Oral Answers to Questions

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Thursday 12th June 2025 Commons Chamber

[Jonathan Reynolds]

What a privilege it must be for my hon. Friend to represent a constituency with so many essential businesses doing such brilliant work for this country. On advanced manufacturing, he is right to say that a set of advantageous positions has been agreed, putting this country at a genuine competitive advantage, particularly in relation to sectors such as automotive and machinery, which I would expect his constituency to benefit from. India is traditionally a very protectionist economy, and it is the world’s fastest growing big economy. Whether it is for goods or services, A&M Pure Precision or the west midlands as a whole, there is so much good stuff here to celebrate.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

The Minister can expect an autographed copy of the book by the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire (Alan Gemmell) to be spinning its way towards his office as we speak.

I very much welcome the UK-India free trade agreement. It is good news, but Northern Ireland has a particular protocol issue. I know that the Minister is keen— I know it for a fact, because his answers are always good—that Northern Ireland can receive the same benefits as the rest of the United Kingdom: England, Scotland and Wales. Can he assure us that we in Northern Ireland will also be benefactors?

[Jonathan Reynolds]

I appreciate the hon. Member’s kind words. He will know that ensuring that everything my Department does works for Northern Ireland is a personal priority for me and for the ministerial team. In relation to exports, I can assure him that Northern Ireland will benefit from the advantageous position that the whole United Kingdom is in. We do have issues in making sure the more complex regulatory position from the protocol in Northern Ireland is working in the best possible way. There are very strong reasons for making that work better, if we can do so, and he has my commitment that we will seek to do that.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade (Justin Madders)]

I thank my hon. Friend for her question; she is absolutely right to raise it. UK product safety law is clear: all products must be safe before they are placed on the market. As she sets out, goods sold via online marketplaces are becoming a significant problem. That is why we introduced the Product Regulation and Metrology Bill, which will allow the introduction of clear obligations for e-commerce businesses, in order to ensure consumer safety and a level playing field. We intend to consult on product safety requirements for online marketplaces very shortly after Royal Assent.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

T7. Will the Secretary of State accept an invitation to engage with the First Minister, the Deputy First Minister and trade unions on the Spirit negotiations, a joint venture to safeguard Northern Ireland jobs at Short Brothers, which will impact my constituents in Strangford?

Space Industry

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Wednesday 11th June 2025 Westminster Hall

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

What a pleasure it is to serve under your chairship, Mr Betts. I thank the hon. Member for Wyre Forest (Mark Garnier) for leading the debate. He obviously has an incredible interest in the space sector; if he ever appears on “Mastermind”, this will be his chosen subject. I mean that in a nice way, because I believe that we can all benefit from his interest and knowledge. I am sure that the Minister agrees.

Space assets are crucial to United Kingdom national infrastructure, as well as safety and defence mechanisms such as navigation and communication. Modern technology is a wonderful thing—I do not quite understand it all the time, but that is just me—but we must not underestimate the contribution made by our space sector. For that reason, it is great to be here to make a contribution.

It is always a pleasure to see the Minister in her place. She is a friend of many of us in Northern Ireland, and we have brought many subjects to her attention. I appreciate that she always responds in a positive way, and Northern Ireland MPs will vouch for that.

I am going to give a Northern Ireland perspective. Some people, perhaps some not too far away, may wonder what Northern Ireland’s input into the space sector is. First, it is 8,000 jobs, so let us be clear that it is not just a small sector in Northern Ireland. It is an important sector; we are to the fore in ensuring that Northern Ireland plays a growing and successful part in the space industry, with a focus on satellite technology, aerospace engineering and data analytics. In particular, Northern Ireland has a rich history in aerospace engineering, defence and aerospace projects in my constituency—that is obviously where my interest comes from—as well as across the whole of Northern Ireland.

[Carla Lockhart (Upper Bann) (DUP)]

In Upper Bann, I see at first hand the potential of the space industry, with my area having one of the strongest advanced manufacturing bases in Northern Ireland and being home to companies that contribute to aerospace and high-precision engineering, both of which are important to aerospace sector technologies. Does my hon. Friend agree that, to release Northern Ireland’s full potential in aerospace and in the contribution that it can make to the UK-wide air strategy, we need a seat at the table? Any future UK policies on aerospace and the space industry need to have Northern Ireland at the table.

[Jim Shannon]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. In fairness to the Minister, I feel that her intention is to ensure that that will happen. I hope she will confirm that today. It is important.

Our aerospace heritage brings more than 8,000 jobs to Northern Ireland. I am sure—indeed, I know—that the Minister is very much aware of the current breakdown of jobs, with Magellan Aerospace back home and the ongoing discussions regarding the Spirit AeroSystems takeover, which will have an impact on jobs in my constituency and further afield, including my hon. Friend’s constituency. I will just let the Minister know in advance that topical question No. 6 tomorrow will be on Spirit AeroSystems. The Parliamentary Private Secretary asked me yesterday to make sure that I got the booking in for that. I will send on the question officially, but that is what it will be about.

Northern Ireland aerospace has a 70-plus-year heritage and contributes £151 million to UK GDP. I know Thales operates in other parts, but some £81 million is in Northern Ireland itself, which highlights the importance of our contribution to the UK space sector and the economy. The Minister has visited Thales and will do so again, I hope, in the not-too-distant future. We cannot underestimate the impact that such industries have in the UK economy. Northern Ireland has successfully attracted investment and funding for space-related projects specifically, and we are keen to do more of that, as my hon. Friend the Member for Upper Bann (Carla Lockhart) said. The Department for the Economy in the Northern Ireland Executive, for example, is actively promoting the growth of the space sector. It is very much a core issue for us back in Northern Ireland, including in the Department.

To give some information about what we do back home, on 24 May just over a year ago, Queen’s University Belfast was at the centre of plans to harvest solar power in space to produce a potentially endless supply of net zero energy, to help turn around the world’s climate crisis. That is very futuristic, but what do we know? Will the futuristic things we saw in “Star Trek”—“Beam me up, Scotty”—ever happen? I do not know, but with the progress of technology, someday it might be possible.

The fact that Queen’s University is involved and out there is an indication that such partnerships can very much show the way forward. Their incredible, fantastic work has brought two huge industries of the future together. It will give opportunities in the sector to hundreds of students who have a real interest in working in it. This is not just about today, but about the future and preparing our university students for that future, so that they can be part of it. The Minister might wish to respond to that as well.

In 2021, the then Conservative Government published a national space strategy. I am sure that the hon. Member for Wyre Forest, who introduced the debate, had some input into that. It described the UK’s 10-year vision to build one of the most innovative and attractive space economies in the world. That was the previous Conservative Government saying that, so I am interested to hear the Minister’s thoughts on progressing that 10-year plan and where we are now, because we all—the then Opposition, too, I think I am right in saying—supported that strategy and plan, as we could all see its progressive and visionary potential.

The strategy included the UK becoming the first country in Europe to achieve a small satellite launch from a UK spaceport, and establishing itself as a leader in commercial small satellite launch. The hon. Member for Wyre Forest mentioned that, and the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael) would have, I am sure, had he been present, although the attraction of judging blackface ewes might just overtake it as a subject, because that is a hands-on relationship with his constituents.

