Fairtrade Certification

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Thursday 11th December 2025 Westminster Hall

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

It is always a real pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mrs Hobhouse. I thank the hon. Member for Glasgow North (Martin Rhodes) for excellently setting the scene, for his contribution today and for his hard work on this subject over the years, which is not forgotten about and provides extra context to the debate and to his speech.

The fairtrade system sets standards across the globe on ethical sourcing, fair wages, safer working conditions and proper environmental practices—four things that probably all of us in this Chamber would fully support. Fairtrade is a well-known organisation and it plays a key part across the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, including in schools, so I am pleased to participate in this debate. In Northern Ireland— I hope this is true on the mainland too—children are very much aware of the Fairtrade organisation at an early age. As a result, they are well placed to tell their parents and other adults and remind them of the role they can play. The Minister is not responsible for education, but perhaps he can give us some idea of what is done to encourage schools more strongly?

[Phil Brickell (Bolton West) (Lab)]

The hon. Member is making an important point about young children in schools. Last month, Joshua, Leyla and Elizabeth from St George’s primary school in my constituency wrote to me about their campaign to promote sustainable palm oil labelling. They are carrying on a fine tradition in Bolton, where one of the first Fairtrade shops in the country, Justicia, opened in 1985. Does the hon. Member agree with Joshua, Leyla, Elizabeth and myself that sustainable palm oil labelling is crucial for informing consumers and promoting ethical businesses, alongside greater Fairtrade initiatives?

[Jim Shannon]

I certainly do. I am greatly encouraged by what the hon. Gentleman said, and by those three young children in particular in relation to their work on palm oil. That is one of the campaigns that school children in Northern Ireland are also part of. The hon. Gentleman is right to highlight that, and I am sure that the children he mentioned will be given a copy of Hansard, where their names will be printed for posterity. I thank them for all that they are doing—well done! That encourages me when it comes to the greater picture for children.

UK businesses use Fairtrade to demonstrate commitment to ethical practices. Northern Ireland has held Fairtrade status as a region since 2004. It is something we are greatly committed to and have a great interest in. The NI Fairtrade forum works with councils, schools, businesses and communities to increase awareness. One of my staff members remembers that in primary school they celebrated a Fairtrade week, when all pupils had to bring in the labels of any foods or packaging they could find in their homes that were Fairtrade. I can imagine children scouring their cupboards to find something in their house—hopefully there were plenty of products that represented Fairtrade.

Fairtrade products are widely available in supermarkets across Northern Ireland. The hon. Member for Glasgow North referred to some of the businesses that carry Fairtrade products. I am glad to report that the likes of Tesco, Asda, Sainsbury’s and the Co-op all carry Fairtrade products that are sourced globally. Those shops are making these products practically and physically available across Northern Ireland, and they take in a large proportion of shoppers—although not all of them, of course.

Let us honest about the situation: some smaller, perhaps family-run, businesses will struggle slightly more because producers are paid a fair minimum price and premium. Smaller businesses with tight margins and sometimes unpredictable cash-flow will struggle to source Fairtrade products, for fear of passing the cost increases to customers. It is not possible for everyone to source Fairtrade products, but for those who commit to it and wish to do it, there is a way of making it happen. The smaller businesses in my constituency rely on the local wholesalers and independent distributors which, again, may not carry a whole range of Fairtrade products. Some of those suppliers perhaps need a greater awareness, so they can do more. People want to do their best, but in terms of finance they must work with what is available to them.

The hon. Member for Glasgow North also referred to the role of churches. I am pleased to say that in my Strangford constituency there are a great many churches and churchgoers—those who practice their faith in a very practical and physical way. They are committed to Fairtrade because of their beliefs. They also want to do their best to help in a physical way, which they do by purchasing available Fairtrade products so that the money goes to people who need it in the right places. It is a pleasure to thank all the people in Northern Ireland who buy from and support the Fairtrade networks. Northern Ireland has some strong Fairtrade networks, and we should be proud of that, but of course people want to do more. The hon. Gentleman was right when he said that people want Fairtrade. I think most people I meet, if not every person, wants Fairtrade, but some may be restricted by what is available on the shelf or where they shop.

I am so proud of the education on Fairtrade in schools and universities—the very thing referred to by the hon. Member for Bolton West (Phil Brickell) in his intervention. It is really encouraging to know that our children probably know more about it than their parents, and that they want to do something about it. There is an innocence that children have, where they see the good—things can be very black and white for them, but it is good that they have that.

The United Kingdom Government can do more to incentivise public bodies such as schools and hospitals to consider options for Fairtrade, such as tea and coffee, or prioritise ethical trade standards to make procurement easier for small public bodies. I should have welcomed the Minister to his place; it is always a pleasure to see him. He has been a busy man today—he has been in the Chamber and now he is here, so he has definitely earned his money today. Can he indicate what has been done to encourage public bodies to purchase Fairtrade goods? I know there is a campaign, but for those who are maybe hesitant, is there is a follow-up to encourage them?

Fairtrade plays a positive role by promoting ethical standards in Northern Ireland and further afield in the United Kingdom. It strengthens our commitments to human rights. I am a great believer in and a huge supporter of human rights, and Fairtrade helps us to support human rights across the world. We can make an impact through everyday purchasing, and to build on that I ask the Government again to do more to make the procurement process easier. If that is possible, it would be a step in the right direction. I thank all Members for their participation in advance of the debate, and I look forward to the other contributions and to the Minister’s response.

