Preparedness for National Emergencies

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Tuesday 2nd June 2026 Westminster Hall

[Graeme Downie]

I absolutely agree; that is a point I will come to later. We must engage with the public if we want their permission to plan for resilience.

Article 3 tells us that preparedness must be constant and not confined to defence Departments. It must be collective, but it requires active participation across the system. I would be grateful if the Minister picked up on how resilience is being embedded across Departments in the areas of threat highlighted by the national security strategy.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I commend the hon. Gentleman for bringing this issue forward; I spoke to him beforehand. Does he agree that if groups tasked with preparedness training, such as the building resilience in communities project in Northern Ireland, are to be effective, they must be well funded? The work carried out with local groups to build grassroots disaster resilience can bring about results only if there is the scope to invest in reaching out and if groups are not hampered by tiny budgets. This is not just about England but Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland collectively.

[Graeme Downie]

As ever, I agree with the hon. Gentleman—I always agree with his interventions, particularly when they are made so well. There is a need to make sure that we break outside of the M25, frankly, when we talk about resilience. We also need to look seriously at the resilience of our critical national infrastructure. What is striking about many of the risks we now face is that they do not require a full-scale conflict. They can arise from hybrid threats, as my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow South (Gordon McKee) mentioned: those are much below the threshold of war but are capable of causing real and widespread disruption.

In a recent discussion with senior officials about the threat of Chinese-manufactured cellular internet of things modules, in my role as chair of the Coalition on Secure Technology, it was suggested to me that because the threat from such modules was theoretical—even though it was acknowledged that it was clearly feasible and would have a significant impact—there might be no need to prepare for it. Most risks are theoretical until they are very real, and the public then wonder why we were not prepared. I ask the Minister to specifically say what conversations he is having about the threat of cellular modules to the UK. Which Departments have been involved in those discussions?

I move on to our energy system—a key and particularly sensitive part of our infrastructure. We have seen how Vladimir Putin has used energy as a weapon against ordinary Ukrainian people, and he would be more than willing to do the same to British people as well. Without reliable energy, hospitals cannot function, communication systems begin to fail and supply chains break down. The Energy Security and Net Zero Committee, which I am a member of, will hold an evidence session on this very topic tomorrow. I have raised the issue with Defence Ministers before, but I believe that there are areas where we lack clarity on the legal position when it comes to hybrid attacks on our offshore infrastructure. I would welcome the Minister’s thoughts on what role the Cabinet Office can play in resolving that, as there seems to be an unclear boundary between the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero and the Ministry of Defence in particular.

I turn to the point made by the hon. Member for Strangford about the importance of the devolved Administrations. Emergencies are experienced locally, as I highlighted at the beginning—they are managed locally, and resilience must be built locally. Too often, the UK’s national security infrastructure can feel as though it is concentrated within the M25 and shaped in central Government rather than fully embedded across all parts of the United Kingdom. I do not believe that that is intended, but it does create a risk: if preparedness is genuinely to be a whole-of-society effort, it must extend beyond Whitehall.

In those areas, security, advice and expertise do not always flow consistently to devolved Administrations and local partners. At the same time, those Administrations do not deal with national security issues with the same regularity as central Government. That creates a potential blind spot—due not to a lack of commitment, but the structure of the system. It is exactly the kind of gap that hostile actors could seek to exploit. I hope the Minister will address what more can be done to ensure that security advice and capability are fully embedded across the devolved Administrations and local authorities, and how we can ensure resilience is genuinely UK-wide, rather than only inside central Government.

Finally, I turn to a topic that is becoming a bit of a hobby horse of mine: the requirement to trust the public when we are developing our national security and resilience. Preparedness cannot be delivered by the Government alone; it must involve the public.

Lord Mandelson Humble Address: Government Response

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Monday 1st June 2026 Commons Chamber

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

The Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister is obviously well liked by me and this House, and we appreciate his honesty in his answers, although they may not have all the information we are seeking. I very gently remind him that the general public view these continued delays as obstructive. The Government’s goal must be to show that no one is beyond scrutiny and accountability, and any further delays or redactions will not help to reach that goal. Will he undertake to ensure that these delays end, the material is released and the general public are assured that we are all accountable for our mistakes and hat these lessons have to be and must be learned?

[Darren Jones]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question. He knows, because I have said it repeatedly at the Dispatch Box, that I take very seriously the role of Parliament holding the Government to account, in particular, as a former Select Committee Chair, the role of Select Committees as well as the statements and questions we make and answer on the Floor of the House. That is why I have gone to lengths to ensure that the Intelligence and Security Committee, the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee, and the Foreign Affairs Committee—the lead Committees on this—have been given as full and as transparent access to the process and the documents as I have been able to make available, and why I have secured additional time for Members to be able to ask further questions on Wednesday.

