Oil Refining Sector

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Thursday 11th December 2025 Westminster Hall

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

It is a real pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Western. I thank the hon. Member for Brigg and Immingham (Martin Vickers) for leading the debate. The very thrust of the issue that the hon. Member for Ashfield (Lee Anderson) underlined, and that I endorse, is how it changes communities whenever disastrous decisions are taken.

The future of the UK oil refining industry has become an increasingly urgent topic as we navigate the pressures of energy security and the transition to net zero. I should have welcomed the Minister to her position; I wish her well in it. I am not sure whether today’s is a good debate for her to be answering questions, but that is by the way—we will see how it all goes. We have seen the closure of two major oil refineries this year, so it is important that we are here to discuss the future of our fossil fuel sector across the United Kingdom.

This debate is important not just for the constituencies represented by, for example, the hon. Members for Alloa and Grangemouth (Brian Leishman) and for Falkirk (Euan Stainbank), but for us in Northern Ireland as well. Our oil came from Grangemouth and Lindsey, so the impact for us in Northern Ireland will be the same as it is for everybody else. The difference will be that we will not be getting oil from within the United Kingdom and will have to buy it from outside. That concerns me greatly.

I commend the Members who have spoken. In particular, I commend the hon. Member for Alloa and Grangemouth for his passion, which he always shows in the main Chamber and here in Westminster Hall. He puts forward his case incredibly well.

The UK’s oil-refining capacity has shrunk substantially over the past 20 years or so. As of 2023, total refining capacity stood at roughly 1.22 million barrels per day, and the UK produced around 51.45 million tonnes of refined petroleum products. Some people ask how this effects the workers. Many of us have constituents who work in the oilfields—I think nearly every constituency has them; I know I have them in Strangford—and this impacts on them as well. Northern Ireland does not have any operating crude oil refinery, and all refined fuels, such as petrol, diesel and jet fuel, are imported.

Historically, some of Northern Ireland’s fuel came from refineries across the rest of the UK, with the products shipped or piped to Northern Ireland terminals. For example, Petronas, which until 2025 operated the Grangemouth refinery, supplied almost all the fuel for Northern Ireland. We have witnessed the closure of two refineries, Grangemouth and Lindsey, and Members have outlined their concerns, whether they represent the area or are here to speak on behalf of others. There is no doubt about the significant impact on where we source fuel. Events in the wider UK refining sector, such as closures or capacity losses, will have knock-on effects on fuel security, price stability and supply chain resilience in Northern Ireland. The impact will be felt by us all.

We have witnesses the United Kingdom’s reliance on imports, and there has been a significant impact in terms of job losses, and the redundancy of engineers, technicians and maintenance workers. We also have to recognise the significant loss of skill and experience. Even if things were to change in time, those people will have moved elsewhere, so how do we start again? That is, if we are able to start again, of course.

Furthermore, the closure of refineries has an impact on associated industries such as petrochemical storage and marine freight. The impact is like a domino effect: one thing happens and it knocks on right down the line. With two large domestic refining assets having closed, the UK must now import more petrol and more diesel, which completely reduces our domestic control over fuel supplies.

I believe that we are doing our bit to improve our infrastructure and to adapt to net zero goals, but what does that mean in the meantime? I do not think anybody here does not believe that there is a role for net zero, for the green environment and for green energy, but we do not want to lose the core of our ability to produce oil for our own country. The United Kingdom’s commitment to net zero remains essential to protect the environment and for our long-term energy security, and to create new green industries. However, the recent closures of the refineries at Lindsey and Grangemouth show that the transition also brings real challenges for workers and local economies—for every economy right across this United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland—affecting all the regions and our overall industrial capacity.

The transition has to be carefully managed. It is the responsibility of the Minister and this Government to ensure that we are equipped to deal with the changes, for the benefit of everyone in this great United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. I always say that we are better together, but we have got to work together as well. We have to work together for everybody. That is what I ask the Minister: how can we make sure that we can all do it better together?

Budget Resolutions

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Monday 1st December 2025 Commons Chamber

[Ed Miliband]

Let me make a bit more progress. My second point is about public spending. In the spending review and the Budget, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor made the crucial decision not to return to austerity. She could have made a different choice and cut public services—I think that is what Conservative Members would go back to doing—but we know the impact of that approach from the last 14 years. This is about the living standards of millions of people across our country who cannot buy their way into private health care or private schools. This can be hidden by the smokescreen that Conservative Members want to put up, but the Chancellor has made the incredibly important decision to invest in the future. That has enabled the Government to cut NHS waiting lists by more than 200,000, roll out free breakfast clubs in schools, expand free school meals, fund the expansion of free childcare, and announce the biggest boost to investment in social and affordable housing in a generation. Conservative Members are back to austerity.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I thank the Secretary of State very much for what he is saying, but on the £150 energy dividend for people across the United Kingdom, the Red Book lacks detail about how the policy will work in Northern Ireland. Perhaps he could indicate whether the support will be £150 in Northern Ireland, as it will in England. We must ensure that people receive the same in Northern Ireland as they do on the mainland.

[Ed Miliband]

The hon. Gentleman asks an important question; let me write to him with the detail on his point. We want as many people as possible across our country to benefit from this policy. By making different choices from those made in the past, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor is able to invest in the long term. She is delivering the highest levels of public investment that this country has seen in four decades.

