Gene Editing

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Tuesday 22nd July 2025 Westminster Hall

[Steve Barclay (North East Cambridgeshire) (Con)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the future of gene editing.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Vaz. I secured this debate as gene editing provides immense opportunities to the United Kingdom in boosting growth in our agricultural sector, in supporting our world-leading life science industry and in better protecting our environment for future generations. Being able to diverge from the European Union on the regulation of gene editing is a genuine Brexit opportunity, but there is much concern that the Labour Government’s EU reset will pause or even reverse the progress made in the UK in setting out a new path to regulate that exciting technology and, in doing so, will sacrifice a key opportunity to help our farming community.

Almost all our domestic animals and plants are the result of thousands of years of selective breeding. Gene editing is best thought of as a modern enhancement of that technique. It is often referred to as precision breeding. It allows scientists to make changes to a plant or animal’s DNA, cutting the DNA strand and then adding, deleting or altering sequences to give beneficial traits, which make for things like disease and drought-resistant crops, or indeed more nutritious crops.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I commend the right hon. Gentleman for securing the debate. This is an incredibly important issue to the farming community that I represent and those across the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. He is presenting some incredibly interesting facts. Does he agree, however, that we must be careful in any consideration of the future of gene editing to maintain a boundary between gene therapy and gene enhancement? We must ensure that we are not generating superhuman traits, as opposed to seeking to cure genetic traits, which is something we can all agree on. The key issue, as he says, is the issue of drought and disease-resistant crops, which are critical to the farming community.

[Steve Barclay]

The hon. Gentleman is a champion of the farming community. He and I, in my previous role, often discussed farming issues, and we both hugely support the importance of food production as a key part of our food security. He is right to draw attention to the fact—I will come to this—that gene editing and gene modification are often confused, when they are very distinct. The crucial point to share with the House is that the changes in gene editing are limited to those that occur naturally or through conventional selective breeding. That is the distinction I will come on to with gene modification. By using gene editing, we can get to a desired trait more quickly. Science therefore accelerates something that could happen naturally, as opposed to being an artificial intervention.

Let me give an example of how gene editing can provide a win-win in practice in our farming community. I represent North East Cambridgeshire, which is the centre of UK sugar beet production. That crop has been severely impacted by virus yellows disease. At the moment, the only way to tackle it is by using a seed treatment, Cruiser SB, which is toxic to pollinators such as bees. Given the downsides for nature, the treatment needs to be granted emergency authorisation on a year-by-year basis. The last time that the authorisation was not made available was in 2020, and 25% of the national sugar beet crop was lost. Without authorisation of something that is accepted as damaging to nature, the crop fell by a quarter, which is a severe consequence.

That led to an economic loss of about £67 million, in an industry involving 10,000 jobs. After some years of approval the current Government have decided that authorisation will again not be available in 2025, which has left the sector with a lot of uncertainty. But instead of requiring us to choose between nature and crop yields, gene editing provides a better solution. Under the previous Conservative Government, a £660,000 grant was made jointly to British Sugar, the agricultural biotechnology company Tropic, and the world-leading plant science institute, the John Innes Centre, to fund gene editing research into sugar beet resistance to virus yellows disease.

Independent Water Commission

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Monday 21st July 2025 Commons Chamber

[Steve Reed]

My hon. Friend rightly points to sewage getting worse and bills rising every year for 14 years under the previous Government. We are turning the tide on Tory sewage today, and over the next five years residents in Dartford and elsewhere will see reductions in sewage until we meet our target.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I thank the Secretary of State very much for his statement. Yesterday on the Laura Kuenssberg show he showed positivity in relation to the new strategy, and the steps to be taken certainly make sense. However, water in Northern Ireland is still publicly owned, yet we still have the same difficulties that the Government are seeking to combat here. So my question to the Secretary of State is a simple one: will he do me a favour and speak to the relevant Minister at the Northern Ireland Assembly, Andrew Muir, to ensure that we in Northern Ireland have the same result as what is going to happen here with the required changes to infrastructure, giving more responsibility and outputting the changes that are made? With the positivity the Secretary of State has shown, that would take care of some of our difficulties in Northern Ireland.

[Steve Reed]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question. I speak regularly with my counterparts in Northern Ireland and am more than happy to convey his message to them the next time I speak to them.

Driven Grouse Shooting

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Monday 30th June 2025 Westminster Hall

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mrs Harris. I thank the hon. Member for Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk (John Lamont) for setting the scene so well. He set out the landscape and introduced all the issues, and all Members who have contributed have, by and large, comprehended the importance of grouse shooting.