Lord Mandelson: Government Response to Humble Address

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Tuesday 19th May 2026 Commons Chamber

[Darren Jones]

The Government are not trying to amend the terms or scope of the Humble Address—that is a factually incorrect statement. The hon. Member asked me about documents that can be shared with the Intelligence and Security Committee in relation to UKSV’s recommendations and the decisions made by the Foreign Office. I can confirm that those documents have been shared.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I thank the Minister for his response to the urgent question. Constituents have contacted me regarding the overreach of Government bodies and their refusal to stay within their parameters, as displayed in the last few days by the legal judgment that the Police Ombudsman for Northern Ireland’s claim of collusion in the Royal Ulster Constabulary exceeded the ombudsman’s legal powers. Today we have an urgent question, and constituents are again highlighting overreach and a refusal to be accountable to the public. Rebuilding trust is vital, and I believe the Minister is committed to doing that, but will he start the process of rebuilding trust in all aspects of public life when appointed individuals refuse to stay within their limits? What steps can be taken at every level of public service?

National Security

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Thursday 14th May 2026 Commons Chamber

[Dan Jarvis]

I feel that fear, as I think we all do in this place. The hon. Gentleman has assiduously represented the concerns of Jewish communities in his constituency. I knew that he would send a letter, having given a commitment to do so, but I confess that it has not been put in front of me. I give him a guarantee that I will go back to my desk and look at his letter straight away.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I thank the Minister very much for his determination and the determination of his Government to protect all the citizens of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and I endorse his comments about the police, MI5 and MI6. We have individuals collectively doing the hard work to try to worm out the malcontents.

I have long bemoaned the lack of action against Chinese overreach, which sees spy work carried out against British nationals in this country. Some Hongkongers living in my constituency feel threatened daily by Chinese officials, whether it be from someone spying on them or following them. I have railed against the blatant antisemitism culminating in the stabbings in Golders Green. Along with the hon. Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman), I stand alongside the Iranian Government in exile and Maryam Rajavi. The Iranians tell us that they feel threatened daily in this country for standing up for liberty and freedom in Iran. I have highlighted the sop to republicans that embraces republican glorification of terrorism, which led to car bombs in Northen Ireland just last month. This nation’s security is tied to our ability to act, so what will the Government do to secure our national interest and the safety of all our citizens in this great democracy of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland?

[Dan Jarvis]

I am grateful to the hon. Member, as I always am. He has a very long and proud record of standing against terrorism—he knows a lot about it from his experiences in Northern Ireland—and he is also right to pay tribute to those who serve in our police forces and our intelligence services, who work tirelessly around the clock to keep us safe. We all owe them a huge debt of gratitude.

The hon. Member is right to highlight a number of concerns. I can assure him that we take these matters incredibly seriously; he will have seen the measures that were announced in the King’s Speech yesterday, which will complement our existing legislative framework. However, I give him an assurance that if there is a requirement to do more—to add to our toolkit, to make sure we are best prepared to guard against the nature of the threats we face—we will not hesitate to act.

Debate on the Address

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Wednesday 13th May 2026 Commons Chamber

[Ed Davey (Kingston and Surbiton) (LD)]

I start by giving my sincere thanks, on behalf of all Liberal Democrats, to His Majesty King Charles for his Gracious Speech. We still believe President Trump should not have been rewarded for insulting British soldiers and the Royal Navy, but His Majesty was superb on that state visit.

I join others in paying tribute to the hon. Members for Bradford West (Naz Shah) and for Harlow (Chris Vince) for their accomplished speeches proposing and seconding the Loyal Address. Like me, the hon. Member for Bradford West worked in a factory. For her, it was crisps; for me, it was pork pies. If we throw in the hon. Member for Isle of Wight West (Richard Quigley), who worked in the soft drinks industry, together we are a meal deal. May I say that the hon. Lady is the real McCoy? She has already had an extraordinary life and career, talking from first-hand experience about how violence against women and homelessness touches millions of people. We are in her debt for that, and for her bravery and courage.

I also congratulate the hon. Member for Harlow on his speech. I hear he recently ran the London marathon—the House might be shocked to know that I have more experience with crisps than with long-distance running. It is a great pleasure to work with him on young carers and young adult carers, something that we are both passionate about, and I thank him for his leadership as chair of the all-party parliamentary group. As has been mentioned, the hon. Gentleman was a maths teacher for many years, and no doubt had to deal with bad behaviour in the classroom, so he may want to advise the Prime Minister on whether the Health Secretary should be put in detention.

There is a lot to cover in responding to this Humble Address, but I will start by directly addressing the atrocious acts of antisemitism that British Jews are experiencing at the moment, and the insecurity and fear that the community now feel. Week after week, British Jews are being attacked, intimidated and persecuted—Heaton Park synagogue, Kenton United synagogue, Finchley Reform synagogue, Jewish Futures in Hendon, Hatzola ambulances, and now the Golders Green stabbings. When I visited Western Marble Arch synagogue last week, members of the Jewish community questioned whether Britain is a safe place for them, or whether they must move abroad to be safe. No one should have to ask themselves that question in our country today—no one.

The independent reviewer of terrorism legislation, Jonathan Hall, is right to call these appalling levels of antisemitism a “national security emergency”. He is also right to say that existing laws must be properly enforced. That is why I welcome the Government’s initiative to bring forward a policing Bill, and I urge them to ensure that police and prosecutors receive the right training and support to pursue antisemitic crimes much more effectively.

