Waste Crime: Knowsley

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Wednesday 25th March 2026 Westminster Hall

[Anneliese Midgley (Knowsley) (Lab)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the matter of waste crime in Knowsley.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Efford. I am really pleased to have secured this debate on waste crime in Knowsley. I know this is something that my hon. Friend the Minister cares deeply about; she has met me to discuss this issue many times, and I am grateful for her genuine and meaningful engagement with finding solutions.

As the Minister knows, waste crime is a national scandal, and it is felt acutely in parts of my constituency. It is important to call it what it is: serious criminality on an industrial scale. Some 38 million tonnes of waste are dumped illegally every year. What does that look like? It is enough to fill Wembley stadium 35 times over. The cost to the taxpayer is more than a billion quid a year. The scale of this is enormous, and it is often tied to organised crime, money laundering and modern slavery. It is seriously damaging communities such as mine, but unfortunately it is thriving. When The Guardian describes it as the “new narcotics”, I have to agree.

I know the Minister understands this, which is why I know she and this Labour Government will tackle it head on through the new waste crime action plan, which I strongly welcome. I look forward to hearing in her response how this plan will help people in Knowsley, where we have two major sites of concern.

The first site is what I have named the “Simonswood stink”. Although it is just over the border in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for West Lancashire (Ashley Dalton)—I thank her for her work and support on this—it primarily affects my constituents who live in Kirkby. It is completely out of control. While the people of Kirkby, my local Labour councillors—and, indeed, those across Knowsley—and I have been campaigning consistently on this, I must say that the Reform-led Lancashire county councillors and council have been beyond useless and have done absolutely nothing on this matter, on a site in their local authority jurisdiction.

People in parts of Kirkby are living with thick dust and a foul stench day in, day out. They tell me about issues with their health—nausea, headaches, respiratory issues and throwing up. Kids are missing out on education because schools sometimes have to shut for days due to the dust and smell. Even when they are in school, they are sometimes not allowed to play outside because of it; they are cooped up. Home life is severely affected as well. Doors and windows cannot be opened, gardens cannot be used, and washing cannot be hung out without being coated in thick dust. Cars that are washed are almost immediately covered in a thick film of soot.

Maria is really worried about her 10-month-old granddaughter’s health. She has a respiratory tract infection, and Maria is anxious that the site is making it worse or may even be the cause. Michelle has told me that since moving to the area, she has had constant nausea and headaches from the smell. Gina says it has given her child a persistent sore throat, while Joanne and her husband are having breathing problems. Hon. Members should see the photos that people send me and post online. When I am out and about in that part of the constituency campaigning, I see homes, streets and cars covered in this absolutely shocking thick dust. Hon. Members should see the size of this waste dump. It is not meant to be more than five metres high—that is a joke. It looks like the Welsh mountains.

This has been going on for years. I have been campaigning about it since I was elected—holding specific surgeries on the matter, promoting petitions, raising visibility with posters and stickers, meeting Ministers, asking questions here and pushing the Environment Agency to address it—but I am getting really fed up. I am really frustrated because the progress is just far too slow: nothing seems to be happening. People are living with this on the daily. I do not want them to go through yet another summer of this, which is when the stink and the dust get worse.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I thank the hon. Lady for bringing this forward—I spoke to her beforehand as well. She has outlined a serious waste-crime issue specific to her area. She is probably fortunate to have a Minister who will respond in a positive way, and I look forward to that response. However, it is not just an issue in Knowsley; it is an issue everywhere, including in my constituency.

Does the hon. Lady share my concern that, for rural communities, part of the problem with challenging those committing waste crime is the isolation of the countryside? When it comes to the Minister’s response on how to address that, there must be other ways, such as extra policing or CCTV, to catch those doing this.

[Anneliese Midgley]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention, which will come as a surprise to no one. Yes, I know that Labour’s waste-crime action plan addresses many of the concerns that he has raised, and I am sure that the Minister will go into that in more detail in her response.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mary Creagh]

Understood. We are talking about Knowsley, and I am not the canals Minister, but I will take that back to the Department. I am sorry to do the DEFRA silos, but this is not the first time I have heard that. My hon. Friend makes a very good point.

