Storm Chandra Flooding

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Wednesday 11th February 2026 Commons Chamber

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I commend the hon. Lady for securing the debate. I say respectfully that the friendship we have had over the past few years is one that I appreciate very much. In her time here she has been assiduous and hard working on behalf of her constituents, and tonight is an example of that. She will perhaps not be aware, but the storm hit Northern Ireland with ferocity and our schools had to close. The aftermath saw the loss of even more trees, which have taken a hammering in an unending list of named storms. That loss has had an impact on our natural flood defences and that was very clear in the aftermath of Storm Chandra. Does she not agree that natural flood defences need to be shored up, or we will create an unsolvable problem for the very near future?

[Sarah Dyke]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his kind words and for his intervention. Indeed, nature-based solutions and natural flood defences are absolutely important—I know that the Minister is also an advocate for them—and I will come on to that later on in my speech.

In this place, I have advocated for communities to receive the support they need to develop their own bespoke extreme weather resilience plans. I pay tribute to the tireless work done by people such as Flood Mary in helping victims of flooding and raising awareness of flood risk and property flood resilience. Communities who regularly suffer flooding are resilient, but they deserve action and investment. Flood resilience in Somerset cannot be achieved on a shoestring budget and people deserve better. The Prime Minister has spoken about

“national security for national renewal”.

We must remember that resilience to flooding is part of our national security.

I thank the Minister for joining me in Glastonbury and Somerton yesterday. We visited Langport, Thorney and Drayton to see the impact Storm Chandra has had on the area. I am sure she would agree, after hearing from the farmer Mike Curtis, who took us on his tractor and showed us some of his land, that Somerset communities are resilient, but much more must be done to protect them from flooding. If flooding does happen, they must have the tools on hand and the support in place to help their communities mitigate it.

Woodland Creation

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Wednesday 11th February 2026 Westminster Hall

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

As always, it is a real pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Lewell. I thank the hon. Member for Milton Keynes North (Chris Curtis) for bringing this debate to Westminster Hall for consideration.

I declare an interest as a landowner and farmer: I own land down at Greyabbey and Kircubbin in the Ards peninsula. I have told this story in the House before, but it is important that I declare it. I planted out an area of my farm; it could have been used for cattle, but we felt it was important to plant trees, because the hedgerows are disappearing and the habitat is not what it once was. We planted some 3,500 trees, with the help of my son, under the Woodland Trust scheme, and that will be beneficial in the years to come. Had the scheme not been in place, it would never have crossed my mind to diversify in that way. If a scheme was available again to pay the costs of the saplings, for instance, I believe landowners would take the time to plant out their land. Such buy-in among local landowners can be only a good thing.

Over the past six weeks, with my other son, we have been trying to plant out some hedges. In the last six weeks we have planted some 600 of them, as well as apple trees. There is nothing quite like an apple off a tree when you have grown it yourself. I think the apples are sweeter—maybe they are not, but I believe they are.

I want to highlight the case for my local council, Ards and North Down council. It is not the Minister’s responsibility, but I want to share some of the problems we are having back home, to give a Northern Ireland perspective. The council is making real efforts to make a difference in the creation of areas of biodiversity. I understand it is actively engaged in significant woodland creation and tree-planting initiatives, most notably through its STAND4TREES initiative, which aims to plant one tree for every resident by 2032. We have 160,000 residents in the council area, so it is quite an ambitious scheme. Guided by the trees and woodland strategy for 2021 to 2032, the programme focuses on enhancing biodiversity, increasing the native tree canopy and promoting community engagement in environmental stewardship.

A problem has occurred, and other Members might be able to demonstrate whether it is a one-off. When the council recently attempted to purchase land to facilitate tree planting, it was outbid at an astronomical rate. This is a real concern. It is not simply about the price of the trees and the manpower—or the womanpower, because we both participate. With the price of farmland hitting an all-time high, this could be a very costly venture. In Northern Ireland, an acre of land currently costs £15,202, which right away puts any ideas about tree planting at a disadvantage. It is the first time the overall average has exceeded £15,000.

Councils whose purse strings are already tight are trying to work out how they can be involved in planting at an affordable price. I should have welcomed the Minister; it is lovely to see her in her place. We are pleased to have her here and I know, because she loves this subject, that she will encourage us all with the answers to our questions. It would be a pleasure to hear from her about what can happen if councils want to plant, but are restricted by the price of land.

Leading by example is always a good thing, yet unless the Government come alongside our local authorities, it will be left to individuals to bite the bullet themselves and plant out the bottoms of their gardens on hilly land. For us to really make a substantial difference, we need greater help—for local authorities to purchase land and for landowners to get the trees to plant out. The Department of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs—Northern Ireland’s equivalent of the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs—has the small woodland grant scheme for new native woodlands, and the forest expansion scheme for larger projects of three or more hectares, but the costs are not close to being met. It sounds terrible, but sometimes we do need help to enhance, encourage, coerce or, perhaps, persuade others to do that.

We all know that trees provide more than beautiful scenery. They provide the very air that fills our lungs, and we sometimes need to be reminded of that. They sustain an ecosystem that most of us do not even know about, never mind value. I know that I do, but I am not sure if everybody else does—not because they are any less smart than I am, but because of how important it is. The Government and the Minister know the value. We must do more to fund the future and to fund woodland creation in a greater way.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jim Shannon]

The hon. Lady refers to some of the vanishing bird life in her area. In my constituency there are a number of farmers and substantial landowners who have taken an initiative to bring back the yellowhammer, which is also very scarce in many parts of the United Kingdom. Projects in Ballywalter, Lord Dunleath’s in Rosemount, in Greyabbey from the Montgomerys and in Tubber from the Gilmores mean that for our neighbours not too far away and ourselves in a much smaller way, the yellowhammers are back. If we make the effort, bird life will return.

[Jen Craft]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. It is key to recognise the role that farmers can play in rewilding and embracing biodiversity. In Thurrock, there are farmers who are doing excellent work in rewilding some of their land to make sure that species can thrive and continue to grow. It is not only on farmland but an RSPB nature reserve near me has seen, thanks to investment and focus on regrowing blackthorn, the brown hairstreak butterfly make a remarkable comeback. Apparently it was a record-breaking count for them at the weekend. Creatures such as butterflies and invertebrates do not always get the praise that they deserve in this place, but they are key to the survival of nature—and of ourselves. Initiatives such as those are vitally important, and we must continue to support them.