That is why the Liberal Democrats have long called for the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps to be proscribed as a terrorist organisation in order to tackle the threat that these Iranian terrorists pose to British Jews. The legislation to proscribe the IRGC—finally confirmed today, I believe—must be a top and urgent priority.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I welcome what the Prime Minister is doing in relation to the IRGC, but he will be aware that some 30,000 individuals who protested on the streets of Iran are in jail. Some of them are on death row, about to be executed for standing up for liberty and freedom. Does the right hon. Gentleman feel that the Government, and the Prime Minister in particular, should be taking action to try to get those people free? Now is the time to act.

[Ed Davey]

The hon. Gentleman is right to mention those in Iran who have been persecuted by the appalling Iranian regime. I am sure that the Foreign Secretary will have heard that and will make as many representations as possible, but I accept that it is not an easy matter, given the regime in Tehran.

This is the 23rd Loyal Address that I have listened to in this House, and it is the most surreal by far. Everyone in this House and across the country knows that the Prime Minister may soon not be in power—not in place for his own programme and not able to deliver these promises. The votes on this King’s Speech ought to be interesting—a test of confidence in this Government and Prime Minister. The Liberal Democrats will be voting against it, but how many Members on the Government Benches will? By my reckoning, if every Labour MP who has called for the Prime Minister to go voted that way, the Government’s huge majority would be at risk. Let us see if they have the courage of their convictions.

The Liberal Democrats will be voting against it not just because the Prime Minister is now one of the weakest in post-war history, but because this King’s Speech does not offer the change our country needs. It does not offer the change needed to fix the insecurity that people and businesses are increasingly fearful of. It does not offer change to do with rising prices. People know that inflation in food, energy and fuel is set to rocket, but people do not think the Prime Minister has their backs on the economy. The financial and economic insecurity stalking our country is hitting growth, investment and jobs. We were promised change and a Government with growth as their mission, yet rather than change, we have had continuity from the failures that came before.

Faced with that calamity, what has the Prime Minister offered on growth? We have been offered an EU reset Bill that fails to reset. With a Prime Minister who knows a thing or two about failed resets, perhaps we should not be surprised. The Prime Minister’s refusal to remove his red lines on a new EU-UK customs union, to go further than his red lines on the single market and to deliver a new deep trading relationship with our European partners with a proper youth mobility scheme all mean that he is consigning our country to higher prices and lower growth and failing to address the economic insecurity plaguing our economy. Instead, we have been given taxes on jobs and the family farm tax.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown]

I do not think I could design a tax increase that was a bigger tax on jobs than the hike in national insurance. I totally agree with the hon. Lady, and I think it is tragic in particular for our young people trying to get into the world of work today.

As Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee, my focus is on value for money for the taxpayer and ensuring that no expenditure goes to waste. Figures published by the National Audit Office in its “Audit insights” report in January 2026 point to a deeply worrying picture. The Government now spend around £1.1 trillion of taxpayers’ money across 17 Departments. A Department’s accounts are qualified—sorry, this is getting a little technical, but I hope the House will bear with me a little in this section of my speech—when it does not spend its budget as Parliament intends. The Department for Work and Pensions has had its accounts qualified for 36 years because its fraud and error rate is 3.3%, costing the taxpayer a staggering £9 billion. Overall—this is even more staggering—the Government have written off close to £7 billion this year across Departments, including the Ministry of Defence writing off £1.5 billion purely on cancelled projects. I repeat: £7 billion has been written off this year from cancelled and wasted projects. That is staggering.

The PAC has consistently recommended that each Department improves its digital and AI efficiencies. We believe that should be implemented from the top down, and that a chief digital and information officer should be appointed at a senior level in every Department and on arm’s length bodies. That would lead to efficiencies and savings. After all, every efficiency and every saving that can be made is more money to spend somewhere else. The public sector is constantly behind the private sector digitally, and we need to do much better to ensure that our public services actually deliver for taxpayers, using the latest and best technology to do so. AI is a tsunami that the Government are nowhere near prepared to deal with. I do not mean this as a criticism of the civil service—it is just how it is—but only 5% of the civil service have specific IT qualifications. Some experts say that needs to rise to 10%, which would be a massive transformation.

The Government announced a Bill to reform the welfare system. This year alone, the Department for Work and Pensions budget is expected to reach a projected £333 billion, or around 23.7% of UK spending. That almost outweighs the income tax payments of £330 billion that we receive from hard-working people. Imagine that: the total amount of income tax from hard-working people almost does not pay for the bill for the Department of Work and Pensions. The pension and benefit budgets are ballooning, and that expenditure is only due to increase as we mercifully live longer and healthier lives. Somebody else mentioned that we are at risk of intergenerational unfairness. There is a risk that our children will be unable to pay off this increasing debt, yet this Government have failed to take back control of this skyrocketing budget. Instead, their Back Benchers refuse to support such changes, which would cost just £5 billion.

Another issue that the PAC will be examining closely is the cost of Government compensation schemes, which over their lifetime are expected to exceed £102 billion, or just under what we pay in debt interest in any one year. The Government, of course, have a moral obligation to compensate citizens when the state makes serious mistakes, but we must do so in a fair, proportionate and non-litigious way.