Oral Answers to Questions

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Thursday 11th December 2025 Commons Chamber

[Kate Dearden]

I thank my hon. Friend and those she mentions for their unwavering commitment to supporting parents—I was delighted to meet the Dad Shift recently. We are committed to improving the lives of working families. Alongside expanding access to paternity leave and unpaid parental leave, benefiting over 1 million more parents, we are strengthening flexible working rights and bolstering protections for new and expectant mothers. But more needs to be done. This year, we launched the parental leave and pay review to explore how the system can better support working families and reflect modern work and childcare realities. I look forward to working with her and hearing further from her constituents about the impact those changes could have for working people, especially those on lower incomes.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I thank the Minister very much for that helpful response. Many low-income workers often cannot afford unpaid or low-paid leave, so fathers feel obliged to return to work to receive full pay. What steps can the Government take to increase statutory paternity pay to match the reasonable proportion of wages across the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland?

[Kate Dearden]

The hon. Member will have heard my reference to a review. It will consider all forms of parental leave and pay, alongside current and future parental leave entitlements. I urge him to get involved in that process, and look forward to hearing from him as part of it.

Small-scale Fracking Ban

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Wednesday 10th December 2025 Westminster Hall

[Alison Hume]

I completely agree with my hon. Friend that Reform’s plans are a threat to our beautiful countryside, and our constituents do not want them.

Europa’s plans have been widely opposed by the local community. In response, campaigners launched a petition that has garnered more than 10,000 signatories calling for a Government ban on small-scale fracking. Fracking—short for “hydraulic fracturing”—is the process of injecting fluid at high pressure into an underground rock formation to release the gas or oil inside.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I commend the hon. Lady for securing this debate. The Government must commit to ensuring that local people have the final say. In terms of buying property or businesses in a certain area, fracking should be unable to go ahead without the say-so of the entire local community and the Government must abide by that decision. Does the hon. Lady agree?

[Alison Hume]

I completely agree with the hon. Member. We must listen to our local communities, who are telling us loud and clear that they do not want fracking on their back door, in their beautiful fields or in the countryside.

Since 2019, there has been a moratorium on fracking across the UK—a decision taken after Lancashire was rocked by an earthquake caused by fracking operations at Preston New Road. However, not all forms of fracking are currently covered by the moratorium. The Petroleum Act 1998 uses a fluid-based definition for fracking. Section 4B(1)(b) describes it as

“the injection of…more than 1,000 cubic metres of fluid at each stage, or expected stage, of the hydraulic fracturing, or…more than 10,000 cubic metres of fluid in total.”

The volume of liquid proposed for the Burniston site is under that threshold, so despite the intent of the plans being exactly the same—to explore for and to extract gas by injecting a substance into the rock at pressure to cause it to fracture—the current legislation actually allows Europa to do exactly what the moratorium should be there to block. It is clear that the volume-based definition has created a legal loophole for oil and gas companies to evade the Government’s ban on fracking and proceed to do so under a different name—in this case, “proppant squeeze”.

The Burniston application is not the first time that planning permission has been sought in England for proppant squeeze. Between 2016 and 2019, Egdon Resources applied several times and was eventually granted planning permission for a proppant squeeze in north Lincolnshire, with a hydraulic fracture plan approved in May 2021. In November 2024 another company, Rathlin Energy, also applied to the Environment Agency for permission to carry out similar work at West Newton, an oil and gas site in East Yorkshire.

There is no evidence that the volume of fluid used can accurately determine the risk of seismic events. However, the volume of fluid proposed for use at the Burniston site in my constituency surpasses the highest daily fluid amount in the week leading up to the 2019 earthquake that triggered the existing moratorium. Seismologists have warned that our country’s geology responds unpredictably to even small injections, under- scoring that any fracking has risk, regardless of fluid volume.

Seasonal Work

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Wednesday 10th December 2025 Commons Chamber

[Nigel Huddleston]

I suggest that the hon. Lady talk to those constituents again. I do not think one has to be a sparkling economist to work out that when something has gone up, it is higher, not lower. Those people are not getting a permanent reduction in business rates. The numbers are going up. That is basic economics and facts.

It is part-time seasonal and temporary workers, young workers and people in sectors such as food production, tourism, retail and hospitality who are being hit particularly hard, but perhaps that should not surprise us. As many Members have already pointed out, Labour just does not understand economics, business, or incentives.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I thank the shadow Secretary of State for introducing this incredibly important debate. I must say, with respect, that the Government will have a lot to answer.

In the Northern Ireland agrifood sector, the licensing process is so laborious that it is putting people off, which means that when we need workers in the sector, we do not get them. The hon. Gentleman is right to put forward the case for hospitality, but may I put forward the case for those in the Northern Ireland agrifood sector, who are also under great pressure, and who will be disadvantaged by the Government’s system?

[Nigel Huddleston]

Absolutely. The hon. Gentleman makes a really important point. We see that the hospitality sector is hard-hit, because numbers for the sector are easily available, and there have been a great many reports about the job losses there, but multiple sectors will be hit by these changes. As he points out, the problem is not just the tax hit but the regulatory burden, and that reinforces my point that the Government do not understand business.

Net Zero Transition: Consumer-led Flexibility

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Tuesday 9th December 2025 Westminster Hall

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

It is always a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Vickers. I thank the hon. Member for Thornbury and Yate (Claire Young) for leading this debate and for setting the scene incredibly well. It is always a pleasure to see the Minister in his place; I look forward to the helpful and positive remarks he always makes. It certainly gives a lift when he answers the questions, and I am quite sure he will do likewise today.