I was talking about tyres, scrap metal and end-of-life vehicles. We are tightening seven more activities that people currently do not need a waste permit for. We are also going after the tax evaders; it is the Al Capone method. His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs is going to expand tax-check rules to the waste sector. If someone has not paid their taxes, we are going to be asking them questions before we renew their licence. We are going across the chain on that.

Secondly, let me turn to enforcement. We are matching our preventive work with tougher enforcement. We are pursuing waste criminals with every tool in the box. We are doubling the Environment Agency’s enforcement budget, with an additional £45 million over the next three years. There will be more boots on the ground and more drones in the air to stop the criminals in their tracks. We are giving the Environment Agency new police-style powers so that it can intervene earlier, disrupt criminal networks and bring more criminals to justice before illegal operations, such as the one my hon. Friend the Member for Knowsley mentioned on the motorway, become established.

Alongside that, the joint unit for waste crime—I visited it in the midlands just a couple of weeks ago, where it is doing some absolutely excellent work—is strengthening its hand. It is bringing together environmental watchdogs, police forces and the National Crime Agency; some of this involves very serious, hardcore, dangerous criminals, so we need some heavy people with us to deal with heavy people. They are getting ready to dismantle the serious organised crime networks that blight our communities.

The penalties for the crime must match the harm. The carriers, brokers and dealers reform will increase the penalties for offenders to up to five years’ imprisonment. Our manifesto made it clear that those who spoil our streets and parks should face up to what they have done and put it right with their own hands.

I am extremely keen that carriers or brokers should have their registration numbers on all their advertising and on their vans. If digitally excluded or older people give their waste to somebody, they should not get the fine. They should be able to clearly see that the van coming to pick up the stuff is a registered vehicle. We should have that confidence, because we as consumers should know that the van is compliant.

We will consult with councils on powers for them to issue fly-tippers—we have heard about them—with conditional cautions to make them clean up the mess they make. What is a conditional caution? I, too, have learned some things: it is an on-the-spot fine of up to £300 and an on-the-spot penalty of 20 hours of unpaid work. We think that clean-up squads are educating people about the harms they have caused, and that getting people to clean up is the best possible way to get them to think twice before they do it again. We will also look at putting penalty points on the driving licences of persistent fly-tippers—again, to make them think twice before they do a job for their mate on a Friday night, shall we say, that may affect their regular employment during the week. We are coming at it at all levels of the chain.

[Jim Shannon]

I have a quick question. Does that apply to the obfuscation of the vehicles and vans used? If it does, that will also hurt them.

[Mary Creagh]

Local authorities have those powers already, but they are not very confident at using them, so I have issued guidance to local authorities to say, “Come on—you’ve got these powers. Why don’t you use them?”. One of the things I hear back is that local authorities have to store the vehicles, pay for a pound, and make sure a vehicle is properly illegal before they seize and crush it. But Labour’s Merton council, in south-west London, does an excellent job on seizing and crushing, as does Sunderland city council up in the north-east. They are in my star hall of fame for seizing and crushing a lot of vehicles; I hope that, if we have this debate next year, other local authorities will be in the mix.

Clean-up costs should rest with the landowner. The polluter should pay, and we will go after the criminals to make sure they pay. We are supporting the clean-up of three illegal waste sites, which my hon. Friend the Member for Knowsley mentioned, and we have published clear criteria for those sites where intervention is needed most urgently. They include an assessment of the landowner’s capability to clear up the site without Government needing to spend taxpayers’ money.

I understand why the residents of Knowsley want the site next to the M57 motorway to be included in that work. We still need to see the fire risk from Merseyside—that was covered in the last meeting we had—and the Environment Agency is in conversation with the landowner about clearing the site. We are getting cleverer at working out what happens before an illegal waste site is created, and we are going to use satellite technology, as well as drones, to be much smarter about how we move earlier on these things. In the meantime, we are monitoring the situation and working with local partners.

For local authorities that want to clear up waste sites on their land, we are looking to develop a rebate scheme for the landfill tax they pay. We will also look, with the insurance industry, at developing an insurance model to shield farmers, businesses and landowners from bearing the cost of waste dumped on their land through no fault of their own.