Finally, and most importantly, I want to turn to defence. The first absolute duty of any Government is to ensure that our nation is properly defended. The King’s Speech made a commitment to NATO and to a sustained increase in defence spending, yet the defence investment plan, promised from that Dispatch Box in June 2025 and in every month since then—alongside the strategic defence review—has still not been published. Until we have that plan, we cannot see how the Government propose to procure all the military equipment that is needed.

[Jim Shannon]

I commend the hon. Gentleman for the speech that he is making. Does he agree that one of the things we need to do on defence here in the United Kingdom is adopt the drone technology that Ukraine now has? Russia is under threat: it is worried about the attacks that are reaching far into its interior. Does he agree that we may need a partnership with Ukraine to promote our drone technology in a way that can make us as effective as the Ukrainians?

[Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown]

If the hon. Gentleman is just a little patient, he will find that, two or three paragraphs down, I will address precisely that point.

Currently, the defence budget for 2025-26 is £62.2 billion, which is a measly 18% of the welfare budget of £333 billion. The Government have pledged to increase it by 2.6%, or £9 billion, by 2027 and by 3% in the next Parliament, which means a further increase of £14 billion. But none of that new money has yet arrived.

--- Later in debate ---

[Fleur Anderson (Putney) (Lab)]

It is a privilege to speak in this debate on the Loyal Address in reply to the King’s Speech. I thank my hon. Friends the Members for Bradford West (Naz Shah) and for Harlow (Chris Vince) for their proposing speeches and congratulate them.

It is an honour to be the MP for Putney, Southfields, Roehampton and Wandsworth Town, and I would like to take this opportunity to thank all the people who have stopped me—on the street, at events or when I go to schools—to thank me for the work I do for our community. That is not often the image of MPs, which is usually about being constantly harassed and abused, but, honestly, the people of Putney are wonderful and I am so grateful for their support for my work. We do not always agree on everything, but they are very supportive of my work as an MP, and I thank them for that.

In a short time, His Majesty’s Government have delivered real change that matters to people in Putney, Southfields, Roehampton and Wandsworth Town, who tell me what the Government are doing to make a difference to their lives. We have raised the minimum wage and strengthened workers’ rights, including day one sick pay, protecting renters’ rights and stopping the unfair section 21 evictions. In the last few months leading up to section 21 evictions being stopped, it has been horrific to see that, while the good landlords remain good, the rogue landlords have taken the opportunity to evict people. That just shows why we needed to make that change, and how good it is to rebalance the equation in favour of renters. We have also brought the railways back into public ownership, starting with our own South Western Railway, and I am so proud that we have lifted 450,000 children out of poverty by abolishing the two-child benefit cap.

I welcome the ambitious package of legislation announced today. The 37 Bills include those on health, education and security. There is a clean water Bill to tackle pollution and hold water companies to account. There is a Bill to speed up remediation for those living with unsafe cladding, which is still affecting so many people on developments in Putney. There is long-term investment in social housing, and support for victims of domestic abuse to stay in their own home. There is reform of the leasehold system by accelerating the transition to commonhold, including stronger transparency measures alongside tighter regulation of managing agents. This issue plagues so many people in Putney, who have been looking forward to the commonhold and leasehold transformation coming down the line. It will make such a difference to people who do not get enough information on their bills, do not know what they are being asked to pay for and see their bills go up time and again. We are giving them the security of tenure that they have not had up to now. There is also the scaling up of clean energy through the energy independence Bill.

The Northern Ireland legacy Bill will build a fairer Northern Ireland, with justice for the families who have waited for too long.

[Jim Shannon]

I commend the hon. Lady for her very positive speech. Unfortunately, however, we do not see in the legacy Bill the emphasis that we wish on victims. Does she agree that, if we are going to have a legacy Bill, it must address the issues of victims? It must also address the issue of the Republic of Ireland, which has more say in the process than we have here.

[Fleur Anderson]

I absolutely respect the work that the hon. Member does in his constituency and across Northern Ireland to bring about reconciliation, but I would say that the Bill does put victims at its heart. The victims have been spoken to constantly to create the Bill and rework it, since the Tories’ Bill did not work, and to put the justice they want at its heart. Across the Chamber, we should make sure that the Bill does deliver what he advocates, because it should deliver justice and the answers for which families have been waiting for so long.

I must say that I am disappointed there was no mention of the renovation of Hammersmith bridge in the King’s Speech. I live in hope that one day the King will sit on the Throne and talk about the renovation of Hammersmith bridge. We are one step further, because there is a timetable for applying to the structures fund, and I am very hopeful that funding will be announced soon—this year—for that renovation, so that the bridge can reopen for the six bus routes and all the vehicles now prevented from going across it, which impacts us so much in Putney.

However, I was most keen to see the focus on closer alignment with the European Union, and I will focus my speech on that, as well as on protecting children online and international security. Brexit has imposed a deep and enduring cost on our economy and living standards. It is the elephant in the room when we talk about the economy, and the context for the very difficult financial position we are in as a country. Because of Brexit, GDP per person is 6% to 8% lower, business investment is about 18% lower, and employment and productivity are down 3% to 4%. The hon. Member for Clacton (Nigel Farage) will talk about everything he did, except the consequences of the single policy that he has delivered. He sold the country false promises, and we are seeing the consequences today, but he is not the only one that bears the cost.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. You caught me off guard there. I am used to being the last to speak. You are very kind to invite me to participate.