I declare an interest as I am a member of BASC, the Countryside Alliance Ireland, Sport Ireland and the Ulster Farmers Union. All four of those, along with the NFU, support grouse shooting. It was important to put that on record, in case anyone thought I was being biased. The reason I joined those organisations is because they represent my views. All those bodies have a clearly-stated opinion on grouse shooting; it is an opinion that I hold to as well.

I enjoy country sports, although, to be truthful, because of an incredibly busy schedule, I only attend shoots twice a year—maybe once a year. Every bird or rabbit I shoot—the number of animals goes down as my age goes up—finds its way to the table as dinner, and that is a fact. There is no wastage, as far as I am concerned. I see the bird or rabbit to table, and that is something I can endorse. I recall that when she was First Minister, my party colleague who is now Baroness Foster of the other place informed me one day that she enjoyed pheasant, so after some of my endeavours at pheasant shooting I would leave them hanging from her door at the Northern Ireland Assembly at Stormont. She would take them home and serve her family—farm to table was never as quick.

Many people contribute to and input into grouse shooting—I will enlarge on that later in my speech—and that is its importance. For the record, we own a small farm, but my mum and dad had nothing when they started off. I think my dad had the wheel of a cart when he started out in life. He did of course manage to buy a farm, but it was not given to him. He was not one of the landed gentry or one of the privileged; he worked hard for every pound that he had, along with my mum. Through their endeavour, they got the farm that we have today. On that farm, our contribution is 3,500 trees that we planted and that have now reached maturity. There are two duck ponds, the hedgerows have been retained and the raptors—the birds of prey—have a place. All those things were done because we understand the balance of nature and how we can contribute, making sure it is done right. I walked across the fields after silage cutting about four weeks ago, and I have never seen as many songbirds in my life on our land as I saw this time. Is that a contribution from someone who loves the land, or from someone who does not know about it? I shall let Members make their own decision.

I want to mention the Glenwherry shoot, which is the only grouse shoot in Northern Ireland. It is sponsored by BASC and the landowner. It is a success, but why is that? To start with, Glenwherry had no more than about 10 grouse, but it built that up. As others have said, the magpies, the crows, the greybacks, the foxes and the rats —all the predators—were controlled. It was gamekeepered, and the heath and moorland was burnt in a controlled burning, so that it could regenerate and produce the heather for the young birds and the grouse. Today, that is a successful grouse shoot. Why is it successful? Because grouse shooters know how to do it. They know how to deliver a successful grouse shoot. The lapwings and curlews also gathered momentum as a result. They have a place to breed every year because of the efforts of the gamekeeper and the landowner—the efforts of those who put money into the grouse shooting to make it a success.

I have never shot a grouse—never in my life—but I know that the principles of countryside management are in place and therefore sustainability is key. The shooting season begins on 12 August, which is referred to as the glorious 12th. I will celebrate a much more glorious 12th in two weeks’ time in Northern Ireland—we will not be shooting any grouse, but doing something slightly different. The season finishes on 30 November in Northern Ireland and on 10 December on the GB mainland.

Grouse are prized by chefs and those who eat game. The first birds of the season are rushed to restaurants here in London and elsewhere across the United Kingdom. Nearly 100% of grouse shot will be food for the table. There is no wastage—no shooting for the sake of a number. The birds are used to feed people throughout the United Kingdom. We need to have an honest discussion about what grouse shooting entails. I mean not the skill of shooting straight—though I probably need a lot of lessons in that—but the year-long hard slog that it takes to manage the environment to protect the habitat of the grouse.

Seventy-five per cent of the world’s heather moorland is found in Britain, and we have a custodial responsibility to look after it. Who looks after it? The gamekeepers, the grouse shooters and those who own the land. Many have described heather moorland as our rainforests here in the United Kingdom. Up to 1.8 million hectares of uplands are managed as grouse moors, and a study of upland breeding birds in parts of England and Scotland found that the densities of golden plover and lapwing were five times greater on managed grouse moors compared with unmanaged moorland, as has been mentioned. Curlew have doubled on managed moorland and redshank are also more abundant, because of grouse shooting, predator control and management.

This will be of interest to you, Mrs Harris, as a Member who represents a constituency in Wales, and hopefully to everyone. In the Berwyn range, an upland area of Wales that lost management for grouse shooting, surveys showed a dramatic decline in upland breeding of waders between 1983 to 1985 and 2002. Overall, the abundance of all breeding waders declined by 80%. There is the evidential base—it is all about evidence, is it not? The evidence points to the fact that grouse moor management, alongside shooting organisations, landowners and predator control, leads to more grouse and more waders. Surely, that has to be good.