Satellites are used for many different things, including navigation, communications, targeting munitions and threat analysis. We can be to the forefront in that. Currently, the UK relies heavily on the US and other nations within the EU for defence-related services. I therefore believe it is pivotal that we in the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland are in a position to use our own methods and technology to preserve our own safety and support our own military. I know we cannot do everything by ourselves any more—it is not wise or focused to do that—but it is important that we have the potential to do some of our own stuff. We need to have the US and the EU, and to work within NATO, but we also need to have the ability to respond on our own merit and our own ability.

The Government reported that, between 2022 and 2024, the total value of contracts secured by the UK through the ESA was £844 million, but I believe that we must do more to fund our own industry, so that we can become leaders in paving the way in the space industry. There is no reason why the companies here in the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland cannot do that. Setting out this case has always been a passion of the hon. Member for Wyre Forest; he has always pushed this, and we should all support him in how we take this forward.

To conclude, protecting the UK space sector affects several areas, whether it be safeguarding against threats to sustainability or monitoring space incidents. We must do more to protect it. The contribution to the economy made by the devolved Administrations—this is one of the great beauties of this United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, where four come together as one—pushed by the Minister here in Westminster to all our advantage, and by the devolved Administrations, cannot and will not be ignored.

I look to the Minister again for commitment and enthusiasm in ensuring that jobs are protected and the best decisions are made for the benefit of the United Kingdom space and aerospace sectors. I believe we can all benefit. I think the Minister is committed to that, and I look forward to her answers.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mark Garnier]

I thank all Members who made a contribution to the debate. It has been fantastic to hear from the hon. Members for Strangford (Jim Shannon), for Congleton (Sarah Russell), for St Ives (Andrew George), for Truro and Falmouth (Jayne Kirkham) and for Stockton North (Chris McDonald), as well as the Front-Bench contributions from the hon. Member for Harpenden and Berkhamsted (Victoria Collins) and my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Buckinghamshire (Greg Smith).

It is a great pleasure to see so many different people and so many new MPs contribute to this debate from such diverse parts of the world, rather than just hearing the same old characters talking about the same old stuff—

[Jim Shannon]

I’m always here.

[Mark Garnier]

The hon. Gentleman is always here.

A number of important things have come up in this debate, one of which is the importance of the clusters. We have heard talk the north-east cluster and the Cornwall cluster. For me, Cornwall is incredibly important: as the hon. Member for St Ives knows, my spiritual home is in Newlyn. My grandparents were Newlyn school artists, and I was brought up looking across Mount’s bay to Goonhilly downs. We also heard how Jodrell Bank is incredibly important as an inspiration; I remember being inspired by what was going on there as a child back in the 60s.

We can see that there are extraordinary opportunities. Businesses across the whole of the country are involved in the space sector. We are seeing extraordinary things going on in, for example, Northern Ireland, which has a very good aerospace legacy. Queen’s University Belfast is using that legacy in looking at the phased array antennas that are being designed and built to enable space-based solar power. That is an incredibly important and successful piece of work. When we eventually get to the stage in which space-based solar power stations are beaming energy back to Earth, Queen’s University Belfast will have been absolutely instrumental.

I have been heartened by the views of many Members. The clusters are very good, and Members will be pleased to hear that I know all the cluster chiefs, one way or another. In Cornwall, Gail Eastaugh is the pushiest of them all. She is truly dynamic and an absolute advocate for Cornwall. We had a drop-by space event a few months ago to promote the space cluster; people turned up with their little banners, but Gail brought something the size of the Chamber wall in order to promote Cornwall—it was very good.

The hon. Member for Truro and Falmouth made a point about Newquay spaceport, which we must remember was a success. It was not the Newquay spaceport that got it wrong; a fuel filter in a Virgin rocket got it wrong. We must never forget that everything we wanted to do was a brilliant success.

I thank the Minister and the shadow Ministers, my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Buckinghamshire and the hon. Member for Harpenden and Berkhamsted, for their contributions. The sector is very exciting, and I get the sense that people are unified behind all this. We know there is a grand strategy and we want to be dominant in the sector. We might have disagreements or arguments over the tactics to achieve that, but if we share the common vision of a grand strategy, we can get there. It is incredibly important for our economy, our productivity and the future. As a mature economy we need to find ways to be increasingly productive in order to deliver a better quality of life for everybody, and space will absolutely deliver that.

The Minister spoke about the industrial strategy, and in a couple of weeks I will take a forensic look at that. The global space finance summit at the end of the year is so important. We have a lot of important sectors in the UK economy that we take for granted, and those sectors need space as much as space needs those sectors. If we want to continue to be relevant in the financial services sector, we have to be relevant for the most modern type of finance and the most modern types of opportunities. That is why we have to be good at space finance and think carefully about it. I would very much like an invitation to come along and speak at the summit.

I thank everybody who contributed to the debate. I get the sense that there is a strong unity of vision in the room, and this is a fantastic opportunity. As they say, to infinity and beyond!

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered the impact of the space industry on the economy.

British Coal Staff Superannuation Scheme

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Wednesday 11th June 2025 Commons Chamber

[Lee Anderson]

Yes, I will come on to the women who worked in our industry a bit later, but the hon. Lady is absolutely correct. All we ask for now that the pits have gone—we still have the communities—is a fair day’s pay from our own pot of money. That pot of money is the £2.3 billion investment reserve fund. That is our money. We paid it in. All we are asking is for the Government to give it back to us.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I commend the hon. Gentleman for securing this debate. I would never have known about what happened in the mines, but for the stories that he has told us. He has told those stories in debates in this House in the past. I thank him for his service. We congratulate the Nationwide building society for doing the right thing and sharing the bonus that it earns with its customers. Therefore, with great respect, Minister, the fact that the Government seem to be dragging their heels on seeing mineworkers receive rightful dividends from their back-breaking, life-altering work is jarring and must be addressed as a matter of urgency.

[Lee Anderson]

I thank the hon. Member for his intervention. As always, he makes a fantastic contribution and I agree with every single word that he has just said.

The Labour party was founded on the backs of coalminers, and I think it is time for the current Labour Government to repay those miners. They should remember that the miners paid their union subs; they helped to bankroll the Labour party. Let us be honest, the Labour party has supplied some good ex-mining MPs to this House. There is one sat there tonight. There was one who used to sit over there. I do not agree with their politics, but they are great MPs.

Let us remind ourselves that about 4,000 or 5,000 women are part of the BCSSS. We could not have done our job underground if it were not for those women, who did a great job. Then there are the widows of the ex-miners who would love to see a few extra quid in their bank account each month when fuel bills are going through the roof. About 2,000 members of the BCSSS die every year, and there are less than 40,000 members still in the scheme.

Groceries Code Adjudicator

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Tuesday 3rd June 2025 Westminster Hall

[Sir John Hayes]

The right hon. Gentleman is right. That is why, when he and I were in Government together, we introduced the Groceries Code Adjudicator. He will remember that I worked closely with his colleague Vince Cable, then Secretary of State, and was involved in that decision. He is also right to focus on the producers. I have spoken so far about consumers, but I want to go on to talk, thirdly, about the distortion in respect of producers.

I began my speech by speaking about how both producers and consumers need a multiplicity of places to buy and sell. In the model that I set out, the one that prevailed for aeons, people who made and grew food, primary and secondary producers, were able to sell to a variety of places. In our lifetimes—I might be overestimating the age of some hon. Members present, but certainly in many of our lifetimes—markets existed where farmers would take their produce to auction. Indeed, there was a livestock market in Spalding in the streets until the 1930s and a covered market until the 1990s, where livestock was brought to be traded and auctioned very openly.