Can I first of all give special thanks to the hon. Member for Bradford West (Naz Shah) for her speech? I get on well with her, and she gave me her book as a gift; I read it from beginning to end. I was very moved by her contribution. For me, she epitomises strength of character and courage, despite all the hard things that life threw agin her. She was able to overcome them, and she is a lady of exceptional talent. I want to put that on record. The hon. Member for Milton Keynes Central (Emily Darlington) said that the hon. Member for Harlow (Chris Vince) mentioned Harlow 35 times in his speech. I thought it was more! I never was very good at mathematics. The hon. Gentleman is a great asset to this House, and his speech seconding the motion was worthy of this place. We thank both him and the hon. Member for Bradford West for their contributions.

My comments about the King’s Speech will be in two parts. We have all heard about the curate’s egg: it was good in parts. I want to speak first about the good things that I see in the King’s Speech, and then I want to refer to some specifics about Northern Ireland. I very much welcome the Government’s commitment to addressing the issue of antisemitism. The Prime Minister and the Labour Government have grasped the importance of the escalation in antisemitism in this United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. It is really important that it is grasped, and I hope that the forthcoming Bill and the directive that comes from the top, from the Prime Minister, will address the issue. For that to happen, we need resources, so I hope that on Wednesday night, when we finish these debates, a financial commitment will be made.

I also welcome the Government’s commitment to the defence funding target. In an intervention on the hon. Member for North Cotswolds (Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown), I referred to the importance of changing technology in defence. For instance, in the last few weeks, there has been lots of talk in the papers about Ukraine grasping new drone technology in a way that no other country in the world has done. It is time that we had a partnership with Ukraine, so that we can be involved in drone technology and the changes in how warfare is conducted.

I thank the Labour Government very much for lifting all those children out of poverty. That moves me greatly, because I see lots of young children in poverty in my constituency. Sixty-thousand children in Northern Ireland were lifted out of poverty by what this Government have done. I thank them for what they have done on those three issues.

I always try to be decent in my contributions—they are never meant to be adversarial—but I have to record some of the points that concern me. The King’s Speech laid bare the true priorities of this Administration. Let me speak from a Unionist point of view. The Government speak of a stronger and fairer United Kingdom, but what this Government say, through His Majesty King Charles, tells a different story for Northern Ireland. Unionists judge a Government not by their rhetoric, but by their respect for the constitutional integrity of our nation and their commitment to fundamental justice. On both counts, this legislative agenda unfortunately falls profoundly short. Indeed, I listened intently to discover exactly where Northern Ireland was in the plan put forward in the King’s Speech, and I struggled to find its role in it, and that is worrying to the extreme.

Nowhere is that failure more evident than in the Government’s decision to carry over the highly contentious Northern Ireland Troubles Bill. Although we know that it is being carried over from the last Session, there was not much mention of it today—but Opposition Members certainly referred to it. Let us be completely clear about what is happening. This legislation is being pushed forward, despite having zero support from the people who matter most: our victims, our survivors, and our courageous veterans—those with the clean hands and the aching hearts. Instead of listening to the families who carried the heaviest burdens during the dark years of terror, the Government have chosen to bend the knee to intense pressure from the Dublin Government. It really vexes me, as a Unionist and a Democratic Unionist party MP, to recognise that the Republic of Ireland Government have more say in this process than I have—someone who lost family members to the IRA campaign, and who represents, in Strangford, many of those who served and who also lost loved ones.

The Democratic Unionist party will always stand firmly against any process that aims to rewrite the past, shield terrorists or treat our brave security forces as anything less than the defenders of democracy. It is a disgrace that Westminster is ignoring domestic consensus to satisfy a foreign jurisdiction, because that is what the Republic of Ireland is, and that there was no reference to reform, or even a nod to the massive work that must be done.

We also heard about the Government’s grand design for an EU reset. I put on the record that I am a Brexiteer, and I voted to leave—and we did not get all we wanted in Northern Ireland, unlike the rest of the United Kingdom. You will forgive me, Madam Deputy Speaker, for refusing to offer commentary on the inner workings of any party. I said the other day that I will make no mention of what is happening in Labour, because that is its decision, and I will leave that with Labour; but the effect of what is happening on my nation, on Northern Ireland, must be recognised. There appears to be a desperate scramble for a closer relationship with Brussels, yet one of the main casualties of our relationship with the EU has been Northern Ireland. In the Brexit process, we received callous treatment, yet not one single word has been uttered about renegotiation. I have an ask for the Labour Government and the Ministers in their place—I am very respectful of the two Ministers here, and I always will be. Northern Ireland’s position, at this moment, is not the same as the United Kingdom’s. If we are to have a renegotiation, and closer ties with the EU, I ask that we be put at the forefront of the Prime Minister’s and the Labour Government’s intentions.