The equivalent of more than 33,000 cars’ worth of carbon emissions is being removed from the atmosphere each year because of the environmental work of grouse moor estates in the north of England, and grouse moor management has restored some 27,000 hectares of bare peat in the last 20 years. Again, why are people doing this? Because they want to retain the land. Our grouse moors are our rainforests here in the United Kingdom—they are what we are trying to retain. Let us give credit to those who do that, rather than having those who do not understand it, or who do not respect those people, pass silly comments.

Time prevents me from continuing to outline the vast array of benefits, but I want to outline the financial benefits of shooting. Grouse moor owners in England spend more than £52.5 million on moor management, whereas other land uses in the uplands, such as farming and forestry, depend on Government subsidy. Indeed, businesses associated with grouse shooting benefit by some £15.2 million every year. We cannot ignore the contribution, the jobs and the money that goes into the economy. Grouse moors in England and Scotland support around 3,000 full-time jobs. Country sports tourism, including grouse shooting, generates £155 million annually for the economy in Scotland—the very place that the hon. Member for Inverness, Skye and West Ross-shire represents; he understands the commitment, as others do. With around 970,000 bed-nights purchased each year by domestic and international tourists, the benefits of this carefully curated aspect of country sports are clear.

I conclude by returning to my first point. Grouse are eaten and used, not wasted. No benefit to the environment or economy from grouse shooting is wasted. That is why I could not agree to a ban on this vital part of our countryside management. I hope that the House recognises —I believe it does—the good that comes from grouse shooting. Hopefully it will be portrayed as such in all the magazines and perhaps even on TV.

English Wine Production

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Wednesday 25th June 2025 Westminster Hall

[Katie Lam (Weald of Kent) (Con)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered English wine production.

It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Dame Siobhain. I am grateful for the opportunity to bring forward this debate at a timely moment: the middle of English Wine Week. The theme this year is creating new traditions, and I cannot think of a more fitting description for the English wine industry as it stands today. It is a sector that combines modern ambition with rural heritage, and world-class expertise with local entrepreneurial spirit. It is a sector that is growing, not only in economic potential but in the public imagination.

As one of my local winemakers puts it, English wines tend to have a steely, citrus backbone. I like to think that this is an apt description of our nation’s character too: resilient, bright and quietly distinctive. English wine is increasingly a source of national pride, and we should be doing everything we can to support and protect it. The industry is growing fast, and the Government should be helping rather than hindering.

In 2023, UK vineyards produced over 21 million bottles of wine—a new record—and it is exciting that sales of English wine continue to buck wider market trends. Domestic wine sales were up 10% in 2023. Sales of UK sparkling wine have nearly trebled since 2018, from roughly 2 million bottles to over 6 million. Similarly, sales of still wine have more than doubled over the same period. We should all be toasting that success.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I commend the hon. Lady for securing this debate. Northern Ireland does not produce any of its own wine; we do not have the necessary climate. We could use European Union grapes to make wine, due to Brexit regulations—but that is by the way. What can we do in Northern Ireland to ensure that English wine is something that we like to have? How can it be promoted, not just in England but in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland? Why not buy British, as we should?

[Katie Lam]

The hon. Gentleman is a fantastic champion of our Unionist and one nation principles. The best thing that our friends, brothers and sisters in Northern Ireland can do is to purchase English wine and drink it. That is a win for all concerned.

British wines are now exported to 45 different countries. There are healthy markets in Norway, Japan, America, Sweden, Finland, Switzerland, the Netherlands, Hong Kong and South Korea, to name but a few. We now have over 1,100 registered vineyards and more than 240 wineries.

Flood Defences: Chesterfield

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Tuesday 24th June 2025 Westminster Hall

[Mr Toby Perkins (Chesterfield) (Lab)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the matter of improving flood defences in Chesterfield.

I am grateful for the opportunity to introduce the debate. Flooding is a critical issue for my constituents in Chesterfield and a problem impacting people right across the country. I have seen at first hand the appalling impact that flooding has on our communities. I keenly recall the floods in 2007, when I was a councillor for Rother ward on Chesterfield borough council, and how many of those who were flooded felt abandoned. Following those floods, I, along with Lifehouse church, Chesterfield rotary club and Soroptimist International Chesterfield, set up the Chesterfield flood victims appeal, which raised around £16,000 for flood victims without flood insurance. The work the appeal did, meeting flood victims and helping them as they tried to put their homes and lives together, had a lasting impact on me. It became clear that once someone had been a flood victim, they were forever a flood victim.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I commend the hon. Gentleman on bringing this debate forward. He is right to underline the issue for Chesterfield, but there is a real problem across all the United Kingdom. Thinking of my constituency, and Newtownards in particular, 25,000 houses and properties are in the floodplain, which is bolstered by the floodbanks to make sure they do not get flooded out, and one in 33 in the coastal areas are flooded as well. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that it is time to have a flood strategy not just for Chesterfield, but for all of this great United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, so we can respond in a more global way?