Let me quickly return to the issue of St Joseph’s college, because that was not on my radar—I thought, “What problems do we have here?” I have a note that refers to the development of a new golf course bringing waste material on to the site. Let me look into that as soon as possible once I get back to my desk, because if something is going on there we want to get in super quickly and get it done super fast. If it is a golf course, then let it be a golf course—not something else. The key is to raise it earlier and to call 999 or Crimestoppers on 0800 555 111. If something does not look right and feels wrong, a person must tell the police. It is no good assuming that it is the council, National Highways or workmen. I have spotted vehicles fly-tipping on the M1 while driving back from Coventry at night, and I have called 999 straight away because it is clearly a waste crime in progress.

We heard about the action that was happening on the Simonswood industrial estate, with the Environment Agency. We have had investigations; the Environment Agency has stopped burning and sent reminders to all permitted sites. However, it is clear that the ongoing waste odours and problems mean that further action must be taken. I remember that when we first met, my hon. Friend the Member for Knowsley told me the site was making Mo Salah sick. I am devastated that he is leaving Liverpool before we have had a chance to make things right.

On Windmill Services, the EA is looking at the next regulatory enforcement step, including revocation of its permit. The EA will conduct site visits imminently to make that assessment and there is a live enforcement case under way. Finally, on Jameson Road, there have been over 500 odour complaints in February, so clearly there is an ongoing problem. We are not going to fix this overnight, but we are doing our absolute best.

I give all hon. Members present from across the House my absolute commitment that we will tackle these rogues. We are coming for them, and we are going to put them out of business.

Question put and agreed to.

Oral Answers to Questions

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Thursday 19th March 2026 Commons Chamber

[Dame Angela Eagle]

We recognise Billingsgate’s importance as a UK distribution hub for fish, and we will continue to monitor the proposed transition closely. We are engaging with the City of London Corporation on the proposed changes.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I thank the Minister for her response to the hon. Member for Hackney South and Shoreditch (Dame Meg Hillier), who always brings forward interesting matters for this House to consider. I always underline the importance of farming, fishing and food in Northern Ireland, and would not want a change to the public ownership of markets in Northern Ireland to impact us in any way. May I, very respectfully and genuinely, ask the Minister whether she has had an opportunity to discuss these matters with the relevant Minister in Northern Ireland, to ensure that nothing similar to what the hon. Lady says may happen in London, happens to us?

[Mr Speaker]

Good luck with that!

Flooding: Rural Communities

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Wednesday 18th March 2026 Commons Chamber

[Alicia Kearns]

I will happily pay tribute. In fact, that gives me a great opportunity to mention Ben Thornely, who is our local Environment Agency officer. It does not matter when I call him or whether it is an emergency or proactively trying to make our communities safer, he always takes the call, and he has been out to see our communities whenever I ask. There are people in the system who work incredibly hard, and this is a great opportunity to thank them.

Every year I hold flooding summits across the three counties I serve, and every year the story is the same.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I commend the hon. Lady; she is an assiduous MP and constituency worker, and we all recognise her efforts in this Chamber. Does she agree that the smaller numbers of people living in rural areas can sometimes skew the cost-benefit analysis? The Department must take each request based not on how many people live in an area and are affected, but on the bigger schemes to help the householders. I gently say that it should also enable farmland to carry out agricultural purposes that are essential for food security for this great United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.

[Alicia Kearns]

The hon. Gentleman is at risk of stealing my sandwiches, but I will get there shortly. He is right, particularly when it comes to farmers; too often they are overlooked and they need support.

The issues that I hear about at my flooding summits are that local authorities are too often silent when asked for help, and that riparian owners are not taking their duties as seriously as they should—dredging goes undone and drains go uncleared—and when people from Rutland ask the Government for support, we are told that we do not qualify. The reason for that is a simple number: 50. To access the flooding recovery framework, 50 houses must flood. Below that line, there is no support; above that line, here comes the cavalry.

