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.

Water (Special Measures) Act 2025: Enforcement

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Tuesday 20th January 2026 Westminster Hall

[Tom Gordon (Harrogate and Knaresborough) (LD)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the enforcement of the Water (Special Measures) Act 2025.

It is a pleasure to serve with you in the chair, Dr Allin-Khan, and to open this debate on the enforcement of the Water (Special Measures) Act 2025.

Like many Members across this House, I welcomed the introduction of the Water (Special Measures) Act last year. After years of public anger over pollution, rising bills and declining services in the sector, the Act promised a tougher approach to a failing water industry. It pledged to ban bonuses for failing bosses, bring criminal charges against persistent law breakers, impose meaningful fines and introduce independent monitoring of every sewer overflow. On paper, that sounded like progress. In practice, the Act has proved to be little more than a drop in the ocean.

The Water (Special Measures) Act was meant to turn the tide, but right now the sewage is still flowing and so are the excuses from water bosses. The Act was intended to strengthen regulation and restore public trust, yet in the months since its introduction we have seen companies complying with the letter of the law while confidence continues to drain away. When regulation is drafted so narrowly it can be complied with but the purpose is undermined, it is quite clearly not fit for purpose and not strong enough. That brings me to a central question of this debate: how do we ensure that the principles of the Act are properly enforced, and that water companies are genuinely held to account?

Nowhere is the failure of the current system clearer than the performance of Yorkshire Water, which supplies water to my constituents in Harrogate and Knaresborough. The problems they face mirror those across the country, from poor customer services to rising bills and the persistent sewage pollution we see in our rivers.

Yorkshire Water was classified by Ofwat as “lagging behind” but my constituents are having to pay that price upfront. In October 2025, the Environment Agency gave Yorkshire Water a red rating for serious pollution incidents. Those incidents had almost tripled in 2024, leaving the company with one of the worst pollution records in the country. Despite this performance, customers have repeatedly been asked to pay more while receiving less. One constituent described their experience as:

“Probably the worst consumer experience I have had in my life”.

Against that backdrop, many were rightly shocked by comments from the Yorkshire Water chief executive when she suggested criticism of the company reflected

“a level of expectation from customers that’s much higher”

than it had been. With water bills expected to rise by as much as 41% over the next five years, and a hosepipe ban that was imposed from July to December, my constituents are entitled to ask how low does she think their expectations should be? If expectations are too high, then perhaps the problem is not the public but the leadership of Yorkshire Water.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I commend the Liberal Democratic party for all they do on water issues. That cannot be taken away from them: they are to the fore. Other parties may be a wee bit annoyed at that, but they are so active it is incredible. Well done.

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the private companies do not appear to be tied to doing the right thing for the public as a whole, but to doing more for their investors? The ability to freeze bonus payments as a penalty should be used, and the consultation with the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs must allow this measure to be implemented in a quick and cost-effective manner, as a matter of urgency. Does he agree that is one thing that could be done?

[Tom Gordon]

I thank the hon. Member for his intervention. It is a pleasure to take an intervention from him, as always. I completely agree with what he has outlined and the characterisation of the way that the water sector is, frankly, morally bankrupt. There is no interest in the public good. That is why my party has long been calling to see these companies reformed, where they have to put public benefit interest first rather than corporate shareholder responsibilities.

Food Inflation

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Thursday 15th January 2026 Westminster Hall

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dame Siobhain. I say a big thank you to the hon. Member for Hornsey and Friern Barnet (Catherine West) for setting the scene, and to the right hon. Member for Salisbury (John Glen).

This is a very important debate, because so many families out there are struggling. I very much welcome the Government’s commitment to ending the two-child benefit cap. It will definitely make changes, but we cannot see those changes just yet. In Northern Ireland, annual food price inflation is 5.1%, and grocery spending has reached £4.4 billion.

The first Trussell Trust food bank in Northern Ireland was in Newtownards in my constituency, and food bank use last year was up 35%. We now see middle-class families, who have a wage but are unable to cope, using food banks. Overall consumer inflation in Northern Ireland has stayed around similar levels to that of the UK, which is about 4% to 5%. Recent research from Safefood indicates that food costs vary for many families. In some cases, it can be 50% of take-home pay for those with children.