--- Later in debate ---

[Rushanara Ali]

I fully agree with my hon. Friend. That is why it is vital that we rebuild our public services and invest in our national health service, to ensure people are able to contribute to our economy.

We also inherited a mountain of debt, with the previous Conservative Government having borrowed £1.5 trillion between 2010 and 2024. The fact is that austerity, Brexit, covid and Tory economic mismanagement have left our economy in peril, and our constituents are suffering the consequences in the form of rising prices and flatlining wages. For the poorest and most disadvantaged, the cost of living crisis has been a daily struggle for years. The Trussell Trust distributed approximately 60,000 food parcels in the 2010-11 financial year. By 2024-25, the number had risen to 2.89 million. This is the poisoned inheritance that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor is tackling, so of course she had to make tough choices with the hand that she had been dealt.

The decisions made in this Labour Government’s second Budget to lift 450,000 children out of poverty, help families with the cost of living and enable record investment to be made in our NHS will help a great many children. In my constituency, the scrapping of the two-child cap will lift more than 6,000 children out of poverty.

[Jim Shannon]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

--- Later in debate ---

[Gavin Robinson (Belfast East) (DUP)]

It is a pleasure to participate in this Budget debate. I am reminded that in 2005, whenever Tony Blair was seeking re-election for an historic third term as Prime Minister, he celebrated the fact that this country had enjoyed 40 quartiles of economic growth. If anyone cares to think about that, they have to realise that that economic growth commenced two years before he commenced as Prime Minister. I say that because often in this Chamber all we get from our Government is complaints about what the Opposition could or should have done when they were in government, and an Opposition who chide the Government for some of the choices and pressure that they face. However, there are those of us in the Chamber—and, more importantly, in the country—who can look clearly at some of the economic challenges and missed opportunities.

It has been right in this debate that we have heard that a Government who promised not to raise tax on working people raised £40 billion in last year’s Budget. It is right to reflect that this year, having said that that was a one-off, £26 billion will be raised from this Budget. It is right to reflect on the pressure that that is putting on ordinary people up and down this country. It is right to reflect on the numbers who did not pay tax and who will pay tax—5 million additional taxpayers over the course of five years—and on middle earners in this country, 5 million more of whom will pay a higher rate of tax over those five years. Those are choices that the Government brought forth and that people in this country will have to pay for. This debate on the cost of living should lead to the same questions around threshold freezing or two-child limits.

[Jim Shannon]

In Northern Ireland we have 440,000 children, and 103,000 of them are in poverty. By abolishing the two-child cap, this Government have ensured that those 103,000 children will be lifted out of poverty. The potential is there to do that. Does my right hon. Friend agree that abolishing the two-child cap takes those children out of poverty and makes their lives better?

[Gavin Robinson]

As my hon. Friend knows, we have campaigned on the removal of the two-child limit. We did not agree with the limit; we do not think it is right, and we think it is immoral for families to be placed in that position. We opposed it when it was introduced, and we oppose it today.

When considering the cost of living, let us reflect on the fact that within two years—by 2027—the state pension will be taxed because of frozen thresholds? It will be taxed in 2027, 2028, 2029, 2030 and 2031 because of choices by this Government. We recognise that pensioners should be entitled to and need pension credit to supplement that, but if their sole income is the state pension, it will be taxed, unlike pension credit. That cannot be right, but it is what has been delivered through the freezing of thresholds.

I am happy to engage with the Northern Ireland Office—I am pleased to see the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland here—about some of the challenges that we face in Northern Ireland. I recognise the additional £370 million through Barnett consequentials, although that is not one year’s addition; it covers a period of years with but £2 million in one of those years. The Secretary of State knows that the challenge this year for our Executive is £400 million—that is the current pressure. What is the one thing missing from the Red Book’s section on Northern Ireland? It is any challenge to the Executive; it is any mention of the fiscal framework and those negotiations that need to take place.

I lament the fact that there was praise for our Minister for Finance in Northern Ireland last week, when he talked about the need for revenue raising in our Province but then went on to rule out every significant aspect of revenue raising. Politically, they are not in that space, yet we have to share power with them. That is wrong. I lament the fact that we have partners in government who say, “We need more fiscal devolution; we need more powers in Northern Ireland”, yet they have manifestly failed to use the powers at their disposal. That cannot continue, and I say that there is a role for national Government in those negotiations.

We welcome that there is a potential £150 of support for energy bills in households across this United Kingdom, but there is no detail in the Red Book—my hon. Friend the Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) asked the Secretary of State about that earlier, but he was unable to answer. This measure is coming in in April 2026, yet all we have is a notional offer from the Government to support the Executive in creating a system. Can we have confirmation as to whether annually managed expenditure will be made available to ensure that every household in Northern Ireland will be entitled to £150 on the same basis as in England and Wales? Will that extend to oil boilers? We heard about £130 for gas boilers, but 70% of homes in Northern Ireland are fuelled by crude oil.

I hope the Government will respond to those challenges today, because I do not want to be sitting in four or five months’ time with constituents in Northern Ireland saying, “What of that offer of £150?”, only to find that the support has not been there through AME or through central Government negotiations.