[Mr Perkins]

The hon. Gentleman is right that we need a holistic approach; I look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say on that. Whichever community they are in, flood victims do not just lose irreplaceable possessions or even replaceable furniture and fittings; they lose the peace of mind that most of us take for granted. People in a property at risk of flood— as more than 6 million people across the United Kingdom are—live in fear, every single time there is heavy rain, that it will happen again. Those in flood risk areas will receive Environment Agency text warnings; in the weeks after the floods, every time they get those warnings, they will start lifting all their property upstairs in preparation for potential floods. After two or three false alarms, they stop doing that, but the fear of being flooded again never leaves them. Being insured is important but, even for those who are insured, being flooded and forced from their home for months at a time is a hugely disturbing and disrupting experience.

Following the 2007 floods, two things happened. First, in 2008 the Government, in conjunction with the insurance industry, updated the 2000 statement of principles, which subsequently morphed into the Flood Re scheme, which should mean that all residents, even in flood-hit areas, are able to obtain flood insurance. I stress to anyone who has been flooded that they can still get flood insurance through the Flood Re scheme. That is very important. Many of the people I met after the floods in 2023 said, “Oh well, no one will give us flood insurance round here.” They did not realise that with the Flood Re scheme, they could have been insured.

The second thing that changed was that we got a 250,000 cubic metre flood alleviation scheme on the River Rother at Wingerworth. Although that was welcome, Storm Babet, which hit Derbyshire so fearfully on October 20 2023, demonstrated that tragically, even that scheme was not enough in itself to keep Chesterfield safe. Storm Babet had a devastating effect on Chesterfield, leading to the River Rother and the River Hipper bursting their banks. As many as 600 homes and dozens of businesses were flooded, many of them the very same ones that were flooded in 2007. One of my constituents, Maureen Gilbert, tragically lost her life, drowned in the front room of her own home.

The economic cost to residents, businesses, communities and our nation is enormous. The Department for Environment Food and Rural Affairs and the Environment Agency estimated that the 2015-2016 winter floods cost the nation’s economy £1.6 billion. The risk of flooding and the associated costs are only projected to rise over the coming years, due to climate change. The Environmental Audit Committee, which I chair, has been investigating the Government’s approach to flooding resilience in England. We have heard from expert witnesses about the historical under-investment in flood defences across the country, and about the importance of investing in and maintaining existing flood defences, as well as building new ones.

In Chesterfield, while the Wingerworth flood basin was not enough to prevent that flooding in 2023, it has come into its own over this past winter, as the floods that hit on new year’s day and the following weekend did not lead to any further flooded homes. However, there is still a need for improved protection from flooding for residents on Tapton Terrace; in Brampton, around the Chatsworth Road area; in Birdholme, off the Derby Road; and around Horns Bridge roundabout.

In meetings with management at the Environment Agency locally, I was told that the cost of protecting the homes on Tapton Terrace would actually cost more than the homes would be worth to buy. I was told that it would be cheaper for the EA to buy them than to protect them, so I said, “Go on, buy them then. At least give these people peace of mind.” The truth is that many of the people who live in flood-hit areas lose so much of the value of their homes. For the vast majority of us, the value of our homes is the biggest and most expensive asset that we have. If a person’s house goes from £200,000 to £130,000 over the course of a day, there is nothing that they can do about that—they are effectively trapped in that property. In fairness, the Environment Agency investigated, but it came back and said, “Well, that isn’t something that we can do.”

I have to say that Tapton Terrace is a particular worry to me because of its proximity to the River Rother, whose geography means that the speed with which it floods poses a real risk to life—we have already had one fatality there. It is very hard to see how anyone living in those properties who does not have the mobility to get upstairs is not very seriously at risk, as Mrs Gilbert tragically was in 2023.

Oral Answers to Questions

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Thursday 19th June 2025 Commons Chamber

[The Solicitor General]

I am more than happy to meet the hon. Member to discuss that issue. He will be pleased to know—indeed, he may well already know—that we introduced a new offence for spiking and that we have included new spiking training for up to 10,000 staff in the night-time economy to ensure they have the skills to support victims and prevent such incidents.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

Will the Solicitor General outline what support there is for the families of domestic abuse victims—specifically children who have witnessed and been traumatised by that abuse and who need support, which would also enable their parents to feel more confident in continuing their legal cases?

[The Solicitor General]

The hon. Member raises a very important issue. It is incredibly important that victims of abuse of any kind, and especially children, are supported through the criminal justice system, both by police and then by the CPS.

