitat. The peatlands are a breeding location for curlew, lapwing and snipe, critically important for their survival into the future. Wind farms, by their very nature, have the potential to kill many of the birds that fly. That happens to birds of prey, curlew and others when they are high in the sky—I am ever mindful that wind farms are tall.

I know my right hon. Friend the Member for East Antrim (Sammy Wilson) will refer to Glenwherry grouse moor in his constituency; it is a shooting moor, but it is also a peatland moor. I am very keen and interested in shooting; I know the gamekeeper there and the project that has been going on over Glenwherry for years. There were once no grouse there, and a magnificent project, in partnership with the landowner, gamekeeper and the British Association for Shooting and Conservation, has ensured that Glenwherry is now a workable and harvestable grouse moor. That has happened because they have retained the peatlands and made the habitat suitable for all the bird life that is there—not just the grouse, but the curlew, lapwing, snipe and others.

We must recognise, however, that 86% of our peatlands are currently degraded. When we build turbines on these sites we risk further damaging our soil carbon pool, which accounts for 53% of all carbon stored in Northern Ireland’s soil. We support what the hon. Member for Keighley and Ilkley is trying to achieve, because we understand the importance of ensuring that these things do not happen. We cannot afford to save the planet by destroying the very ecosystems that naturally sequester its carbon.

Under the Northern Ireland peatland strategy to 2040, we have committed to restoring all semi-natural peatlands to functioning ecosystems, and that needs to be replicated throughout this United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. The hon. Member referred to the importance of ecosystems in his introduction, and I reiterate that and support it. We must find a balanced path that prioritises degraded industrial peat sites for energy development, rather than un-degraded, healthy blanket bogs, and that integrates restoration funding into wind farm projects. That will ensure that developers do not just build but actively help re-wet and recover the surrounding land.

When we talk about the peatlands, we talk about their importance: they are historically and environmentally important, and we must do our best to ensure that developers do not have the upper hand when it comes to stretching out and taking over what we have responsibility for. Let us ensure that our wind farms are built in the right places, for the right reasons and with the utmost respect for the carbon vaults beneath our feat in the peatlands. We take a stand for those peatlands today.

British Industrial Competitiveness Scheme

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Thursday 16th April 2026 Commons Chamber

[Peter Kyle]

My hon. Friend gives voice to the hospitality sector, and she is absolutely right: the hospitality sector is important for so many reasons. For many people, it is the most interaction they have with the frontline of the economy. It is the place people go for light relief and fun—and, my goodness, we deserve more fun as a country more often. It is also often the first part of the pathway into the economy, because many people’s first job is in hospitality. I recognise that hospitality is an incredibly important part of our economy, for all those reasons.

What the hospitality sector needs first and foremost is economic growth, so that people have more money in their pockets to spend. That is why today’s news that we reached economic growth of 0.5% in the quarter leading up to the end of February is so significant. Embedding the foundations for growth in our economy is what hospitality needs more than anything else. Of course, I meet UKHospitality regularly and I have roundtables with the sector. I represent Hove, which has a thriving hospitality sector, where I meet people on the frontline all the time. I always enjoy engaging with my hon. Friend on these issues too.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I thank the Secretary of State for his statement and for all his hard work, which should be recognised. I welcome the statement, which outlines support for Thales, Spirit AeroSystems, Boeing and Bombardier, which are all big employers in the aerospace and defence sectors in my constituency. However, I also think of manufacturers such as Magellan Aerospace in Greyabbey; T.G. Eakin, a pharmaceutical company in Comber; and Mash Direct, a food and farming business in Ards. I am not sure that they will be eligible for this help. Small businesses are the backbone of the United Kingdom, particularly in Northern Ireland, and they are struggling. What help and hope can the Government give to them?

Single Status of Worker

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Wednesday 15th April 2026 Westminster Hall

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

As always, it is an absolute pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Efford. I thank the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Bromborough (Justin Madders) for highlighting this matter. It is a pleasure to see the Minister in her place; I wish her well in her new role. I think this is her second or third Westminster Hall debate, and she has done a fair bit in the Chamber.

Although I agree with the principle of what the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Bromborough said, I want to highlight the issue for businesses back home. They are not against the principle or object of a single status of worker, but we need a balance. With respect to other Members, I would like to tease that out.

The issue is incredibly complex and must be teased out from all angles. While I agree with the backdrop of ensuring fairness, I will highlight the risks of casting a long and perhaps damaging shadow over the small businesses and entrepreneurs who are the very lifeblood of the Northern Ireland economy. In my constituency, small and medium businesses create the most jobs, so it is for them that I am here today. I wish to be their voice in Westminster Hall.