On pensions, I welcome the decision taken to provide an index-linked rise to pensions from 1997, but the Deprived Pensioners Association has highlighted that it is only prospective, not retrospective. It has asked for retrospective index-linked pensions and arrears, because far too many pensioners from 1997 and onwards have had their economic wellbeing curtailed in this cost of living crisis, because of the Government’s failure to introduce this change. It must be retrospective, and I would look forward to that coming about.

Home Insulation

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Wednesday 26th November 2025 Westminster Hall

[Anna Dixon (Shipley) (Lab)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the impact of home insulation on energy bills.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Dowd. Across the country, 12 million households are in fuel poverty, with almost 5 million of them spending over 20% of their income on energy. Like many other people across the country, my constituents in Shipley face a cost of living crisis, and energy bills are a huge part of that crisis.

Increasing the energy efficiency of our homes is a crucial way in which we can reduce bills, yet the rate of home insulation installations declined under the previous Government. I am pleased that this Labour Government have taken positive steps to reverse that decline with the warm homes plan. In addition, I particularly welcome today’s Budget announcement by the Chancellor to scrap the disastrous Tory energy company obligation scheme, which cost more than £1 billion per year and cost many families more money than it saved. All of this will bring down energy bills for the average household by £150 from next April, reducing the cost of living and lifting more people out of fuel poverty.

However, there is an urgent need to upgrade our homes. The UK’s housing stock is among the least energy efficient in Europe. According to research by Imperial College London, homes in the UK lose heat up to three times faster than homes in the rest of Europe. Perhaps that is not surprising, given that almost a quarter of properties in Great Britain with cavity walls have no cavity wall insulation.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

First of all, I commend the hon. Lady for securing this debate. I spoke to her beforehand. The problems that she is outlining in her own constituency of Shipley are similar to those we have in Northern Ireland, where 65% of dwellings have full cavity wall insulation, 15% have partial cavity wall insulation and 20% have no cavity wall insulation. Does she agree that more must be done to lower the threshold for programmes such as the boiler scheme insulation grant, so that more households can apply for such grants to support them in heating their homes properly?

[Anna Dixon]

It is vital that people in all types of tenure and even low-income households—indeed, everybody—can access modifications that could save them money on their bills.

Poor-quality housing particularly traps households in fuel poverty, because people need to spend a fortune to keep warm. Data from Friends of the Earth shows that there are 17 energy crisis hotspots in my own constituency. These are neighbourhoods that have below-average household income but above-average energy bills.

In Shipley, we also have a higher than average proportion of homes that are non-decent, which means they do not meet the standards for a warm and dry home. Indeed, 64% of homes in Shipley have an energy performance certificate rating of D or below. As a result of the extortionate cost of energy, the unnecessary additional high usage due to poor insulation and the flatlining of living standards under the previous Government, energy debt is soaring. Millions of households across the UK now have a combined energy debt of over £4 billion.

To help people to deal with this situation, fantastic organisations such as Christians Against Poverty work to tackle poverty. In Shipley, CAP provides a debt advice service. Across the country, this service has helped more than 20,000 people to become debt-free since 2010. We also have local food banks that offer fuel vouchers to those on pre-payment meters who cannot afford top-ups. However, energy companies must also act to support those people who have large unpaid debts, by bringing in programmes such as social tariffs and other forms of fair pricing to help those living in fuel poverty.

Poor-quality housing not only harms people’s finances; it also has a severe impact on their health.

Energy

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Wednesday 12th November 2025 Commons Chamber

[Tim Farron]

I will limit the number of interventions that I take, Madam Deputy Speaker.

The Conservative party had a record of being, or at least presented itself as, the party of sound money. This appears to be a decision to move away from that and instead to chase after our permanently absent colleagues.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

The cost of energy bills for the average household will be £1,775 this year. Charities indicate that energy companies are owed £4.4 billion by UK households. Does the hon. Gentleman fear, as I do, that the vulnerable and needy will be unable to heat their houses this winter because of the money that they owe? They cannot take on any more debt.

[Tim Farron]

Fuel poverty is a reality and a stain on our country. The hon. Gentleman is right to raise it on behalf of his community.

Let us get to the heart of this debate. We must bring energy bills down, and the question is how. I am afraid that the plan put forward by the Conservatives is nothing more than a mirage. They say that we should cut bills by removing the renewable obligation levy—that is great. As always, we are ahead of them and have set out our plan to do just that, but the key difference is that our plan is properly funded through a windfall tax on the extra payments that the big banks are getting as a result of quantitative easing. The plan in this motion is funded by the Conservative hand wave—a classic these days—of saying, “We’ll just cut spending.” What happened to the Conservative party being the party of sound money?

Offshore Wind Supply Chain: Tyneside

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Wednesday 29th October 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mary Glindon (Newcastle upon Tyne East and Wallsend) (Lab)]

I thank Mr Speaker for granting the debate. I do not underestimate the challenges that the Minister and her colleagues face, because the transition is a monumental task. Tonight I will set out the case for further Government support being needed for the offshore wind sector in places such as Tyneside.