[The Minister for Energy (Michael Shanks)]

Lower your expectations.

[Jim Shannon]

No, no—upwards! Everything upwards. It is also a pleasure to see the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Mid Buckinghamshire (Greg Smith), in his place and I look forward to his contribution as well.

Consumer-led flexibility is so important. It refers to ordinary households and small businesses adjusting their energy use to support a cleaner and more resilient energy system. Who does not want that? It is about how we make it happen, however, and whether there is a cost factor to it. Can people make the changeover—the transition, so to speak—in a way that achieves the goals but does not inhibit their pocket financially in the way it sometimes might?

The cost of energy has been such a huge issue nationwide. I know from my constituents that it is a real problem. The two things that affect them more than anything else are the price of foodstuffs and the cost of energy. Especially as we head into winter, the cost of energy becomes a critical factor. It is about balancing one’s income at the end of the month to ensure that all those things are covered. For my constituents, that is a real problem with increasing costs and consumption, so it is good to have an opportunity to represent them in this Chamber today.

I always add a Northern Ireland perspective to the debate, and I know that the Minister always endeavours to reply to us in Northern Ireland on how Westminster can help, so it is important to put that on the record. For a just transition in Northern Ireland, any move to low-carbon energy systems must be fair, affordable and supportive of communities reliant on older heating fuels.

[Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP)]

My hon. Friend has just touched on affordability. Would he agree that, by and large, people across communities—whether in Northern Ireland or across the UK—want to embrace green energy and be environmentally friendly, but they do not want to pay a massive premium to attain a goal that is unrealistic in the timeframe? The important thing is reconciling those two things to bring the community with us.

[Jim Shannon]

I thank my hon. Friend for that; it was my next point. He is right: I have not met anybody who does not want to improve the environment or support the net zero targets, but they want to do so in a way that does not disadvantage them inadvertently. It is very important that we try to achieve that.

Back home in Northern Ireland, this is crucial, because of the point that my hon. Friend referred to. We have a very specific issue in that 68%—two thirds—of Northern Ireland homes use oil heating, which is more than anywhere else in the UK. Fuel poverty rates are also historically high, I suspect, as a result. I have oil in my house, as do all the farmhouses in the countryside, and there is very little access to gas except on specific estates in Newtownards and perhaps a bit in Ballynahinch and Saintfield as well.

Furthermore, according to the 2023 update from housing statistics, only about 39% of dwellings have a rating of band C or higher, especially in rural areas, which is a very large section of my Strangford constituency. Few homes have access to gas in Northern Ireland and there are no alternative decarbonisation pathways, so we have to be realistic about trying to achieve the goals in a way that does not bring people down to not only fuel poverty but poverty overall.

I welcome the Government’s commitment to try to address some of those things, but perhaps the Minister can give us some ideas on how we can help our constituents in Northern Ireland—both mine and those of my hon. Friend the Member for East Londonderry (Mr Campbell).

[James Naish]

The hon. Gentleman is outlining a range of issues that make it difficult for people to reduce their bills. Does that not highlight the benefit of flexibility, because it would give people greater control, empower them and give them information, so that they can control their bill as best as possible? That is why we have to lead with a flexibility-first approach.

[Jim Shannon]

The reality is that, although people subscribe to the idea and wish to develop the net zero targets, it is about how that sits in their pockets. That is the ultimate goal that people reflect on. I am no better than anybody else, and my constituents are telling me—as I am sure they are telling every other MP in here—that Christmas is coming. I stay across the river at the Park Plaza hotel, and I asked a guy last night, “Are youse busy today?”, and he said, “No. It’s much quieter than it’s been for a long, long time.” He surmised that it was because it is Christmas and people are cutting back. It is the same back home. As I said before, I have not met anybody who does not want to achieve the net zero goal, but it is about how the Government help them to reach it.

There are income inequalities and geographic inequalities in Northern Ireland, and they interact strongly with affordability—it is a key issue. There is also poor uptake of smart meters in Northern Ireland, so many people end up paying way more as a result of estimates. That is another critical factor. The Minister travels to Northern Ireland regularly, so that might be an opportunity to get his thoughts across to the relevant Minister back home on how we can achieve some of these goals.

When we talk about consumer-led flexibility, the conversation must be about giving households the ability to shift their energy use to cheaper, cleaner times of the day. There are things that can be done, and things that the Government are helping people with, which I know the Northern Ireland Assembly are also trying to take advantage of, but when it comes to smart technologies and fairer tariffs, and generating or storing energy locally, how can they be achieved? That vision will work only if ordinary people can access and afford the technology and infrastructure required, but too many households are being left behind. Rural households face higher charges and costs, and the up-front expense is simply too much. I know that this is a critical issue, but we can never move away from thinking about affordability, as my constituents tell me.

Consumer-led flexibility should be not something that happens to communities, but something that communities shape, benefit from and own. To respond to the hon. Member for Rushcliffe (James Naish), if consumers can see it as part of what they want to achieve and the Government can help them in that transition, it is a win-win for everyone. Northern Ireland and the rest of the UK have enormous potential: world-leading renewable resources, strong communities and a desire for a cleaner and more secure energy future. Let us build an energy system that works for everyone in the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland—not just for today, but for my children, my grandchildren and generations to come.

--- Later in debate ---

[Michael Shanks]

No, I don’t intend to—do not worry, colleagues.

This is an important debate, however, and I thank the hon. Member for Thornbury and Yate (Claire Young) for securing it. She made a point that those in the industry make regularly to me: that this is too often a footnote in the discussion about achieving our future energy security. It should not be. It should be much further up the agenda. It is not for want of trying; I often talk about it, but it is regularly the bit that gets cut out of interviews before they are broadcast. The Government are certainly talking about these issues.

