British Coal Staff Superannuation Scheme

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Monday 22nd June 2026 Commons Chamber

[Lee Anderson (Ashfield) (Reform)]

First, I would like to declare an interest: I am a former coal miner and a member of the British Coal staff superannuation scheme.

In the 1950s, there were over 700,000 men working in the pits in this country—people like my grandads, great grandad, dad and uncles—in fact, I cannot remember any male member of my family not working down the pit in the 1950s and 1960s. When I went underground for the first time in the 1980s, there were still around 170,000 men working in the coal mine. Now we have probably about 112,000 former miners still living. There are around 38,000 members in the BCSSS, and of course many of them will be women—women who worked in the industry, or widows of men who did. I am no spring chicken—I am getting on a bit—but I am one of the youngest members in the scheme, the average age of a member being about 78 years. One of the questions that we must ask ourselves is: how many members of the scheme will be left in 10 years’ time? I reckon there will be half as many as there are today, because members of both schemes—the mineworkers’ pension scheme and the BCSSS—are dying every single day. All we are asking for is one simple thing: fairness in the surplus sharing arrangements.

It is hard to explain what it was like to work down a coalmine—there is one other hon. Member in the Chamber, the hon. Member for Blyth and Ashington (Ian Lavery), who knows what it was like—but it is like nothing else. I worked at four different pits in my time as a coalminer. I started off at Sutton colliery and ended up at Welbeck colliery in north Notts. I did not need an alarm clock to get up to go to work on a day shift—I could hear my dad’s alarm clock going off. He would wake up and he would get me up, and he would take me to Sutton colliery, where we would do a shift together.

Most sons are proud to follow their dads into the workplace, and it was no different for me. I was very proud to follow my dad into the coalmine. I grew up in a coalmining community, where lads followed their dads into the pit—that was the norm. It was the best education I ever had, to be honest—better than any school or college—because it taught me how working-class people think. Those tough, hard men who worked down the pit were products of where they were born. If they had been born in a village like mine 60, 70, 80 or 90 years ago, there was a high chance that they would end up in a coalmine. Those men did incredibly dangerous jobs to put food on the table, pay the rent or a mortgage, and maybe, if they were lucky, get a week in a caravan in Skegness once a year. That was our life.

Mining was more than just a job. The miners did not stop turning coal once they left the pit, had a bath and went home—they would still be talking about it in the miners’ welfare at night-time, or at a football match on a Saturday. It was just a way of life that was bred into the mining communities. There will be ex-miners watching the debate who will know exactly what I am talking about when I say that the experience of working at a pit was different from working in any other industry. There was the smell of the pit head bath, which I can still smell now; the sound of laughter in the bath as hundreds of men stood there naked, washing each other’s backs to scrub away the coaldust, the dirt and the grime; and the feeling of your ears popping as you went through the air doors to reach shaft side, before you went underground. What ex-miners really remember is the danger, the noise and the heat, and the sense of unity they had with their fellow working miners. It is the sort of unity we see now among the ex-miners who are still here, fighting for a fairer deal under both pension schemes.

I started in the pit a year after the miners’ strike of 1984-85. My dad had been a striking miner. He was on strike because he knew that closing the pits would kill communities. He was right, and 40 years later, we are still recovering. It was the fault of politicians and union leaders that communities were divided. They killed an industry that had served us well in this country. Some men, like my dad, went on strike and others worked. Looking back, I have no problem with either group. I knew men in South Yorkshire who wanted to work but were too scared to go to work, and likewise I knew men in Nottinghamshire who wanted to go on strike, but they thought it was pointless—and it was pointless. Communities of decent, hard-working miners were ripped apart because they were being used by people in high places, who had personal scores to settle. Well, we have politicians and people in high places now who have the chance to make amends for this injustice.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I commend the hon. Member for Ashfield (Lee Anderson) on securing the debate. I think it is the third time that he has brought the issue before the House, and I congratulate him on that. The issue is a matter of basic dignity and fair play, because this is about the miners’ own money, paid in from hard, back-breaking labour. Does he agree that the Minister must commit to scrapping the outdated 50:50 split entirely, and ensure that 100% of future surpluses go directly into the pockets of those elderly pensioners and their widows, some of whom live in my constituency of Strangford, so that absolute, total pension justice can finally be delivered?

[Lee Anderson]

It is heart-warming to know that former miners are living out their final years in the hon. Gentleman’s constituency. He is quite right; they need to live in dignity, and a fairer surplus sharing agreement would allow them to live a more comfortable life. Let us not forget that once they get the extra money, they will spend it in the local community.

I have to give credit to the Government for the investment reserve fund for both schemes. They made a promise, and they stuck to it—fair play. But we must battle on to get more justice for the miners, because they deserve it for the service that they have given to our great country.

Human Rights: Supply Chains

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Thursday 18th June 2026 Westminster Hall

[Bambos Charalambous (Southgate and Wood Green) (Lab)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the matter of safeguarding human rights in supply chains.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Dowd, particularly as you had such short notice. Globalisation and technological advances over the last few years have given us the ability to better connect across the world and improved our ability to trade globally. With increased connectivity comes increased awareness of issues and events around the world, and one issue that that increased awareness has brought into sharp focus is human rights in our country’s supply chains. From the Boohoo scandal, involving the exploitation of workers paid £3.50 an hour in a factory in Leicester, to the Bangladesh sweatshops making our clothes, to state-imposed forced labour for the Uyghur community in China, we have never been more aware of the need to ensure that our supply chains do not involve human rights violations and the exploitation of workers at home and abroad.