Producers have also been affected by this distortion. As the food chain breaks, it is not only consumers who struggle, able to go to only one or two places to get not just what they want, but what they need, because, as I said, foodstuffs are fundamental.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for bringing forward this debate on an incredibly important topic. Those of us here will express that shortly. Does he welcome, as we all should, the commitment shown by these examples? Tesco, Asda and Lidl in my constituency have an arrangement on Fridays and Saturdays to give those goods that are coming to the end of their shelf life but are still consumable to local community groups, which in turn filter them out to those who need help, the families below the poverty level. We are sometimes hard on the superstores for what they do, but we should recognise that there are occasions when they play their part.

[Sir John Hayes]

The hon. Gentleman is right. His endless good will, known in this House for some time, encourages him to emphasise that supermarkets do deal with their waste products, but inevitably, as well as the waste products that over-consumption produces, supermarkets throw away many of the things on their shelves because of sell-by dates. It is hard to get a handle on, because quite a lot of it is disguised, but supermarkets themselves are actually contributing immense amounts of food waste.

It is true that some communities have found settlements for that, in the way that the hon. Gentleman described. Some supermarkets have at least paid lip service—I say at least, because it is occasionally more than that—to redistributing some of the waste food from their shelves into communities, but we should not be gulled by that. Burke said that tyrants seldom need a pretext; this is a kind of economic tyranny. To have a circumstance in which a near cartel of supermarkets can determine the price of products and then foist them on to a consumer base that has little other option is, in commercial terms, about as tyrannical as can be imagined.

You can tell from all that, Dr Allin-Khan, that I am not a great admirer of the large retailers, and not just for the reasons I have given. I doubt, for example, that supermarkets are particularly careful—by that, I mean they are careless—about the circumstances of their customers and employees. I am not confident that a supermarket chain has quite the sensitivity to a locality, to a community or to a group of people who become their customers and employees that a small family business has. Happily, I still have some of those small family businesses selling food in my constituency, and thank goodness for that, but their number has shrunk. The nation of shopkeepers is now a nation of very large shops, and those are corporate entities rather than the kind of shops that I imagine Napoleon had in mind. This huge problem has affected our high streets, where supermarkets have become more ubiquitous and the only grocers one can spot is a Tesco or a Sainsbury’s—or perhaps an Aldi or a Lidl—rather than the variety once seen up and down our constituencies.

It has also affected producers, as I will come on to in the second part of my speech, because my constituency is disproportionately responsible for the production of UK food. Lincolnshire grows 30% of the UK’s vegetables, 20% of the sugar beet, 18% of the poultry, 20% of the potatoes, and it processes 70% of the kingdom’s fish. In total, my county produces 12% of all the food that fills the shops and shelves, pantries and fridges of our country. Given that, one can understand the particular concerns that farmers and growers in my constituency have about the way those big retailers treat them.

The picture I painted, of an open economy where people can sell in a variety of places, has long gone. Most of my primary producers have very few options, and therefore often have a gun put to their head by their customers, the supermarkets. That might affect their terms of trade and the prices they are offered, which is why the relationship between farm-gate prices and retail prices is, again, distorted in this broken food chain. It often involves sharper practice still, where supermarkets cancel orders quickly; even when a farmer is tooled up ready to provide goods, they will find that in the next season they no longer have a contract to do so.

In the past, supermarkets have lumped all kinds of other costs on to the supplier, such as marketing and transport costs. That is unacceptable, and it is ultimately unsustainable, as those businesses make too little profit to reinvest and therefore become less competitive. We might say, “Well, surely the supermarkets need to obtain their goods to sell them,” but we know where they then go; they import goods from countries that produce those goods at standards we cannot imagine in this country, thereby putting even more pressure on domestic producers. Do we really want that, or do we want a country that cares about food security and becomes more economically resilient because more of what we consume is made here?

A Labour Prime Minister once spoke of British jobs for British workers. He was right. We indeed want British jobs for British workers and we want British goods for British consumers, too. We need to recognise that the provision of food as locally as possible provides economic security, cements and secures communities, and shortens supply lines and therefore, apart from anything else, has immense environmental benefits by cutting food miles. That is the kind of economy that we can have, because there is nothing inevitable or pre-ordained about fewer and fewer food suppliers dominating the food chain.

I have spoken about the impact on consumers of reduced choice and the impact on producers of not being able to trade their goods fairly and freely. Now, I shall talk about the changes we could make. In addition to the decline in income that all types of farm have suffered in the last several years—figures from the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs suggest a sharp decline between 2023 and 2024—there is an issue with the GCA itself.

I am proud to have played a part in setting up the Groceries Code Adjudicator in 2013, but since then the GCA has conducted only two major investigations—into Tesco in 2015 and the Co-op in 2018. The GCA’s power to fine retailers came into force in 2015 and applies only to breaches that occurred after that date, so it did not apply to the first of those investigations. Then, in 2018, the adjudicator said that it did not consider

“the nature and seriousness of the breaches by Co-op to merit a financial penalty.”

So although the GCA has had the power to investigate and punish retailers who breach the groceries code, for that is what the GCA oversees, it has not done so. Why is that? Where is this reluctance rooted? What has been the reason for it?

The reason is partly that those detrimentally affected by the broken food chain are reluctant to report their problems to the adjudicator. They fear they will be identified and later punished—after all, these economic tyrants have little mercy. Those affected can go nowhere else to sell their produce, so what would they do then? They literally have nowhere to go. It is also partly that the adjudicator’s powers are insufficient, and that is the reason for and purpose of this debate.

I am pleased by the reports that the adjudicator is now taking a look at Amazon. As a matter of record, I have never bought anything on Amazon and never will; let me establish that before we go any further. I like to buy my goods in small shops, face to face, and meet real people. I do not want to live in the virtual world—why would we? I want to live in the real world. That investigation is good news, but I fear that, rather like the two previous investigations, it may come to nothing, merely raising false hopes of action that will not in the end be taken.

By the way, I hold in high regard the Chairman of the Select Committee, the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael), with whom I worked in government. Not all Liberals are as bad as they are painted—at least, not as bad as they are painted by me, that is for sure. I know, too, that the Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade, the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Bromborough (Justin Madders), is a good and responsible Minister, who will be listening to this debate with care. I implore him and the shadow Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley and Ilkley (Robbie Moore)—because the previous Government’s record on this is not great either—to step up to the mark, because the present position is unsustainable and cannot continue, for we cannot perpetuate a situation where a handful of corporate giants wield disproportionate power over the provision of food, and by so doing, dictate the food security of this country. If they continue to import food at the rate they are without care, how can we be food secure?

Let me deal with the particular measures we would like to see. We need to extend the role of the adjudicator to include more retailers and food service providers, including food manufacturing businesses, because at the moment the scope is narrow. We need to find a better way of guaranteeing the anonymity of those who bring their complaints to the adjudicator. Efforts have been made in that respect, and even at the time we set up the system we were mindful of that issue and tried to create some degree of protection for people going to the adjudicator with complaints, but I am not sure that has bedded in as well as it might have done. I know from speaking to farmers and growers in my constituency, whom I meet weekly, that that remains a fear. That is a barrier to the effective application of the adjudicator’s powers.