The hon. Lady outlined perfectly the problem of how we get cheaper, more secure power to homes and businesses, and the three fixes: building more grid, strategically planning where energy is built in the first place, and utilising flexibility. The truth is that we need to do all three at a pace never before seen in this country. I will come back to those points, but I welcome her recognition of them.

My hon. Friend the Member for Washington and Gateshead South (Mrs Hodgson) made a fantastic speech, as always. She is a fantastic champion for the north-east and a long-standing campaigner on the issue of how we can reduce fuel poverty. She made the point that we risk losing the opportunity of getting cheaper power to people’s homes and bringing down their bills, and she mentioned the fantastic innovations out there already. I have had the pleasure of seeing a number of them. When I visited the Mining Remediation Authority recently, I had the genuine pleasure of hearing about the mine water heating scheme. That is a fantastic example of how we can utilise something that we used decades ago to power the country. There is also a social justice argument, as those communities who still have deep scars from that period can benefit from cheaper bills in the long run.

I also want to recognise the point the hon. Member for Thornbury and Yate made about the equality aspect and how we will bring everyone with us on this transition. I will return to that point, but first I want to return to first principles and say why the Government are committed to delivering clean power by 2030. At the heart of that mission is an energy system that delivers flexibility for consumers: not forcing consumers to make choices, but giving them the opportunity to make choices that bring their bills down, and to use technology for the betterment of their lives in a way they choose.

The clean power action plan outlined 10 GW to 12 GW of consumer-led flexibility. I think that in the months ahead we will be talking much more about that part of the action plan. The Government have had to move very quickly in the first 16 months to deliver on the auctions in offshore and onshore wind, to lift the ban on onshore wind and to deliver much more solar than we have ever seen, but flexibility has been hugely important in the background, and we will say much more in public about it in the coming months.

Let me respond briefly to the core argument that the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Mid Buckinghamshire (Greg Smith), made about the clean power mission:

“The UK is a world leader in renewable energy…and we must go further. Energy security means national security. We must replace imported fossil fuels with cheaper, cleaner, domestic sources of energy. That is how we will ensure that the UK never again suffers the rising prices caused by Putin’s weaponisation of energy following his invasion of Ukraine.”—[Official Report, 22 November 2023; Vol. 741, c. 21WS.]

Those are not my words, but the words of the shadow Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for East Surrey (Claire Coutinho), in November 2023. I am not quite sure what has happened to the Conservative party in two years, but the Conservatives seem to have completely changed not just their position, but their understanding of the facts and science behind what they were saying then. The right hon. Member, who was Secretary of State at the time, made my argument just as well as I could ever seek to. I will leave it at that.

A just transition has the power to unlock enormous benefits for people right across the country. It is why we have pledged to deliver clean power, because we know it is cheaper and it removes the volatility of which all our constituents are still facing the cost. It will shield consumers from the volatility in global gas prices, over which we have absolutely no control, but it will also create new jobs in industries right across the country. It is the economic opportunity of the 21st century.

The role of storage will be important. The hon. Member for Newton Abbot (Martin Wrigley) talked about a school trip to Dinorwig; in Scotland, I think every single school child went to Cruachan, the hollow mountain, which is another pumped hydro power station. Although pumped hydro may be a technology from the last century, it is critical in this century as well. Indeed, the Government have launched the first new long-duration energy storage in 40 years. It is a critical way of dispatching clean power and storing it for when we absolutely need it, so it still plays an important role.

Consumer-led flexibility will play an important role in getting renewable energy to people’s homes. It will help us to balance the grid and ensure that we have supply when we need it. It enables us to take advantage of low-carbon energy and reduce periods of peak demand and the associated infrastructure needs. It also involves financial rewards for those who choose to shift their electricity use to times when supply is more abundant, cheaper and cleaner. Smart meters are a key part of that. As we all know from our constituencies, we would all have liked to see a more efficient roll-out of the smart meter programme over the years, but 70% of meters across Great Britain are now smart or advanced meters, with more than 40 million homes and businesses having them installed.

We will continue to monitor the roll-out in Government very closely. Indeed, I chair a working group that is looking at how we can deliver market-wide half-hourly settlements much faster. That is really important so that consumers and businesses benefit directly from having a smart meter and new technology.

[Jim Shannon]

I thank the Minister for the positivity of his answers. The take-up of smart meters in Northern Ireland has not been good at all—nowhere near expectations. In his discussions with the relevant Minister in Northern Ireland, what can be done to help us to do better back home?

[Michael Shanks]

I will come to the hon. Gentleman’s point. I always appreciate the kindness of his contributions, although he needs to lower his expectations of mine. He rightly mentioned the statistic that 68% of households in Northern Ireland have oil heating, which he raised with me in a previous debate. That figure surprised me, and it is a reminder of the complexity of the different circumstances across the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. I work closely on this issue with Northern Ireland Executive colleagues in the Department for the Economy, and we share much of our good practice to make sure that everybody comes with us on this journey. I will shortly say more on the hon. Gentleman’s point about gas.

We are already seeing consumers benefiting from flexibility. Last year, the demand flexibility service saw over 2 million households and businesses save money by flexing their demand. We are committed to ensuring that all consumers have the option to participate, not just those who can afford certain technologies. The Government have committed £1.5 billion through the warm homes plan, which will help to upgrade low-income households. The Government will also work to ensure that flexibility is simplified and accessible for all consumers who want to take part, not just the tech savvy and those who are already able to. We have to remember that flexibility brings down the price for everyone, even those who are not participating, because of the benefits it brings to the overall system.