Supply chains run our daily lives, but the uncertainty over where many of our daily products originate and whether they have been produced through forced labour and in inhumane conditions has wide-ranging ethical and national security implications. Here is an example to illustrate the point. This morning, a nurse in the UK woke up to prepare for her NHS shift. She wears a cotton uniform, the fibres of which were produced with Uyghur forced labour. For breakfast, she eats a banana grown by workers facing union-busting in Costa Rica. She checks her smartphone, built with cobalt mined by children in the Democratic Republic of the Congo. She makes her journey to work in a car fuelled by petrol from companies linked to threats against environmental defenders and indigenous communities in Nigeria. At hospital, she puts on gloves made in a union-busting factory in Sri Lanka, under lights powered by solar panels made with Uyghur forced labour in China, and uses surgical tools linked to child labour in Pakistan. On her break, she gets a cup of tea with a biscuit containing palm oil from Indonesia, where communities and forests have been swept away to be replaced with palm oil plantations.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

First, Mr Dowd, I commend you for taking the Chair and saving the debate. It is said that you never go home, so perhaps that is why you were able to get here.

I thank the hon. Member for Southgate and Wood Green (Bambos Charalambous) for securing this incredibly important debate. He has outlined a number of countries where the problems are acute, but does he agree that China is the worst of all? Its abuses—of human rights in particular—are on an industrial scale. Some 70 million Christians are abused in terms of their human rights, including their right to believe, as are millions of Uyghur Muslims and between 7 million and 20 million Falun Gong. China must be taken to task. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that, in summing up the debate, the Minister needs to outline a number of methods to take China on? It has done some 13.75 million forced-labour transactions, and it is time for those to stop.

[Bambos Charalambous]

The hon. Gentleman makes an excellent point. I am sure many colleagues in the Chamber will focus on the Uyghurs in their contributions, but he is right to highlight the abuse in China and the need to address it.

That is the reality in UK supply chains: these products, which we use every day, are integrated into our lives. We need legislation to fix that, to prevent the abuse of human rights and the degradation of the environment.

Steel Tariffs

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Wednesday 17th June 2026 Commons Chamber

[Chris McDonald]

Perhaps I could address the point about the phrase “could be made”, which I think is at the nub of what the hon. Member is saying. The issue here is latent capacity in the UK. Some of that steel could be made at an existing steel plant that stretches its product range, but that is not the primary concern for me. This is about latent capacity, which is where we have steel capabilities in the UK that are not operating due to unfair competition from overseas. Fundamentally, we have to make a decision to correct a market failure to ensure that those businesses are investable for the private sector and are profitable, can operate, and can deliver those products to the market.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

The Minister will be aware that Northern Ireland operates a dual market economy, relying on the same supply base in GB and the Republic Ireland for structural steel sections. GB buyers are aggressively competing for the same limited pool of steel, making steel sourced from GB or imported directly from Northern Ireland substantially more expensive. How can the Minister ensure that Northern Ireland has access to safe and affordable steel when the odds are clearly stacked against us?

[Chris McDonald]

I want to reassure the hon. Member that I am concerned about the issue in Northern Ireland. In fact, just this morning I had a discussion about this with Short Brothers—I know he is a strong advocate of that business in this House—and I am giving careful consideration to the impact on Northern Ireland.

Bills Presented

Infants, Parents and Carers Bill

Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)

Sir Desmond Swayne presented a Bill to make provision about support for infants, parents and carers of infants, and prospective parents and carers, including provision relating to assessment of needs and to reporting requirements relating to such support; and for connected purposes.

Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 4 September, and to be printed (Bill 13).

Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill

Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)

Lauren Edwards, supported by Kit Malthouse, Mr Peter Bedford, Josh Babarinde, Andrew George, Kim Leadbeater, Peter Prinsley, Dr Simon Opher, Jess Phillips, Dr Marie Tidball, Siân Berry and Liz Saville Roberts, presented a Bill to allow adults who are terminally ill, subject to safeguards and protections, to request and be provided with assistance to end their own life; and for connected purposes.

Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 11 September, and to be printed (Bill 14).

Heritage Public Houses Bill

Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)

Mike Wood presented a Bill to require local authorities to maintain a register of heritage public houses in their area and to make provision in connection with the compilation and maintenance of such registers; to make provision relating to planning applications in respect of public houses on such a register; to make provision about the listing of heritage public houses; to make further provision relating to heritage public houses; and for connected purposes.

Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 16 October, and to be printed (Bill 15).

Homes and Planning Bill

Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)

Andrew George, supported by Mr Clive Betts, Gideon Amos, Hannah Spencer, Mr Lee Dillon, Caroline Voaden, Ben Maguire, Steve Darling, Grahame Morris and Steff Aquarone, presented a Bill to make provision about the availability of social, affordable, and intermediate market homes; to make provision about the powers of local authorities and local planning authorities in relation to homes and planning; to make further provision in relation to homes and planning; and for connected purposes.

Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 13 November, and to be printed (Bill 16).

First Cousins (Prohibited Relationships) Bill

Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)

Dr Luke Evans, supported by Mr Richard Holden, Claire Coutinho and Mrs Kemi Badenoch, presented a Bill to prohibit the marriage of first cousins; to prohibit civil partnerships between first cousins; to prohibit sexual activity between first cousins; and for connected purposes.

Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 15 January 2027, and to be printed (Bill 17).

Strategic Litigation Against Public Participation (No. 2) Bill

Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)

Sir John Whittingdale, supported by Tom Tugendhat, Alex Sobel, Alicia Kearns, Damian Hinds, Gregory Stafford and Mims Davies, presented a Bill to make provision about the use of litigation to suppress freedom of speech.

Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 27 November, and to be printed (Bill 18).

Domestic Abuse Protection Orders (Amendment) Bill

Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)

Jessica Toale presented a Bill to make provision about domestic abuse protection orders; and for connected purposes.

Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 4 December, and to be printed (Bill 19).

Emergency and Life-saving Skills (Schools) Bill

Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)

Dr Neil Shastri-Hurst, supported by John Cooper, Bradley Thomas, Sarah Bool, Joe Robertson, Alison Griffiths, Lincoln Jopp and Rebecca Smith, presented a Bill to require the teaching in schools of skills relating to emergency situations, including life-saving skills; and for connected purposes.

Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 16 October, and to be printed (Bill 20).

Ceramics (Country of Origin Marking) Bill

Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)

Gareth Snell, supported by Adam Jogee, Dame Karen Bradley, Leigh Ingham, Dave Robertson, David Williams and Dan Aldridge, presented a Bill to require the indication of country of origin for ceramic products; and for connected purposes.

Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 27 November, and to be printed (Bill 21).

Northern Ireland Troubles (Criminal Investigations etc) Bill

Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)

Lewis Cocking, on behalf of Lincoln Jopp, supported by David Davis, Alex Burghart, James Cartlidge, Nick Timothy, Mr Mark Francois, Jim Shannon, Ian Roome, John Cooper, Dr Neil Shastri-Hurst and Katie Lam, presented a Bill to require the Secretary of State to publish proposals relating to the circumstances in which new criminal investigations, prosecutions, inquests or inquiries in respect of Troubles-related conduct carried out in Northern Ireland may be commenced; and for connected purposes.

Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 4 September, and to be printed (Bill 22).

Fireworks Bill

Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)

Patricia Ferguson, supported by Sarah Owen, Kirsteen Sullivan, Alberto Costa, Douglas McAllister, Martin Rhodes, Dave Doogan, John Grady, Dr Zubir Ahmed, Susan Murray, Maureen Burke and Tracy Gilbert, presented a Bill to make provision about fireworks; and for connected purposes.

Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 4 December, and to be printed (Bill 23).

Group-based Child Sexual Offences (Mandatory Life Sentences) Bill

Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)

Robert Jenrick, supported by Nigel Farage, Richard Tice, Lee Anderson, Sara Pochin, Danny Kruger, Andrew Rosindell and Suella Braverman, presented a Bill to make provision about the sentencing of offenders convicted of serious sexual crimes against children committed as part of a group; to require that whole life orders are the starting point for adult offenders; to require minimum terms for young adult and child offenders; and for connected purposes.

Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 29 January 2027, and to be printed (Bill 24).

Automated Online Software (Access and Transparency) Bill

Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)

Damian Hinds, supported by Alex Davies-Jones, Sir John Whittingdale, Pete Wishart, Liz Jarvis, Mr Bayo Alaba, Dame Caroline Dinenage, Simon Hoare, Jeff Smith and Vicky Foxcroft, presented a Bill to make provision about the registration of operators of specified automated online software; to make provision about duties on those operators with regard to the functions of that software, including in relation to accessing online material published by persons other than the operator; and for connected purposes.

Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 16 October, and to be printed (Bill 25).

Relationships and Sex Education (Further Education Sector) Bill

Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)

Alistair Strathern presented a Bill to make provision about relationships and sex education in the further education sector.

Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 4 December, and to be printed (Bill 26).

Cancer (Reporting and Strategy) Bill

Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)

Clive Jones, supported by Dr Scott Arthur, Helen Morgan, Mary Kelly Foy, Helen Maguire, Lee Pitcher, Charlie Maynard, Cameron Thomas, Mr Will Forster, Adam Jogee, Christine Jardine and Vikki Slade, presented a Bill to require the Secretary of State to report annually to Parliament on performance in relation to specified targets and measures relating to cancer and to the prevention, diagnosis and treatment of cancer; to require the Government to publish a strategy for improving cancer outcomes; and for connected purposes.

Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 13 November, and to be printed (Bill 27).

Planning (Solar Power Generation) Bill

Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)

Victoria Atkins presented a Bill to make provision about the granting of planning permission and development consent in respect of the building or installation of provision for solar power generation on agricultural land; and for connected purposes.

Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 15 January 2027, and to be printed (Bill 28).

Child-like Sexual Abuse Dolls (Offences) Bill

Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)

Munira Wilson, supported by Alex Davies-Jones, Dame Karen Bradley, Max Wilkinson, Jess Phillips, Damian Hinds, Jess Brown-Fuller and Marie Goldman, presented a Bill to make certain acts involving child-like sexual abuse dolls an offence; to make provision for the seizure and forfeiture of such items; and for connected purposes.

Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 4 September, and to be printed (Bill 29).