We also need to expand the adjudicator’s remit to include the ornamental sector, which is important in my constituency. Lincolnshire, particularly South Holland and The Deepings, has a thriving ornamental sector, employing a large number of people in many smaller, often family-run, businesses. They are currently outside the adjudicator’s scope and should be included.

We need the adjudicator to have a role in initiating inquiries and studies, rather than simply waiting for complaints. It would be perfectly reasonable for the adjudicator, on the basis of his or her expertise to initiate inquiries into particular aspects of food provision and retailer behaviour. We want a more proactive role. When the role of Groceries Code Adjudicator was established, it was dubbed the “food ombudsman”. That was never the official title, but perhaps it ought to be. Rather than simply having a narrow remit to enforce the groceries supply code of practice, perhaps the adjudicator could have a slightly broader remit to look at the whole issue of the provision of food and its relationship with food security.

When people such as the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland and I began speaking about food security donkey’s years ago, it was regarded as a rather arcane subject and we were seen as mildly eccentric for worrying about such things. Now, food security is a salient issue and at the top of many nations’ political agenda. More than that, it has become critical to national wellbeing. What a good time this is to think more laterally about the role of the food ombudsman and how it might reinforce the Government’s commitment to food security. It would be a way of delivering the objectives that the Government have set out. They said that they are keen to reinforce food security, so why not use the GCA as the means of doing so?

Doing that would allow the adjudicator to develop a strategy and to roll out a set of co-ordinated actions against unfair practices. I would include prices in that because, while all of the techniques I have briefly outlined are used to distort the relationship between buyers and sellers, prices are an issue. How can we ensure that farm-gate and retail prices are brought into closer union?

Just before Christmas last year, we had the obscene spectacle of one or two retailers bagging a series of vegetables in a plastic bag and saying, “These can be bought for 12p.” I had farmers and growers in my constituency telling me, “We have toiled hard to produce high-quality produce, only to see it being sold at a price far below the cost of production. Is it any wonder that the consumer does not appreciate the hard work that goes into making food and the quality of food grown in this country?” There has to be some means of reuniting value and cost by looking closely at the price farmers are paid and the price consumers subsequently pay. That is not to encourage food inflation, but simply to ensure that everyone gets a fair share of a bigger cake, rather than see their share be eaten up in the profits of these corporate behemoths.

By and large, I favour a capitalist economy, although I am not an unbridled admirer of capitalism. How could I be? I am a Conservative, after all. But on balance, I think it is perhaps the best of a series of faulty options. As I said at the outset, capitalism works when people can buy and sell in a multiplicity of places—circumstances that do not prevail in the UK food sector. By empowering the Groceries Code Adjudicator, which henceforth will be known as the food ombudsman, I think, we may be able to rebalance the provision of food and join again the food chain, which is so badly broken.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

It is a real pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dr Allin-Khan. I thank the right hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Sir John Hayes), as we all do, for leading the debate and setting the scene incredibly well.

The Groceries Code Adjudicator is imperative in setting out standards for fair trading between large stores and their suppliers. The right hon. Gentleman referred to doing his shopping locally. I am the same, but I know that for the generation after me—my son, my daughter-in-law and all their family—Amazon is probably their first contact. Life is changing, and it seems cheaper to do it that way.

People are becoming more interested in the food that they are eating and where it is sourced. I have been a member of the all-party parliamentary group for eggs, pigs and poultry for most of my time in Parliament. I am of a generation for whom there is no better way to start a day than with two boiled eggs. I remember the ’60s—that is how old I am—when the advertisements on TV said, “Go to work on an egg.” Well, I could go to work on two eggs and finish the day with two eggs as well. I am probably keeping the egg industry going just with my own purchases.

I understand the importance of the issue for the livelihoods of farmers in my constituency. The GCA’s jurisdiction extends across the entire United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland: it regulates designated retailers with an annual groceries turnover exceeding £1 billion. In Northern Ireland, the GCA’s role is particularly significant. The Ulster Farmers Union— I declare an interest as a member—has highlighted the GCA’s importance in maintaining fair trade practices amid ever more challenging economic conditions. It believes that

“the GCA performs an essential role in a modern, sustainable and competitive grocery market in the UK.”

There is no doubt that reducing or weakening the powers of the GCA will put suppliers and consumers at risk. In my constituency of Strangford, large chains such as Tesco, Asda and SPAR have contracts with numerous suppliers, and their contributions keep the sector going. I have a great relationship with many local suppliers in my constituency, including the likes of Mash Direct and Willowbrook Foods, which provide fresh potato and vegetable dishes. One example is a local farmer, Roy Lyttle—a small farmer, but a decent enough producer—who has just developed a new salad product, Lyttle Leaves. I believe it will take off.

Local farmers and butchers, such as Carnduff butchers and Colin McKee’s, are incredibly popular throughout my constituency. The issue is that grocery inflation has risen to 4.1%, the highest in 15 months, and there is always a possibility that it will continue to rise. That highlights the financial pressure on suppliers and manufacturers to provide products at a competitive rate and ensure that they can make a profit with their wonderful produce.

[Carla Lockhart (Upper Bann) (DUP)]

My hon. Friend will know that farmers in Northern Ireland feed more than 10 million people across the United Kingdom every year. Does he agree that our farmers are treated as shock absorbers? They carry all the risk and receive the least reward. They are still being relentlessly squeezed by powerful retailers and processors. Does he therefore agree that the GCA’s role needs to go further in protecting our farmers from unjust and unbalanced practices?

[Jim Shannon]

I wholeheartedly agree. My hon. Friend’s words are on record, the Minister is here, and hopefully he will respond in a positive way.

Workers have reported feeling lonely, stressed and isolated. They find it hard to connect with others; they often work alone or as part of a small workforce. They are the ones who produce the food on our farms, and they must be properly rewarded for their actions to ensure that supermarkets always have produce to sell. Unfortunately, with inflation rates, people are working harder and under more pressure, with little recognition.

The scope of the problem is highlighted by a 2025 BFAWU survey that shows that nearly 60% of food workers are not earning enough to meet all their basic needs such as rent, heating, electricity and food. Some 86% say that they have had to reduce their heating to save money. It is important in this debate to give the perspective of workers, because they are the ones doing all the real graft.

I will conclude with this point: we must look at the sustainability of the UK food supply chain and ensure that suppliers have access to large food suppliers at a decent price that reflects their work. There are calls for DEFRA here and the Department of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs back home to work together, as the GCA applies to the whole United Kingdom. We must do more to protect the collective UK food supply. I hope that the Groceries Code Adjudicator will commit to doing so in Northern Ireland. I thank the adjudicator for doing his bit to protect the farmers and suppliers of Strangford.

Business and the Economy

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Wednesday 21st May 2025 Commons Chamber

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

When it comes to business and the economy, we want to ensure that every region in the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland can benefit. Northern Ireland is the UK’s smallest region by GDP, but it has higher GDP per head of the population than some regions. It is really important that Northern Ireland has the same advantages and opportunities, and to be fair, I think the Minister is committed to that. Would the hon. Gentleman agree that, when it comes to improving business and the economy, my young people in Strangford deserve the same opportunity as those in his constituency or, indeed, in Scotland, Wales or wherever it may be?

[Andrew Griffith]

The hon. Member is exactly right. When I describe my constituency as “South Downs”, people occasionally assume that it is in Northern Ireland, but all of our young people deserve the best opportunities. We know that the best outcomes for young people are when they can enter the workforce, and that if, when they graduate from school, college or an apprenticeship, those young people cannot immediately find productive work, the scarring impact of that can run through the entirety of their adult life and they never catch up with their peers’ earnings. That is why it is so important that we have a healthy labour market, and a healthy labour market relies on the ability of employers to feel that they can take a chance, give people opportunities and benefit from that.