For Leicestershire and Lincolnshire, which I also serve, 50 flooded houses is sadly an achievable and often exceeded threshold, but because Rutland is the smallest county—we have just 41,000 residents—we almost never hit 50 flooded homes, thankfully. We must remember the 30 houses that were badly damaged in Greatford in Lincolnshire, which I serve. If it had been the only village in Lincolnshire to flood, it would have had no support, despite people having to be evacuated by boat and being besieged. There is something deeply wrong with a framework so rigid that those in need of help do not or might not receive support.

I raised this objection in the last Parliament, and my Government then listened. The Conservative Government made sure that in 2024, for the first time ever, Rutland could access the flood recovery grant. I ask the Government to make those changes permanent ahead of the next big floods this year. Surely support should be based on the percentage of the population affected or just those who are the most affected, and accessing this funding would make an enormous difference.

I also ask the Minister to ensure that she provides support for farmers. In the village of Tixover in my community, for example, farmers have had to spend up to £80,000 this year buying food for their sheep, which would otherwise just graze off the grass, because they cannot access their land because it is so flooded.

We talk about flood risk in terms of physical damage, infrastructure and recovery time, but there is a financial dimension to this issue that is devastating households. That is the insurance market. For families in flood-risk areas, insurance premiums are eye-watering where they are available at all, so families have to cover the risk themselves; they hope that this year, the storm will pass, the river will hold or the drain will cope, but it never quite does. A family living in fear of flooding is living in fear, not just of water, but of the bill that comes in the post. Flood Re was a vital reinsurance scheme established by the last Government, but homes built since 2009 are not covered, and that scheme’s remit will end in 2030, leaving people stuck. I would be grateful if the Minister could give us an update on the Government’s thinking on this matter.

Fur: Import and Sale

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Tuesday 10th March 2026 Westminster Hall

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

It is a real pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Jardine. I thank the hon. Member for Newport West and Islwyn (Ruth Jones) for highlighting this topic, which is important to many of my constituents. I get regular comments and queries about it.

I put it on the record that it is wrong to kill an animal for its fur. That is the point I start on, as did the hon. Lady; other speakers have said, and will say, the same. Fur farming was first banned in England and Wales. That was closely followed by the introduction of similar legislation in the Northern Ireland Assembly and the Scottish Parliament in 2002. I well remember voting for the legislative change for which the hon. Lady advocates, in my former role as a Member of the Legislative Assembly, and I support her quest.

As a country sports enthusiast, I firmly believe that any animal killed should be used in its entirety, and that animals should not be bred for this purpose. On the rare occasion that I get to shoot—usually twice a year, on Boxing day and new year’s day—all my neighbours look forward to seeing game hanging from their doors, where I usually leave the pheasants, ducks and pigeons as we acquire them, as the meals made from that can be enjoyed by the whole family. When we were in the Assembly, Baroness Foster, the former First Minister, and my right hon. Friend the Member for East Antrim (Sammy Wilson) were probably in receipt of pheasants and ducks at least once a month, which they too enjoyed. My point is that there is a role in harvesting the birds that we rear and that nature produces, so that we can then enjoy them, but in those cases every possible effort was made to ensure that the birds were used in their entirety, as is right and proper.

I supported the ban more than 20 years ago, and I continue to support it now. It seems incongruous that we have for so long allowed the back door entrance of fur that could not be processed here, yet had been processed elsewhere and shipped in. The hon. Lady’s principle is clear: if there is a loophole, let us close it up to make sure that that cannot happen. While I am not an advocate for the wilful destruction of any antique pieces—in other words, furs that have been passed down generationally—supporting the trade simply to take place elsewhere defeats the efforts that we in this United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland have made.

For that reason, I believe that it is past time that we close that loophole and gap by disallowing the importation of this fur for sale. In that, I believe that I speak for the large majority of my constituents, who regularly make their views known to me on this subject. I again thank the hon. Member for Newport West and Islwyn, who has been a doughty campaigner—the word “doughty” is used often, but it describes the hon. Lady well. We thank her for her diligence in raising this matter.