Smulders Projects UK, which I have worked with for many years, is a critical employer in the sector and in my constituency. Smulders is not only a key global player but the UK’s leading provider of offshore wind substations and foundation structures, including monopiles, transitional pieces and jackets. Those form the essential building blocks of the critical infrastructure required for UK renewable energy security.

Smulders, based in Wallsend, is one of many businesses along the Tyne that are markers of the Tyne’s proud and enduring legacy. Throughout history, the Tyne has stepped up when the country has needed it most. [Interruption.] Today it stands ready to aid the transition to renewables. Do excuse me, Madam Deputy Speaker; I am very proud of the Tyne.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Mary Glindon]

I certainly will.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

I call Jim Shannon on the offshore wind supply chain in Tyneside.

[Jim Shannon]

I spoke to the hon. Lady before the debate and explained the connection between her constituency and mine, and why it is so important. I also want to encourage the hon. Lady, who has been a great friend of mine in the House in all the time I have been here. We share many things, including an interest in this subject matter, but we also share our faith. It is important that we have that relationship across the Chamber. Does she not agree that while Tyneside is a major hub for offshore wind supply, we must continue to invest in new and better methodology in renewable energy, such as harnessing tidal energy through Strangford lough and Newcastle University’s wave energy device, which contributes to the area’s role in marine energy innovation? These are things that we can do better together.

[Mary Glindon]

The hon. Gentleman has long been a friend of mine, and he not only speaks well of his own constituency and Northern Ireland, but is very supportive of all of us across the Irish sea. He is right in what he says, and I think we are both justly proud of what is being achieved by the universities and industries in our areas. That is why we are standing here tonight and making our plea to the Government.

This week, the Government set the budget for allocation round 7 to support new offshore wind projects. RenewableUK, along with other industry voices, has expressed concern that the amount allocated is likely to procure only a quarter of the 20 GW capacity available in this year’s tender. This is a very recent announcement, so I would be grateful if the Minister could set out how the budget aligns with the Government’s plans to maximise the number of green jobs in Britain.

Against the backdrop of AR7, there is real concern regarding the alarming drift towards UK offshore wind turbine foundation structures being procured from lower-cost regions such as the middle east, the Asia-Pacific region—APAC—and China. Recent examples of this include EDF’s Neart na Gaoithe offshore wind farm, Ocean Winds’ Moray West OWF and the Inch Cape OWF. For these UK projects, all the foundation structures were imported from lower-cost fabrication yards located in the middle east, Indonesia and China. I understand the approach taken by the previous Government and developers to drive down and minimise capital expenditure, but that approach adversely impacts the operations of our own UK companies, which are unable to compete on cost alone.

Recent mechanisms and initiatives such as the clean industry bonus included in AR7 are of course welcome, but there is a fear that these alone will not prevent the further drift of foundation fabrication away from the UK to these lower-cost regions. With reference to the AR7 clean industry bonus allocation framework, there are two CIB criteria that developers could meet. Criterion 1 refers to “investment in shorter supply chains”, where an investment may be made in a deprived area in the UK. Given the socioeconomic challenges that Newcastle upon Tyne East and Wallsend face, option 1 is a welcome incentive, and I look forward to the outcome of the AR7 projects, when announced. Criterion 2 refers to “investment in more sustainable means of production”, where investments may be made in one or more manufacturing facilities or installation firms that have either committed to, or set their science-based targets by, the application date anywhere in the world.

There is real concern that this approach opens the door to unfair competition from lower-cost regions such as China, APAC and the middle east, specifically for the supply of critical offshore wind infrastructure such as wind turbine generator foundations, jackets, transition pieces and monopiles. Therefore, outside the AR7 framework, and given the criticality of this infrastructure to our energy security, will the Minister set out what additional measures or guarantees can be put in place to ensure that a significant portion of offshore wind infrastructure is secured and fabricated by UK companies such as Smulders? It is essential that businesses in the UK continue to invest, innovate and introduce new technologies and processes to optimise efficiency as well as competitiveness, as my hon. Friend the Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) said. However, it is becoming increasingly difficult for UK companies to compete equally with overseas yards on such an uneven playing field.

On the Tyne, not only are supply chains held back by unfair competition; they are also constrained by physical barriers. The power cables over the Tyne are an obstacle to businesses securing work for large renewable energy structures, which risks possible net gross value added benefits of up to £1.2 billion. The height restriction in place is 87 metres. However, wind turbine jackets for AR7 and future rounds will be in excess of 100 to 120 metres high. It means that Smulders cannot bid for certain contracts despite having world-class facilities and the sharpest minds ready to go. It has been proposed that the removal of the cables will be completed in 2032. I have campaigned since 2017 for a solution to this issue—2032 is too late. The jobs of the future have become the jobs of today, and this is an international race. Yards in the middle east will not wait for 2032, APAC will not wait, and neither will China.

In July, I welcomed the Secretary of State’s commitment to engage with me and Ofgem to try to accelerate the work. I look forward to meeting the Energy Minister next month to discuss it further. I would be grateful if the Minister reaffirmed the Department’s support for bringing forward this work and reaffirm that the Government will press the National Grid for an earlier completion date.