I want to make some progress, which I suspect may be popular. There are many Members on the Opposition side; sadly, there are disappointingly few on the Government side. Given the paucity of business experience on that side, it is probably appropriate for there to be more listening than talking on the Government Benches.

Let us imagine—and, Madam Deputy Speaker, you will know this from your wonderful constituency—that despite all the headwinds this Government have imposed on business, an entrepreneur does well, grows their business into a successful operation and wants to hand it down to the next generation after they are gone. Those people, who have taken risks to create something good for society, are now at a competitive disadvantage as a result of the family business death tax. They will be forced to carve up, slice up, or close up shop forever to meet the demands for business property relief and inheritance tax.

Analysis from CBI Economics for Family Business UK estimates that this measure alone will result in 208,000 job losses and a £2 billion net loss to the Treasury. Again, I hope the Minister will address that directly when he responds. Family Business UK’s chief executive, Neil Davy, says that “far from stimulating economic growth” this policy “will achieve exactly the opposite.” He is right. To illustrate just how ridiculously flawed this policy is, it applies to families here in the United Kingdom, but it does not apply to overseas businesses that operate here, or to those owned by private equity or foreign corporate owners.

Labour has stolen any incentive for success from a generation of home-grown entrepreneurs. We really cannot go on like this. The gulf between those who create wealth and those who govern us has never been larger. Only one Cabinet Minister, the Secretary of State for Scotland, has any real experience of running a business. Trying to find business experience among those on the Labour Benches is like trying to find a tax the Deputy Prime Minister does not think needs to be raised. It is no surprise that, according to the Institute of Directors, over two thirds of businesses are now pessimistic about the future of the economy.

Carer’s Leave

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Wednesday 14th May 2025 Westminster Hall

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Stringer. I commend the hon. Member for North East Fife (Wendy Chamberlain) for leading the debate. It is a real pleasure to see her back in Westminster Hall leading a debate. Party Whips sometimes do not get an opportunity to do things, so well done to her for making time for this, even though she does not have much time. I congratulate the hon. Lady in all her endeavours in supporting this subject matter. Even among the Government, there is sympathy, compassion and understanding of why this matter is so important, because every one of us deals with these issues every day of the week.

The most recent statistics show that there are some 5.7 million unpaid carers across the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. That represents around 9% of the population, so industrious elected representatives, which we all are, will deal with those people every day of their week and understand the circumstances. They will also understand the commitment and time that those people give voluntarily, without any idea of what it will cost them—they just do it because, as the story the hon. Member for Glastonbury and Somerton (Sarah Dyke) told shows, they love the people they care for. That is surely what it is all about. Their work and determination to care for a loved one does not go unnoticed, and it is extremely important that we do all we can to support them.

The pending Employment Rights Bill sets out the case for paid carer’s leave for Northern Ireland. The stats back home are quite worrying—I think they are similar to those in Wales, although the hon. Member for Brecon, Radnor and Cwm Tawe (David Chadwick) said that they are probably higher. One in three people in Northern Ireland have had to give up employment because of their caring responsibilities. Shockingly, 44% of carers in Northern Ireland have lost out on as much as £1,000 a month in wages due to leaving work or reducing their hours.

The hon. Member for West Dorset (Edward Morello) told the story of Sarah. He said that it was not unique, and it is not—it is a story that is replicated every day in my constituency and, I believe, in the constituency of every Member who is here and of every Member who is not here. Every week in my office I meet those volunteers —those family members—who give their all. Their commitment drains them emotionally and physically. Sometimes, when it comes to filling out benefit forms, I see the difficulties that they have and I sometimes wonder how on earth they are able to look after anybody with all their complex health issues.

The hon. Member for Harlow (Chris Vince) is no longer in his place, but he mentioned young carers. I know that that has been one of his passions in this Chamber. It is also something that I deal with, although maybe not as much as I used to—I have a girl in the office now who does almost all the DWP and benefit issues. She tells me that young carers are often not acknowledged in the way that they should be. They do it because they love their mums and dads—that is what it is all about.

Carers UK has estimated that providing five days of fully paid carer’s leave for employees in Northern Ireland could cost the Northern Ireland Executive between £10.3 million and £15.2 million a year. However, that could still save the Northern Ireland Executive some £4.3 million a year in carer’s allowance payments. What carers do, and the cost factor for them, can never be overstated. In terms of that large cost to the Executive, there is a give and take. There is no doubt that that could be a beneficial step to take to support those with caring responsibilities.

The whole thrust of this debate, put forward by the hon. Member for North East Fife, is about how we can help carers the most. We all like the Minister, not just because of his role, but because he is always amenable and personable when we propose things to him, and I hope that he can give us and our constituents some encouragement.

A crucial point is that the proposed PIP changes will impact those who receive carer’s allowance. If a claimant no longer qualifies for the daily living component when the new guidelines come into force, they will also lose their direct access to carer’s allowance. That loss could be as much as £10,000, and will change the whole scenario for the carer and the family—the impact will be incredible.

I know what the Government are doing, but they have to look at things and make some changes. My fear has always been that the people they will hurt the most will be the people who can least accept it. I am interested in hearing the Minister’s thoughts on what benefits the proposed changes to PIP will bring about. Those who will suffer will be not only PIP claimants, but carers and, ultimately, families.

We must do better for our constituents who sacrifice to help others. As a representative for Strangford, in Northern Ireland, I know the impact on my constituency and right across the Province, where there is currently no carer’s leave legislation. I look to the Minister in a beseeching way, and because, as a Minister, he has all the answers—so no pressure at all—on the matters on which we need some succour and support. I hope he will engage with his counterparts back home in the Northern Ireland Assembly and with Government colleagues to discuss what more can be done to support our carers. That is why we are here: to support our constituents and do our best for them. If that is something that we can do better after today, this will have been a debate well worth having.

Venture Capital: Access

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Tuesday 13th May 2025 Westminster Hall

[Sarah Olney (Richmond Park) (LD)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered access to venture capital for people from ethnic minority and other underrepresented backgrounds.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Jeremy. Venture capital in the United Kingdom is a unique and valuable industry that supports many smaller innovating companies with high growth potential. Our VC market accounted for £8 billion of investment in 2023. It is the largest VC market in the world after the US and China, and the largest in Europe by a considerable margin. As the CEO of the UK’s trade body for venture capital, the British Private Equity and Venture Capital Association, eloquently put it:

“Venture investment helps turn ideas, research and development into thriving businesses, generating economic growth, stimulating innovation and creating jobs and opportunities across all nations and regions in the UK.”

However, while our VC market is growing and strong, it is highly inequitable. For ethnic minorities, women and many other communities which there is either insufficient data or insufficient time to discuss today, our system of venture capital does not work. Businesses with founders from those communities receive a disproportionately lower percentage of VC deals and of total VC funding. With their priority of growth, the Government must do more to ensure that the venture capital market in the UK is inclusive and accessible.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I commend the hon. Lady for securing this debate. In Northern Ireland we have the Minorities Recognition Awards, which launched the innovators grant competition for ethnic minorities in Northern Ireland. It has been a successful collaboration that offers entrepreneurial individuals from ethnic minority backgrounds who are resident in Northern Ireland and have a novel business idea a choice to apply for a grant of some £10,000 to further develop their ideas. But to make it go further and work better, does the hon. Lady agree that the devolved institutions could benefit from further funding for the likes of these grants to potentially bridge funding gaps and ensure that people from all backgrounds can have the opportunity to succeed? I believe that many people have that ability.