The Prime Minister intends to align Great Britain more closely with European laws. If the rest of the United Kingdom is set to follow EU regulations, the Government must answer a fundamental question: where is the road map for moving entirely beyond the Windsor framework, and how has any discussion of legislation on the European question taken place without even a nod towards those of us in Northern Ireland who have been used and abused by the EU, in order to negate the democratic will of the people of this United Kingdom? If the Prime Minister and the Labour Government have set their eyes and their focus on closer ties, please ensure that we in Northern Ireland are on the same page. I seek a renegotiation for ourselves, and a place for us at the table. Others may say that, too, in the other days of debate on the King’s Speech.

Perhaps this is one of those times when silence has spoken more clearly than words ever could, and perhaps the Government need to be reminded that we, the people of Ulster, will not be silent. We demand that our Government recognise the disgraceful impact of the framework and prioritise its dismantling. If Great Britain aligns with those rules, there is no longer even a flawed logistical excuse for maintaining an artificial barrier in the Irish sea. The continued enforcement of the Winsor framework remains a direct unconstitutional assault on Northern Ireland’s economic and political place in the United Kingdom.

If the Government genuinely desire a fairer path that unlocks hope, they must immediately stop treating Northern Ireland as a bargaining chip. We are not a bargaining chip; we are part of this great United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. It gives me great pride and pleasure to say that, because I mean it from the bottom of my heart. I am proud to have a British passport and to be a member of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. We in Northern Ireland, Unionists that we are, deserve to have the same declaration and recognition. We demand a clear road map to eliminate internal trade friction, scrap the Irish sea border, and fully restore our place in the United Kingdom internal market. The Democratic Unionist party will continue to challenge this legislative programme at every turn, fighting for real justice for our veterans and the complete restoration of our constitutional rights.

The Leader of the Liberal Democrats mentioned the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps and the commitment that the Government have made. I welcome that commitment. Thirty thousand—perhaps as many as 40,000—people were arrested for peacefully protesting on the streets. They were put in jail, and many of them have been executed just for standing up for freedom, verbally—not having taken any physical action. The week before last, when we were about to enter Prorogation, six Iranian ladies who protested on the streets were facing execution. It is for those who want freedom that I make these comments. Perhaps we need not hesitation, but a timescale for the direct and immediate proscription of Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps. For years we have listened to grand promises from the Dispatch Box, yet instead of using counter-terrorism legislation to immediately ban that hostile state entity, the Government have nested the issue within a broader and delayed legislative framework. Such tactical evasion exposes a worrying vulnerability; we are creating new bureaucratic hoops, rather than enacting an outright immediate ban.

As I said at the beginning of my remarks, the King’s Speech is a curate’s egg. I have spoken about the good things in it, and I also wanted to highlight some of the things that I and my party have concerns about. It is always a pleasure to see the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, the hon. Member for Midlothian (Kirsty McNeill), in her place. I wish her well in her job. I pray for every Minister; I pray that they will be full of wisdom when it comes to doing the right thing, and knowing when to say it. I wish you well, Minister.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Roz Savage (South Cotswolds) (LD)]

It is a great honour to speak in this debate. I add my voice to the many voices of appreciation from across the House for the two magnificent speeches from the hon. Members for Bradford West (Naz Shah) and for Harlow (Chris Vince), which were inspiring, moving and entertaining.

There is much to reflect on in the King’s Speech. There are 37 Bills, many of which have been amply covered by colleagues across the House. Of course, the King’s Speech is not truly the King’s Speech; it is the Government’s speech that His Majesty the King has the great joy, I am sure, of reading out in the other place. I would like to pick up on a matter that was not actually in the speech. Far be it from me to presume to guess what His Majesty might have wished to add to it, but having had the privilege of visiting his beautiful gardens at Highgrove House in my constituency on numerous occasions—sadly, not as a guest of their Majesties, but as a paying punter on a guided tour—I would like to think that His Majesty might have chosen to mention nature, which was not mentioned at all in the speech. Nature is a subject dear to my heart, as it is to those of my constituents, including the many farmers who farm in South Cotswolds.

We have talked about many different aspects of security today, but I would like to connect nature to security. The fourth sentence of the King’s Speech was:

“My Ministers will take decisions that protect the energy, defence and economic security of the United Kingdom for the long-term.”

In my view, those decisions absolutely have to factor-in nature. Natural security is an essential part of our national security. At the beginning of this year, the Government published a national security assessment on biodiversity loss and ecosystem collapse. It was not written by campaigners or charities, and certainly not by the Green party; it was written by the intelligence community using the same analytical frameworks that it applies to terrorism and state threats. Its conclusion was absolutely unambiguous: global ecosystem degradation threatens UK national security and future prosperity. Crop failures, intensified natural disasters, infectious disease outbreaks, geopolitical competition for food and water—these are the inevitable consequences that the assessment identifies will happen if we continue on our current trajectory.

[Jim Shannon]

I thank the hon. Lady for her contribution. Does she not agree that it is only fair that we should record David Attenborough’s 100th birthday? He epitomises the very person we would like to see and the world he wishes to preserve. Does she, along with me and others in this House, wish him well on his 100th birthday?

[Dr Savage]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. We must be telepathic, because my very next paragraph is as follows.

