Offshore Wind Supply Chain: Tyneside

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Wednesday 29th October 2025 Commons Chamber

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

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

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

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

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Mary Glindon]

I certainly will.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

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

[Jim Shannon]

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

[Mary Glindon]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

--- Later in debate ---

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

It certainly is!

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Jim Shannon]

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

[Katie White]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Question put and agreed to.

Oral Answers to Questions

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Tuesday 14th October 2025 Commons Chamber

[Ed Miliband]

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

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

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

[Ed Miliband]

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

Remote Coastal Communities

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Monday 8th September 2025 Commons Chamber

[Perran Moon]

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

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

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

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

[Perran Moon]

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

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

Solar Development: Newark

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Tuesday 2nd September 2025 Commons Chamber

[Robert Jenrick (Newark) (Con)]

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

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

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

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

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

[Jim Shannon]

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

[Robert Jenrick]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Prax Lindsey Oil Refinery

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Tuesday 22nd July 2025 Commons Chamber

[Michael Shanks]

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

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

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

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

[Michael Shanks]

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

Oral Answers to Questions

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Tuesday 15th July 2025 Commons Chamber

[Michael Shanks]

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

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

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

[Michael Shanks]

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

ECO4 Scheme Redress

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Wednesday 2nd July 2025 Westminster Hall

[Wendy Chamberlain]

I will go on to mention the particular challenge with older properties, but my hon. Friend’s example illustrates exactly what the issue is. This scheme is under the auspices of Ofgem and is funded through the Government levy on energy bills, but does not have any real oversight, so consumers end up being let down.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I commend the hon. Lady for securing this debate. She always brings applicable issues to Westminster Hall, and today is as an example of that, with the horrific example of the almost inconceivable standard of work done to her constituent’s house.

The ECO4 scheme does not apply in Northern Ireland, where we have a fuel assistance scheme. Eligibility can be very tight and residents with more than a certain amount in their savings accounts find that they may not qualify. Does the hon. Lady agree that more could be done to loosen the rules for our elderly generation, particularly in boiler replacement or energy schemes?

[Wendy Chamberlain]

It would not be a Westminster Hall debate without an intervention from the hon. Member. He illustrates that, although this is a GB scheme and not applicable in Northern Ireland, consumers and more vulnerable residents in Northern Ireland face the same challenges regarding energy efficiency. The Government have a responsibility, working with the Northern Ireland Assembly, to improve the situation there.

We need to get this right, not just so there is faith in the schemes—although that is vital—but so works under them do not end up costing people even more in lost energy costs. It is clear that some things are going badly wrong under the ECO schemes as they stand. The Government need to address them for the remainder of properties that might do upgrades under ECO4 and for future iterations of the scheme.

First, there is a complete lack of transparency in how households are driven to the scheme and, as far as I can tell, there is no regulation either. I have talked about how Jackie and her husband felt railroaded from wondering if they would be entitled to anything for upgrades, to their home being pulled apart. She is not a vulnerable person, but she thinks that the company she dealt with was totally unprepared for being challenged over what was happening. Another constituent who had a terrible outcome under the scheme has described themselves as vulnerable and feels that the system was set up to target people like them.

As my team and I have gone further into such cases, I was surprised that more MPs are not shouting about this issue. Clearly, it is not limited just to one company or to North East Fife. When I spoke to Fuel Poverty Action this week, it told me that it is seeing only the most determined victims complaining—the rest are highly vulnerable people. From what I have seen, if companies offer to pay any compensation at all after months of fighting—even if it will not cover the cost of the remedial works—it is on the condition that all complaints be withdrawn. I therefore cannot help but wonder how many people have felt that they had to accept, and now are not in a position to tell us about their experiences.

Secondly, the funding model for ECO4 places incentives on companies to upgrade rural homes, which my hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Tim Farron) referred to. I understand the logic of that, but rural homes, as he said, tend to be a lot older and less uniform than urban ones, so we would ideally want a proper survey to be not only done, but carried out by a specialist retrofit co-ordinator. The fact is, however, is that we do not have anywhere near enough of them.

TrustMark data indicates that although more than 2,000 individuals have completed the retrofit co-ordinator qualification, just 612 are registered with the quality mark and only 230 are actively lodging work in the data warehouse. Of the 230 active co-ordinators, around 30% are lodging the majority of those projects. That means around 66 specialists are overseeing the vast majority of retrofit works. We clearly need more, and the Government need to worry about that skills shortage.