As we shift away from gas, consumer-led flexibility will become even more vital for managing an electrified system. Crucially, it will bring down bills for all consumers, not just those who actively participate. The Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for Newton Abbot, gave a figure on the direct benefit from consumer-led flex, and a more flexible system is estimated to save up to £10 billion a year overall because of that efficiency. It is hugely important.

The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) asked about the transition. Obviously, connecting to the gas network is difficult in Northern Ireland, and this is a huge opportunity for many households to jump a step—from oil heating to heat pumps and other technologies. There is a real opportunity for those households to benefit, perhaps even more than some other households, if we get the transition to consumer-led flex correct. I look forward to more conversations with the hon. Gentleman on that issue.

The other point I want to make is about the role of technology. Consumer-led flexibility is becoming increasingly automated, which means that consumers can benefit from these opportunities with little or no intrusion in their daily lives. Indeed, I have seen examples where consumers have set up technology and let it run for months at a time. For example, an EV owner can plug their car into a smart charger, which will optimise charging so that it happens at the most cost-effective times of the day, while still meeting the battery charge they need the next morning, saving a significant amount of money.

I recently had a great opportunity to visit Flexitricity in Edinburgh, which is a fantastic business—not least because it has a fantastic view of Edinburgh castle, although that was not my reason for visiting. My visit brought home two things: first, the cutting-edge technology and innovation that we already have in this space; and secondly, how this is an opportunity to create high-paid, skilled jobs across the country. I met a number of apprentices and people who had changed career to be part of that innovation—the business is a fantastic example. I thank the Association for Decentralised Energy, some of whom I see in the Public Gallery today, for joining me on that visit and for the work they do.

We recently published the flexibility road map, which sets out specific, measurable actions for DESNZ, Ofgem and NESO to deliver the flexibility we need. The road map sets out a strategy and clear actions to make sure we can deliver on this. It acknowledges that the Government, in partnership with Ofgem and NESO, will need to take a leading role in making sure this is a priority for those organisations. The publication puts consumers at the heart of what we want to achieve.

The road map is a first step. To deliver it, we know we have to sustain that momentum. As many hon. Members have said, agreeing that this is the right thing to do is not enough; we have to get on with delivery. This debate is perfectly timed, because this afternoon I will attend the first clean flexibility road map quarterly forum to make sure we are driving progress on this. That was already in the diary, but this debate is perfect timing.

I thank the ADE for all its engagement and expertise on this matter, and I thank all the organisations working in this space for raising innovative and creative ideas for how we can make this happen faster. This is an area where the Government do not always know best, and the innovation from the private sector and communities across the country will help us to deliver this transition. It is crucial that the Government continue to hear that, and that we continue to be challenged to move further and faster.

We have seen good progress on leadership, which goes hand in hand with our work on the road map and on the appointment of a flexibility commissioner. We will be able to announce who we are appointing very soon, and they can then get on with driving this work forward as part of the clean power mission. Leadership is important more generally in this space. As politics moves away from a fact-based, rational discussion of the challenges this country faces, it is ever more important that we have these debates on the detail of how we deliver such important policies.

We must also recognise that we are making progress. There is sometimes a tendency to think that nothing is happening, but a huge amount is happening: the migration of consumers to half-hourly settlement has begun and is making great progress; NESO is about to consult on the next iteration of the demand flexibility service; Ofgem is assessing how to recover costs through bills in a way that is fair and efficient; and we have consulted on our smart secure electricity systems programme, including how we can make it easier for electricity consumers to participate. All that work going on in the background will start to have a real impact on people’s lives in the coming months.

I thank everyone for their contributions to this debate. The Government are committed to delivering a clean power system, because that is the only way to bring down people’s bills in the long run, to remove the volatility of fossil fuels, for which we are paying the fossil fuel penalty, and to deliver energy security in an increasingly uncertain world. Flexibility is at the heart of this, and for us to have a genuinely just transition—one that brings people with us—we have to do what is challenging. This is a new way of working. It is different, and it will require people to think differently about their energy use and about how we deliver the change as a country, but opportunity is right at the heart of this—we should never forget that opportunity is the prize if we achieve this.

We will continue to work across Government and across the energy sector so that people can take advantage of the benefits of consumer-led flexibility and so that, ultimately, we end up with a 21st-century energy system that recognises that all our lives have changed in the last few years in how we consume electricity. Every single projection suggests consumption will increase over the coming years, so it is hugely important that we take these steps now so that the people of this country benefit from the energy transition that is under way.

I thank everyone again, and I thank the hon. Member for Thornbury and Yate for securing this important debate.

Employment Rights Bill

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Consideration of Lords message
Monday 8th December 2025 Commons Chamber

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

Under Lords amendment 1, the duty would be shifted to the employee to request guaranteed hours, as opposed to it being down to the employer to offer hours. That means that the employee can request hours, and then the employer can cancel them at the last minute. Can the Minister reassure me that provision will be made to protect workers, ensuring that if they are given hours, they are compensated in the right way?

[Kate Dearden]

I will speak to zero-hours contracts later in my contribution. This is about rebalancing power —giving workers access to guaranteed hours if they need and want them.