I turn to the issue of ensuring a more consistent revenue stream for our domestic fabricators. We have seen disruption, delay and postponement in the promised pipeline of offshore wind projects because of failures during earlier leasing and allocation rounds. Projects from AR5 and AR6 are all now complete, or very near to completion. Unfortunately, however, insufficient projects were approved and insufficient contracts were awarded to the UK to ensure a continuous pipeline of work for companies such as Smulders. The result of that failure is a very real two-year chasm in UK offshore wind manufacturing. From the start of 2026, effectively, zero UK offshore wind projects will be in fabrication.

The next tranche of projects will be dependent on the successful outcome of AR7 and the clean industry bonus incentives offered to developers. The results from AR7, however, will not be known until quarter 1 in 2026, thus creating a two-year gap. This is the effective period from project approval and contract award, to finalising engineering and procuring materials before industry can start cutting steel. Optimistically, that could begin in quarter 3 or quarter 4 of 2027, with offshore infrastructure in place again two years after that in the final quarter of 2029. However, the first power generation from AR7 projects before August 2029 is a stretched target.

Smulders has already invested over £100 million at its Wallsend facilities based on previous Government assurances of continued UK offshore wind fabrication projects. What level of operational or other support is the Government willing to provide to established tier-1 fabricators such as Smulders to secure the jobs of over 600 well-paid workers during this two-year gap in fabrication?

I was delighted to hear the Secretary of State’s commitment during party conference to a clean energy jobs plan, which will see the sector grow from 430,000 jobs today to 830,000 by 2030. That will include tens of thousands of new roles for engineers, welders, electricians and construction workers. I support the Government’s ambition for further growth. The skills for these jobs are being developed and nurtured by companies in Tyneside, as well as by the Energy Academy in my constituency, which is set to expand following the combined authority’s commitment to invest £8.5 million in the college. Well-paid, secure jobs can be created through the awarding of contracts to existing UK tier-1 fabricators.

For UK companies, the outcome and results from allocation round 7 are critical to their continued operations in this country. More crucially, the outcome of the foundation contract awards will ultimately determine the long-term success or failure of our businesses—and, I believe, the future of the UK offshore wind fabrication sector. Only foundation contracts awarded domestically can provide the necessary volume of serial, repeat fabrication needed to achieve the Government’s clean jobs target, and secure the necessary skills required for a high-paid clean energy sector. I repeat my call on the Government to take further steps to ensure that a substantial allocation of AR7 foundation fabrication is awarded here in the UK.

As I said, at its peak, Smulders supports over 600 high-skilled and well-paid local jobs in Tyneside and across the region, and its primary concern is to secure those jobs in the long term. It is in the national interest for UK businesses to succeed with those projects, as they are creating highly skilled and dependable jobs that will not only strengthen the offshore wind industry but support training in skills required for associated industries such as defence, nuclear and the wider engineering sector, as well as supporting other major British infrastructure initiatives. The drifting overseas of such work threatens domestic jobs, future economic investment and the UK’s long-term security.

This is a critical juncture for the UK offshore wind sector, so will the Minister meet me, representatives from Smulders and the wider Tyneside supply chain to discuss urgently the concerns that I have set out about the areas in which industry needs further support, and so that we can present our aspirations for the clean energy future? Although the transition presents challenges from all angles, it presents even more opportunities. The Tyne is open for business, and it stands ready to play a defining role.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero (Katie White)]

It certainly is!

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne East and Wallsend (Mary Glindon) on securing a debate on this important issue, and on her passion, authenticity and representation of her area. I do not think that any of us are in doubt of those qualities tonight.

I know that this matter is close to the hearts of many Members and their constituents, particularly in our industrial heartlands. This Government are on a mission to make Britain a clean energy superpower, delivering clean power by 2030 and accelerating to net zero. Offshore wind is the beating heart of that mission. The sector is already providing secure clean energy, as well as thousands of skilled jobs, bringing growth and opportunities to communities such as those in Tyneside.

The sector is also an international success story. At the end of June, the UK was generating 16.7 GW from offshore wind. That is the highest amount in Europe, and worldwide we are second only to China—a country with a population roughly 20 times the size of ours. We have consented 4.2 GW since we came into office, and we have 75 GW of capacity in the pipeline, which equates to a 450% increase on our current, world-leading amount. We also have the second most installed floating offshore wind capacity—after Norway—and, at over 25 GW, the largest pipeline of floating offshore wind projects in the world. And yet we are confident that the best is yet to come.

From north-east England to Scotland and the Celtic sea, incredible things are happening across the country in this industry. The Government are determined to do everything we can to help our offshore wind sector to thrive and to deliver for the British people. The contract for difference scheme is vital to our mission to make the UK a clean energy superpower. Allocation rounds 7 to 9 are crucial for the delivery of our goal of clean power by 2030 and for protecting households from volatile fossil fuel prices.

On Monday, we confirmed that a total budget of £900 million is available for fixed-bottom offshore wind in allocation round 7—an increase on the previous allocation round’s initial budget when comparing on a like-for-like basis. That is the initial budget for fixed-bottom offshore wind, but we have the ability to view unsuccessful bids and adjust the budget later if we deem that doing so is good value for consumers. We have fundamentally reformed the offshore wind system to get better value for money. Under the old system, the Government set a budget and had no further control over quantity and price.