According to Ashden, the UK will need up to 50,000 retrofit co-ordinators in coming years if we are going to reach our goals for making homes energy efficient. In the meantime, what requirements are there for works to be properly overseen by a specialist? Do contractors have to employ one and risk cutting into their margins? Are there requirements for co-ordinators to actually visit a property, provide plans, speak with the owners and review works as they go? I wonder if the mysterious middle man I mentioned earlier was a retrofit co-ordinator—it is just not clear. What is clear is that none of these steps took place in that case.

Similarly, the short-term nature of the scheme means that we are not skilling up the workforce—the plasterers, electricians and plumbers—that we need to do these works. ECO4 is the longest iteration of the schemes and has been running for almost four years, but it is due to close next spring, and we still do not know what will replace it. Short schemes with short-notice changes do not allow businesses to invest in training or properly plan for the future. Even for the best-intentioned companies and tradespeople, that is not commercially viable. That was all underlined by evidence from across the sector in the recent Energy Security and Net Zero Committee report. The industry needs a 10-year plan so that it can invest in upskilling, take on apprenticeships knowing there will be work for them after their training, and be prepared to take on the challenge of making our homes future-proof.

Finally on ECO4, there desperately needs to be some clarity over how works are certified and payments are made. These are not just individual contractual disputes; the fact that Ofgem is administering the scheme tells a very different story. As I understand it, to get paid, an installer needs to register the works with TrustMark, providing photos, energy performance certificate ratings and so on. That is then validated before Ofgem releases the funds.

Considering the hundreds, if not thousands, of homes being damaged around the country, what precise validation is happening? Is money being released for those ruined homes? What requirements are there on traders not just to say, “Sure, we installed a heat pump,” but to actually prove they have put a home back to the way it was? Where else is the money going in the supply line of referrals that I talked about earlier? Who is getting paid, by whom and for what?

I have talked a lot about ECO4, but I want to touch briefly on the wider consumer protection landscape because, now that things have gone wrong, that is where my constituents and many others are battling. I do not think it is controversial to say that it is a bit of a mess. The Competition and Markets Authority confirmed that in its 2023 report on consumer protection in green heating and insulation sector. It was reiterated by Citizens Advice in its “Hitting a Wall” report last year, and again by the ESNZ Committee in its “Retrofitting homes for net zero” report in spring.

I am aware—as I am sure the Minister will reference—that the Government are currently considering responses to a consultation on requiring the microgeneration certification scheme to be the sole certification scheme for clean heat installations. Having seen constituents, and my caseworkers on their behalf, battle through a maze of different accreditation and oversight bodies to try to find someone to take responsibility for this work, a single body seems incredibly sensible, but I still have some questions.

How would that one body sit alongside TrustMark and Ofgem? Would it replace TrustMark and, if so, how would it be better equipped to accredit and oversee retrofit contractors? Would it solve the problem of traders being able to say they are accredited, and showing that they are accredited, when complaints have already started coming in? At the moment, it is far too easy for them to chop and change logos, or to continue to display a logo that they should not be able to. How do we make that new, single body sufficiently powerful and reactive so that it can be trusted by consumers?

Policy specialists recently suggested to me that local authorities could be trusted to keep a list of accredited local traders. I had to tell them that some already do. Indeed, in North East Fife, a contractor just told constituents that they were not displayed yet due to a delay in the application process. That is very believable, given how stretched local government is.

What happens to consumers when their homes are left ruined, with works poorly carried out, and the companies have lied about being certified or have now dissolved and vanished? What will happen to people stuck in the original system, whose works were carried out under the current failing scheme, who are being pushed from pillar to post with no end point in sight? Those are the experiences of my constituents and many others. To keep fighting for someone to be on their side is breaking them. Where is their solution?

Failures in consumer protection clearly go beyond the ECO4 scheme, but there are particular problems for consumers funded via ECO4. So many people, often vulnerable, are pushed into having work done, and the nature of the schemes increases the chances of being allocated an unskilled or rogue trader. Some of the people I have spoken to in the run-up to today have said that this is a scandal that no one takes responsibility for, and they are very concerned about speaking out about it. I hope that the Minister will address my concerns this morning.

Business Energy Supply Billing: Regulation

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Tuesday 1st July 2025 Westminster Hall

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

As always, Mr Dowd, it is a pleasure to serve under your chairship. You are maintaining the wearing of a jacket, whereas my hon. Friend the Member for East Londonderry (Mr Campbell) and I have taken advantage of your permission because of the good weather. You have better stamina than me.

I thank the hon. Member for Tamworth (Sarah Edwards) for leading today’s debate and setting the scene incredibly well. If I got an £18,000 bill for normal £300-a-month usage, I would be incredibly worried and anxious, too.