Environment Agency: East of England

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Wednesday 4th June 2025 Westminster Hall

[Steve Barclay (North East Cambridgeshire) (Con)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the performance of the Environment Agency in the East of England.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Roger. I have secured this debate to highlight concerns about the operational performance of the Environment Agency in the east of England. This reflects both my time as the Secretary of State overseeing the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs in the run-up to the general election and numerous interactions with it in my capacity as a constituency MP.

As we are meeting the week before a comprehensive spending review, it is perhaps prudent to start with the usual excuse given by organisations for poor operational performance: a lack of people or funding. According to the Environment Agency’s own annual outcomes, its full-time equivalent staff increased in the last Parliament by 21% from 10,791 in 2019-2020, at the start of the Parliament, to more than 13,000 in 2023-24. Over the same period, its expenditure has gone up from £1.4 billion to £2.2 billion, so it has significantly more people and funding, while at the same time showing a remarkable lack of transparency or accountability to Ministers or Members of Parliament, and a remarkable lack of willingness to take enforcement action against those causing the worst levels of environmental damage.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I commend the right hon. Gentleman. It is an absolute scandal: the Environment Agency seems happy to pursue farmers and landowners with a zest and enthusiasm, yet big businesses and other people seem to be left to the side. Is it not time that the Environment Agency supported farmers and helped them when they need it, rather than chasing them and not others?

[Steve Barclay]

The hon. Gentleman raises an extremely important point, and he is correct. It seems that the Environment Agency is very happy to go after what it may perceive to be easier and more law-abiding targets, but as the most serious environmental harm is caused by serious criminal gangs, there is often a reluctance to take on those organisations in the way that it does an individual farmer. That is why this also points to a need for a much more fundamental reform of the Department’s relationship with its arm’s length bodies, as well as its accountability to Ministers, regardless of which Government is in office.

This debate is focused specifically on the east of England, and I want to give three examples of where that operational performance really illustrates concerns across the boards with environmental damage being caused. Before doing so, given that I have been the Secretary of State, I thought it relevant to touch on a national example to show that this is not simply a constituency or local issue. With that in mind, let me inform the House about Hoad’s wood, which is a site of special scientific interest and an area of outstanding natural beauty that has been covered—as you probably know, Sir Roger—in more than 35,000 tonnes of illegal waste.

We might have thought that a SSSI would be a priority case for the Environment Agency, and one where it would be most certain to take action. However, so concerned was I as a Minister that I had to take the very unusual step of issuing a ministerial direction. No ministerial direction had been issued in the Department in the preceding seven years before I arrived as Secretary of State, so this was an unusual but necessary step to compel the EA to take action on a SSSI. Again, I think that speaks to some of the issues. Even so, the situation has dragged on, with contractors not appointed until November last year, work not beginning until March and completion not expected until at least 2026. That points to some of the issues with the most valuable sites, never mind more routine sites.

Animal Welfare in Farming

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Tuesday 3rd June 2025 Westminster Hall

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Vickers. I commend the hon. Member for Waveney Valley (Adrian Ramsay) for setting the scene so well. He mentioned some graphic things that get under many people’s skin. I declare an interest as a member of the Ulster Farmers’ Union, although we do not farm the land any more—the neighbours do that for us.

To illustrate the matter, I will say what my neighbours do in relation to it. The people I know who farm close to me—and many others too; it is not exclusive to where I live—love their animals. They have a commitment to their beef and dairy cattle and to their sheep. Last year, or perhaps the year before, they got a robotic dairy. For those who do not know what that means—I did not really know until I visited—the cattle are much calmer and they have access to food every time they want it.

Usually when you walk through a field of cattle, they scatter in all directions. I walked into those cattle along with the boys who own the farm and the cattle did not even budge out of the road. There was music going in the background as well—I cannot remember whether it was Tchaikovsky, Elvis Presley or whatever—and the cattle seemed incredibly calm. Was that their choice of music? I am not sure that they had any input into that, but they were the best looked-after cattle that I have seen for some time. The farmers that I see strive hard to do it right. I know the hon. Gentleman recognises that, but others do not, so it is important to say it.

I want to comment on the dreadful Windsor framework. Issues arose recently and the Ulster Farmers’ Union expressed serious concerns about the implications of the recently announced UK-US trade agreement. In other words: we keep the standards and do things right, but then they are going to produce some stuff in the USA where they do not have the same standards that we have. There will be a serious impact on our livestock and high standards. The Ulster Farmers’ Union president, William Irvine, said

“This is not a traditional free trade agreement and we recognise that it is an early-stage framework. But the fact remains—UK agriculture, including sensitive sectors like beef and cereals, is again being asked to shoulder the burden of securing trade wins for steel, aluminium and cars. That sets a worrying precedent.”

It also sets a worrying precedent for our standards, which I am very concerned about, but unfortunately I do not have the time that it needs to go into it.