Coastal Communities (Health) Bill

Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)

Steff Aquarone, supported by Edward Morello, Andrew George, Rachel Gilmour, Caroline Voaden and Richard Foord, presented a Bill to require the Secretary of State, in exercising functions in relation to the health service, to have regard to the need to reduce inequalities between people in coastal and inland areas; to require the Secretary of State to prepare and publish a strategy for improving the health and wellbeing of coastal communities and for reducing health inequalities between people in coastal and inland areas; to require the Secretary of State to report annually to Parliament on the implementation of that strategy; and for connected purposes.

Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 13 November, and to be printed (Bill 30).

Hospice Funding Bill

Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)

Mr Paul Foster presented a Bill to require the Secretary of State to publish proposals relating to the funding by integrated care boards of medicines and pharmacy services for patients in hospices; and for connected purposes.

Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 27 November, and to be printed (Bill 31).

Work Experience (Schools) Bill

Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)

David Pinto-Duschinsky presented a Bill to make provision about work experience for pupils in secondary education.

Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 4 December, and to be printed (Bill 32).

Steel Industry (Nationalisation) Bill

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Committee of the whole House
Monday 8th June 2026 Commons Chamber

[Chris McDonald]

Indeed, Madam Chair—I was banking on 10 o’clock.

I thank all Members, including the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for West Worcestershire (Dame Harriett Baldwin); the Liberal Democrat Front-Bench spokesman, the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Sarah Olney); and the former leader of Reform, the hon. Member for Boston and Skegness (Richard Tice), for the extremely constructive and civil way in which this debate has been conducted. I know that that comes from a real enthusiasm among all Members in the Committee for having a successful steel industry.

In fact, there were many points of agreement in the debate. In debating the amendments to the first part of the Bill, the importance of the steel industry came through extremely strongly, as did the importance and reliability of the use of public money. We all share that view across this Committee, and we also want there to be extreme care in the use of the powers in the Bill. I know that Members who moved amendments in that regard are concerned about that, and the Government are too. I will address some of those points, and I will endeavour to address some of the points raised by Members during the debate. I will start by addressing a recurring theme in the debate: what nationalisation is.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I am thrilled that the Minister has until 10 o’clock to speak—if you are agreeable, Madam Chair, we will have lots of interventions. The issue is not whether people agree with the nationalisation of the steel sector, so we can set that aside; the issue is whether we will have a steel manufacturing sector that can produce steel for all the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. We in Northern Ireland need the steel from here, and we need it for our defence sector, which is really important. Just before Christmas, my pastor in my church told me, “There are 69 wars in the world.” We have to be prepared for the world wars we are going to have to fight. We need a steel sector to do that, and what the Minister has put forward is a justification for it.

[Chris McDonald]

The hon. Gentleman is quite right. The steel sector is vital for our national security and our infrastructure and construction industries throughout the whole of the United Kingdom, including in Northern Ireland. He speaks very well about that.

Nationalisation or national ownership is not an objective in and of itself; it is simply a pragmatic tool of industrial strategy that can be deployed with care in order to achieve legitimate aims of Government. If we think about some of the nationalisations of the past, it may be that some of those were driven by the pragmatic use of industrial strategy, and it may be that some were driven by ideology. In general, the way that the nationalisation of a business works is that the Government intervene when a business is in distress or is no longer viable but is important. Those businesses are returned to the private sector only once they are successful.

Contrary to the narrative that is often peddled about public ownership, the purpose of public ownership is to pick up businesses when there is a market failure or where a private sector operator is unable to continue. We have seen that in other instances, such as in the railway industry. I see nationalisation simply as a useful and pragmatic tool of industrial strategy.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris McDonald]

I thank my hon. Friend for making that point. He is right that we should welcome that 50% of UK steel will be made in Wales. We talk about Port Talbot specifically, but 7 Steel’s plant has operated incredibly well for so long, making the rebar steels that are essential for our construction industry in the United Kingdom, as well as in Ireland, which 7 Steel supplies, too. Long may that continue. I am sure that the investment will help with that.

The right hon. and learned Member for Kenilworth and Southam (Sir Jeremy Wright) raised a number of concerns, such as the operation of the Bill, its powers, public money and so on. He made a comparison with the Banking Act 2009, and he is right that I have made great play about the similarity between this Bill and that Act. I reassure Members that, having passed the Banking Act to great acclaim, this Bill is following its path, and we made a positive decision to do that.

The right hon. and learned Gentleman mentioned the requirement in the Banking Act for the Chancellor of the Exchequer, I believe, to consult with the Prudential Regulatory Authority, the Financial Conduct Authority and the Bank of England, and how a consultation requirement is not in the Bill. He is right to point that out, but these are different industries. The banking industry is highly regulated, and there are statutory bodies that require consultation. There is no opportunity to replicate that in the steel sector, because there are no such statutory bodies. He rightly made the point that it is important that we engage on the detail in Committee, and I thank him for raising that point and giving me the opportunity to respond.

[Jim Shannon]

The Minister quickly and helpfully responded to my earlier intervention, and he will be well aware of the economic position of Northern Ireland due to the Windsor framework. Should the Bill go forward, the Government must provide a cast-iron guarantee that the nationalisation and supply chain structures outlined in this Bill will operate seamlessly. Can he give us a guarantee that that will happen and that Northern Ireland will not be disadvantaged by any new tariffs or tariffs that are already in place?

[Chris McDonald]

From the Government’s perspective, there is certainly no intention to disadvantage Northern Ireland. The unique position that Northern Ireland holds is enabling it to attract additional investment above and beyond. In fact, the economic growth rate in Northern Ireland is incredibly impressive, and I look forward to seeing that when I visit in two or three weeks’ time.