Let me return to the unfair dismissal protections that we will bring in from 1 January 2027. Our intention is to adopt a commencement approach that would extend protections immediately from that date to employees who already have six months’ service or more. For example, under this proposal, someone employed from today will gain protection against unfair dismissal on 1 January 2027. That is almost a full year earlier than under the current law. Other employees will gain protection once they reach six months’ service; for example, someone who starts work on 1 November 2026 will qualify for protection from unfair dismissal on 1 May 2027—International Workers’ Day—which is 20 months earlier than under the current law. This approach was taken in 1999, when the qualifying period was reduced from two years to one. This approach will prevent a two-tier system, in which some people would remain on a two-year qualifying period while newly hired employees were subject to a six-month qualifying period.

The commencement of the unfair dismissal provisions will be set out in commencement regulations, as is standard practice. I am happy to commit to making those regulations early next year, implementing our commitment to commencement on 1 January 2027. This change will benefit millions of working people, who will gain greater security at work, and it will offer businesses and employers the flexibility to ensure new hires can do the job, get the skills to match, contribute to business success, and build a stable and secure working life.

To further strengthen these protections, the Government amendments will also ensure that the unfair dismissal qualifying period can only be varied by a future Government through primary legislation, and will remove the compensation cap. I know that some businesses have expressed concern about the agreement to lift the compensation cap; I can tell the House that we want to remove the scope for employment tribunal cases to be more complex and convoluted than they need to be. We need a tribunal system that works for employees and employers alike—one that is not gummed up by process and unnecessary delay nor bedevilled by bogus claims. Our aim is to make the tribunal system work more effectively and efficiently for all, so that those judged to have been unfairly dismissed get the compensation they deserve, the system works to resolve cases more speedily and unfounded claims are dismissed more urgently.

As we review the tribunal system, in the spirit of partnership, we will work with businesses and trade unions to create a tribunal process that is fairer and faster. No committed employee should lack the protection they deserve, nor should any reasonable employer fear the consequences of an unsubstantiated claim. For several other employment rights, the amount of compensation that can be awarded by a tribunal is limited by cross-referring to the unfair dismissal cap, so our amendments will ensure that these consequential issues can be considered and dealt with effectively through secondary legislation.

We know that security of work is critical for working families, and we are also acutely aware of the challenges businesses face. That is why we are committed to open and constructive dialogue with all stakeholders. If these changes are to create the conditions for lasting, fair and flexible labour laws, dialogue and co-operation must be our watchwords. I hope the other place can attach similar importance to that co-operation, and that it will let this Bill—the product of a general election mandate and the good will of both business and trade unions—proceed to Royal Assent. These discussions and the workable compromise highlight the importance of participation, and I urge those listening to today’s debate to engage with the consultations set out in the implementation road map.

I will now speak to the Government amendments in lieu that relate to zero-hours contracts and the right to guaranteed hours. We have tabled amendments that will create a statutory duty to consult on the length of the initial reference period and the length and timings of subsequent reference periods before exercising the relevant powers. These amendments will ensure that vital stakeholders can have the opportunity to contribute before the lengths of the reference periods are determined by regulations that work for worker and employer alike. By delivering this change with the input of stakeholders, we will provide a fair and balanced approach.

Let me turn to the Government amendments in lieu of Lords amendment 48B, which relate to seasonal work. In order to help address fluctuating demand, the Bill allows guaranteed hours offers to take the form of limited-term contracts where reasonable. The Government have tabled amendments that place a statutory duty on the Government to consult before making any regulations to specify what counts as a temporary need. This means that before any such regulations are introduced, employers, trade unions, and other parts of civil society with an interest in seasonal work, will be fully consulted.

I will now address the issue of political funds and the related Government amendments in lieu of Lords amendments 72D to 72H. The Government remain committed to the repeal of the Trade Union Act 2016. That includes reinstating the long-standing practice that existed for 70 years before that Act, whereby new union members are automatically included as contributors to a political fund unless they choose to opt out. This will return us to arrangements that worked well for decades, removing bureaucratic red tape on trade unions that works against their core role of negotiation and dispute resolution in the interests of working people. We have heard the concerns about how opt-out notices would take effect, and we believe our amendments will refine that process.

Under the pre-2016 legislation, an opt-out notice could only take effect on 1 January of the year after it was given. Under the Government’s amendment, opt-out notices will now take effect on either 1 January of the following year or on a day specified or determined by the rules of the union, whichever comes first. We are aware that in practice, prior to 2016, unions generally gave effect to opt-out notices before the subsequent 1 January date anyway; amendment (a) in lieu affirms that flexibility in the legislation. We have also tabled amendment (b) in lieu, which places a statutory duty on the Government to issue guidance within three months of the clause coming into effect. That guidance will set out the kind of provision that unions should include in their rules about the timing of giving effect to opt-out notices.

Finally, I will address the issue of industrial action ballot thresholds and related Government amendments in lieu of Lords amendment 62. As I have said, this Government want to end disputes and conflict in the labour market; we also want more trade union members to have a say in decisions about escalating disputes where they arise. We will repeal the 50% threshold and—as we have previously stated—align this with the establishment of non-postal balloting, including e-balloting, so that decisions about industrial action keep pace with the communication channels of modern life.

Our amendment (a) in lieu cements that intention by requiring the Secretary of State to have regard to any effects of the introduction of non-postal balloting, including e-balloting, on the proportion of those entitled to vote in industrial action ballots who actually do so. In having regard to the effects of e-balloting, the Government will monitor and assess the practical impact of non-postal balloting on rates of participation in industrial action ballots, so that we will be confident that modernising the means of balloting increases member participation. In addition, we have tabled amendment (b) in lieu, which will place a statutory duty on the Secretary of State to lay a statement before Parliament that demonstrates how the Government have had regard to non-postal balloting before making regulations to repeal the 50% threshold.