I want to speak on behalf of my constituents and the local businesses in my constituency on which we depend for the success of our local high streets. High streets are under pressure; there are more vacancies in Newtownards high street than ever. The squeezing of profit margins means that many people are considering whether to go ahead with their ideas for a new business, but hopefully what the Government and the Minister are doing will enable entrepreneurs to take advantage of the opportunities. There is no doubt that after the effects of covid, some businesses did not make it. We thank the previous Government for stepping in and responding positively to ensure that those businesses are still here today, but it is crucial that we have proper regulation to stop businesses being burned to the ground financially by crippling energy costs.

In Northern Ireland, the Utility Regulator is the key body responsible for overseeing electricity and gas markets. The Minister knows where responsibility lies. I thank her for her interest in matters relating to Northern Ireland. Her visits to Northern Ireland are an indication of her interest in ensuring that Northern Ireland, which has a different system, is kept under the same rules as those that apply in England, Scotland and Wales; I thank her for all her efforts in that regard. If she lets me know the next time she is over, I will introduce her to some of my constituents in Strangford. They are lovely people— I know that because I am one of them. They are generous and kind; they will not give her a hard time, but they will tell her what they think, in as nice a way as possible.

The UK equivalent of the Utility Regulator is Ofgem, the mainland-wide energy regulator. Energy costs are a reality facing commercial and domestic consumers. We have seen an incredible increase in the last couple of years. Businesses and households are struggling and there is a need for greater regulation to ensure that people are not overcharged beyond belief. The example that the hon. Member for Tamworth gave of a bill for £18,000 was a mistake, of course, but none the less it would shock anyone to their shin bones.

Let me give an example of the problems. There has been an increased use of estimates of energy costs. Energy companies bill businesses based on their rough use of gas and electricity. That results in severe overcharges and a months-long back and forth to get the money back. My goodness—they are quick enough to charge you, but they are not as quick to pay you back when they get it wrong.

I experienced that not long ago when I opened my satellite surgery in Ballynahinch. My constituency of Strangford has grown and has moved further south, and as a result it was imperative to have another advice centre in Ballynahinch to give my constituents the representation that they deserve. We moved premises and were being billed extortionate amounts for gas and electricity, based merely on estimated bills. Thankfully, we were able to get that resolved, but staff and business owners do not always have the time to be on the phone when their energy company is open to resolve such issues. We did get it done. My staff are very efficient and certainly able to respond. What we do for ourselves, we do for others.

[Carla Lockhart (Upper Bann) (DUP)]

Many businesses in Northern Ireland query their bills and recognise that they have been overcharged. It is dispute resolution access that is the problem: that is why many businesses come to us, as elected representatives, to resolve it. Does my hon. Friend agree that there needs to be better, clearer dispute resolution access? Does he also agree that the regulator in Northern Ireland needs greater power to force suppliers to resolve the issue when it is brought to them in a timely fashion?

[Jim Shannon]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Perhaps the Minister will be able to tell us about the discussions that she has had with the regulator in Northern Ireland. I know she has been in discussions—I am sure of that. Any tightening of the law such as that referred to by my hon. Friend would be a step in the right direction.

Standing charges are also an issue where businesses have been asked to pay a fee regardless of how much electricity is used. The Ulsterman and Ulsterwoman are renowned for their prudence. The hon. Member for Dumfries and Galloway (John Cooper) will confirm that his constituents are similar. We do not want to pay any more than we should. When we get a big bill and we know it is wrong, we question it. My mum and dad brought me up in a certain way. Because we never had much, we looked after what we had. It was a case of “Look after the pennies, and the pounds will look after themselves.”

It is important that we pay only for what we use. The amount that we pay depends on the supplier, on how we pay for our energy and on where we live, which already seems an unfair process. Additional costs are the norm, as many are aware. In the long term, I look to the smaller family-run businesses, like those in Ards in my constituency. Ards is renowned for the family businesses on the high street, on Frances Street and on Regent Street. They have been there for generations, but if they cannot sustain the energy costs they will be forced to close, so we have pressures building on all of our businesses.

There are certainly benefits to greater regulation of energy costs. I reiterate that for smaller businesses the costs of utilities are massive and should be charged correctly. Northern Ireland’s electricity prices are often slightly higher than the United Kingdom average, owing to grid infrastructure and generation mix. We know from our constituents about the pressures on businesses in Strangford, Upper Bann, East Londonderry and across all of Northern Ireland. More must be put in place to make businesses more energy-efficient, to reduce costs and to encourage long-term affordability

I look to the Minister, who is a genuine lady and has a good heart for these issues. I am hopeful for a response to the questions that colleagues and I have asked, and hopeful that in Northern Ireland we can feel the benefits of the good that has been done on the UK mainland. I look to the Minister for a commitment to business stability in future.