The creation of woodlands is to be welcomed. I would like to highlight a couple of the threats to new and juvenile woodlands. One of the biggest is not from humans or climate change but from invasive species, such as roe deer. I know the Minister is keen on rewilding and reintroduction of species, having been a vocal advocate for the reintroduction of beavers. That is an important way to lean in to giving nature a helping hand in our natural recovery.

It has been suggested that the reintroduction of the lynx—an apex predator—is one way to keep down numbers of roe bucks and prevent overgrazing. It would keep them on the move in what is known as an ecology of fear, which hon. Members might feel familiar with in this place. It means that herds keep on the move and it prevents overgrazing, allowing vegetation and tree saplings to take root and grow. I wonder whether the Minister might consider that—leaning into nature and giving a helping hand to encourage recovery in a natural way by returning some of our lost species.

It is vital that while we look to grow new woodlands, we protect our ancient woodlands. Old species such as oak, ash and thorn are under threat, and it is vital to protect them where possible. In my constituency, the planned lower Thames crossing will unfortunately see the loss of an ancient woodland known as the Wilderness. Although the decision about that road has been made, I urge the Minister to work with her Government colleagues to ensure that there is no net loss to biodiversity through the scheme, and that mitigation and compensation for lost or damaged habitats are fully taken into account.

Unlike my hon. Friend the Member for North East Hertfordshire (Chris Hinchliff), I do not take such a pessimistic view on prospects for nature versus investment; I believe that the two can and must co-exist. Unless we encourage development and growth, mitigation of our ancient woodlands and the species that thrive there, we will see continued loss through climate change. I welcome our commitment to growing new woodlands and the benefit of being among trees.

“I think that I shall never see

A poem lovely as a tree.”

That line has never seemed so apt. Many more people deserve to enjoy forest bathing, enjoying the cool, calm reflective benefits that nature can bring.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mary Creagh]

She is standing in—very good. However, I gently say to her that while trees have a key role to play, we have done six interest rate cuts, and inflation is set to come in on target, so the economic plan certainly seems to be going much better than it was in the days of Liz Truss.

Let us talk about woodlands. They stitch our habitats back together, and they provide corridors for our birds, bats and beetles. All Government-funded woodlands must be designed and planted to the UK forestry standard. That world-leading technical standard for sustainable forest creation and management ensures a diverse mix of species, which will not only benefit wildlife but make woodland more resilient to climate change and the ever-changing risks from pests and diseases.

[Jim Shannon]

There is no doubt that every one of us, including the Minister, is keen to encourage the planting of more woodlands but, by its very nature, having more woodlands, as the hon. Member for Thurrock (Jen Craft) mentioned, means pests increasing in numbers, and that includes deer and grey squirrels. As someone who has never shot a deer or a grey squirrel, although I have shot many other things, including birds, I ask the Government to consider working in tandem with the British Association for Shooting and Conservation, the Countryside Alliance and individuals who are insured to ensure that deer numbers—we do want to see deer—are kept at a level where they do not become a pest and that grey squirrels are, to be honest about it, eradicated, so that red squirrels can survive.

[Mary Creagh]

I am glad the hon. Gentleman has raised that subject, which I was coming on to. Native wild deer are an important component of our landscape, and they play a role in healthy forest ecosystems. However, excessive browsing, foraging and trampling by deer put pressure on woodland ground flora, damage trees, and inhibit the natural regeneration of existing woodland and, crucially, the growth of new trees through natural colonisation. Trees will get on and do it themselves if we just leave them, but they cannot do it if they are constantly being yanked up by deer or grey squirrel populations.

We have to manage the impact of deer and grey squirrel populations, and it is our intention to outline plans to do that. We published our squirrel strategy last week, and the deer plan is imminent. We provide grants for capital items such as fencing and for the management of deer by lethal control. That is done through countryside stewardship grant funding where the land manager has been advised by a Forestry Commission deer officer that such action is needed.

We are funding projects relating to reducing deer impacts, and I am particularly concerned about the muntjac deer and the Chinese water deer, which are a particular feature of the east of England. They are alien, invasive species, so there are risks about hybridisation with our own native deer. One of the two—I cannot remember which one, but I think it is the muntjac—can breed three times a year, so it is constant breeding. Covid has had a very bad impact on deer management. We do not really have research on deer numbers, but anecdotally they are high, so we need to take action. I am particularly anxious about the east of England, and the steps needed there.

I want to say something about the British quality wild venison standard. The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) may not have shot a deer, but I have certainly eaten quite a lot of venison. That wild, organic meat is really healthy and plays a part in creating that ecosystem. Some charities, such as the Country Food Trust, are doing really good work in that area.

Independent Water Commission: Final Report

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Tuesday 10th February 2026 Westminster Hall

[Edward Morello]

The hon. Member is right to highlight the work of Feargal Sharkey and the many campaigners around the UK who give up their free time to raise awareness of the issues in their local areas.

The central question for this House is whether the commission’s recommendations and the White Paper that followed go far enough to meet the scale of the challenge we face.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I commend the hon. Member for his perseverance and dedication to the subject matter. I also pay tribute to his party’s members who always turn up and do their bit. The Independent Water Commission’s final report refers to a “fundamental reset” to address failing regulations that have negatively affected customers and the environment. Does the hon. Member agree that Government, and particularly the Minister, must be prepared to take the helm to ensure that the reset actually takes place and is not simply a change in name?

[Edward Morello]

The hon. Member is absolutely right. I shall come on to some of the recommendations that we believe are necessary to make it more than just a reset in name only.

Let me start with the reality in my constituency. In 2024, West Dorset recorded 4,200 sewage spills and the discharging of raw sewage for nearly 49,000 hours from 90 storm overflows. I have no doubt that other Members can cite similar, if not worse, statistics for their constituency. Only 11% of our monitored river sites reach “good” ecological status. The River Lim is categorised as ecologically dead. Rare chalk streams such as the River Frome, Wraxall brook and West Compton stream are under severe pressure, as are Atlantic salmon populations.