[Sarah Olney]

I entirely agree that we need to do more to bridge that gap. I am delighted to hear about some of the efforts already being made towards that goal in Northern Ireland.

In 2022, 10% of first-time equity deals went to all-ethnic minority teams, with 19% of total investment value. However, while I welcome the broadly representative nature of these first-time equity deals, they are unequally distributed within ethnic minority communities, with only 0.24% of venture capital funding between 2009 and 2019 going to black founders. On a similar note, all-white teams accessed a mean investment of £224,000, whereas teams with one or more ethnic minority founders received an average of £49,000. All-ethnic minority teams received an average of £94,000—less than half of what all-white teams received.

I am proud to be a member and former chair of the all-party parliamentary group for ethnic minority business owners, which has not only supported ethnic minority business owners, but considered the intersection of diverse characteristics, including gender and ethnicity, on access to finance, which I will come on to later. I am proud to welcome Diana Chrouch, who provides the secretariat for the APPG and does amazing work on behalf of ethnic minority founders.

I am pleased to note the recent successes in the financial industry. In particular, I welcome the work of the Lending Standards Board on creating their access to financial services for ethnic minority-led businesses code. While that was an important and significant step towards greater equality, the Lending Standards Board does not directly cover venture capital, instead covering other financial instruments for investment. With the LSB acting as living proof that positive change can happen, and given the statistics I have mentioned, it is time for the Government to step up and ensure that that success is replicated in venture capital, and that we can tackle the inequality within VC.

Lack of equality for venture capital investments is not only an issue in relation to ethnic minority communities; female founders are also far less likely to secure this kind of investment. In 2022, a report by the British Business Bank found that only 13% of first-time equity deals went to all-female founder teams, representing 6% of total investment value, and that there had been no statistically significant improvement in this during the past decade. The data is even more worrying for women from ethnic minorities: only 0.02% of the total amount invested through VC went to black women entrepreneurs. One of the most damning statistics of the inequality within the venture capital system is outlined in a 2023 British Business Bank report: only 3% of individuals in senior investment and non-investment positions were women from ethnic minority backgrounds, and concerningly, zero black women were found in positions of seniority in VC firms at the time of the study.

I am sure that many of us are aware of this as an issue affecting founders and business owners across the country. However, this inequality was highlighted to me by a constituent of mine in Richmond Park, who is the founder of Parli-Training, a business that has supported the Northern Irish and Scottish devolved Governments, NATO and even parliamentary offices in this very House. In the years leading up to and including 2024, it employed 170 people and, at its peak, generated a £250,000 in turnover. Despite that strong performance over many years, my constituent, who is a woman from an ethnic minority community, was recently denied investment from the Greater London Investment Fund. In her correspondence with the fund manager, she was told that the fund would not be viable for someone like her because she would be viewed as a risk, that those who access the funds usually come from wealthy backgrounds, and that the only funds available to female-led businesses in London usually take the guise of a grant. My constituent was told that she should try to find a grant that suited her business, or start a GoFundMe. Clearly, something has gone wrong.

Of course, a long discourse on the issue at hand can only go so far. What entrepreneurs from affected communities need is for the Government to take meaningful action to ensure that the UK’s venture capital industry is accessible and inclusive. The first thing we need is greater transparency in the reporting and recording of data, particularly for venture capital deals. That has been championed by many leading voices in the venture capital sector and by the APPG for ethnic minority business owners.

Ladi Greenstreet, CEO of Diversity VC, has said:

“There is a significant amount of power in reporting. Simply measuring the problem creates momentum for change”,

whilst the July 2023 British Business Bank report stated:

“Venture capital firms should participate in industry-wide surveys and make D&I data on their investments public”—

an effective action to improve diversity.

Furthermore, a November 2023 report by the British Business Bank in collaboration with other leading trade bodies outlined the

“scarcity of comprehensive data on ethnic minorities particularly at the intersection of gender and ethnicity.”

One measure that I hope the Government will consider is integrating the reporting of diversity data within venture capital tax reliefs. As recommended by the Treasury Committee’s 2023 report, provision of diversity statistics as a requirement for eligibility to receive the enterprise investment scheme or the seed enterprise investment scheme tax reliefs and the venture capital trust tax reliefs may be an effective way to improve reporting statistics, and to push companies to act on this important issue.

Secondly, I urge the Government to take more robust action to support women in finance and venture capital, including through the Treasury’s women in finance charter and the British Business Bank’s investing in women code. Despite their success, the schemes continue to be voluntary initiatives with relatively low levels of uptake, meaning that their progress in improving diversity in venture capital is too slow and restricted. For instance, the women in finance charter is currently signed by 400 companies covering 1.3 million employees, but there are more than 80,000 companies and 2.5 million employees in the UK’s financial services industry. On the other hand, signatories to the British Business Bank’s investing in women code accounted for 47% of venture capital deals, meaning that over half of VC deals would not fall under the code. Therefore, I echo the calls made by the Treasury Committee in 2023: will the Government consider mandating the Treasury and the British Business Bank to adopt a “comply or explain” policy with regard to both the WFC and the IWC?

I should note that the Treasury Committee also outlined that, should diversity statistics and reporting not improve quickly enough, it would be wise to consider calling for compulsory membership instead. With these changes, the Government can strengthen existing processes to ensure that women are not negatively impacted.

Another key call from groups including the British Business Bank concerns diversity at the top, referring to the lack of diversity in key bodies, including investment committees, which often have ultimate decision making on where capital is allocated. Too often, investment committees are made up of members with similar characteristics and backgrounds, leading to groupthink and the preservation of the status quo—a status quo that we know is inequitable.

In its July 2023 report, the British Business Bank recommended pushes for greater diversity in these leading committees as a crucial opportunity for greater accessibility and inclusion, with a correlation between diverse investing groups and diverse investment recipients. As recommended by the APPG for ethnic minority business owners, would the Minister consider requiring VC firms to adopt and implement a strategic investment inclusion framework, modelled after the Lending Standards Board framework, to dismantle structural barriers?

In conclusion, the Government have said that their priority in this Parliament is growth, but what good is growth if it is not accessible to all our communities? We are cutting ourselves off from a key source of that growth if we continue to enable barriers to accessing investment for all the excluded groups I have mentioned. The Government are committed to supporting businesses, but what good is that commitment if a number of businesses are excluded, whether deliberately or not, from finance and investment?

Our venture capital system continues to be unrepresentative of our communities, and the Government must do better to tackle the issue. The Government have long championed themselves as a Government of change, but many entrepreneurs looking for venture capital have so far seen more of the same from this Government. I hope that the Minister has heard the points made in this debate and takes meaningful steps to resolve the injustice we see in our venture capital industry, which hinders businesses, damages growth and continues a legacy of inequality.