Five days ago, Sir David Attenborough celebrated his 100th birthday, and I am sure that colleagues would like to join me in wishing Sir David the warmest congratulations on his long, wonderful and highly influential life. [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear.”] He has spent much of his century on this planet showing us what the natural world looks like, but in the course of that long lifetime the UK has become one of the most nature-depleted countries on earth. I am sure the House has heard these facts before, but I remind Members that we have lost 38 million birds in the past 50 years; wildlife abundance has fallen by a third since 1970; we have lost 93% of our wild flower meadows; and only 15% of our rivers are in good ecological health. I am sure that those statistics cause Sir David great distress and anxiety, yet we continue to treat nature as though it were expendable.

I would like to pick up on some aspects of nature that are particularly worthy of our attention. Rivers are the lifeblood of our natural world, yet too many of them are in an appalling state. I commend the clean water Bill mentioned in the King’s Speech, which is a good start, but it does not address the underlying problem. Water is a vital public good that should not be owned and operated primarily in the interests of shareholders, many of whom are based overseas, extracting returns from an essential service while communities downstream live with the polluted consequences.

It is promising to see reforms coming down the pipeline, so to speak, that would see Ofwat replaced—something the Liberal Democrats have been calling for since 2022. However, my constituents need to see that legislation enforced more rigorously. South Cotswolds is the ninth most polluted constituency in the country, so my constituents want real transparency on what is being discharged and when—not just for how many hours, but in what volumes. They deserve bathing water designation for the sites that they have swum in for generations, and a Government who are willing to ask the deeper question: is the ownership model fit for purpose? The Government have to get upstream of the problem and ask whether profit-making monopolies, focused on short-term gains, can ever serve the long-term greater good of customers and nature.

On energy security, instability in the middle east, gas price volatility and the direct hit on household bills demonstrate why home-grown renewables are the right choice for the climate while also paying a security and peace dividend. However, I would like to see the public brought with us on the transition, not pushed away. In my constituency, a huge solar farm has been proposed that would industrialise thousands of acres of farmland.

I absolutely support renewable energy—I have spent decades campaigning for climate action—but the transition works best when communities have ownership and agency. I would like the Government to address the barriers facing community groups that want to supply local customers directly. Liberal Democrats believe that communities should be able to generate clean energy, sell it to local households and keep the benefits locally.

Food security is national security. To quote again from the Joint Intelligence Committee report:

“Without significant increases in the UK food system and supply chain resilience, it is unlikely the UK would be able to maintain food security if ecosystem collapse drives geopolitical competition for food.”

Let that sink in for a minute. We are talking about the very real prospect of food and water shortages, not just in other countries but right here, if we carry on with the current trajectory.

What is to be done? Farmers are facing a tough time at the moment. Energy costs have risen sharply, fertiliser prices remain volatile, and rural crime is a growing burden. The abrupt cap and closure of the sustainable farming incentive was a decision that pulled the rug out from under farmers who had been planning to enter the scheme, with small-scale family farms being the hardest hit. That matters far beyond the farm gate.

Around 70% of the UK’s land is under the stewardship of farmers. If we want cleaner rivers, healthier soils and more pollinators, then farmers need reliable and well-funded support for environmental stewardship into the future. Disrupting that support harms not just farms but the rest of us. I would like to hear about a good food Bill. Food is essential and we need to secure its future.

The national security assessment is explicit that ecosystem collapse is potentially irreversible; once those habitats are destroyed, they cannot be recreated with an offset calculation on a spreadsheet. Degraded ancient meadows and woodlands, fragmented hedgerows and lost wetlands and peatlands cannot simply be replaced elsewhere. We will pay the cost of their losses for generations.

Lord Mandelson Humble Address: Government Response Update

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Monday 27th April 2026 Commons Chamber

[Darren Jones]

I am deeply grateful, Madam Deputy Speaker. I always ensure that I honour parliamentary questions in a timely fashion.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I thank the Minister for his statement— he is a decent and honourable man. In phone calls to my office only this morning, Strangford constituents have expressed their dismay about Government cover-ups. Even my constituents’ bank account comings and goings are questioned, and when they make withdrawals, they are asked where their money is from and what it is for. There is a perception out there that there is one rule for the Government of the day and another for everyone else. How can the Minister begin to show people that we are all accountable to scrutiny?

[Darren Jones]

The Humble Address is an example of Parliament holding the Government to account, and of the Government being accountable to Parliament.

Ernest Bevin

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Monday 27th April 2026 Commons Chamber

[Matt Western]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right that we should commemorate that day.

At the time of that amalgamation, the membership stood at 300,000 workers, but in just 15 years, Bevin would lead it to becoming the largest union in the country, with over 650,000 members. During that time as trade union leader, Bevin accelerated the rights, conditions and pay of the working class. His achievements included the introduction of a 40-hour working week, expanding holiday pay to 11 million workers and redefining the relationship between unions, Government and industry. Bevin truly was a visionary and a moderniser of industrial relations and left his mark on the UK’s political economy long after his tenure.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I commend the hon. Gentleman for securing this debate. My Strangford constituency has a very proud military and industrial heritage. I believe Bevin’s role in founding NATO and his unwavering support for a strategic nuclear deterrent are just as vital to his legacy. Does the hon. Member agree that Bevin’s common sense, patriotic approach is something that all of us, on both sides of this House, stand to learn from today, especially when it comes to supporting our veterans and of course our national defence?