I hope that the Minister will support the Bill and its intentions, as highlighted by the hon. Lady and others in this debate, and will enable its smooth and effective passage through Parliament. We all know that time in the Chamber for the passage of private Members’ Bills is precious, but I think we can all agree that this Bill deserves time and attention to get it right, to ensure that the entire United Kingdom has the same rules—including Northern Ireland, where the intentions and requests are similar—and to answer the questions around its use in military uniforms, on which the hon. Member for York Central (Rachael Maskell) put forward a clear case. I have seen her EDM and have added my name to it.

Work needs to be done to get it right, but I believe the desire is here, in this Chamber and in Parliament as a whole. I look forward to the Minister’s helping to progress the Bill to prevent the import and sale of fur and other products. Again, well done to the hon. Member for Newport West and Islwyn. The objectives that we are all trying to achieve are worthy; constituents want them, and this House will hopefully endorse them in their entirety.

Environmental Protection and Biodiversity

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Tuesday 3rd March 2026 Westminster Hall

[Chris Hinchliff]

I thank my hon. Friend for her support for the red lines campaign. She is absolutely right about what makes life worth living. Investing in our country, strengthening standards and restoring our natural world will do far more to improve the lives of ordinary people than a short-sighted race to the bottom. That is the Labour tradition: action to correct market failure, not dogmatic deregulation.

There is a nature-loving majority in this country, including the millions of members of the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds, wildlife trusts, national trusts and so many more. Our Labour Government should be working alongside those groups, not squaring up to them. At the end of the day, there is a lot more of them than there are developer lobbyists. Let us stop this endless cycle of skirmishes. It does not have to be like this. Enough is enough.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Chris Hinchliff]

I am very sorry, but I had better make progress at this point.

Today, I am calling for clear red lines for nature: no further weakening of environmental protections, no funding cuts to environmental bodies and no more collapsing biodiversity but instead a fully funded nature recovery plan to meet our legally binding targets. There are no more branches left to prune without killing the tree. There can be no more backward steps. Hand wringing will not protect habitats. Lip service will not stop extinction. Let us have a little optimism and idealism instead.

We know from projects such as Knepp and trailblazers such as my constituents at Finches Farm in Benington that with decisive action our biodiversity can come booming back again. Across the country, we have a vast, untapped pool of potential crying out for employment and meaningful, healthy work. It is ready to contribute to leaving the world in a better state than we found it, and there is so much work to be done: restoring our meadows, orchards, coppices and temperate rainforests; relaying hedgerows; re-wetting the lost marshes; re-wriggling our rivers; bringing back the species that haunt our islands; saving the curlew and red squirrel; and monitoring, measuring and enforcing our essential environmental protections. There is enough skilled work to deliver a huge boost towards full employment across every region of the country. Like new Labour’s “New Deal for a Lost Generation”, we need a green job guarantee to deliver essential environmental restoration work now and brilliant careers for years to come.

Now is the time for the honesty to admit that, for generation after generation, we have spent down and frittered away the vast wealth that was the natural inheritance of these islands. The truth is that the reality of GDP growth has been little more than a heaping up of virtual wealth—a hoarding of digital zeros in the bank accounts of the wealthy, while the real world around all of us suffered. Any further weakening of environmental protections will only push us over the edge into total bankruptcy. We cannot retreat a single step further. We must defend these last red lines for nature for the sake of every generation to come. My plea to the Minister is simply this: defy the lobbyists, side with the public and the planet over profit, and give us our nature back.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I thank the hon. Member for North East Hertfordshire (Chris Hinchliff) for securing this debate. Some 12% of species are threatened with extinction in the countryside we live in, as he underlined very clearly. The 50% loss of biodiversity since the ’70s is a serious problem. I want to give an example of what my council, Ards and North Down borough council, does. The council has a strategy of planting and rewilding council land; indeed, it is actively trying to purchase other land for the same purpose. I am always very pleased to see the Minister in her place—I wish her well, including for her recovery. I ask her what the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs will do to help councils to make more of a difference, if councils are willing to step up and do something.

[Ayoub Khan (Birmingham Perry Barr) (Ind)]

The Wood Lane playing fields in my constituency are in difficulty because the council faces bankruptcy and is looking to sell property. Does the hon. Member agree that something needs to be done about that?

[Jim Shannon]

I certainly do, and I will hand over to the Minister to respond at the end of the debate.

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.