Tourism in West Dorset, worth over £322 million a year and supporting more than 5,000 jobs, is threatened by our poor water quality. My constituents, their children, the visitors who support our communities, and families, including my own, love our beautiful world-famous waterways, but no one should have to check an app on their phone to see whether it is safe to swim that day. The final report continually underlines the lack of public trust. To change this, reforms must be visible, transparent and public facing. If people are to believe that things are changing, they need to see progress, understand the standards and know that failure has consequences.

We need blue flag-style standards for rivers and chalk streams. Clear standards, mandatory testing and visible ratings would help rebuild trust. Where standards are met, confidence grows. Where they are not, communities can hold companies and regulators to account. Recommendation 3 of the report proposes a comprehensive systems planning framework, with regional water authorities responsible for integrated planning, funding, setting objectives, monitoring and convening stakeholders. That approach recognises that water does not respect administrative boundaries and neither should planning. Housing growth, agriculture, flood risk, river health and water supply must be considered together across Government Departments. The bodies must be statutory, democratically accountable and empowered to make binding decisions. Without that authority, we would risk repeating the mistakes of the past: endless consultation without delivery.

When I have previously argued that water companies should be made statutory consultees in the planning system, the Government have resisted that change. The water White Paper now states that Ministers

“will also consider the role of water and sewerage companies in relation to planning applications”

as part of the reforms to statutory consultees. That is a welcome change, but simply considering it is no longer enough. Making water companies and national landscapes statutory consultees for major developments would be a preventive, low-cost reform that aligns planning decisions with environmental reality, reducing flood risk.

The commission is also right to highlight the importance of pre-pipe solutions. Recommendation 10 calls for legislative changes to expand pre-pipe solutions, so that we can stop pollutants and rainwater entering the system in the first place. In too many places, combined sewers are overwhelmed by rainfall that mixes with raw sewage and triggers spills. That is not sustainable in a changing climate.

We need a long-term national rainwater management strategy, with sustainable drainage systems being mandatory in all new developments, and a serious programme of retrofitting in existing communities. Rainwater harvesting should become the norm. We must bring ourselves in line with modern housing standards and our European neighbours, just as minimum solar requirements are being made mandatory, thanks to the private Member’s Bill introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Cheltenham (Max Wilkinson). Those are low-carbon, cost-effective and resilient solutions. They would reduce pressure on sewers, lower flood risk and protect rivers, but the White Paper only gestures vaguely in that direction. Without clear, consistent standards and funding, progress will remain slow.

On regulation, the commission calls to replace Ofwat with a new integrated regulator, which is welcome and overdue. The Liberal Democrats have called for exactly that since 2022. Ofwat’s primary duty to ensure reasonable returns has shaped a culture that has tolerated pollution, debt loading and under-investment. A regulator with explicit duties to protect public health and the environment is a step forward.

I am glad that the White Paper has stated that the Government will commit to a new regulator by abolishing Ofwat and bringing together the relevant water system functions from existing regulators—Ofwat, the Drinking Water Inspectorate, the Environment Agency and Natural England—into one new body. But again, that alone is not enough. That body must have teeth: it must be properly resourced, independent and willing to enforce the law.

Oral Answers to Questions

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Thursday 5th February 2026 Commons Chamber

[Emma Reynolds]

The short answer is yes. I know you also have an interest in this issue, Mr Speaker. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend’s tireless campaigning on this important issue. The consultation will look at a range of issues, and she is right that that will include modernising the regulation of veterinary professionals. We will also look at requiring vet practices to publish price lists for common treatments and improving price transparency so that pet owners get a much better deal.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

We are a nation of animal lovers. When I got married, my wife loved cats and I did not, but I realised that if I loved her, I had to love her cats, and that is how it works. Can I bring to the Minister’s attention one thing that annoys me and my constituents, which is pet insurance? Pet insurance is okay until the day someone goes to claim. When they go to claim, they find out that the small print says they have not got the cover that they thought they had. When she is looking at veterinary regulation, will she look at pet insurance, too?

[Emma Reynolds]

The hon. Gentleman makes a good point. I am glad to hear that his wife has had such a profound influence on his cat-loving habits. We need to look at all elements of price transparency, including insurance.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Solicitor General]

It is utterly indefensible that the shadow Attorney General in the other place is acting as a lawyer for sanctioned Russian billionaire Roman Abramovich. He has recused himself from giving legal advice to the Conservative party on the issue of Ukraine and financial sanctions, sacrificing a key element of his role in order to work against our national interests. The Government are putting national security at the heart of every decision and stands in staunch solidarity with Ukraine.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

The Solicitor General announced an expansion of the victims’ right to review scheme, allowing rape and serious sexual assault survivors who request a case review by a different prosecutor before a final no-evidence decision is made. That is welcome news. What discussion has taken place with counterparts across the United Kingdom—the Policing and Justice Minister in the Northern Ireland Assembly in particular—to ensure that there is a UK-wide path to justice?

[The Solicitor General]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his comments on the victims’ right to review scheme, which will give victims of rape and serious sexual violence a greater voice in the justice system. Too often, victims feel let down by a system that is supposed to be there to support them. I will ensure that I speak to my colleagues in the Northern Ireland Office to see what more can be done in respect of Northern Ireland.

Fish and Chip Sector

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Tuesday 3rd February 2026 Commons Chamber

[John Cooper]

I thank the hon. Member for his intervention—a fascinating history lesson.

Staying with history, during the war fish and chips were deemed so vital to the nation’s morale that Prime Minister Winston Churchill insisted they be exempt from rationing. If the ingredients were available, fish suppers were on the menu and chip shops got extra cooking fat to keep the home friers burning.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I commend the hon. Gentleman. I am mindful that the best chips come from Comber spuds and the best fish comes from Portavogie—that is just me talking up my own area. Does he agree that the new fisheries management plans have resulted in reduced total allowable catches, affecting local supply? It means that in Northern Ireland a cod supper, which was £6 or £7, is now £10 to £11.50. Does he agree that, without intervention, the fish and chip shop days will be as few as the fishermen’s days at sea?

[John Cooper]

I thank my near neighbour for his intervention. He presages some of what I am going to touch on now.

Today all is not well. Romano Petrucci, proprietor of the Central Café in my home town of Stranraer, is just one of many business people warning that this staple is fast becoming an unaffordable luxury. Data from the Office for National Statistics indicates that the average price of a portion of takeaway fish and chips was £10.96 in December, up from £9.99 the year before—an increase of 10%. That was higher than average price increases for other takeaway meals or carry-outs, as we call them in Scotland.