I will give three examples in the short time I have. I know a family of two—a mother and daughter—who spend about £450 a month on groceries, including staple top-ups such as bread and milk. They made me aware that their rent is £600, so households are spending almost as much as their rent on groceries to eat well.

The second example is a family of five: two adults who work full time and three children aged from two to nine—wee tots, I would call them. They told me that they spend about £180 to £200 a week on groceries. Many may think that seems so much to be spending, but we often do not think of the breakfast before school, the break-time snack, lunch, dinner and endless litres of milk for children. Many working families are not eligible for free school meals, and parents want to ensure that their children have healthy, hearty meals. They have to get it right for their children from the very beginning. I would encourage children to drink their milk.

I want to briefly touch on the cost of baby formula, which has been increasing for numerous years. Certain formulas can range from £8 to £16 per standard tin, and that is not to mention the recent recall of SMA milk due to the potential presence of cereulide. Many families bulk-buy milk, and they will have to source it elsewhere in the meantime, before they can be compensated. They cannot do without milk for their children, so we have to address that increase in price. Almost £16 per standard tin is just too much.

The reality is that the announcements in the Chancellor’s Budget of benefit uplifts and the freezing of tax thresholds do not go far enough to support a huge proportion of the population. Rising grocery prices create challenges for everyone. I am increasingly seeing working families struggle from month to month while trying to do their best and hold down their full-time jobs. In all my time as an elected representative, I have never seen such pressure on working families across this United Kingdom. The pressure is huge. In this economy, most people are feeling the impact. It is a month-to-month struggle, and they are not able to save. The cost of living means those families are not able to get back on their feet.

So what do we do? We look to the Minister. She will have to forgive me for saying that she will have to dig deep into her pockets. Our constituents need more help. The cost of living is stretching household budgets to breaking point. I believe that this is the Government’s responsibility. To be fair to them, they are doing what they can to ensure that no household is left struggling to put food on the table. We should look forward to having a society in which everyone can meet their basic needs without worry. If we cannot do it today, we need to do it as soon as possible.

Rural Communities

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Wednesday 7th January 2026 Commons Chamber

[Simon Hoare]

I agree, but I think those on our Front Bench go one step further, which is to get rid of the whole damn thing in the first instance, as that solves the problem at a stroke.

I urge the Government to do what they did slightly with the family farm tax. There seem to be noises off from the Treasury, the Department for Business and Trade, and others, about potential changes here there and everywhere, and that they are listening. Businesses are at the brink, and they need certainty now. Stop playing cat and mouse with rural businesses on these policies. Take a decision, announce it. If it is a screeching U-turn, perform it. Do it elegantly, but for the love of God, just do it.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Simon Hoare]

I will not, if the hon. Member will forgive me.

My second point is for the Government to please restore the listed places of worship scheme, which is vital for our rural churches. I echo the point that has been made: it is daft to merge sections 1 and 2 with regards to shotgun licensing—I declare an interest as a holder of one. As we know, a very serious issue happened in Devon a few years ago, but this is a draconian response to that and there are other ways to deal with shotgun licence safety.

Drop the family farm tax. It was the wrong policy. It was suggested by officials to Conservative Treasury Ministers every Budget cycle, and Conservative Treasury Ministers said no. It was never going to raise the amount of money that the Government told us before the changes, and it will now raise even less because of the changes to the threshold. Pull the plaster off that provision—and again, do it quickly. I say to those on the Treasury Bench that it is not worth the pain to continue to torture small family farms. North Dorset is the “Vale of the Little Dairies” to quote Thomas Hardy, and there are lots of family farms. They will go to the wall even with the changes to the threshold that the Government have announced. Everybody within the dairy sector will be aware of the unsustainable fluctuations in milk price, and we need a Government-led dairy strategy to secure that vital part of our agricultural sector.