I urge hon. Members to support the Government motions before the House today, including our amendments in lieu. Together, they form a package that strengthens workplace rights, reflects the value we place on fair and flexible labour markets, and demonstrates the Government’s willingness to listen to concerns and act on them. We place a premium on dialogue and compromise as key components in modern labour relations; we want to consign the narrow, partisan, party political prejudice of previous decades to the dustbin of history, and build instead a modern industrial relations framework that values partnership, dialogue, flexibility and fairness for all sides. Our amendments in lieu fully reflect that approach, and in that light, I commend them to the House.

Small Modular Nuclear Reactor Power Station: Wylfa

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Monday 17th November 2025 Commons Chamber

[Michael Shanks]

I thank my hon. Friend, and repeat my thanks to all those across the House who have been involved in these projects over many years. I particularly thank colleagues in the Welsh Government and Labour MPs from Wales who have been campaigning on this issue in recent months, as well as the hon. Member for Ynys Môn (Llinos Medi), who has campaigned on it as well.

Jobs will come from this project in Ynys Môn, but more jobs will come from the wider energy transition right across Wales, from our investment in transmission infrastructure to our investment in renewables projects, as well as in the Celtic sea and all the jobs that go with it. That will be delivered by this Government’s commitment to clean power—to delivering not just the energy system of the future, but the jobs that go with it. We will have an industrial strategy that creates jobs in Wales, after 14 years of a lack of industrial policy leading to job losses across the country. This is the beginning of great things for Wales; it is leading the way in this area, and with the expertise, skill and commitment that exists in Wales, it will do a fantastic job and make this country proud.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I thank the hon. Member for Ynys Môn (Llinos Medi) for securing this urgent question and giving us an opportunity to discuss this issue. As the Minister will know, I welcome the UK’s first small modular reactor nuclear power station, recognising the strong nuclear heritage and expertise of that area of Wales. It is imperative that we all share that capacity—that we have the same capacity in Northern Ireland, without reliance on an all-island network. Will the Government commit to working with the Legislative Assembly to create a similar project in Northern Ireland that will provide power to homes and businesses throughout the area that I represent, and indeed right across Northern Ireland?

[Michael Shanks]

I should have come prepared with a line about whether an SMR could be sited in Strangford, because I should have known that that question was coming—sorry! As always, I welcome our discussions on energy policy; as I always say, I take the relationship with the Northern Ireland Executive very seriously, but energy policy is transferred to Northern Ireland. I do not have any direct responsibility for that, but we have been working with the Northern Ireland Government on their push to clean power, and of course nuclear power that is part of our baseload here in the UK is also important for Ireland. The interconnectors across the sea help to ensure that our energy security is a priority for both Governments, but I am happy to look at Strangford as a future candidate for an SMR.

Rogue Builders

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Thursday 13th November 2025 Westminster Hall

[Mark Garnier]

I will talk about that in my speech. The fundamental problem is that, at the moment, the only course of redress is through the court system, and it is not good enough.

The FMB does a lot of work in this area, and it is worth looking at some of its statistics. Thirty-seven per cent of customers report unreliability, and many of them cite apparently unqualified operators. Nearly a quarter—that is 25%—of all customers have lost money to rogues, with losses averaging £1,760, but in many cases the amount is far higher. The national loss is horrific. The FMB estimates that, over five years, homeowners have lost an astonishing £14.3 billion to unreliable builders, putting an astonishing burden on the housing market and households. It turns out that young adults are more at risk, with 33% scammed by rogue traders found via social media.

The consumer is not the only victim of rogue or cowboy builders. Within the industry, many find themselves a victim of the same problem. Subcontractors find they are not paid, and it is the same for merchants. Plant hire companies are frequently the victims of theft and abuse of equipment. Alarmingly, health and safety is a low priority among many small and medium-sized building firms operating in the RMI market.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I commend the hon. Gentleman for securing this debate, and he is absolutely right. In Northern Ireland, consumer protection against rogue builders involves preventive measures, official reporting channels and legal recourse through the Consumerline service, trading standards and the small claims court. The reality is that those protections are difficult to navigate, and they are often off-putting for people who are not used to filling in forms and writing things out. Does the hon. Member agree that there must be a more straightforward approach? People, who are often vulnerable and need support, should not have to jump through hoops.

[Mark Garnier]

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. The current system does not satisfy people in any way, shape or form. Also, there is an inequality of risk, which I will come to in my speech.

Although large firms working on major commercial and civil engineering projects have embraced health and safety legislation, a blitz of small refurbishment sites by Health and Safety Executive inspectors in 2016 found that a stunning 49% of sites fell below the standards set for compliance with health and safety requirements. More alarmingly, that cavalier attitude to health and safety reveals the potential problem of cowboy builders leaving dangerous sites. When someone has an extension built, might they be risking life and limb when they climb those stairs? Poor-quality building results in not just shoddy work, but dangerous and potentially fatal work.

Rogue builders have an effect beyond their own unhappy activities. By undercutting reputable, high-standard builders that make up the majority of the market, they force them to cut their margins. Price competition is fine, but not when a worthwhile and reputable SME builder is competing against someone with no care for safety, honesty or customer satisfaction. Given that the RMI market is dominated by occasional customers—we are not doing this very often—it is quite likely that the key element of choice is price. Unhealthy price competition drives down standards, even if reputable firms are unhappy being forced to cut standards to compete.