Over the same period, the average price of a Chinese takeaway main course increased by 4% and an Indian takeaway main course by 3%, while a takeaway pizza increased by just 2%. That £10 barrier is hugely significant, for customers generally have a ceiling on what they regard as reasonable—perhaps £6 for a coffee or £7 for a pint of beer. Above that, sales dip, and no wonder at £40 or more for a fish dinner for a family of four, and so, sadly, it has proved: the ONS says that sales of fish and chips fell by 21% in 2024 compared with the previous year.

River Habitats: Protection and Restoration

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Thursday 29th January 2026 Westminster Hall

[Lloyd Hatton]

I agree that a co-ordinated approach that works with farmers, landowners and the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs is required. That extensive work took place in my constituency, and it meant that the release was broadly seen as a success story. We would certainly like to replicate that across the west country and the UK.

To continue the saga of the beaver, their release in Purbeck has been a success story, and I am so pleased that the beavers can call the expansive freshwater and dense woodland at Studland their new home. Of course, that is also a good news story for restoring nature and boosting water quality. Beavers are nature’s engineers. By creating wetland habitats, they can help to retain water during floods and release it during droughts. Finally, they also help to filter polluted water and improve its quality further downstream. They play a crucial role in aiding nature’s recovery. However, the mighty beaver cannot and must not act alone. Like many Members present, I am committed to help restore nature across all our riverways, creating the conditions for wildlife and habitats to flourish in our rivers once again.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I commend the hon. Member for bringing this issue to the House; he is absolutely right to do so. The state of the waterways is a growing concern for us in Northern Ireland. Agricultural run-off, outdated waste water systems and storm overflows are putting rivers such as the Lagan, the Bann and the Foyle under pressure, threatening biodiversity and public health. We must improve water quality, tackle agricultural pollution and invest in sustainable water systems to ensure that our rivers and freshwater species are protected for future generations. That can happen through the Minister and the Government, but it can also happen across the regional Administrations. Does the hon. Member feel it is important to address the issue collectively across the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland?

[Lloyd Hatton]

I thank the hon. Member for his intervention; it is almost as if he had an exclusive sneak peek at my remarks.

I will turn to the damaging role of water companies. Sadly, many firms have a sorry track record in protecting rivers and boosting water quality. For far too long, many water companies have profiteered, despite polluting our rivers and streams. Unfortunately, the previous Government did too little, too late to reverse the worrying trend. To name just one shocking example, Wessex Water, my local water company, killed some 2,000 fish in Melksham after a sewage pumping station failure. It was slapped with a fine for the damage on its watch, but by then it was too late, as untreated sewage had leaked into nearby rivers. I am sure we will hear many more horror stories in this debate, with failing water companies found culpable for environmental destruction within our rivers and streams. The days of water companies polluting with impunity and hiding behind weak regulation must end.

That is the mess we are wading through. Looking ahead, I am pleased that the Government are beginning to take all the necessary steps to clean up and better protect our rivers and streams. From the Water (Special Measures) Act 2025, which finally gave regulators the power to curb water bosses from collecting undeserved bonuses, to the £104 billion secured in investment to start to rebuild water infrastructure across the country, the Government are beginning to get to grips with this scandal.

In Wessex Water’s case, Government action led to a £500,000 fine—the second largest ever issued to a water company—for the Melksham sewage failure. It also led to a ban on Wessex Water bosses receiving their undeserved bonuses. The water White Paper, released just last week, further strengthens the regulation of the big water firms. I welcome the Government’s commitment to create a single, integrated, tough regulator, which will replace the current patchwork of regulatory bodies and hopefully deliver a more proactive, targeted and rigorous way of holding water companies to account.

We must be honest about the challenges still ahead. Despite new legislation, which I was proud to support, water companies continue to hide behind opaque and complex corporate structures, shielding themselves from scrutiny while our rivers and streams pay the price. Earlier this month, it emerged in The Guardian that the chief executive and the chief finance officer of Wessex Water received some £50,000 in previously undisclosed extra pay from a parent company. Just a few weeks before that, we learned that a former chief executive at Wessex Water had been handed a whopping £170,000 payment, again from a parent company. Both those payments happened in exactly the same year that the firm was correctly banned by the Government from paying undeserved bonuses. From the reports on just how Wessex Water is choosing to operate, we can safely say that something extremely fishy is going on.

If bonuses can simply be rebadged as undisclosed payments from another arm of a large web of companies, the bonus ban is at risk of becoming unenforceable. That weakens public trust, undermines the authority of our regulators and allows those responsible for gross environmental damage to be rewarded for failure. I firmly believe that the Government, working closely with a new, single regulator, must tighten the rules to prevent water companies from exploiting corporate structures to disguise what are clearly bonuses in disguise. Without that, I fear the bonus ban will not change the corporate culture and wrongdoing within these big firms, and water companies will continue to pollute our precious rivers and streams.

Alongside strengthening regulation and ensuring that pollution certainly does not pay, further work must be done to restore wildlife and reduce flood risks along our rivers. Again, I should stress that the Government are taking the necessary action. The recently published environmental improvement plan includes an important target to double wildlife-friendly farms by 2030, and I know that that is welcomed by a huge range of farmers in my constituency of South Dorset. The commitment of £500 million for landscape recovery will hopefully play a vital role in revitalising nature while helping communities better withstand floods.

The recent announcement by the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs on the sustainable farming initiative will go some way to ensuring that farmers and landowners can play their part in protecting rivers and wildlife. However, I remain concerned that gaps remain in the role that nature-based solutions can, and must, play in cleaning up our rivers. That is why I support the Making Space for Water campaign run by the Riverscapes partnership, which is a broad coalition of the Rivers Trust, the National Trust, the Woodland Trust and the Beaver Trust—safe to say, there is a lot of trust in the campaign.

Farmers and landowners are currently standing on the front line of our environmental crisis, and the role that they play, and will play in the future, when it comes to protecting our riverways and enabling nature recovery is absolutely critical. They are seeing, at first hand, the pressures facing our rivers and the threat of flooding all year round. As has previously been remarked on, just this week Storm Chandra brought absolute havoc to my home of Dorset. The heavy rainfall has flooded rivers, left fields waterlogged and livestock areas almost completely unusable, and severely restricted access to farmland. Farmers and landowners are not just experiencing these challenges; they are absolutely critical to solving them. The decisions they make about their land shape the quality of our water, the health of our rivers and the survival of our wildlife.