We need to restore funding for neighbourhood plans, because that will deliver the local vernacular housing that local communities wish to see. Finally, we need a fundamental ruralisation of the formulas that underpin important funding decisions, whether for schools, the police or Environment Agency projects. If they get all that right, the Government might begin to restore their reputation within the rural community; continue as they are, and they are on a hiding to nothing.

[Mike Reader (Northampton South) (Lab)]

I wanted to contribute to this debate to celebrate the brilliant food producers in Northamptonshire and across the UK, some of which you sampled on Northamptonshire Day, Madam Deputy Speaker. As chair of the all-party group for food and drink, I have seen first-hand how rural communities play a critical part in our supply chain, and set the standard for global food quality.

When preparing for today, I thought I might do as many Opposition Members have done: go and buy myself a fresh Barbour jacket and some shiny wellies, and film a social media video ranting about protecting farmers, completely tone deaf to the hammering that they got under 14 years of Conservative Governments. But no, I will be collegiate, Madam Deputy Speaker; instead, I will focus on supporting food producers, and particularly on how we support growth and prosperity in rural communities.

Many will know that my background lies in the construction sector. I am a proud yimby, and a supporter of this Labour Government’s necessary policies to correct the catastrophic and sustained failures of the last Government to “build, baby, build.” While many Opposition Members see development as a threat to communities, if they spent more than five minutes talking to farmers and rural landowners, they would know it is really important that we support sustainable development, which is critical to the prosperity of rural Britain.

[Jim Shannon]

I commend the hon. Gentleman. He is putting forward good points about agriculture and how the economy can build off it. Northern Ireland has £6 billion-worth of manufacturing and exports, and it is critical for it to do well, as well. One thing that holds us back is veterinary and medicines, and the Northern Ireland protocol. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that in order for us go forward with the rest of the United Kingdom, the Northern Ireland protocol should be addressed? Perhaps when the Minister responds to the debate she can give us some ideas on that.

[Mike Reader]

I am not familiar with the Northern Ireland protocol at all, but I am learning more about the SPS agreement in my role as the chair. I hope that Nick Thomas-Symonds will come to see us very soon to explain—

Future of Thames Water

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Tuesday 6th January 2026 Westminster Hall

[Layla Moran (Oxford West and Abingdon) (LD)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the future of Thames Water.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairpersonship, Mrs Harris, and I thank the Minister for attending this debate to listen to my constituents’ concerns. What better way to start the year than to debate the future of Thames Water? But—let me be frank—I do not believe this company has a future. If Thames Water had been genuinely subject to market forces over the years, it would have collapsed many, many decades ago, but instead, a broken regulatory system and chronic mismanagement have repeatedly let businesses and customers down.

Consider this: last year, Robert, aged 81, from Abingdon, received a water bill for—wait for it—£39,000. Thames Water later revised it to £37,688.64. He and his partner Patricia said, quite understandably, that they had become ill from stress because of the bill. It took two months, an intervention and a BBC story to cancel the absurd charge. That case epitomises the incompetence and disregard for customers that has eroded public trust in this company.

Another example is 70-year-old Morna from Botley, who suffered repeated floods in her house due to a blocked Thames Water drain. I visited and saw for myself the strain it took for her to fight for over a year with Thames Water for it finally to unblock it. The delays and inaction are just unacceptable.

I have one last example: Len and Jenny are in their 80s and in frail health, and they lost basic sanitation to their home in 2023. A blocked pipe caused sewage to enter through air bricks and they were left with no toilet, no washing facilities and no power. All they had was a portaloo in their garden and a tanker to pump out sewage. Foul waste continued to bubble up through the basin in their bathroom. We are now in 2026, and Jenny and Len still do not have the recommended non-return valve, a firm date for the maintenance or compensation. If Thames Water cannot even do those basics, what can it do?

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I thank the hon. Lady for bringing this debate to Westminster Hall. Thames Water is £20 billion in debt, and it needs £20 billion to service the investment that is necessary. The chief executive has had substantial payouts and dividends. Is it not time for the Government to intervene, take over and get the job right?