US beef is produced on a scale and in a system that gives it a cost advantage. If the UK Government open the door further, we must be ready to protect our standards to ensure a level playing field. On the bioethanol element of the deal, Mr Irvine said that the Ulster Farmers’ Union will be seeking urgent clarity from the Government on the expected impact on Northern Ireland’s arable sector. In a conversation before the debate started, my hon. Friend the Member for Upper Bann (Carla Lockhart) referred to bovine TB.

[Carla Lockhart (Upper Bann) (DUP)]

Bovine TB across the UK is not just a farming issue, but an animal welfare one, and is causing a financial crisis. Thousands of healthy cattle are being culled and wildlife remains trapped in a vicious cycle of infection. The cost to the public purse in Northern Ireland is now sitting at £60 million a year. In England, there has been a science-led approach. Does my hon. Friend agree that the Northern Ireland Agriculture Minister needs to engage with England and do exactly as has been done here, with a wildlife intervention project that culls badgers, so that we improve animal health and protect our wildlife?

[Jim Shannon]

My hon. Friend is wise in her intervention. In fairness to the Minister, he regularly visits Northern Ireland. We have had been fortunate to have him twice at Colin McKee’s in my constituency, because he loves the scones and the coffee. He also loves seeing how a farmer can look after his animals better than others. My hon. Friend is right to highlight the issue of bovine TB, and perhaps the Minister could tell us if he has had engagements, correspondence and discussions with the relevant Minister in Northern Ireland.

The Ulster Farmers’ Union is calling for the UK Government to provide greater transparency about how sensitive sectors will be protected in future. It is important to get that right. Northern Ireland farmers are proud to produce food to world-leading high standards of animal welfare, traceability and environmental care, but those standards must be reflected in trade deals. We should not be held to an example of European overreach. The effect of the US trade deal may be another example of how the special circumstances in Northern Ireland are especially difficult rather than especially beneficial.

There must be standards in place for animal welfare, and we must remove the EU overreach and have UK-wide standards. I ask the Minister to take that back to the Cabinet. We must all do better to support farmers in the same way throughout the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. I believe the Minister does that and I look forward to his response.

Thames Water

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Tuesday 3rd June 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Member for Strangford—on water, no less.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I thank the Secretary of State for his answers, and for his perseverance on this subject. He will understand that it is disappointing in the extreme to hear that public funding may have to be used to bail out this company. Given that it has some 8,000 British employees and serves 25% of the UK population, Government attention is very urgently needed. What steps will be taken to ensure that this is not money down the drain, to use a pun, and that we instead reconstruct a viable concern that takes a modern approach? Does the Department have a team ready and able to step up and achieve that goal?

[Steve Reed]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question. We are ready for every eventuality, and there are teams in place to carry this out. Let me reassure him that I have no intention of using public money to bail out this company; we are looking for a market-led solution to its challenges. I thank him for his kind personal words—we will all keep persevering until we have cleaned up our waterways for good.

Plastic Recycling in Leamington: Environmental Impact

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Wednesday 14th May 2025 Commons Chamber

[Matt Western (Warwick and Leamington) (Lab)]

I will, if I may, start by encouraging you, Madam Deputy Speaker, to imagine being in your own home and unable to eat with your family, unable to leave food for even a minute without your kitchen being swarmed with flies, and unable to sleep in your own bed without flies landing on your face. Imagine flies everywhere, in every room of your house, in business premises, in pubs, in restaurants and in takeaways, and vile odours permeating your life whether at home, walking the streets or driving your car. That is the reality for hundreds of families in one part my constituency.

If that is not sufficiently real for those present, let me try to bring alive just how awful this is with the experience of one resident, who wrote to me saying:

“The day my son asked when mummy was going to stop the flies so he could eat his dinner without flies crawling into his mouth...was when I realised how terrible it had got.”

Imagine children being unable to eat without flies crawling into their mouths.

At a time when so many voters feel disillusioned with politics, it is more important than ever that Government—national and local—as well as their agencies address the everyday problems that impact on people’s lives. And the issue of flies and odours blighting families and whole communities is one such a problem.

I estimate that as many as 10,000—if not more—of my constituents in south Warwick, South Leamington and Whitnash are impacted by this. They have faced swarms of flies and foul odours for three years running. Their houses are infested with flies. They are unable to open their windows for fear of swarms entering their home. They are unable to prepare food in their kitchen without the constant cleaning of their work surfaces to clean off the fly excrement, which also adheres to their walls. Would any Member of this House be satisfied with their family living like that? This is not just a minor inconvenience; this is ruining people’s lives. People are getting ill, and some residents are actually selling up.