In my constituency, from Purbeck to Wool to Weymouth, many farmers and landowners are already stepping up, carving out space for nature alongside their nearby rivers and restoring the landscapes that we all depend on. But they cannot carry that burden alone, and it is abundantly clear that they still lack some of the financial support that they need to best protect our riverways. To that end, targeted and simplified financial incentives must be considered, and be given to farmers and landowners to restore and enhance our rivers and streams. That is the key and, I believe, most important ask of the Making Space for Water campaign. With the right support in place, that will allow farmers and landowners to create river buffers and wetlands alongside their land. It would allow them to plant riparian trees and floodplain meadows, and to reintroduce beaver populations, just like they have already done in Purbeck.

If successful, that will all help to create a network of connected, nature-rich river corridors. Clean, functioning river corridors are a good news story for everyone: they help nature to recover and water quality to improve, biodiversity is no longer in freefall and our countryside becomes much more resilient. Where already implemented, healthy river corridors slow down the flow of water and reduce the risk of devastating floods and prolonged droughts. They act as natural infrastructure, storing water when we have too much and releasing it when we have too little.

The benefits go beyond flood protection. Restored river corridors trap pollution before it reaches our waterways. They support farmers, strengthening the resilience of their farmland without undermining food production. If we are truly serious about restoring nature, protecting rivers and boosting water quality, making space for water must be at the heart of the Government’s approach.

I know that the Minister is an enthusiastic advocate for our rivers and streams, and has met the team behind the Making Space for Water campaign. Indeed, she spoke proudly at the campaign launch just last year. I hope that today she will take the opportunity to set out what further action her Department can take to protect our riverways. I would welcome any further detail that she can give us on exactly how this Government, alongside a new, tough single regulator, will block failing water company bosses from receiving bonuses through the back door. From conversations, I know that the Minister shares my view that a tough bonus ban is critical to challenging the corporate misbehaviour that is all too present across the water sector. By embracing this important campaign, we can boost water quality, aid nature and biodiversity recovery, and enhance rivers and streams across the country. Indeed, we can make space for water once again.

Agricultural Sector: Import Standards

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Thursday 22nd January 2026 Commons Chamber

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I commend the hon. Gentleman for bringing this matter forward; he is absolutely right to underline these issues. Does he not agree that the recent EU-Mercosur deal opens the EU market to increased imports of agricultural products such as beef, poultry, sugar and ethanol under tariff-rate quotas? That may well mean sacrificing quality for cash, and may have an unwanted knock-on effect for our farmers. The hon. Gentleman is clearly trying to save and look after our farmers, who are already under immense pressure. On that deal, the UK Government must make representations to the EU regarding food safety.

[Sam Carling]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, who makes his point well. I will touch on EU regulations later.

Our Labour Government have a stellar record on this issue so far. In negotiations with India, we refused to lower protections on goods such as pork, chicken and eggs. In talks with Korea, we have secured new commitments on animal welfare, stronger than any it has signed up to in any previous trade agreement. The next step is to equalise all our import standards, rather than just the standards for new agreements. We cannot go back to full alignment with the EU, either. The EU still allows sow stalls, foie gras and fur farming, all of which fall short of our standards. Switzerland successfully negotiated an animal welfare carve-out in its sanitary and phytosanitary agreement with the EU. I would be grateful if the Minister could confirm whether the Government are seeking similar exemptions for animal welfare in the UK-EU negotiations. That would ensure we retained the ability to restrict imports that do not meet British welfare standards.

Let me address any arguments about the impact on food prices that changes could have. Over the past few years, food inflation has hit households across the country, and we all want prices to be more affordable, but I think we can all agree that that should not come at the expense of high standards. In the long run, undercutting our farmers will lessen our food security, leaving us more dependent on less reliable markets overseas, and as the Government have repeatedly said, food security is national security. That means that we must defend our farmers from a flood of low-quality imports.

Fishing Industry

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Thursday 22nd January 2026 Commons Chamber

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I thank the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael) for setting the scene so incredibly well. I envy his knowledge of fishing, and I am always pleased to support him in a secondary role in such debates. I represent Strangford in Northern Ireland. It has a strong fishing community, particularly in Portavogie, and I wish to relay a number of issues that have been raised with me. I am pleased to see the Minister in her place—she will know that—and I hope that when I ask her a question, she will be kind and will accede to that request; it is perhaps similar to questions that others have asked. I give special thanks to Dr Lynn Gilmore, who is in charge of the Northern Ireland Fish Producers’ Organisation. She is doing extremely well. I am reminded of Margaret Thatcher’s saying:

“if you want anything said, ask a man. If you want anything done, ask a woman.”

We have a woman chief executive of the Northern Ireland Fish Producers’ Organisation, and I look forward to deliberating with her, and with the Minister.

As the House will be aware, the seafood industry in Northern Ireland plays a vital role in supporting the economies of our coastal communities. In 2023, the fishing fleet comprised 211 registered vessels, and employed 445 people. The majority of its vessels fish in the Irish sea, and operate from the three main ports: Portavogie in my constituency; Ardglass; and Kilkeel. The Northern Ireland Fish Producers’ Organisation represents those three ports, as well as other places. Trawlers of over 10 metres, mainly targeting nephrops, account for around half the fleet, and today at least 70% of the nephrops fleet is reliant on a non-EU migrant crew. That is one of the highest rates in the United Kingdom fishing industry. Those crews form an important part of the workforce. Recent data shows that approximately 50,500 tonnes of fish and shellfish were landed by the Northern Irish fleet, worth £80 million. Nephrops accounted for 46% of landings by value. I want to put those stats on record, because it is important to understand the value of the fishing sector in Northern Ireland, particularly to my constituents.

The Northern Ireland fishing sector also supports 18 seafood processing operators, which generated a further £62 million in 2023 and support 570 full-time jobs. However, those numbers belie the true value of the industry, which is in its cultural and historic importance—others have referred to that—and the skills handed down through generations, because the pride that our communities take in the fishing industry is immeasurable. Sadly, all that is being threatened by issues outside the control of the men and women who risk their lives to put delicious local seafood on our plates. The Northern Irish fishing industry, so valuable to our economy and our coastal communities, is facing unprecedented challenges. The hon. Member for Aberdeenshire North and Moray East (Seamus Logan) outlined the issues facing crew, as did the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland. I suspect other Members will raise that issue, as it is a key point to underline.