[Layla Moran]

Thames Water’s repeated mismanagement is why the Liberal Democrats have long called for all of the water company bosses not to receive that level of payout. We will continue to campaign in that vein.

Locally, we have been campaigning on the issue for many years. Along with Safer Waters, Thames21 and local activists, we secured bathing water status for Port Meadow in Oxford, only the second inland site in the country. That has forced Thames Water to monitor and report on water quality there, but for the last three years, that rating has been “poor”. Residents in Oxford, like others across the country, continue to risk their health every time they swim.

One would think that poor quality would logically lead to action, but it seems not to have done. In a debate just two years ago, I called for legally binding targets on sewage pollution, so I was pleased when the Government promised last July to halve sewage pollution by 2030. Today, I urge the Minister and the Government to move faster and to take all legal and financial steps necessary to make that change happen, because, as we have heard, Thames Water customers experience poor service, flooding, sewage in their homes and sewage in their rivers, and for this, they are being asked to pay more—indeed, 31% more in 2025-26 than the year before.

Oral Answers to Questions

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Thursday 18th December 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mary Creagh]

Our future circular economy growth plan and interventions will seek to go beyond recycling and drive circularity in our waste streams, reducing the amount of waste that is sent for incineration and, crucially, to landfill. That is on top of the reforms we are delivering to simplify recycling for all households and businesses, including introducing food waste collections from next April and encouraging reduced and recyclable packaging.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

The Minister referred to wood stoves. Many people use wood stoves, especially those living on farms, where trees fall. It seems logical to give them the opportunity to use that resource in a sensible way. The policy that is being followed may not be fair to those who have committed themselves to using wood stoves. Has the Minister any thoughts on how their concerns can be addressed?

[Mary Creagh]

The hon. Member is absolutely right; wood burners are an important way for some households to heat their homes. Our upcoming consultation will focus on tighter standards for new wood-burning appliances to help reduce health impacts.

Water Scarcity

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Tuesday 9th December 2025 Westminster Hall

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

It is always a real pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Stuart. I particularly thank the hon. Member for Horsham (John Milne) for setting the scene so incredibly well and giving us all a chance to participate through his choice of debate today. It is always a pleasure to see the Minister in her place; I always look forward to hearing the Minister’s response. I know that she has no responsibility for Northern Ireland—she will be glad to hear that—although I will explain the differences between what is done here and in Northern Ireland. The Minister always gives us reassurance in her responses, and we appreciate that very much. I thank her for that.

I like to attend these debates to give a local perspective from back home, with our own water service, Northern Ireland Water. Through my constituency office, I am in frequent contact with Northern Ireland Water—almost daily and certainly twice a week. Many constituents have raised issues with me regarding pressure, no water, or access to water for new developments, so it is indeed important to be here to discuss just this. Northern Ireland Water—as the Minister and hopefully others will know—is controlled by a Government Department; it is not beholden to any water company. Therefore, the responsibility lies on the shoulders of that Department, through the Northern Ireland Assembly.

When I listen to all the stories that hon. Members have told me around here or contributed in debates, and the regular questions on this issue, it is clear to me that the Lib Dems are very strong on this subject and that they understand the issues and put forward solutions. But for us back home, there is no big chief executive getting a six or seven-figure bonus for not doing his or her job right.

[Anna Dixon]

As the hon. Gentleman may know, the chief exec of Yorkshire Water, while publicly not taking her bonus, took quite a large sum of money from the Kelda Holdings company. Given that lack of transparency at Yorkshire Water, does the hon. Gentleman agree that companies such as Kelda Holdings should not be involved in water, leveraging debt and handing out large secret bonuses to their chief execs?

[Jim Shannon]

I certainly do. I know the Minister is equally concerned about that, and I am hoping that the Minister’s response will give reassurance to the hon. Lady, and indeed to all of us, in relation to that. I think there is something obscene and immoral about these executives getting large sums of money—whatever Department it comes out of and whatever way it is manipulated to get that through—and it is good to know that the Government will be taking some measures to address that.