--- Later in debate ---

[Miatta Fahnbulleh]

I will make some progress.

I want to end by addressing the issue of energy brokers, which has been raised. We know that many energy brokers can help businesses to save money on their bills with contracts tailored to their needs. However, we have also seen evidence of opaque charging structures and unfair sales practices. We are hugely conscious of that, and last year the Government launched a consultation on introducing regulation of third party intermediaries such as energy brokers, aimed at enhancing consumer protection, particularly for non-domestic consumers, where we have recognised that there is an issue that must be addressed. The consultation has now closed, and I can assure my hon. Friend the Member for Tamworth that the Government are working through the huge volume of responses that we received and will respond in due course.

Finally, to the hon. Members—

[Jim Shannon]

Forgive me for pushing on this matter, but I did ask about the Utility Regulator in Northern Ireland.

[Miatta Fahnbulleh]

I was just coming to that.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jim Shannon]

Isn’t that fantastic? Thank you so much.

[Miatta Fahnbulleh]

That was my concluding point, to hon. Members from Northern Ireland, who have raised a really important issue: we are working closely with the Northern Ireland Government to ensure that the improvements we make in the UK market are aligned and that lessons are learnt to ensure that, where we develop stronger and better practice, it is shared with the regulator and the Northern Irish Government. In the end, we must ensure that we have a system that works for all consumers across these isles.

Let me conclude by again saying a huge thank you to my hon. Friend the Member for Tamworth for raising this important issue, and by offering, if she wishes, to meet to talk in more detail about some of the issues she has raised. I am clear that, without a fair, functioning energy market, our clean power mission will not succeed, energy bills will not come down and consumers will not get justice or access to a system that works for them. That is an absolute imperative for us; that is the priority; that is the thing that drives everything we do. We look forward to working with all hon. Members to achieve that outcome.

Warm Home Discount

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Thursday 19th June 2025 Commons Chamber

[Miatta Fahnbulleh]

My hon. Friend is spot on. Members on the Conservative Front Bench are chuckling away in front of me, but it is no joke. We inherited an absolutely atrocious set of circumstances. Families across the country are paying for their failure, with the cost of living at a record high level. I go across the country to speak to people, and I see the impact of the Conservatives’ failure on people’s lives. We were not willing to accept that what we inherited was the status quo. That is why we are taking decisive action. Whether it is the expansions to the warm home discount and free school meals, the increase in the national minimum wage or our record investment in social housing, this Government are getting on with the job of lifting living standards in order to fix the mess we inherited from that lot.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I thank the Minister for her statement and her answers. In the short time she has been in her role, she has always delivered good news, and that is quite a talent, so I say well done and I thank the Government for that. Double the number of households in the United Kingdom will get £150 off their energy bills, and that is very welcome for those on means-tested benefits. However, with one in four children living in poverty in Northern Ireland, it is essential that this announcement applies in Northern Ireland too. Will the Minister confirm that Northern Ireland is included in this help for the vulnerable and those in poverty? Will it come through Barnett consequentials or another way?

[Miatta Fahnbulleh]

Northern Ireland runs its own separate scheme. We are in very close contact with the Northern Irish Government—in fact, I was in Northern Ireland yesterday. We are making sure that our work to deliver clean power, which is our route to lowering bills, and, critically, our work through the warm homes plan is co-ordinated. The hon. Member is right that there are people across the country who are struggling at the moment, and it is absolutely our responsibility to take action to support them.

Future of the Gas Grid

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Wednesday 18th June 2025 Westminster Hall

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

It is a real pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, as always, Dame Siobhain. I give special thanks to the hon. Member for Cannock Chase (Josh Newbury) for leading today’s debate. We were counting down the last 10 seconds before the debate and the hon. Gentleman walked in on No. 8 —well done! He may have been a bit breathless. I wish him a happy birthday and thank him for his contributions in this House during the time that he has been here. They are always on subject matter that we are all interested in.

If we want to be progressive and visionary in this House, which we do, we need to look to the future for the things that are important. All areas of the United Kingdom are adapting their own strategies to contribute to net zero. Northern Ireland has set a target of net zero emissions by 2050, and developing renewable energy will be a key part of those plans. It is very important that we play our part. The hon. Member for Peterborough (Andrew Pakes) referred a number of times to the whole of the United Kingdom. He is right, because like me and others in this Chamber, with one exception, we are committed to this great United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and what we can do better together—not that we are better than anyone else, by the way. We see the advantages and it is important that we look forward.