Then there is the all-pervasive foul-smelling odour. Constituents describe the smell as being like “raw sewage”. They say it is “sulphuric” and “toxic”. Many have told me that the smell is “utterly unbearable”. I have smelt it myself on many occasions. Again, this is substantially harming people and their lives. Two constituents have told me that their asthma has significantly worsened due to the smell, and, as a result, they have had to increase their medication. This is clearly a public health risk and it should be treated as such.

I hope that I have spelled out—albeit briefly—just how awful this is for my constituents, and it should not have been allowed to continue for three months let alone three years. Some may be thinking that this this sounds not too dissimilar to the plague of flies in the Book of Exodus, but, no, God is not to blame for this. The residents are clear: they believe, and I agree with them, that the source of this problem is the Berry Circular Polymers recycling plant, located less than 200 metres from a significant volume of local housing.

Let me be very clear: I am by no means against recycling. We know that recycling plants have a crucial role to play in sustainability. The issue here is not recycling but how businesses are held to account—and authorities demanding that they take seriously their commitment to their neighbours and their impacts on the local environment.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I commend the hon. Gentleman for securing this debate on behalf of his constituents. I am almost flabbergasted that the local council has not taken action to address this issue. What has it done and what is it going to do to take away this enormous fly problem? The Book of Exodus does talk about the plague of flies, but I know that the council has been blamed for this one.

[Matt Western]

I thank the hon. Member—I will call him my hon. Friend—for his intervention. The council does have a role, and I will come on to that in more depth. It has tried to get involved and understand the nature of the problem, and to exercise certain powers, but this is where national Government, particularly the Environment Agency, have a role to play, as I will discuss. The council really does not have the powers that it needs to tackle local environmental health, which is its responsibility.

This is a case of desperately poor planning legislation—approved by the last Conservative Government and locally by a Conservative council—with a new light industrial estate built off a road that is one of the main arteries of south Leamington. The planning issue is not so much in the approval of the building of light industrial sheds—we see them all over the place—but in the failure to realise that a commercial use of the site, such as for recycling food packaging, would have a significant impact on a residential area. No approval was given by the local planning committee for what the actual use of the site would be; it was purely for the building of the sheds.

The local geography could not be worse. Hundreds of homes are on this road and thousands are off it. To have allowed a recycling plant that receives plastic covered in food waste on a daily basis to be built across the road from thousands of residents is absurd. The plant receives food and drink cartons, which we all discard daily and put into our recycling bins, where they can often sit for a couple of weeks. Then they are collected and taken to central processing depots such as the one in my constituency. They are perfect environments for flies to breed in.

It should not have taken a situation like this to make issues with the planning system so clear, but should anyone be in any doubt about the scale of the problem, let me be categorical: I have had reams of complaints and evidence sent to my office. There is a parallel between this site and the dreadful Walleys Quarry in Newcastle-under-Lyme, which many of us will have heard about over many years. Last Friday evening I informed residents that I had secured this debate, and by Monday morning my office had received over 100 complaints, with over 80% blaming the site that we believe to be the source of the problem: Berry Polymers.

When I held a public meeting, over 100 people attended, but hundreds more wanted to be there. That shows the strength of feeling on this issue and hopefully highlights to the Minister how badly it is affecting people’s lives. To further understand the effects on people, I conducted a survey, asking on a scale of one to 10 how badly the flies and smell had impacted people’s lives over the previous two years, with 10 being that it had completely impacted them. The average response was eight out of 10.

To exemplify how awful the situation is for residents, I will read some particularly distressing quotes. One resident said:

“I have to have fly nets over my foster babies’ cots and bouncers”.

Another said:

“It is apocalyptic, the flies affect every minute of your day, from waking, to washing, preparing food, working, cleaning, trying to sleep.”

Another said:

“I’ve had to come away from various activities around town including paying my respects in the local cemetery because of the smell. Twice it’s been so bad I’ve vomited while driving my car along Heathcote Road, which could cause an accident”.

I hope that highlights for the Minister and those listening the severity of the problem and the urgent need for action. For clarity, I reiterate that those complaints have come in only in the past three days.

My constituents cannot sleep. Their children cannot play outside. They cannot eat without being swarmed by flies and engulfed in disgusting smells. To avoid any doubt over who the culprit is, I will bring to the Minister’s attention some additional evidence. There are tens of households who say that the problem only began after the plant opened. One family had lived there for 30 years before the plant opened, and they never complained about a smell or flies, but now they say that it is unbearable.

It is not only residents who are complaining but former employees of the site. My office spoke to one former employee, who will remain anonymous. They said:

“Conditions were so poor nobody should have been working there.”