[Matt Western]

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. Bevin was a really significant figure and one of the most underestimated by history in terms of what he achieved for this country. He once said:

“I’m going to be at the Ministry of Labour from 1940 until 1990”,

and he would be proved right. It was not until Margaret Thatcher that certain of these rights would be removed, and as a union leader he was ambitious for change and saw the opportunity to be an MP and would prove a staunch ally to Clem Attlee.

Bevin’s abilities caught the eye, too, of Winston Churchill. In 1940, under the coalition Government and despite their previous battles, Churchill insisted on appointing Bevin to Minister of Labour, saying:

“He is the Labour man I want.”

Bevin led the full-scale mobilisation and demobilisation of industry and the country while simultaneously advancing wages, conditions and the equality of the working class. He understood that compulsory work orders should only be used in exceptional circumstances, and his experience in the unions had taught him that workers with high morale would be more willing to contribute to the war effort.

In the early years of Bevin’s tenure, there was a serious debate regarding his voluntaryism, but by 1944 a third of the civilian population was engaged in war work, including over 7 million women, who played a crucial role in the war production.

Oral Answers to Questions

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Thursday 23rd April 2026 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

It’s time for “Buy local, Strangford” with Jim Shannon.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I thank the Minister for his answers and for his endeavours to try to do better. The Minister and this House must recognise that public confidence is incredibly low due to repeated failures by the Government, I say respectfully, to do the right thing. How can the Government and the Minister ensure that changes take effect that restore confidence and remove any shade from areas of government? We have an obligation as elected representatives to openness and transparency.

[Chris Ward]

The hon. Gentleman is right to flag that concern, and it is something that the Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister is working hard on with a package of reforms around transparency. On procurement changes, I emphasise that I am trying to work with businesses, unions, charities, the voluntary sector and as many people as I can to bring them in. The more we listen to them, the more we will get this right, but he makes a broader point that I know my colleagues are working hard on, too.

Oral Answers to Questions

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Wednesday 22nd April 2026 Commons Chamber

[Jo Stevens]

Whether it is young people, families or pensioners, this Labour Government are determined to tackle the cost of living, both for my hon. Friend’s constituents and for all our constituents. We inherited a broken welfare system from the Conservatives that has failed people and trapped them in a cycle of poverty. We will not allow that to continue, which is why we are helping people into work through new employment programmes and increasing universal credit for those who need support. As my hon. Friend mentioned, 700,000 pensioners are being helped through the state pension rise. We are absolutely laser-focused on tackling the cost of living.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

Labour has done much to address child poverty, for example, but the issues with the price of heating oil, fuel and red diesel are the same in Wales as they are in Northern Ireland, and indeed across this great United Kingdom. The price of red diesel has increased for rural farmers and for the fishing sector, as has the price of diesel for heavy goods vehicles, so what is the Minister doing to help those three sectors and to ensure that the economy can survive? If the Government do that in Wales, they will have to do it in Northern Ireland as well.

[Jo Stevens]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for acknowledging the work that this Government have done on the cost of living. Red diesel continues to benefit from an 80% tax discount, which is saving farmers almost £300 million a year. We have already brought in a 5p fuel duty cut, which will last from this month until September. We have raised industry concerns about red diesel prices, and the Under-Secretary of State for Wales, my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff North (Anna McMorrin), has also met farming unions to discuss red diesel. We have looked at price transparency with the Competition and Markets Authority, and we are keeping everything under careful review.

Government Procurement Strategy

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Wednesday 22nd April 2026 Commons Chamber

[Chris Ward]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. To clarify, the guidance that we are bringing forward and the reforms that I am talking about today will apply to Government Departments, not to the broader public sector. That is because Ministers and the Government do not have the power to direct beyond Government through mere guidance—I would need primary legislation to do so. That is something we are pushing very hard on, and I hope that legislation will come forward in a future Session. However, what I hope everybody notes, including the market and local authorities, is that the reforms I am announcing today are the reforms that I want to see rolled out across the public sector, working with local authorities as well. We want to test and learn in Government and roll out these reforms more widely, but that would require primary legislation.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I want to ask the Minister a very specific question about Northern Ireland. In light of the recent Public Accounts Committee report that has highlighted the fragmented nature of procurement in Northern Ireland, with nine separate centres of procurement expertise, what steps can he take to ensure that SMEs, which he mentioned earlier, are not further disadvantaged by conflicting administrative requirements across those bodies? How will the promised Tell Us Once digital platform be successfully integrated with Northern Ireland’s existing eTendersNI system to prevent duplication of the bureaucratic burden on small firms that are struggling?

[Chris Ward]

The hon. Gentleman raises a really good point. As I said, one of the three principles behind this strategy is to reduce duplication, reduce burdens and simplify the system. My feeling in general is that over the years, the people who have held my job have added more and more bits to the Christmas tree, making it more and more unwieldy, and I want to try to strip that back. If it is okay with the hon. Gentleman, I will ask him to write to me about his specific points, and I will pick them up. I am very happy to meet him to discuss those points as well.