We recognise the importance of robust domestic supply chains both in supporting the continued growth of this industry and in ensuring that British workers and communities benefit from the jobs that are created. The Government have therefore set out a package of support, worth up to £1 billion, for offshore wind supply chains. This includes £300 million from Great British Energy to provide upfront public investment, £400 million from the Crown Estate to support new infrastructure, including ports, manufacturing, and research and testing facilities, and £300 million from the offshore wind industry to deliver new investment into supply chains such as advanced turbine technologies and foundations.

[Jim Shannon]

I welcome the Minister to her place and wish her every success and happiness in her role. I will try not to be too hard with my questions. She referred for the contracts for difference scheme. I know it is something that Northern Ireland has to do itself, but at this early stage will she please engage with the relevant Minister in the Assembly, and perhaps help us to move our scheme forward?

[Katie White]

I will ensure that the Minister for Energy is aware of his issues and feeds them in. I am sure he will—I believe he is a friend of the hon. Gentleman.

This is a genuinely transformative package of investment, and by providing that support, as well as clarity in our plans, we are giving investors and developers the confidence to invest in the future. It is expected that the £1 billion package of investment will directly and indirectly mobilise billions more, as well as supporting thousands of jobs in our industrial heartlands. We have also introduced a clean industry bonus to reward projects that invest in coastal communities, industrial heartlands and cleaner supply chains.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne East and Wallsend said, criteria 2 of the clean industry bonus rewards investments in cleaner supply chains, measured by sign-up to the science-based target initiative for decarbonisation. It so happens that the overwhelming majority of qualifying suppliers are in the UK or the European Union—very few suppliers outside the region qualify under criteria 2. It was great to see the clean industry bonus auction smash bid expectations earlier this year, and we look forward to seeing the investments come in after auction round 7, showing that when the Government lead with ambition, industry is ready to match it.

We also know that we will need even more skilled workers to achieve our mission in the years ahead, and with our analysis suggesting that the offshore wind sector alone could support up to 100,000 jobs by 2030, we are determined to ensure that our industrial communities benefit. That is why we have set up the Office for Clean Energy Jobs, which will provide training and support to the workforce in the clean energy and net zero sectors. Our priority is creating good jobs in Britain’s industrial heartlands, including a just transition for the industries based in the North sea. On 19 October, we published our clean energy jobs plan, which sets out how the Government will work in partnership with industry and trade unions to help workers in all parts of the country to benefit from these opportunities, supporting our existing workforce to find new opportunities, training up the next generation, and supporting our young people to get good, unionised jobs.

Let me turn to our support for the north-east. Tyneside is ideally placed to service the offshore energy sector, including one of the world’s largest offshore wind markets. The Tyne has the capacity to become a major hub for the installation and maintenance of offshore wind farms, and to service the supply chain that will grow from it. In 2023, the UK Infrastructure Bank invested £50 million in the Port of Tyne as part of a debt refinancing package of up to £100 million. That finance was provided to regenerate and redevelop land, building a base for a growing number of clean energy industries in the area, including offshore wind, advanced manufacturing and other renewable activities.

In September, the Port of Tyne announced that it is investing £150 million to transform 23 acres into the Tyne clean energy park, adding 400 metres of deep-water quayside to support offshore renewables, clean energy and advanced manufacturing. According to the Port of Tyne, the redevelopment could create up to 12,000 jobs and deliver £5.6 billion to the economy. I look forward to working with my hon. Friend to help us realise that potential. On the transmission cable over the River Tyne, I confirm that the Government are open to discussing the progress of the proposals to underground the cable with National Grid. The decision for approving the project lies with Ofgem as the independent regulator, which must demonstrate that there are benefits to consumers when approving network projects.

To sum up, our offshore wind sector is a British success story of which we should all be proud. Thanks to the perfect conditions provided by the North sea, as well as our legendary offshore workforce and supply chains, we are perfectly placed to keep leading the way. But this Government are not content with simply winning the race for clean power; we want to build the industries of the future here in Britain and, in so doing, we want to create a new generation of good, skilled jobs for the communities we depend on and to ensure that the economic benefits of the clean power transition are felt in Tyneside and in every corner of our country.

I know that the Minister for Energy had a fantastic visit to the Smulders UK yard in Wallsend in the summer, and he will be happy to meet my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne East and Wallsend.

Question put and agreed to.

Oral Answers to Questions

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Tuesday 14th October 2025 Commons Chamber

[Ed Miliband]

Part of what we are doing is devolving more of the funding around warm homes, for example, so that local authorities can play a leading role. I congratulate local authorities on the interest that they are taking in this. The hon. Lady raises the wider picture of COP30, which is important—this is a crucial moment. The UK has already shown leadership in the past 15 months, including by publishing our nationally determined contribution at COP29 last year.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I thank the Secretary of State very much for his answers. The fact is that we are all in this together. We must understand that third-world countries have a role to play, just as the United Kingdom does, but we are the richer country. I am conscious that it may not always be financially possible for third-world countries to do the things that we ask them to, so what assistance can we give them to ensure that when we approach the task of doing this together, we actually achieve it together?