Having addressed the amendments, I will move on to some of the new clauses. First, I acknowledge the incredibly constructive dialogue I have had with the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Sarah Olney) in preparing for the Bill and the tabling of her amendments. New clause 2 would place a requirement on the Secretary of State to consult an advisory committee as part of his decision-making process. The Government agree with the sentiment—we have had wide consultation with stakeholders—but there is a practical reality and in particular a commercial consideration for the exercise of the Bill’s powers. It is therefore not possible for us to accept that new clause.

New clause 3 relates to the detail of a jobs and industrial transition strategy, which my hon. Friend the Member for Newton Aycliffe and Spennymoor asked a specific question about. I reassure Parliament that from a skills perspective, the Government will assess any impacts of a transfer on jobs, skills and local communities. In fact, that is an incredibly important part of why we would seek to intervene at all. Following an acquisition, the company’s objectives will be published as part of the shareholder framework document.

Finally, I will move on to new clause 5. Again, this issue was mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Newton Aycliffe and Spennymoor, and it also comes back to where I started the discussion about the nature of a nationalisation. While the Government in this situation would own a steel undertaking, and as the main shareholder in the business would have the opportunity to set the direction and appropriate strategic objectives, it is not the Government’s aim that the steel companies would then become an extension of the civil service, as amazing as my civil servants are. Instead, steel undertakings should be run by those who are knowledgeable and skilled in the industry, as we have seen at Sheffield Forgemasters and, as we heard, at the semiconductor factory at Octric.

Having covered the amendments and the new clauses, and perhaps tried the patience of the Committee to a great extent, it would be wise to conclude. I point out to hon. and right hon. Members that there is an additional day of debate on the Floor of the House on this Bill tomorrow. Rather than me standing here and talking to myself for six hours, they would be most welcome to come back then. If I have addressed their points sufficiently, perhaps some of those who have tabled amendments may see fit not to press them to Divisions, but otherwise, I feel I have addressed the points sufficiently for now.

High Street Businesses: Government Support

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Thursday 4th June 2026 Westminster Hall

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

It is a real pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Lewell. I congratulate the hon. Member for Didcot and Wantage (Olly Glover) on securing the debate, setting the scene and giving us all a chance to participate.

In Northern Ireland, the future of our high streets is of great concern. We have seen some of the steepest falls in footfall on our high streets compared with the rest of the United Kingdom. Six or seven years ago we would not see an empty shop front in Newtownards; now there are 10 or 11. Owners have retired from family firms and been unable to get someone to take over. I saw in the paper the other day that businesses are closing and people cannot sell their businesses. Perhaps, Minister, there is something to be done to encourage people who want to have a business on the high street but are unable to.

There used to be 11 butchers in Newtownards town, but now there are two. That is because of changing habits: all the big stores now have a butcher’s counter—they have a cabinet—and purchasing is done differently. The Minister and the Government are not responsible for certain things, but something can be done for those who want to open a shop.

All four UK nations record year-on-year declines in footfall, which is a reminder of the economic pressures on our high street shops, some of which are forced into administration. Our high streets have been hit hard by the cost of living crisis, both directly as a result of their costs going up, and because footfall has decreased due to the effects of the crisis on potential customers. Smaller independent retailers made up 84% of all closures in 2024; that shows the effects of decreased footfall and increasing costs.

As an increasing number of shoppers use contactless payments, businesses are suffering, with increased amounts of their revenues going to payment providers. Shops processing £10,000 a week in card payments are paying around £13,000 a year in fees, and there has been a big increase in credit card payments. The Government have no say in that, but could contact be made with credit card companies to ensure that they drive down their charges? That might help a bit. To put that figure into perspective, it could cover several months of rent or the salary of a part-time staff member. These costs are one of the reasons why high street businesses are not employing new staff—they have to cut back somewhere.

Crime and antisocial behaviour leave high street firms facing extra expenses for security measures, insurance, replacing stolen or damaged stock, getting CCTV and establishing contact systems with local police. Larger retailers are not unaffected, with retailers such as Claire’s Accessories, Poundland and River Island announcing closures. Even charity shops such as Cancer Research UK are on the list.

Large banks are also affected, the impact of which cannot be overlooked, as their branches act as an anchor, driving foot traffic to surrounding high street shops. Eleven banks have closed in my constituency. We have been able to get banking hubs to fill in the gaps, and there are post offices in nearly every Spar shop down the Ards peninsula, so there are ways of addressing this. Fewer people are visiting town centres, leading to high street decline. The combination of higher running costs and less disposable income has led to more and more vacant premises.

A considerable factor in this decline is the rise of online shopping, which again relates to the people’s habits. It poses a particular concern to smaller enterprises, which are unsupported when it comes to e-commerce and accessing the necessary technology. Consumers should be encouraged to consider the fact that online shopping cannot replace the experience of face-to-face contact with retailers and the opportunity to see, touch and assess products themselves.

We are very fortunate in Newtownards, the main shopping town in my Strangford constituency, to still have many family shops—I think of Knotts, Wardens and many clothes shops that are family firms as well. Consumers’ ability to make more informed choices will contribute to the creation of a more loyal and consistent customer base for our high street shops. Retail parks and larger shopping centres have fewer economic pressures because they have the car parks. Sometimes the car parks in towns charge fees, which by their very nature create issues.