US-UK Trade Deal: Northern Ireland

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Monday 12th May 2025 Commons Chamber

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

With what I am sure will be a pithy final question, I call Jim Shannon.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

You have set me a challenge, Madam Deputy Speaker. I thank the hon. and learned Member for North Antrim (Jim Allister) for securing this urgent question. It is so important to talk about this issue in this place. It has caused considerable problems for my Strangford constituents. In particular, I mention three distilleries—Echlinville, Rademon and the Hinch—but many other businesses are affected, too. How does the Minister plan to address the tariff differentials that may arise for Northern Ireland following the UK-US trade deal? It may see any EU retaliatory tariffs on US goods being applied to US goods entering Northern Ireland, potentially creating an Irish sea border for US goods.

[Jonathan Reynolds]

There is only one Member for Strangford, and no one could mistake him for anybody else in asking a question of that sort. He asks about the definition of whether goods are at risk of entering the single market when they come into Northern Ireland. That is based on a percentage differential in the tariff between the United Kingdom tariff rate for a good or tariff line and that for the EU. I believe that a 3% differential puts a good coming into Northern Ireland potentially at risk and therefore considered for the higher tariff up front. In this case, that would be the EU one, and it would then be reimbursed. I understand that it is a more complex position for businesses in his constituency than for many other things, but we have to make this work. We have to be committed to working with businesses in his area, in Northern Ireland and in the wider United Kingdom, and specifically with political leaders, to ensure that we are getting this right. I am hearing, and I have heard many times, about how we can make that system smoother, more reliable and more efficient. We will take that away and work with our colleagues to do that.

However, the system in place is balancing many different competing pressures, and there are no obvious or easy solutions. I was a parliamentarian when we went through all the potential outcomes when a different party was in charge. Let us make it work. Let us listen where we need to improve things, but let us recognise that this agreement fundamentally addresses some of the core problems that existed when this country chose to leave the European Union.

Automotive Manufacturing: Employment

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Wednesday 7th May 2025 Westminster Hall

[Rebecca Paul (Reigate) (Con)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered Government support for employment in the automotive manufacturing sector.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir John. The automotive industry is an important part of the UK economy, contributing £93 billion in turnover and £22 billion in value added. It invests around £4 billion each year in research and development and employs around 0.8 million people across the wider industry. Many of these are high-skilled, high-paid jobs, of which a considerable proportion are outside London and the south-east, but I am pleased to say that some of these high-value jobs are in the south-east, in places like my constituency of Reigate.

In Burgh Heath, just down the road from Epsom, we find the UK headquarters of Toyota. It is not only one of the biggest employers in the local area; it is also an eco-HQ. In a project that started in 2014, Toyota partnered with Kew royal botanic gardens and the Surrey Wildlife Trust to create a landscaped oasis full of native species from the surrounding countryside, complete with an orchard and meadow. It is wonderful to see a business taking the time and energy to ensure its HQ fits into our special corner of Surrey.

And it does not stop there. Outside the site, Toyota has supported many local initiatives, from providing rooms for community meetings to providing buses for local groups and charities. In 2024, more than £40,000 in grants were given to support the work of local groups, including, to name just a few: the Brigitte Trust; Home-Start Epsom, Ewell and Banstead; St Catherine’s hospice; and Warren Mead school parents and friends association. Before I talk more broadly about the automotive industry, I want to take the opportunity to thank Toyota GB for its significant contribution to the Banstead, Burgh Heath and Epsom area.

The automotive industry is important to this country and our economy, and it is vital that it is not smothered by over-regulation, over-taxation and green initiatives. Only by creating an environment that is conducive to growth will we see the creation of more high-quality jobs. UK car and commercial vehicle production saw a significant decline of 11.6% in February 2025. Worryingly, that marks the 12th consecutive month of declining car production. This must be an important wake-up call. More must be done to protect the automotive industry we already have, to help it grow and to encourage inward investment in new plants and new technologies. It can only continue to create new jobs and innovative technologies with growth-supporting policies.

The automotive industry accounts for over 12% of total UK goods exports, generating £115 billion of trade in total automotive imports and exports. Eight out of 10 cars produced in the UK are exported overseas to 140 different countries, but automotive manufacturers now face additional US tariff costs of around £1.9 billion, which will have a significant and detrimental impact on the industry. The USA is the UK’s second largest car export market after the EU, with exports of over 101,000 units in 2024. These tariffs have material implications for competitiveness, investment and export potential, and it is vital that the Government’s policymaking reflects this new protectionist and uncertain environment. With this massive setback to the industry, it is now even more important that we get things right domestically, to create an environment that stimulates growth for this important industry. I want to raise some of the biggest challenges here in the UK, and I ask the Minister to confirm her plans to address them.

In simple terms, for an industry to thrive, it needs to be able to manufacture products at competitive cost, employ people with the skills it needs, have free access to a market for its products without barriers or restrictions, and not be taxed to high heaven, so that it can reinvest in innovation and growth. A good product will always do well. If it is something someone needs, if it provides value for money and if it makes their life easier, they will buy it—it really is that straightforward—so let us talk about the zero emission vehicle mandate challenge first.

The ZEV mandate sets out the proportion of new zero emission cars and vans that manufacturers are required to produce each year up to 2030: 80% of new cars and 70% of new vans sold in Great Britain must be electric vehicles by 2030, increasing to 100% by 2035. Part of the reason for introducing this policy was to provide investment certainty for the charging sector to expand the network, given that lack of charging points is one of the things that puts consumers off buying an electric car. There can be no doubt that it is a well-intentioned policy, but as the old saying goes, the road to hell is paved with good intentions.

Notably, the moving of goalposts by Governments of various colours in recent years has been deeply unhelpful. The previous Government made the decision to delay the ban on new diesel and petrol cars by five years, from 2030 to 2035, whereas the new Government have reversed that. Putting aside the question of which position is the correct one, such chopping and changing is not fair on the automotive industry, which needs certainty and consistency so that it can deliver what is expected of it while still growing its businesses.

I do, however, recognise the Government’s recent announcement about increasing the flexibility of the ZEV mandate, which is welcomed by the industry and shows that the Government are listening. In particular, I welcome the reduction in fines for missing targets and the allowance for all forms of hybrid cars until 2035. However, I would suggest that the whole approach in this area needs to be reconsidered as a priority. Tinkering is not enough.

The ZEV mandate targets are incredibly challenging for businesses to meet. It makes no sense to expect businesses to dictate what products their customers should buy, when we all know that consumer preference and need should drive the products that a business sells, and rightly so. In 2025, ZEV sales will need to increase by 43% for cars and 171% for vans for automotive businesses to achieve the mandate targets. That is not achievable, and a fine of £12,000 per vehicle is levied on those businesses for every missed EV sale.

The automotive industry cannot win on this one. Consumers are not ready to buy EVs yet, because of the lack of charging infrastructure, the battery range issues and the cost, but the automotive businesses will be held responsible and expected to pay the price. If we continue in that way, we will see contraction of the industry, plant closures and job losses, all in the name of net zero. That has already started, with Vauxhall owner Stellantis announcing plans to close a van factory in Luton that employs around 1,100 people.

The industry has already invested billions in bringing more than 130 ZEV models to market. Despite spending some £4.5 billion in market support for EVs in 2024, it still missed last year’s target by some way. Such a level of support from industry is unsustainable and is diverting resources away from investment in new technology, models, plants, and research and development. I urge the Government to take responsibility for their role in delivering charging infrastructure and lowering energy costs, rather than beating businesses over the head for their own failings.