[Ed Miliband]

I welcome the hon. Gentleman’s question. Part of the answer here is that the economics have changed, so getting private finance into developing countries can make a massive difference. The “Baku to Belém road map” is being produced as part of the COP process—it is a $1.3 trillion road map—and most of that is about private finance. We can see across the world the effect of private finance in developing countries. In Pakistan, for example, solar has gone from playing almost no part in its electricity system to being the top part of that system in only three or four years, because it is in Pakistan’s economic interests. That is what we are seeing across the world. We need the private and public sectors to play their role.

Remote Coastal Communities

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Monday 8th September 2025 Commons Chamber

[Perran Moon]

I agree entirely with my hon. Friend, although I think the Government should go further in relation to visitor numbers, because the current proposals look only at day trippers. I will come on to that issue a little later in my speech.

We know that place matters. A recent report from the Resolution Foundation found that one third of pay differences between labour markets stem from the places themselves, not the people who live there. That should be a wake-up call for all of us. There are several interrelated pressures driving this deprivation that are not adequately currently reflected in Government assessments of need.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I commend the hon. Gentleman for bringing forward the debate. As I said when I spoke to him earlier, there have been many debates on coastal erosion and remote coastal communities. In my constituency of Strangford, as in the hon. Gentleman’s constituency, the problem of coastal erosion was financed from Westminster some years ago, but that has now fallen by the wayside. The issues are not just about coastal erosion, but about social erosion—the closure of the pub, the post office and the shop, and reduced public transport, if it even exists. Ever mindful that the drive to change that must come from Westminster, does the hon. Gentleman agree that there must be more money put into community budgets to address greater social isolation?

[Perran Moon]

I agree. That is why, on the back of this debate, I am calling on the Government to develop a specific remote coastal strategy.

First, there are the pressures of geographical remoteness itself. Physical isolation and sparse populations drive up the cost and complexity of delivering public services. In Cornwall, our landscape of small, scattered settlements and constrained transport links means that service provision is inherently far more expensive; those costs are not captured by labour and property indices alone.

Solar Development: Newark

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Tuesday 2nd September 2025 Commons Chamber

[Robert Jenrick (Newark) (Con)]

Madam Deputy Speaker, can I begin by thanking you—and, through you, Mr Speaker—for granting me this Adjournment debate? It is unusual to allocate Adjournment debates to members of the shadow Cabinet, but I want to raise this important matter on behalf of my constituents. I have written to the Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero on a number of occasions asking him to meet me, but he declined to do so.

I want to speak about the three proposed solar farms in my constituency: the One Earth project, the Great North Road solar farm and the Steeple renewables scheme. Taken together, these projects would be of continental scale. Between them, they would cover at least 10,000 acres of land, making them collectively the largest solar installation in Europe. To put that in perspective, my constituency is a large and rural one that stretches nearly 60 miles from north to south, and at least 9% of its entire land mass would be turned into a single industrial complex—an industrial farm of black glass, metal fencing, substations and, inevitably, vast battery storage plants.

This is not just about Newark. Across the Trent valley, in Nottinghamshire and Lincolnshire, the cumulative impact is immense. In my constituency, the figure is 9%; in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Dr Johnson) it is 7%; and in the constituency of my right hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh) it is 5 %. This is not a scattering of panels across this part of the county; it is the concentration of a vast burden on one small corner of England’s countryside.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

I call Jim Shannon to intervene, on large-scale solar development in the Newark constituency.

[Jim Shannon]

This is not just about Newark; it affects its neighbours as well. It is an issue across the whole of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and these large-scale plans will definitely affect us all. I understand the need for renewable energy, but our farmers and their needs, and the food security of this nation, must come first. Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that, when it comes to ensuring that we have food security, the same rules must apply across the whole of the United Kingdom? On a side note, I see that he has been active in putting flags up. I have some 60 years’ experience of putting flags up and I would be happy to help him.

[Robert Jenrick]

The hon. Member is always welcome to come up a ladder with me in Newark. Perhaps I will pay him a visit as well to fix some Union flags.

The hon. Member is right to say that these projects affect constituencies the length and breadth of the United Kingdom. Many of them—all three projects I am raising today—are treated as nationally significant infrastructure projects. That means the final decision will land not with local communities or district or county councils, but squarely on the desks of Ministers in Whitehall. It is right that debates like this occur and elected Members such as myself have the opportunity to raise the arguments with Ministers before they ultimately make these crucial decisions.

Let me make one point crystal clear at the outset: this is not about nimbyism. When I was Housing Secretary, I heard Members of this House begin speeches with those words time and again, and my heart used to sink because invariably they would go on to make an argument that was at its heart nimbyism. However, I do not recall ever, in my 11 years in Parliament, raising in this House a campaign against a housing development in my constituency—not once. Newark has accepted thousands of new homes and new estates, and I have supported those developments. We have also accepted our share of energy projects. We host small-scale solar farms, which I have not objected to. We host battery storage facilities and have absorbed significant disruption from new and potentially exciting energy projects, such as the West Burton fusion project on the site of a former coal-fired power station. This is not a constituency that resists change. It is not a part of the country that is immune to energy projects. The entire history of north Nottinghamshire has been one of energy generation—it is in the blood of my constituents. My constituents are pragmatic, reasonable and patriotic people who want to share a part of the nation’s burden in meeting its energy needs, as they have done for generations, but what is being proposed now is on an extraordinary scale. It is disproportionate and damaging and it cannot be justified.