In conclusion, I endorse all the recommendations made by the hon. Member for Didcot and Wantage. There are some really good ideas that would help each and every one of us, including our constituents. The Government’s aim should be to create a more resilient high street that can survive as well as thrive long term. We look to the Minister so that the high street can be supported for our customers and shopkeepers.

General Strike Centenary Commemorations

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Wednesday 3rd June 2026 Commons Chamber

[Laurence Turner]

I agree with my hon. Friend, and it is only right to say that he, through his role on the GMB executive and as one of the delegates to the national policy forum in opposition, was one of the people who helped draw up the reforms to employment rights that have been passed by this Parliament.

The general strike raised profound questions about the proper balance of state power and the rights of dissenters at times of civil contingency, and we should ask them again and with urgency in each generation. It is difficult to capture the essence of the world that created the strike: the depths of poverty in the older mining districts; the extreme social control exercised by employers in the villages put up around the more lucrative and newly exploited seams; and the critical dependence of the nation’s economy upon a coal industry that killed one in 1,000 of its workers each year and seriously wounded one in 10.

When working people rallied across occupational boundaries to defend the miners in 1926, they showed extraordinary solidarity, and their unions channelled national power to a degree perhaps unseen before, even if they were unsteady in exercising it and uncertain of its limits.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I commend the hon. Gentleman on bringing this debate forward. I spoke to him beforehand to ascertain his focus, and I will outline my focus and why I wished to be here. I remember when I went for my first job, which was at Henry Denny & Sons in Belfast. The manager brought me in and said, “Jim, here’s the job, but now you have to join the union.” When I heard that, I said, “Oh, but I don’t think I want to join the union.” He said, “No, you have to.” Here is the reason why that is important. I joined my union, and my union fought my corner when I was with Henry Denny’s. I realised then the impact and importance of being a union member. I was glad to be a member of that union, which helped me on many occasions.

The 1926 strike set the scene in stone for me when I joined Henry Denny’s, but the strike is more than that. Does the hon. Member agree that workers’ rights have evolved at pace and that the determination to ensure that people are paid a fair wage for a fair job is a foundational principle in every area of this great United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland?

[Laurence Turner]

I thank the hon. Member for his intervention, and I truly welcome the cross-party support he has demonstrated for the principle of trade unionism and for workers’ rights. It is only fair to note that right now, additional enhanced employment rights are being considered in Northern Ireland, as well as in the rest of the United Kingdom.

In interpreting the general strike, it is important to note that union members were, as they remain, fiercely defensive of the independence of their individual organisations, and those factors militated against planning for the national confrontation that fell upon them. Ranged against the unions were a Government determined not to repeat the humiliation of the so-called red Friday a year before and whose preparations had been meticulous over the nine months that followed.

Seasonal Hospitality Businesses in Coastal Areas

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Wednesday 3rd June 2026 Westminster Hall

[Rebecca Paul (Reigate) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stuart, and to be responding today on behalf of His Majesty’s Opposition. I begin by sincerely congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight East (Joe Robertson) on securing this debate, and I thank all Members who have spoken so passionately about their constituencies.

As my hon. Friend is well aware, hospitality is far from just another part of the economic picture in coastal Britain; in many coastal towns, it is the local economy. Whether the café on the seafront, the family-run hotel, the pub overlooking the harbour, the fish and chip shop or the restaurant by the beach, these are businesses that come to life when the sun comes out and, more often than not in this country, even when it does not.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I can testify that, for Northern Ireland, cost increases have forced almost 90% of hospitality businesses, many of which are found on our coastlines, to operate at below 90% of the required capacity. Tax rises have forced 50% of hospitality businesses to cut their workforces, and 68% have had to increase their prices, limiting the growth of this sector. Does the hon. Lady agree that the Government must step in? Wherever we are in the United Kingdom, we are all under pressure.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kate Dearden]

I am always happy to meet my hon. Friend and his brilliant local businesses. I thank him for his intervention.

I regularly meet local businesses from across the hospitality sector, and I hear at first hand about the pressures that seasonal and coastal operators face. I recognise the importance of hospitality businesses in our coastal communities. I have been delighted to meet many hon. Friends representing coastal towns and cities to understand the challenges that hospitality and leisure businesses in their constituencies and across the UK face.

I recently spent the day visiting Blackpool with my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool South (Chris Webb) to meet business owners, workers and residents who have come together to extend their peak season and reduce the structural issues of operating seasonally. Visiting in April came with a breeze, but that was never going to stop the magic of going up Blackpool tower, having delicious fish and chips and talking all things hospitality. I thank my hon. Friend for his hospitality on that day. It was particularly useful to meet those leading Blackpool’s tourism sector who are using hospitality as a launch pad for social mobility, high-quality employment and local regeneration.

It is clear, both in Blackpool and across the UK, that future-proofing our coastal communities is only possible by developing those strong partnerships between public, private and third sector organisations. I have taken the learnings from meetings with colleagues and from contributions to the debate, and I will continue to do so with my colleagues across Government. I assure hon. Members that I will work with them and their communities to continue to deliver for coastal towns and communities.

I thank hon. Members for raising the issue of business rates with me on numerous occasions on behalf of businesses in their constituencies. Members will know that we have introduced permanently lower business rates multipliers for eligible retail, hospitality and leisure properties. I know that the Conservative party put temporary relief in place, so it is right that we give businesses permanent relief. We did not think that was right, which is why we stepped in and made our announcements. In addition, we have provided support to pubs and live music venues.