In an extreme example of the problem—this is an important point—I recently met Andrew Bennett, who had engaged a local firm in Liverpool to refurbish a six-bedroom property that he owned—a job that was to be worth around £100,000. He checked out the firm and was happy with references and testimonials. He engaged the firm, but it turned out that the work was dangerously below standard. When he started to seek redress, he discovered that the company in question was not what he had been led to believe. It was a rogue builder passing off as a well-known, reputable company. Moreover, this dubious company had nine county court judgments against it and therefore had no money to pay the award to Mr Bennett when he won his case.

That company was passing off as another. It was seeking to take money off an individual customer by deliberately misleading him, and it failed to deliver the work contracted by that customer under the cover of misleading him—fraud, by any other name, or by the actual name. Mr Bennett went to the police, who told him that it was a civil matter. He tried all the avenues available to him to get this individual bang to rights, but to absolutely no avail. The company continues to rip off people, in full knowledge of the local law enforcers, trading standards, the local council and planning department, and multiple victims of its activities.

Carbon Budget Delivery Plan

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Wednesday 12th November 2025 Westminster Hall

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

It is a real pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir John. I thank the hon. Member for Sheffield Central (Abtisam Mohamed) for setting the scene. The Government are trying to meet their carbon budgets, and that is important, but I want to make a quick point in the time I have on behalf of those who will suffer as a result. Families in my constituency as struggling more than ever, as charitable giving lessens and the ability for charities to provide help lessens as well.

Yes, let us reach the target for carbon budget delivery, but let us make sure that that is financially viable. I know several families who were comfortable for a number of years, but who are struggling now. On behalf of those struggling families in Strangford—there are struggling families in everybody’s constituencies, not just mine—we must ensure that we can achieve the goals while ensuring that the impact on our constituents is defensible.

I have always been proud to be forward-looking, but I believe that we cannot leave struggling families on the trail behind. Meeting the targets and goals affects all of us—some can afford it, but some cannot, and they are the people we should be looking out for. I am more interested in people such as my constituents and the bread and butter issues that they focus on all the time. Let us meet the targets, but let us make sure that people are looked after on the way there.

Employment Rights Bill

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Consideration of Lords message
Wednesday 5th November 2025 Commons Chamber

[Kate Dearden]

I thank the right hon. Member for working with us and for her support throughout the passage of the Bill. I understand her passion and work in this area. As she says, the guidance will offer a clear benchmark for reasonable activities and assist inspectors in important decisions. The Government are committed to the work, as she will know, with publication targeted by 31 March 2026. We believe that this collaborative effort will provide practical guidance that empowers children to engage safely and meaningfully in heritage railway volunteering.

Turning to the issue of political funds, Lords amendments 61 and 72 would remove clause 59 from the Bill. That clause reverses measures in the Trade Union Act 2016, which we have committed to repeal, that require members to opt in to political funds. This therefore reinstates longstanding arrangements where members are automatically included unless they choose to opt out. Removing clause 59 would break that commitment to restore balance and fairness in union operations. The opt-in system, introduced in 2016, added bureaucracy without improving transparency or strengthening members’ choice. To be clear, we are not removing that choice. At the point of joining, every new member will be clearly informed on the application form that they have the right to opt out of contributing to a political fund. The same form will make it plain that opt-out has no negative bearing whatsoever on any other aspect of union membership. That is why the Government cannot support Lords amendments 61 and 72.

We have heard reflections around how opt-out notices would take effect and have tabled an amendment in lieu to refine that process. Under the pre-2016 legislation, an opt-out notice was effective on 1 January following the year in which it was given. Under the Government’s amendment, opt-out notices will now have effect from either 1 January or the following year after it has been provided, or on a date specified or determined in the rules of the union, whichever of those dates comes first. This provides unions with flexibility in the legislation to act more quickly and process the member’s request to opt out, without having to wait until the subsequent 1 January to do so. In practice, unions already do this. We will also commit today to engage with unions directly, to continue to make clear our expectation that opt-out notices can be honoured as swiftly and practically as possible. Our amendment is simply about ensuring that legislation matches what has been the established practice.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I hope that the Minister has not referred to this already, but small businesses in my constituency that do not have human resources departments tell me that they will find it hard to navigate these legislative waters. Although we need strong employment rights and I support the Bill’s objectives, we need to ensure that there is support for employers, so that they know how to implement the measures and how to defend themselves, which they will sometimes need to do, without paying costly solicitors’ bills that are detrimental to their business. Will the Minister reassure me on that matter?

[Kate Dearden]

I come from a family that has a business in the hospitality sector, which is close to my heart. In the first eight weeks that I have been in this role, I have had the pleasure to meet small and large businesses, and I have made clear our determination to work closely with them on the implementation of this legislation and to ensure that they are prepared for the changes when they come. We published our road map earlier this year and have committed to stick to that, which has been welcomed by businesses small and large.

Finally, turning to the issue of industrial action ballot thresholds, Lords Amendment 62 would remove clause 65(2) from the Bill, which would retain the existing 50% turnout threshold for industrial action ballots. The Government do not support this amendment. Clause 65 removes an unnecessary bureaucratic hurdle and aligns union democracy with other democratic processes, such as parliamentary votes and local elections, which do not typically require turnout thresholds but are still accepted as legitimate. As the period of disruption under the Conservatives’ watch between 2022 and 2024 has shown, bureaucratic hurdles only make it harder for unions to engage in the bargaining and negotiation that settles disputes. This Government’s approach will foster a new partnership of co-operation between trade unions and employers.