This has become a David and Goliath struggle. On one side are small villages, sometimes not even parish councils but parish meetings, and hamlets where neighbours have had to mobilise and join forces to get their views heard. On the other side are international companies with deep pockets, slick PR machines and armies of consultants. I pay tribute here in the House to those parish councils, parish meetings and campaign groups who have fought with such courage and determination. They have had to master planning law, pore over technical surveys and produce community responses, all with minimal resources. Contrast that with the developers: I have found them at times aggressive, loose with the facts and willing to submit surveys that are frankly absurd, so it is a David and Goliath situation.

Why are we opposing this development? First, I have never known an issue to arouse such opposition in my constituency. I surveyed residents, and 90% say no. The community is speaking with one voice, and let me say why. First, these solar panels are presented as clean and green, but as we all know in this House, the reality is murkier. Most panels sold in the UK contain materials sourced in China, often from regions such as Xinjiang where there is compelling evidence of forced labour. Britain should take a lead against exploitation, not collude with it in our supply chains.

Secondly, there are dangers from flooding and fire. These projects inevitably require vast battery storage installations. Around the world, we have seen that those batteries can ignite and that catastrophic fires can occur, sometimes releasing toxic smoke that is challenging to extinguish. Several such fires have already occurred here in Britain, as they have abroad. In the flood-prone Trent valley, the risks are greater. Putting panels, substations and batteries in areas liable to flooding presents a serious danger to life and property.

Thirdly, even if one supports solar, it should be put on rooftops and brownfield land first. Across Britain, there are 600,000 acres of south-facing industrial rooftops— warehouses, supermarkets, car parks—yet they stand largely empty. Why are we sacrificing our finest farmland when those spaces are still unused?

Prax Lindsey Oil Refinery

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Tuesday 22nd July 2025 Commons Chamber

[Michael Shanks]

A key objective of this Government is to deliver good, well-paid trade-unionised jobs, and we have been driving that forward. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has been pushing on trade union recognition, partly to ensure that terms and conditions in the clean energy industry are as good as those in, for example, the oil and gas industry. We will continue to push on that, and we have already had some successes.

I gently say that the investment going into clean energy that is delivering thousands of jobs and will deliver tens of thousands of new jobs across the country comes against a backdrop of opposition from the Conservatives on Great British Energy in the north-east of Scotland delivering those jobs. We are also announcing today the final investment decision on Sizewell C—10,000 jobs are being created in nuclear after years of dither and delay by the hon. Member’s party. We are getting on with doing this, and we will do everything we can to ensure those jobs are comparable on terms and conditions and pay. I say to her that if she wants these jobs to be created, she should support some of the policies that will deliver them in the first place.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I thank the Minister for his answers. Bearing in mind that the refinery was responsible for supplying some 10% of British fuel—fuel for the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland—it is absolutely essential that a way forward is found, and found quickly. Part of that solution must be a common-sense approach to using fossil fuels. What discussions has the Minister had with his Cabinet colleagues to provide a long-term assurance that there is a future for this refinery, even at this eleventh hour, so it can be sold as a going concern, as it should?

[Michael Shanks]

The Government have pushed, over the past four weeks we have been aware of this issue, to try to find a route whereby the refinery can continue as a going concern. That was obviously our No. 1 objective. The official receiver assessed the bids that were made and found that none were viable to deliver that. The Government are not going to nationalise this refinery—we are not in the business of nationalising loss-making businesses—so, unfortunately, that is not a route we will take. But we have done everything we can, and what we now want to do is assess the bids for the future of the site to see what the maximalist approach is that, crucially, will keep as many jobs on the site as possible, but also will deliver on the industrial opportunities of that site for the wider community. We will continue to have those conversations.

Oral Answers to Questions

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Tuesday 15th July 2025 Commons Chamber

[Michael Shanks]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right; the Government are committed to delivering a new golden age of nuclear, securing an abundance of clean power after 14 years of dither and delay from the Conservatives, and with that will come investment across the country. On 10 June, following a robust two-year process, Great British Energy Nuclear selected Rolls-Royce SMR as its preferred bidder to deliver the UK’s first small modular reactor, subject to final Government approvals and contract signature. The Government are making available £2.5 billion across the spending review to enable this to be one of Europe’s first SMR programmes.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I have always been a supporter of nuclear power. Unfortunately, we do not have access to nuclear power in Northern Ireland, but I know from discussions with the Minister that he is very keen to ensure that modular nuclear power opportunities are available in Northern Ireland. Business that I have spoken to want access to these opportunities, as does the Northern Ireland Assembly. I know that the Minister is always committed to trying to make things better, so has he had an opportunity to talk to the relevant Minister in the Northern Ireland Assembly about ensuring that access to modular nuclear power is available to us in Northern Ireland?

[Michael Shanks]

I regularly engage with Ministers in the Northern Irish Executive, including in the Department for the Economy, which has responsibility for energy policy in Northern Ireland, and we discuss a range of issues. We are happy to support the Northern Irish Executive in any way we can, either with technology or through rolling out the regulatory framework. We are really excited about the opportunities posed by SMRs and are happy to discuss that in Northern Ireland as well.