Foremost among those issues are matters relating to visas for overseas crew. In a recent letter to the Minister for migration and citizenship, the hon. Member for Dover and Deal (Mike Tapp), Northern Ireland industry leaders described the cliff edge that they face when it comes to skilled worker visas. Those will become unavailable to the fishing industry beyond 2026—that is really worrying—except for during a limited period of time in which the visas of crew already working in the industry can be renewed. Industry leaders also highlighted escalating salary thresholds—again, those have been a bugbear for some time—and the English language requirements in the industry, and they requested an urgent meeting with the Minister to discuss those issues. If such issues are not addressed, that could result in a loss of up to 70% of crew on Northern Ireland vessels, potentially tying up almost 100% of the Northern Ireland nephrops fleet within a few short years. We are in the last chance saloon, and there will be cascading impacts on processing businesses and fishing communities, and the potential for a loss of workforce continuity and traditional, generational knowledge.

The industry has repeatedly requested a bespoke visa for fishing, as it ramps up efforts to recruit more local workers into the industry. At the time, the Minister’s response offered nothing to industry. It was in part contradictory, and it ended with that Minister declining to meet Northern Ireland industry leaders to hear their concerns. The Minister for Food Security and Rural Affairs and I have had many discussions, and have worked together on many things, and she has always been responsive. I ask her and the Government to please have a heart when it comes to the fishing industry. Could I meet her and the Home Secretary, to go into the detail of what is needed to save the fishing industry? I request that meeting urgently; that is my major request to the Minister, as this issue is really important to the Northern Ireland Fish Producers’ Organisation and the fishing fleet.

Those in fishing occupations will no longer be eligible for the skilled worker visa, and post 2026, no visa route will exist for recruiting foreign deckhands. That eliminates the only legal pathway for vessels to get the crew needed to operate inside the 12 nautical mile zone. The importance of this cannot be underlined enough. The fishing industry needs a dedicated immigration route for fishing crew post 2026, preferably in the form of a bespoke visa. That would protect British businesses while a recruitment drive sought to source more domestic labour for the fishing industry in the long term.

I remember a few years ago an advert was put in a European fishing magazine. It sought to recruit people from Europe to the fishing industry. One hundred people replied to that advert; 10 people expressed a further interest; and only one turned up for the interview. I make that point because sometimes, when we looked around the United Kingdom, and across the EU at the time, we saw a potential workforce, but it just was not there. Northern Ireland industry wants an opportunity to brief the Minister and highlight industry concerns that if nothing is done in the short to medium term, British businesses will fail. It is that straightforward.

The Northern Ireland fishing industry is facing an unsustainable decrease in the Irish sea’s available fishing grounds through expanding offshore marine protected areas, proposed bans on bottom-towed gear, and rapid offshore renewable development. Unlike in agriculture, fishermen do not hold property rights to their areas of food production—that is a fact; it is not like farming—so fishing is an easy target for displacement. Additionally, fishing areas have no statutory basis for protection, unlike marine protected areas, or offshore renewable developments. The combined effect of the spatial restrictions already in place or under development will be to threaten the operational and financial viability of the Northern Ireland fleet.

The industry has lost 4,728 km of fishing grounds in the Irish sea over the past couple of decades—that is around three times the size of London. The implementation of management measures in MPAs in the Northern Ireland offshore area, and additional offshore renewable energy zones in the same constrained Irish sea region, threaten a further reduction in fishing grounds—and there could be more. We need to see evidence-based decision making, and site-specific management on the principle of sustainable use, rather than blanket spatial bans for unknown or uncertain environmental benefits.

Core to that must be the designation of Northern Ireland fishing organisations as statutory consultees in marine planning. That brings me to my second ask: can the Northern Ireland fishing organisations be allowed to play their part, and be involved in the discussion about marine planning? There should be statutory consideration given to the impacts of displacement of fishing effort before any area becomes unavailable for fishing. That would enable the Northern Ireland fishing sector to have an impact.

To sum up, the Northern Ireland fishing industry seeks Government support for a balanced planning system that protects fishing as a legitimate, food-producing industry that is vital to the UK’s people, economy and national food security. Having already faced decades of disruption, reduced fishing grounds, lack of local labour and increasingly unpredictable quotas, fishing communities in Northern Ireland now face a series of simultaneous pressures that threaten their long-term viability.

Confronted with such changes, fishermen are left with profound uncertainties that accentuate financial stress, as well as mental health issues, for them and their families. In every aspect of policy, from quotas and immigration to marine protected areas and offshore wind developments, fishermen are under pressure. The fishing industry has shown over many years that it is prepared to work constructively with government, and it is doing so. The right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland set that point down as a marker. The fishing sector wants to work with the Government. It wants to protect the seas that it is fishing in, because they have to be sustainable. That is what the sector is about, and I hope that the Government wish to work with the sector.

The sector has responded positively to scientific recommendations, increased levels of gear selectivity to reduce impacts on the environment, and operates within one of the most heavily regulated fishing regimes in the world. Before anything else in the Irish sea, at the beginning of time, there was fishing. When God created the world, he created the Irish sea and he created fishing—that was before everything else happened. Our communities, who are ever mindful of that, were the original stakeholders. I think I quote the Bible accurately when I say, “In the beginning, God created heaven and earth, and he created the sea.”

Food security, as well as economic security, will depend on being able to maintain a sustainable fishing industry in Northern Ireland. With the right foresight and committed cross-government policy, the industry will be able to sustain itself, remain productive and remain the cornerstone of communities that live along our coast, as it has been since the beginning of time. If we ignore the concerns of Northern Ireland’s fishing communities, a rich heritage could be lost that would be irreplaceable.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Minister for Food Security and Rural Affairs (Dame Angela Eagle)]

It is a pleasure to respond to an extremely good debate, with many Members reflecting the issues that they have discovered in their own constituencies and bringing them to the Floor of the House, as we expect them to do. I thank the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael) for his tireless commitment to championing the fishing industry and for persuading the Backbench Business Committee to grant this debate in the Chamber. My hon. Friend the Member for Great Grimsby and Cleethorpes (Melanie Onn) has worked closely with the right hon. Gentleman in his work on the fishing industry, and she is delighted to be here, ensuring that an important local industry to her constituency is properly represented and reflected on the Floor of the House.