[Jim Shannon]

I thank the Minister for her replies to all our questions. We need to encourage more people from the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to take home holidays. Looking at all the problems across the world, we should encourage our own people to have their holidays at home. Does the Minister think that that is a good idea?

[Kate Dearden]

I am always happy to hear suggestions of how we can do things better and raise awareness of the support that is available. I am really happy to take the hon. Gentleman’s points on board, and I thank him for them.

We will ensure that the business rates system better reflects the realities faced by businesses in the visitor economy. As part of that, the Government are committed to reviewing the methodologies used to value pubs and hotels and will, if necessary, make changes at the next revaluation to ensure valuations accurately reflect the rental market for these properties. Unfortunately, the Conservative party did not take that approach, but we will. We have worked with businesses since we came into government, and will do so in the coming years, to get that right.

On labour costs and workforce models, I recognise the concerns about the potential impact of changes to employment rights on businesses that rely on seasonal and flexible staffing. We have talked about that topic at length, and I thank the shadow Minister for raising it today. It is important that we get the balance right to support workers while ensuring that businesses can continue to operate and create opportunities, which is why we will consult closely with businesses, trade unions and workers over the coming months to understand the impacts in full.

I recognise the strength of feeling a number of hon. Members expressed on such proposals as the overnight visitor levy. As they will know, those powers have been devolved to local metro mayors, and although many have already clarified how they plan to use them, all measures that may be introduced will be subject to consultation with local stakeholders, including hospitality and leisure business owners and advocacy groups.

Members will know about the wider support measures the Government are taking, from our small business strategy to make sure that we create the conditions for short-term resilience and long-term growth, to raising the employment allowance, replacing the apprenticeship levy with the new growth and skills levy, tackling late payments and reviewing the licensing system, alongside our upcoming high street strategy.

Processed Russian Oil Products: Sanctions

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Wednesday 20th May 2026 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

That brings us to Jim Shannon.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I would hate to be deprived of a question. I thank the Minister very much for his sincere and helpful answers. May I say this gently to him? Many of us believe that there is a very clear solution to this problem. If this Government want true energy security, then instead of forcing British businesses to navigate complex legal loopholes in order to import foreign energy, and instead of pressing ahead, through the energy independence Bill, with a permanent ban on our using our own resources, they must scrap the ideological roadblocks, approve crucial domestic projects, such as development of the Rosebank and Jackdaw oil and gas fields, and unleash the full potential of British North sea production. Will the Minister please discuss that with Cabinet members, and demand that common sense and energy security be prioritised over what any single Government Minister says on the subject?

[Chris Bryant]

All roads lead to the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), Mr Speaker; certainly, all urgent questions do. I was not here for the debate yesterday because I was in Strasbourg, but I feel as if I am hearing some of what was rehearsed then, and I do not want to repeat the arguments. I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman’s comments about my sincerity on this. The only point I would make to him is that I am desperate to make sure that the Ukrainian people are able to assert their freedom and defeat Putin. We will do everything in our power to secure that outcome.

Backing Business to Create Economic Growth

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Monday 18th May 2026 Commons Chamber

[Peter Kyle]

The right hon. Gentleman knows full well the commitment that I personally have to Northern Ireland and its economic success. All the issues related to national resilience are things that we have to consider at this moment in time, unlike any other moment in time in peacetime. They are issues that I look at very closely, and in the days and weeks ahead I shall be talking a great deal more about how we can support industry and business across Northern Ireland.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I commend the Secretary of State for what he is saying. I know he is a regular visitor to Northern Ireland because he loves the country, and we appreciate that.

According to the Federation of Small Businesses in Northern Ireland, more than half the enterprises trading between Great Britain and Northern Ireland face severe friction, with more than a third halting trade entirely. Can the Secretary of State explain explicitly how the proposed regulating for growth Bill will help? I know he is committed to it, so let us hear what he has to say.

[Peter Kyle]

I have been aware of those issues from opposition into government. Of course, rebuilding the relationship with the European Union is also partly about smoothing that barrier across the Irish sea, and we will continue to do so.

We are building the critical national economic infrastructure that the Conservative party consistently failed to deliver, on runways, reservoirs and railways. Just as we are modernising Britain’s critical economic infrastructure, we are maximising Britain’s industrial strength by delivering our modern industrial strategy. Written for business with business, our strategy creates the right conditions for business to succeed. Since its publication, we have been tackling the high costs of energy. Our supercharger saves firms hundreds of millions of pounds every year, and our British industrial competitiveness scheme will help more than 10,000 eligible manufacturing businesses, saving them up to £40 per megawatt hour from next April. I am very aware of challenges faced by the ceramics sector; I will meet representatives of the sector tomorrow to discuss how the Government might be able to support it, and I hope to be able to say more about that very soon.

To cut the red tape that is holding back British businesses we are ending mandatory strategic reports for medium-sized companies and ending directors’ reports for businesses of all sizes, saving firms £230 million each and every year. We are stripping out unnecessary rules and regulations. Through the regulating for growth Bill, announced in the King’s Speech, we will create regulatory sandboxes—economic growth laboratories where innovators can trial cutting-edge technologies safely and speedily.