They commented that when staff were walking around on site there were flies all over them, on their clothes, and biting them. Staff were expected to spend their breaks in a room covered in flies, and any food they tried to eat in there ended up with flies all over it. I have seen their evidence, and I have shared it with the Environment Agency and the Government. I have been to the site and seen the piles of thousands of flies lying around in the working area. That cannot be right; it is a health and safety issue for the people who have to work there. There are also flies flying around in the washrooms of that business. I cannot understand why it is still allowed to operate. The employees were in no doubt about the cause. They said that

“Berry was absolutely at fault and clearly the cause of the issue impacting the community.”

Local residents, former employees and I all believe that the Berry Circular Polymers recycling plant is responsible for these issues.

Yet here we are, two years on, with no respite other than in the winter months, when the flies abate but the odours persist. We may ask, have the residents followed the correct complaints process and, likewise, have I? Absolutely. First, I have raised it many times with the Environment Agency on behalf of residents. I have repeatedly conveyed the severity of the situation and the horrific impact on people’s lives. After no success with the Environment Agency, I turned to the Minister under the last Government. After months of correspondence, I finally secured a meeting with that Minister in May 2024, but with the general election, it led to nothing. Following the election, I have twice met the new Minister, who I know fully understands the severity of the issue. The Minister swiftly set up a meeting with the Environment Agency to ensure the best available techniques are being used. I appreciate the pace with which the Department worked, but my constituents need answers now. They cannot be kept waiting.

I again followed up with the Environment Agency just a few weeks ago in April, to which it replied that it had only received two complaints. Yet we have received over a hundred in three days and hundreds over the course of three years, and we hear from residents on an almost daily basis that the problems persist. The Environment Agency is ignoring the complaints it has received over the past couple of years. The residents are busy people who lead busy lives; they cannot keep repeating the same complaint about the same company. They have been reporting these issues for years and have got nowhere, so they can be forgiven for not wanting to spend time every day reporting into a system that they do not believe works for them. They are fed up, and rightly so.

The Environment Agency has written to me to say that it

“did substantiate a strong odour on site”,

and that it is now

“investigating this further and taking appropriate steps to ensure that they (Berry) comply with all requirements to mitigate any potential impact on the local community”.

By coincidence, the Environment Agency came back to me just yesterday—perhaps because I had an Adjournment debate tonight. I have been chasing it for action on this issue for 18 months because my community and its residents’ lives are blighted by it. The EA has said it is happy to meet me and is in the process of setting up a shiny new engagement website—but it misses the point. We have already met on several occasions. In previous meetings, we agreed on the need for officers on the ground to determine the origin of the flies and the source of the odour, and experience how awful the situation is. It now believes us on the source of the odour.

Where are we now? It should not be up to residents to go around with fly swatters and fly traps, which is one of the suggestions, to prove to the Environment Agency how severe the problem is. We did not agree on the need for a new website, as that represents more time-wasting and more faffing around while constituents go into a third summer, facing horrendous conditions at home, in their gardens and on their streets.

The Minister may be new to this topic, but I have heard this all before and yet nothing has changed. Berry Polymers has now declared that it will require advance notice of any unannounced visit by me for “health and safety reasons”. Previously, I visited the site and that visit was unannounced, so I do not understand it. Why should I be prevented from trying to hold businesses like that to account when they cause an environmental hazard to many hundreds, if not thousands, of my constituents? I take their health and safety concerns very seriously, and if I smell foul smells and see swarms of flies blighting my constituents’ lives, I want to see action.

I know that the Minister takes the issue incredibly seriously. I must therefore insist that the Government now take action. Under current legislation, the Secretary of State holds the power

“to agree the Environment Agency’s overall priorities and objectives”

and “to allocate resources” accordingly. The Department has the capability to fix the issue. Now is the time for action.

What am I asking for? I am calling for an urgent review of the Environment Agency’s initial decision; an immediate unannounced visit to the site, as well as repeated visits, with a team of Environment Agency officers to test the odours and count the thousands of flies; and a visit to neighbouring homes to see what my residents have to cope with and to take their concerns seriously.

When the Environment Agency wrote to me in April, it said that it would take appropriate steps after its previous visit, but what exactly has been done? I would appreciate it if the Minister outlined what the EA has done since the last visit to the site on 1 April. I would like to request an urgent meeting with the chief executive of the EA, because it has now got to that level, and I would like the Minister’s support in securing such a meeting. A directive from the Minister and the Government to the EA is needed to get it to act, and to act with authority.

Finally, if the Berry Polymers recycling plant is found to have breached regulations, it should be shut down as a matter of urgency. I am not against recycling—as I say, I am absolutely pro recycling—but I cannot believe this plant was allowed to be sited so close to thousands of homes. I will conclude my speech by making it crystal clear to the Minister, the Environment Agency and Berry Polymers that I will not allow residents to suffer more of this and I will not stop fighting for my constituents until this is resolved.