[Jess Brown-Fuller]

Will the hon. Member join me in asking the Minister to share her thoughts on the Southern Water boss having an incredible pay rise to get round the fact that bonuses for chief executives have been banned? These private companies will always find workarounds unless we change the structure of the water companies themselves.

[Jim Shannon]

I think the two words “immoral” and “obscene” sum up the issues that the hon. Lady has referred to, and we look forward to the Minister’s response.

In 2024, Northern Ireland Water published a new water resource plan, extending its long-term planning horizon from 25 years to 50 years, so it has in place a structure to look forward at what will happen in Northern Ireland. Our population has increased by, I think, more than 200,000 in the last 10 years. The increase has been quite significant. There have been large developments. My constituency of Strangford has experienced that. There is a development coming through in the east of the town. There will be 750 new houses, and that will add stress on the infrastructure, including the water system and all the roads. But we have to address population growth, housing demand, water usage and climate change. The plan recognises that future weather patterns are likely to include more frequent extreme events, and pledges to build resilience so that the water supply remains secure.

[Dr Danny Chambers (Winchester) (LD)]

This is the first time I have intervened on the hon. Member—it is normally the other way round. He mentioned climate change, and I was alarmed to read that last year Hampshire and Isle of Wight Fire and Rescue Service attended 197 outdoor fires and wildfires, which was one of the highest numbers in the whole of the UK. We are seeing water scarcity and abstraction from rivers against the backdrop of having had the 20-odd hottest years on the planet—year after year after year. It has to be acknowledged that that is affecting water scarcity as well.

[Jim Shannon]

The hon. Member highlights another issue in relation to climate change and the dry spells that we are having, which lead, ultimately, to the fires that take place, whether deliberately or by accident.

Spelga dam supplies most of the water for the Greater Belfast area, and that takes in the area that I live in, Strangford, and North Down, and goes down as far as South Down. I also want to refer to Lough Neagh in a few minutes. Water usage per person in Northern Ireland is rising—the hon. Member for Horsham referred to this issue in his introduction—and has exceeded 160 litres per day. The system is sensitive to dry spells. I am recalling the summer that we have just had and the Twelfth of July—this is a very important year for us Orangemen—when the weather was outstanding. So much more water was used for children’s play pools, sprinklers and watering plants. The weather should not be taken for granted and neither should the amount of water that we are using. That is what this debate is all about—how we use water better. The situation was similar to one a few years back in Northern Ireland. I remember that there was actually a hosepipe ban, involving restricted hours, to limit the amount of water that was being used. We have had drought spells in Northern Ireland in the past, but we do not really have much shortage of rain, by and large.

Water quality is also a big issue back home. Environmental concerns have been released by the Department of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs on the safety of some of the water that it manages. Large bodies of water such as Lough Neagh, the UK’s largest freshwater lake—this has been in the headlines all over the United Kingdom, but especially in Northern Ireland—have repeatedly experienced toxic algae blooms. The issue is not isolated to just that location; it happens in other locations as well. Northern Ireland has also witnessed a risk to infrastructure and investment, which could have a direct impact on our drinking water supply. Funding constraints are always an issue, to the point that Northern Ireland Water has actually halted new wastewater connections for many new housing developments. It puts the onus on the developer to come up with the sewerage systems, come up with the water supply—come up with the infrastructure that it would normally put in—and the developer pays for that.

There are real issues regarding water scarcity back home. I always have great faith in the Minister in relation to her discussions with the relevant Minister in the Northern Ireland Assembly. I am always encouraged by the Ministers who come to these debates and whom I speak to, because when it comes to contacting the Ministers back home, by and large they have all done that. If this Minister has had that opportunity, what has been the outcome?

Water is not scarce in Northern Ireland, but there are many contributing factors that imply that the situation could get worse. On water condition and water access, more needs to be done to repair the damage and ensure that agencies such as Northern Ireland Water have the money that they need to improve our services. I look to the Minister to tell us what discussions and conversations she has had with the Ministers back home to ensure that we can address this issue centrally here at Westminster, but for the benefit of all the regions.