Whereas the Conservatives, with their destructive ideology of deliberate de-industrialisation—from monetarist Thatcherism to Brexit isolationism—drove British manufacturing businesses to the wall and destroyed the jobs that depend on them, this Government are determined to maximise the UK’s competitive advantage, not just through reindustrialisation, though that is necessary, but through new industrialisation in advanced manufacturing, clean energy, artificial intelligence and new technology. That is why we have rolled out new AI growth zones and confirmed the site of the UK’s first small modular reactor—a milestone in the journey to becoming a clean energy superpower.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Mel Stride]

I do indeed. I have been up to Aberdeen, met my hon. Friend and heard at first hand about the economic effect this is having. It is utter madness. If we have an opportunity in government, we will put that right.

I have already mentioned benefits. There was nothing of any substance about welfare in this King’s Speech. There was nothing about the defence investment plan. Where is it? It was promised back in September.

Then we have the regulating for growth Bill—an oxymoron if ever there was one. “Regulating for growth” says all we need to know about this Labour Government. They know nothing about the economy, nothing about job creation and nothing about businesses.

[Jim Shannon]

Will the shadow Minister give way?

[Sir Mel Stride]

Briefly.

[Jim Shannon]

I thank the shadow Minister for what he is saying. Does he share my concern, and the concerns of probably many in this House, that small and medium-sized businesses will suffer more than most? The figures for Northern Ireland indicate that between 85% and 89% of the job creators there are small businesses. Northern Ireland needs something special from this Government. Does he see something special coming, or are we just wondering what is going to happen?

[Sir Mel Stride]

I am afraid that what I see coming is what is already baked in: business rates going through the roof. In some cases, small businesses on our high streets are facing 140% increases in the amount they have to pay in business rates.

Conservative Members believe in enterprise, opportunity, aspiration and markets. We believe in risk takers, in people who work hard, and in people who get up early in the morning and do the right thing—go out and create wealth, create jobs and grow our economy. Because of that, at our last conference we set out £47 billion-worth of savings, predominantly—£23 billion—on the welfare budget. With that we could do two wonderful things: first, we could start to bear down on the deficit and get on top of the debt, which is out of control under this Government; and secondly, we could get taxes down, particularly on the productive parts of the economy. We therefore announced the abolition of stamp duty and a tax cut for young people.

There is more in our alternative King’s Speech: a Bill to back our high streets and cut business rates for a quarter of a million of our high street businesses; a get Britain working Bill to reverse the damage done by the Employment Rights Act; a reducing bureaucracy Bill to remove the mountain of environmental, social and governance regulations; a save British industry Bill to get rid of the Climate Change Act 2008 and abolish the zero emission vehicle mandate; a cheap energy Bill to get rid of renewables subsidies and bring down bills for households and businesses; a getting Britain drilling Bill to reinvigorate our North sea oil and gas industry, creating jobs and boosting our exports; and a welfare reform Bill to get the benefits bill under control and restore the two-child cap. That is the serious plan that our economy needs. That is the plan to back our businesses and deliver growth. That is a Conservative plan for a better Britain.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jim Shannon]

I know that my right hon. Friend attended the Balmoral show for four days, and that others did likewise. Does he agree that the agricultural sector, in particular, needs some help—not just in Northern Ireland, but across the whole of the United Kingdom—and that this Government do not seem to have a policy for farming? Does he agree that it is time that that was changed?

[Gavin Robinson]

The agricultural sector does need help, as do many other sectors besides. Just this day, I had a conversation with a lovely young gentleman—a 14-year-old student from Broxbourne in England. He is a secondary school student, and he told me about his school and his classmates. They live in a Conservative constituency, but last year in a mock election, the majority of pupils his age were not interested in this Government; they were putting their store in the Greens. I wonder just how often Members in this Chamber engage with real people and understand their concerns. [Interruption.] Labour Members laugh, but they were not laughing two weeks ago, and I suspect they will not continue laughing.

Earlier in this debate, I raised the issue of defence spending in Northern Ireland. Do Labour Members know that the average spend per head of population is £300, but in Northern Ireland, it has been a fifth of that? I asked whether this Government recognise that Programme Euston, which could see investment in both Scotland and Northern Ireland, could be designated as a defence project. Again, officialdom is reticent. When I served on the Defence Committee with Labour Members for eight years, we fought those campaigns together and secured investment, but now that they are in government, they buy the same official line. There are things we can do to encourage investment, business and economic growth, but I am sorry to say that I do not see them.

We have heard colleagues talk about stability in the economy. I want to see stability in Northern Ireland. The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland was in the Chamber earlier. We are now two months into a financial year with no budget. Where is the clamour? Where is the concern? Where is the effort to ensure that our politics can work and we can stimulate business and growth? That has not been mentioned, and it is not a concern.

Labour’s big idea is the relationship with the EU. It is a big idea that seems to ignore a referendum that took place in 2016—its Members do not want it mentioned. Forget about betraying the people of this country and a referendum that decided our fate 10 years ago; the bigger concern among Labour Members is betraying the aspirations of their candidates, with one candidate letting slip their view so that the king of the north is left with no clothes. And yet, on a closer relationship with the European Union, what do we hear for Northern Ireland? Nothing. All are still content that laws for Northern Ireland, applying in Northern Ireland, are set in Brussels; for two years, this Labour Government have dishonoured their own position and dishonoured the pledges they made to the people of Northern Ireland to fix it. Talk about a closer relationship with the European Union: in the coming months, customs duties on parcels to customers in Northern Ireland—

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.