No one in this House, and certainly no one in my party, supports the exploitation of workers. We have always stood for the right of every individual to be treated with dignity and to receive the pay that they have earned by the sweat of their brow. Where bogus self-employment exists to undercut the law, it must be met with firm and decisive action.

By the same token, we must not allow a desire for simplicity to lead us into a harsh overhaul that sometimes ignores the economic reality on the ground. For many, the current limb (b) worker status is not a trap but a choice that offers a vital compromise of flexibility that a rigid, one-size-fits-all employment contract simply cannot provide. I ask that the Minister takes my thoughts, and probably those of others, on board to ensure that we can provide protection for workers while at the same time not disadvantaging the small businesses in my constituency.

Our primary concern is for the small business owner—for example, the shopkeeper in Newtownards, the start-up in Ballynahinch and the family firm down in the Ards peninsula, all in my Strangford constituency. These employers are not faceless corporations. They are people who take risks to provide jobs for their neighbours. We have to be aware that in attempting to prevent abuse, we could be preventing job creation or retention by burdening them with the same administrative and financial burdens as multinational giants. Will the Minister ensure that small businesses—the lifeblood of my constituency—are protected? Rather than necessarily protecting workers, the Government may be jeopardising the very jobs that they rely on.

We must remember that jobs are not abstract concepts; they are costs. In the early stages of any business, every new hire is an investment that takes time to repay. We want to encourage businesses to continue hiring and rehiring, but they also have to have the prospect of a future, and a sense of where that leads. If we put our thumb on the scale against employers by removing the space they need to make vital judgments, we will potentially choke opportunity and harden the barriers for those who are currently on the margins of the workforce.

Let us focus on economic delivery and transparency. Let us empower businesses to grow, rather than stifling them with red tape. We need common sense, not ideological rigidity. We should be building a dynamic labour market that respects the need for flexibility, rather than one that forces every worker and business into a single, restrictive box. That is why the conversation—this debate—must be fulsome, taking into account the effect on small businesses, which account for 90% of all the workers in Northern Ireland. That is how massive this issue is, and shows the impact it could have on us. Those 90% of workers in Northern Ireland businesses do not have a human resources department to keep them right.

I am pleased to be part of this conversation, and I hope that all Members will take my views on board in a positive and respectful way. I am keen to achieve what the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Bromborough wants to achieve, but I am also conscious of ensuring that we can bring businesses along too. If we can do that, it is a win-win for everyone.

Ground-mounted Solar Panels: Alternatives

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Tuesday 14th April 2026 Westminster Hall

[Lincoln Jopp (Spelthorne) (Con)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the matter of alternatives to ground mounted solar panels.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Stringer. I sensed the people coming into the Chamber in the last couple of minutes and I felt a quickening. It was like energy coming together, which is completely appropriate given what we are here to debate: alternatives to land-based solar panels.

The context in which I wish to couch this debate is twofold. One aspect is local and one slightly more geostrategic. People say that in politics, where you sit defines where you stand. Hon. Members may or may not know that I am the proud Member of Parliament for Spelthorne. I sometimes feel the need to remind hon. Members that Spelthorne is not in Lincolnshire or Lancashire; it is, in fact, everything south of Heathrow airport until hon. Members get to the River Thames.

When I was elected, at the last election, to be the Member for Spelthorne, I looked at a very big map of the constituency—hon. Members will be very surprised to learn that I used to be in the Army, and there used to be a very good saying in the Army: “If you don’t know what’s going on, get a bigger map”—and I identified four enormous blocks of blue. That was half of London’s drinking water in four raised reservoirs. Being a practical man, I thought to myself, “Well, there aren’t many votes in there.” I also thought to myself that we cannot really build many homes there.

I did further research and it turns out that in 2016, on the Queen Elizabeth reservoir in a neighbouring constituency, a large technology demonstrator for floating solar was laid down, and ever since it has produced 6.3 MW of power—enough to power about 2,000 homes. That was at the time the largest one in Europe; back in 2016, we were leading. I looked into the situation further in order to see whether we were world-leading, but it turns out that we were not particularly, and that floating solar has been deployed to a greater extent in China, India, Vietnam and Israel. We will come in due course to the benefits of floating solar as an alternative to land-based systems.

I want now to return to the more national context. Frequently, we are led to believe that alternative sources of energy can be something of a zero-sum game—when someone takes one step forward, someone else has to take one step backwards. As I am sure we will hear, in large parts of the United Kingdom there are proposed large, land-based solar farms, frequently on very good agricultural land, so the zero-sum game between food security and energy security needs unpicking.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I congratulate the hon. Member on bringing forward a debate on this massive issue. Is he aware that there are roughly 600,000 acres of unused, south-facing industrial rooftops in the United Kingdom that could be utilised before we industrialise the countryside? The Government must look at those in order to utilise already built heritage and leave our countryside as it is to produce the food that we need.

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.