I welcome the Minister to his place. I always enjoy the Minister’s responses to our questions. He seems relaxed no matter how hard the questions are. I will not ask any hard questions; it is not in my nature to do so, but I do ask questions to hopefully progress the debate. The Minister knows that my questions will come from a Northern Ireland perspective. He has always answered in the past on what we want to do and what our strategies are back home. I look forward to his contribution. It is also nice to see the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for West Suffolk (Nick Timothy), in his place and I look forward to his contribution as well.

Only last year Northern Ireland’s gas operators took their biomethane case to Stormont. There are two operators, but I want to focus on Phoenix Gas. It has been stated that adding biomethane to the gas network could cut Northern Ireland’s carbon emissions where we have ambitious, but very much achievable, targets. Doing so would deliver significant benefits and create hundreds of new jobs. It is where the potential is. Northern Ireland wants to play its part because the spin-offs for us all are quite significant. Arguments for that include that biomethane is almost identical to natural gas and can be transported through the existing gas pipelines, as the hon. Member for Cannock Chase mentioned. As we have already seen, it has been successfully injected into the gas network at Granville Ecopark in Dungannon. There is a strategy in place and significant progress there, but there is still a lot more to do.

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

My hon. Friend talked about Phoenix, and the other company is Firmus Energy. Consumers want to see more competitive pricing. In Northern Ireland, there is some degree of competitive pricing, but because the two companies operate in separate parts of Northern Ireland, they do not compete directly with each other. Consumers want prices to be driven down, but it seems to take a long time for Phoenix and Firmus to reduce their prices—they do not always change rapidly—when international gas prices fall.

[Jim Shannon]

My hon. Friend is right to highlight that issue. Yesterday, in the hydrogen aviation debate, we talked about how costly energy is at the moment. In the past, we had the tidal wave and sea project in the Narrows in Portaferry in my constituency. The pilot scheme was successful in showing that it could be done, but it did not provide a cheaper price. Today, however, it could. I am quite confident that with a better understanding, and better offers for the supply of gas grid in Northern Ireland, we could ensure that prices would drop—I am confident that they will.

The operators pointed to research by the Centre for Advanced Sustainable Energy Research, which shows that biomethane has the potential to supply 6,000 GWh a year, equal to about 80% of the current gas distribution network demands. That shows the potential, and that it can be done. It would reduce Northern Ireland’s CO₂ emissions by some 845,000 tonnes per annum, a fantastic contribution to net zero targets. That shows how Northern Ireland and the UK can work better together and contribute to net zero targets collectively, with advantages for us all. What is done here in England helps us in Northern Ireland, and vice versa.

Yesterday, I spoke in Westminster Hall on the potential benefits of hydrogen in aviation, as I referred to earlier. There are numerous sectors in which hydrogen could play a key role in the transition. The UK Government aim to establish up to 100 GW of low-carbon hydrogen production capacity by 2030. The national gas grid is leading efforts to develop a hydrogen transmission backbone that will repurpose existing gas pipelines to transport hydrogen. Those visionary projects, which can deliver much for us all, are well in hand, but there is a lot more to do.

I look forward to hearing and witnessing how those developments play out in the future. There is so much that the devolved Administrations and institutions in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland can do to play a role in the transition to net zero, and this is one of those ways. I ask the Minister very kindly to engage, as I know he does, with the Department of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs and the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Investment back home to ensure that we can be leaders in our green and net zero plans together. Within this great United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, we can do that. Even our friends in Scotland can benefit and help us to benefit. That is the goal I try to achieve in this place.

[Seamus Logan]

I cannot let the hon. Gentleman get away with these continual references to Scotland. Of course, whatever the future constitutional arrangements—they are in some doubt—the gas network on this side supplies not only Ireland but, as I understand it, Belgium and part of the Netherlands. There is already a shared international context in how the grid operates.

[Jim Shannon]

Of course there is. The hon. Gentleman is a product of Northern Ireland, as his accent shows—although he is now very much a Scottish nationalist—and I believe he recognises the importance of working together. Whether that is within the United Kingdom or further afield is not the issue. I never want to see Scotland moving away from us, because he is my Gaelic cousin, and together with many others, we have the same history and culture; we just have a different idea about the constitution. The people of Scotland, of course, have already spoken on the constitution and, although I know that is a different debate, I say very clearly that we are always better together.