I also urge the Minister to review the mandate targets as soon as possible and to consider other, more effective ways of driving growth in EV take-up. It would make much more sense to incentivise consumers, rather than penalising businesses. The ZEV mandate targets cannot magically drive demand out of thin air. What we need is more carrot and less stick.

Has the Minister considered such alternative options as reducing the VAT on EV sales and public charging, or offering plug-in grants for cars? Those could be straightforward and effective ways of boosting consumer demand. If the Government are wedded to the current draconian ZEV mandate approach, the fair thing would be for them to commit to delivering public charging infrastructure on equivalent targets.

For example, in 2025 the target is for 28% of new car sales to be electric, so the Government must ensure there are sufficient public charging points across the UK to serve those new EVs by the end of 2025. If the Government fail to do that, the shortfall should be offset against the fines levied on the automotive industry, reducing what it has to pay. Surely that is fairer. The Government need to play their role and must also be held to account when they do not deliver.

Before moving on, I want to touch on domestic energy prices, which apply to all manufacturing industries, not just automotive.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I commend the hon. Lady for securing the debate. I did some research on the industry back home in Northern Ireland, and I am sorry that I cannot make a speech because I have sponsored an event at 10 am, and it cannot happen if I am not there.

We have a vibrant automotive sector in Northern Ireland that provides some 11% of employment and 13% of gross value added. That is down not just to Wrightbus, which has great sales across the United Kingdom and further afield, but to the rest of the automotive industry in Northern Ireland. Does the hon. Lady agree that the Government need to step up in supporting businesses and helping research and development? We have the skills, but we need the support, and today’s debate is a significant step forward for the industry across this great United Kingdom. Research and development is on the mainland, yes, but it is also in Northern Ireland. The Minister knows that already and, I suspect, is already on it.

[Rebecca Paul]

I agree with the hon. Member on the importance of supporting businesses. We must make sure that we remove obstacles and barriers that hinder growth. I hope that conversation starts today and that we can get to a better place where we support our amazing automotive industry, which delivers so much for this country, including Northern Ireland.

Energy costs must come down. The industry cannot manufacture at a competitive cost with energy costs being so high compared with what other countries pay. We must not shoot ourselves in the foot with a net zero obsession. We must make sensible decisions on the energy mix to ensure energy security and value for money so that our manufacturing industry can compete on the global stage. That means investing in nuclear and not making the mistake of thinking that solar and wind are a silver bullet.

I urge the Minister to share her views on how she intends to reduce energy costs for manufacturing industries in the short to long term so that they are better able to compete. I recognise that some of this goes across many briefs, so I appreciate that this is not something over which she has full control.

Another important challenge is ensuring that we have a skilled workforce. Research by the Institute of the Motor Industry suggests that around 107,000 additional technicians will be needed by 2030. That is an amazing opportunity for this country. The more the industry grows, the more jobs and opportunity there will be, but we must ensure that we have people here with the skills to take up the jobs to ensure the industry’s success.

That is why it is so important to support apprenticeships, which are a great way for young people to gain the skills they need while working. A survey from the Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders in February 2025 found that the UK automotive sector will increase apprenticeship numbers by 16% in 2025, with opportunities spanning manufacturing, supply chain logistics and vehicle maintenance. The most in-demand roles are design and development engineers, EV technicians and specialists in batteries and power electronics. That equates to over 700 new apprenticeships available among UK automakers.

I want to take this opportunity to mention East Surrey college in my constituency, which offers full-time and part-time qualifications in vehicle technology, maintenance and electric/hybrid vehicles. I recently visited and was impressed by the expert teachers, the well-equipped workshops with industry standard equipment, and the very talented and engaged students. We must ensure that we provide the right courses so that people with the right skills will be available to fill job opportunities in the industry. East Surrey college is certainly playing its part.

I ask the Minister to clarify what the impact of abolishing level 7 apprenticeships will be on the automotive industry and how she plans to mitigate any detriment. Additionally, I urge her to consider how the new Government’s Employment Rights Bill will impact on the automotive industry. In February 2025, a Motor Ombudsman survey found that 58% of businesses reported difficulty in recruiting qualified technicians to meet growing workload, and that those difficulties would be made worse by the Employment Rights Bill, which is causing businesses to re-evaluate their hiring strategies.

It is vital that the UK remains competitive and that the industry is not further burdened when it already faces so many challenges. It is clear that the rise in employer national insurance contributions is putting additional pressure on the automotive industry, with a cost of £200 million. The increased cost of doing business in the UK will reduce inward investment, economic growth and ultimately jobs. The Institute of the Motor Industry stated:

“These changes are likely to have a significant impact on costs for small businesses that operate in the automotive sector, which is already facing a skills gap of 20,000+ vacancies.”

It went on to say that the additional costs will

“dampen investment in training and continuous professional development”.

If the Government are really committed to boosting job opportunities and growth in the automotive sector, they need to reflect on some of their recent policies. Just saying that growth is a priority does not make it so. They need policies that do not put obstacles in the way.

Lastly, I want to raise the challenge of taxation. In the interests of time I will not speak in detail, but the automotive industry has raised concerns about recent announcements on proposals to ban employee car ownership schemes and changes to capital allowances and benefit-in-kind treatment for double-cab pick-up vehicles. The SMMT is concerned that those changes will

“undermine the market, hit profitability and viability and have serious consequences for UK tax returns, automotive OEMs and their employees, and sole trader/small business operations.”

Will the Minister confirm whether there are any plans to remove or adjust the vehicle excise duty expensive car supplement?

That is enough from me for now. I will bring my comments to a close so that anyone else who wishes to contribute has the time to do so. I thank all hon. Members for attending the debate and showing their support for the automotive industry.

Oral Answers to Questions

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Thursday 1st May 2025 Commons Chamber

[Sarah Jones]

I do not want to underestimate the challenges that the chemical sector faces. Between 2021 and 2024, UK chemicals manufacturing fell in real terms by about a third. We are working to improve the UK’s trade and investment relationship with the EU. We want to build exports and investment opportunities and reduce barriers to trade. Conversations are at an early stage, so I will not go into specifics, but we are certainly working to help the chemicals industry.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

What assessment has the Minister made of the benefits that inclusion of the chemicals sector among the eight sectors could bring for our national security and our pharmaceutical sector? How can all regions of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland benefit from this sector?

[Sarah Jones]

When we look at the eight sectors that we are trying to turbocharge through the industrial strategy, we see that the chemicals sector underpins so many other sectors. We need to make sure that we protect it. As I have just said, chemicals manufacturing has fallen by nearly a third over the past three years; we need to turn that around. We are looking at what we can do to break down barriers and make improvements—for example, on the cost of energy. That is part of the mix when it comes to making sure that we are secure in the future.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade (Justin Madders)]

I had to wait 50 minutes for a question, Mr Speaker, but this is an important one and I share the hon. Member’s concerns. We regularly meet Ofcom to discuss the performance of Royal Mail, and I will certainly write to him about the discussions we have in respect of his constituency.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

What discussions has the Minister had with his counterpart in Northern Ireland about encouraging young people into casual hospitality employment, to teach them about the benefits of work and the importance of managing money?

[Jonathan Reynolds]

I am always grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his questions. We always seek to keep colleagues in Northern Ireland well briefed on a range of issues, particularly some of the complexities around trade that have come out of the Windsor agreement and need to be managed carefully. I do not think I have had a specific conversation about the matter he raises, but this is a good opportunity to say that I think I should, and I will. I am grateful to him for getting that on the record.