Fishing is an incredibly important industry to the vitality of many coastal communities. It is culturally and socially important. It is a way of life passed down from generation to generation, and it is evident in a town’s built environment, whether it is the jetties and marinas, the seafronts where the boats moor or the fish huts that dot many a local promenade, not least where I was born and grew up, as the hon. Member for Bridlington and The Wolds (Charlie Dewhirst) was so generous to point out in his contribution.

The key to achieving the collaboration we need to ensure the future of our fishing industry is working with those who know the industry best to deliver opportunities for the future. We also have to remember that fishers contend with tough working conditions. Many hon. and right hon. Members on both sides have raised that point. It is a difficult and dangerous life, but it is often undertaken with passion and commitment. I pay tribute to all those who have been injured or tragically lost their lives at sea. Fishers provide us with the world-class fish and seafood that the UK is rightly revered for. I pay tribute to the RNLI, which often goes out in dangerous conditions to rescue people and save lives at sea. I commend the ongoing efforts of the fishing industry to improve safety—those efforts must continue as a priority.

The fishing industry is operating in a challenging environment, as we have heard from Members from all parts of the House, but many highly promising areas in the industry present opportunities, and we wish to enable the industry to grasp them. It is the case, though, that sectors within the fleet are struggling. There is increasing competition for marine space. Our marine spatial prioritisation programme helps to mitigate that, and I thank industry leaders for the data they have shared and contributed to, which has hugely improved the programme’s insights into this key challenge.

Pressure on stocks means that we must carefully manage fisheries, including in some cases through significant reductions in total allowable catch and changes to other measures. The sector contends with barriers to exports, and Labour’s work to develop new markets and ease the administrative burden of trading in a highly perishable foodstuff is complex and will take time, but that work has begun. Meanwhile, as we have heard, in particular from the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) and other Members, it can be hard to recruit staff, and entry into the industry requires significant investment.

In that context, the ability to change and adapt is important, and fishing has a good record in doing that. Fishing businesses have to mitigate the impacts on stocks that are under pressure, adapt to changing distributions of fish because of climate change, respond to changing consumer demands, adopt new technologies and develop new skills. It is a task that this Government will continue to support the industry in navigating. We are supporting and encouraging the industry to organise and collaborate, to plan confidently and to invest for the long term. I will continue to work with industry experts—big and small—who know the sector best in order to build a thriving and sustainable fishing industry.

[Jim Shannon]

Would the Minister agree to have a meeting with representatives from Northern Ireland? I feel and they feel that that would be advantageous for us all to find a better way forward for the sector.

Animal Welfare Strategy for England

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Wednesday 21st January 2026 Westminster Hall

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Lewell. I thank the hon. Member for South Derbyshire (Samantha Niblett) for setting the scene so well and for her contribution. I understand that this issue is devolved, but colleagues in Northern Ireland watch decisions in this House very carefully, including the proposed legislation, so there will be much interest in this debate.

I speak as an animal lover—many people will say that, but I am. My wife has volunteered in animal shelters for the last 15 years, so I am used to coming home to another cat or dog that she has acquired along life’s way. For some reason strays seem to come to our house and stay too—they obviously know that they will be well looked after. We love our animals and have an animal graveyard at the bottom of our garden—we live on a farm—for the dogs and cats that have passed on. We have a place for them in the garden, and also among the trees as well.

I have long stood firm on the need to ban the import of hunting trophies, and this comes from someone who supports country sports. It is my firm belief that we should use what we shoot, which is why many of my neighbours woke up on Boxing day after we had been out shooting with a present of pheasants, ducks or pigeons. They have to be plucked and cleaned before they are ready, and the preparation is left to them. My point is that we must never confuse shooting to eat or for conservation with the collection of a trophy.

To give an example, each year on our farm we use a Larsen trap, which is a humane trap, to capture and control predators and encourage small bird life. Along with my son, last year we trapped 45 magpies and 10 grey back crows. What did that do? It transformed our farm; before there were few young songbirds, but now there are many. We now have an abundance of small bird life that we have not had on our farm for many years, including yellowhammers, which are back in numbers on our farm, and indeed on our neighbours’ farms. That bird is almost extinct in some parts and is often used nowadays in different terminology, for a different reason. Looking after the predators ensures that the small, threatened species can thrive. The animal strategy must acknowledge that a multifaceted approach is necessary in the countryside for farm control and conservation, and that animals should not be senselessly slaughtered.

I will conclude because I am conscious that I would like to give others a chance to speak. I highlight, very briefly, that while I oppose animal testing on many levels—it is not worth testing a face cream that may take away wrinkles on animals—I do believe that there is a place for animal testing for medication to save lives. That must be acknowledged in any strategy that comes forward. There is a difference, and we must acknowledge that.

Antisocial Behaviour on Canals and Rivers: Bath

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Wednesday 21st January 2026 Commons Chamber

[Wera Hobhouse]

Let me first express my condolences to the family of the hon. Gentleman’s constituent who drowned so tragically. Such tragedies demonstrate that antisocial behaviour often constitutes thoughtless vandalism. People do not understand what they are doing. We need to make people think about what they do, and legislation may be necessary to enforce that. The hon. Gentleman is right to raise the issue as a particular concern, and I will of course welcome and support his Bill. Good luck to it.

Constituents have written to me with deeply worrying accounts of drug and alcohol misuse, public urination, and towpaths obstructed by furniture and dumped rubbish. That can also be a massive hazard. As I have just said, people often do not think when they do these things, so unfortunately we sometimes have to use the law to encourage the right behaviour. No resident or visitor to Bath should ever feel unsafe on our canals, and the behaviour that I have described is completely unacceptable. Even more troubling are reports of human waste being emptied directly into the canal, black bags of excrement left beside towpaths, and diesel and oil spills polluting the water. There are also serious concerns about boats remaining in short-stay mooring zones for months— sometimes for over a year—alongside abandoned vessels blocking locks and essential services, and preventing hire boats from being navigated safely. All those problems are caused by people being thoughtless, so it is important for the right measures to be in place to keep people safe.

My constituents—and, I am sure, many others throughout the country—are rightly frustrated by the ongoing failure to enforce rules governing our canals. These problems are well known, but no one seems to be able to fix them. A key reason for that is the fragmented enforcement landscape. The Canal & River Trust is responsible for managing most of the canals in England and Wales. Its remit covers everything from boat licensing and mooring rules to obstruction and navigation, but it is attempting to enforce its statutory responsibilities within a framework that is fundamentally flawed. It was established as a charity in 2012 to take over from British Waterways, the statutory body that had previously managed our canal network. While the trust would still receive a Government grant, the idea was that any shortfalls would be made up by its various commercial ventures, much the same arrangement that applies to the National Trust. However, the Canal & River Trust and the National Trust are very different. The latter has commercial properties, thousands of paying members and huge tourism revenues, while the former has a property portfolio that is costly to maintain, and only a small amount of income from the rents paid by boaters. No other charity has as its primary responsibility the upkeep of so much critical infrastructure. As a result, we now have a charity tasked with enforcement powers but without the legal clarity or the practical capacity to use them effectively.

However, resources alone are not the core issue. I have met representatives of the Canal & River Trust on numerous occasions, including a candid discussion about these issues just a few days ago. They are clear that the principal barrier they face is the outdated legal framework governing our waterways. The British Waterways Act 1995 provides only limited powers; crucially, it fails to give the trust the powers it needs to manage boats effectively and fairly. Take the rule governing boats without a permanent mooring: the law states that such boats must not remain

“continuously in any one place for more than 14 days”,

yet it offers no definition of what “one place” means or of how far a boat must move to comply. It is left to the Canal & River Trust to interpret the legislation, leading to regular disputes that take up valuable time and resources. I urge the Minister to take this issue back to her Department, and to engage with the Canal & River Trust on improving that part of the legislation.

The trust’s powers to deal with unlicensed boats are also severely limited. Even where powers exist, enforcement can take two or three years, or longer if challenged, rendering them largely ineffective. It is currently very difficult to remove abandoned boats. First, the Canal & River Trust must establish whom the boat belongs to. Even then, removal can cost around £8,000 per boat—money that the trust often does not get back. Safeguards must remain in place, particularly for the people who live on these boats—boaters should have the right to contest any decision of this nature—but our waterways are shared public assets. Residents and responsible boaters alike are rightly frustrated at having to wait years for action to be taken against persistent antisocial behaviour or unlicensed vessels.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

Will the hon. Lady give way on that point?

[Wera Hobhouse]

Of course.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

Before the hon. Lady takes the hon. Gentleman’s intervention, let me say that I am looking forward to hearing his knowledge of the canals and rivers in Bath.

[Jim Shannon]

I spoke to the hon. Lady before the debate, and I explained why it is so important that I support her. In the middle of Newtownards, my major town, we have a massive canal—it has been there since the year 1—so I understand some of the things that the hon. Lady refers to. I asked her about antisocial behaviour, which is what I want to focus on. In Newtownards, the canal has long been a focus of antisocial behaviour, particularly as the local park is right beside it. Does she agree that although it is wonderful that our local team of street pastors actively address the issue of antisocial behaviour, it is about partnership? The partnership between street pastors, the police and communities helps to address antisocial behaviour. I always try to be helpful in any debate.

[Wera Hobhouse]

The hon. Gentleman did talk to me before the debate, and I was happy to take his intervention. Bath is an example of the challenges that exist everywhere. We are here to discuss those, but also to point to the partnerships that are essential if we are to resolve the issues, so I thank him for his contribution. Yes, we need to work in partnerships.

The Canal & River Trust stands ready to act, but it needs clearer and stronger legal powers to do so. Perhaps the most baffling thing of all is that the trust has no powers to issue fines or even to refuse a licence. The solution is straightforward: the law should be strengthened to clarify exactly what is required of boaters and to equip the trust with proportionate, enforceable powers, balanced by appropriate safeguards to ensure that those powers are used fairly.

The Canal & River Trust is very keen to engage constructively with all parties on this issue, particularly in hotspots such as Bath, but another major obstacle is the range of stakeholders involved. While the Canal & River Trust manages day-to-day canal operations, the Environment Agency is responsible for pollution and environmental protection, local authorities oversee byelaws relating to littering and antisocial behaviour, and the police retain responsibility for criminal offences. It is easy to see how issues such as dumping, vandalism and the burning of inappropriate fuels fall between those overlapping remits. As the saying goes, when everyone is responsible, no one is responsible, which is why all too often these issues remain unresolved.

Matters are further complicated by restrictive interpretations of the GDPR, which restricts information sharing between agencies. Each body recognises the problem, but none can resolve it alone. I intend to bring together the Canal & River Trust, the police, the Environment Agency and the local authority to improve local co-ordination and enforcement, but let me make it clear that, although better collaboration is essential, this alone is not enough. To genuinely improve enforcement on our waterways—and I echo the calls of the Canal & River Trust in this regard—we must see meaningful reform of the law.

To conclude, Bath is certainly a hotspot for boaters, but this is a nationwide problem. “The Future of Licensing” report, published in October 2025, highlights insufficient powers, chronic under-resourcing and unsustainable enforcement arrangements as just some of the issues facing the Canal & River Trust. My constituents are tired of waiting for action. They want clear accountability for antisocial behaviour on our waterways, proper funding for enforcement services, faster and proportionate powers where behaviour is dangerous or polluting, and better multi-agency co-ordination between the Canal & River Trust, councils, police and the Environment Agency. If we are serious about fixing this, we must give those responsible the clear authority and resources they need—the authority to regulate, enforce and act—so that our canals and rivers are not sources of frustration and conflict, but safe and well-managed spaces that work for residents, boaters and the wider community alike.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mary Creagh]

If the hon. Lady were to convene a regular set of meetings—say, quarterly—on this with the police, the local council and the CRT, I have found that the steady drumbeat of local accountability is very effective in bringing these partners together to tackle these issues, alongside the community of users and canal dwellers.

[Jim Shannon]

I thank the Minister for all that she does and for her answers to the hon. Member for Bath (Wera Hobhouse) in trying to find a way forward. I mentioned the street pastors in Strangford. I am not sure if every town and city has street pastors, but there are many people from the churches who have an interest in young people and issues relating to them. I am a great believer in rehabilitation and working with young people—they are not all bad. It is just a thought, but if somebody can work alongside them, perhaps we can address some of the antisocial behaviour issues.