Global Deforestation

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Wednesday 30th April 2025 Westminster Hall

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Vickers—you have set me a challenge, and it is one I will adhere to. I thank the hon. Member for Brent West (Barry Gardiner) for opening this debate. During my time in this Parliament he has always shown himself to be enthusiastic and energetic on these subjects. He always speaks with a knowledge that I appreciate—I think we all do, to be fair—and today he has exemplified that incredibly well. I thank him for that, and for reminding us all, including me, of the importance of such debates.

Deforestation poses, and indeed has posed, a massive global issue for quite some time. It was sad to listen to the hon. Gentleman’s opening remarks and the issues raised, and I look forward to hearing from the Minister about a way forward, just as we always look to getting things right and doing better. I would also like to give some insight into our local situation. I know this debate is about global deforestation, but perhaps I can give some facts about back home, as that adds to what we are doing here on deforestation.

Approximately 8.6% of Northern Ireland’s land is covered by woodland, which is among the lowest in Europe. Between 2000 and 2023, Northern Ireland lost some 21,700 hectares of natural forest, representing an 11% decrease, so there is more that we can do back home. I declare an interest as a landowner and a farmer. Some 15, or perhaps 20 years ago, we planted 4,500 trees, so that is the small part that I and my family played on this issue. Storms take their toll, but I am glad that out of 4,500 trees we lost only 12, and they have been replaced. That is what we do.

The United Kingdom has approximately 3.25 million hectares of woodland, accounting for about 13% of its total land area. The impacts of deforestation are often underestimated. The Environmental Audit Committee, which has done an incredible job, concluded that forests hold some 80% of the world’s terrestrial biodiversity and support the livelihood of 1.6 billion people. That is 25% of the world’s population, so forests are incredibly important for a quarter of the world’s population. They also support the livelihood of 90% of the world’s population who live in extreme poverty, so the impact upon them is greater than ever. Those people depend on forests for some part of their livelihood. Poverty is a massive issue around the globe, and ultimately, once forests and trees are removed, the resources that thousands of people required to survive are destroyed. We have just been reminded about that 500-year-old tree in London that was cut down. When we cut it down, we cannot just grow it the next day. There is a court case ongoing, so I will not be saying too much, but when a tree is cut down, it cannot just be planted the next day and got back to where it was. Those are the things that we must remember—the resources that thousands of people require to survive are destroyed.

The same report stated that we, the United Kingdom, are a significant consumer of commodities linked to deforestation. I gently remind us all that the World Wide Fund for Nature and the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds estimated that UK imports of forest-risk commodities, such as soy, beef, leather and coca, account for a land footprint equivalent to 88% of the UK in size every year, which is massively huge. Just think of what that means to all of us in this world today. Our responsibility is not just for ourselves, but for others, and not just our constituents—who our first obligation is to—and our families, but to the world family.

We have made progress through the Conference of the Parties in the past, but it is evident that there is still so much more to be done to have maximum impact. It is important to take our forest-risk commodities into consideration and analyse what impact they are having on other countries across the globe. That is part of our responsibility as a caring nation and a compassionate people. That can be done collectively within our United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, but also working alongside our NATO partners.

I look forward to hearing from the Minister what our Government can do in this place to ensure progress, not only with the commitment to our global partners—we must continue to work with them, and do so more effectively—but by taking into consideration the benefits of maintaining good forestation in our own country, for the sake of our environment and climate change commitments.

Recycling of Tyres

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Tuesday 29th April 2025 Westminster Hall

[Tessa Munt]

Yes, indeed; I shall come to that shortly.

The previous Government talked a great deal about the circular economy, had their own circular economy strategy and brought forward consultations on a number of measures to close certain loopholes that created an opening for waste crime. Sadly, despite multiple commitments to taking action, not enough was actually implemented. This Minister knows that it is not sufficient to talk about the circular economy; she and her team need to take action to deliver the changes that have been talked about for far too long.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I commend the hon. Lady for bringing forward this debate. We in Northern Ireland had a problem with tyres and bonfires—it is in the nature of what happens—but over the last number of years, councils have had a distinct policy to make sure that that does not happen, and it has not happened. Does the hon. Lady agree that local businesses must not simply take the easy option of sending their tyres to be recycled overseas, which seems to end in fires, and that they should be encouraged to send them to recognised recycling groups in the United Kingdom, where there are guarantees that the tyres will be completely recycled and the rubber, fibre and steel will all be reused?

River Thames: Unauthorised Mooring

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Tuesday 29th April 2025 Commons Chamber

[Monica Harding (Esher and Walton) (LD)]

No issue in my constituency demonstrates more the inertia and failure of the previous political leadership than the problem of overstayed, wrecked and abandoned boats that have been left to proliferate along the banks of the Thames for the last decade. I am pleased to have the opportunity today to bring this issue to the attention of the House and the Minister.

Esher and Walton is a river community. The Thames forms our boundary with London; its waters have brought Vikings to raid Walton and kings to live in Hampton Court, and it is loved by my constituents. We have rowing clubs in Molesey and Walton that generate home-grown Olympians, the Ajax and Viking sea scouts, and wild swimming groups. We have riverside businesses that contribute to our local economy and provide residents and tourists with access to the most famous river in our land. All these activities have been impacted by the sunken, wrecked and abandoned boats, alongside unlicensed overstay boats. They line the entire length of my constituency, from the Dittons through Molesey and down into Walton-on-Thames.

There are wrecked vessels, half sunk and rusting, on the banks opposite Hampton Court Palace, visible to the hundreds of thousands of tourists who visit. Next door, there are overstay boats which one constituent described as a “small village”; it is Dickensian. The overstay boats are almost always unregistered. They turn up, moor, and then stay for months, sometimes years. In addition to this impunity, they generate litter and waste. Some boats apparently operate as Airbnbs. Others have erected fences: they have fenced off public land on the towpath, put up “Keep out” and “Private” signs, and intimidated residents. Stretches of land—our riverbank, enjoyed for centuries by my constituents—have become no-go areas characterised by drug use and antisocial behaviour.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I commend the hon. Lady for introducing this debate. I spoke to her beforehand to hear her thoughts on what she hopes to achieve. I represent a constituency that is equally as nice as hers, and I can well understand the desire to stay and take advantage of the lovely locations on the River Thames. However, the people she describes are taking advantage and preventing others from having enjoyment that is meant for all. Does she agree that we must have regulations in place that allow for reasonable enjoyment, without people taking advantage?

[Monica Harding]

The hon. Gentleman makes the main point that I want to make today: I will speak about regulations and who is accountable.

One resident told me:

“In the past few years, my neighbours and I have been subjected to constant harassment, including threats of physical harm, theft of property, firing of catapults, fly-tipping, dog fouling and antisocial behaviour.”

That is profoundly unfair on my constituents. Residents who pay their taxes have lost the river as they know it.

Rowing clubs and boat hire and paddle board companies are unable to launch. Residents with boats who want to take them out and moor alongside riverside restaurants and cafés are unable to do so. The Molesey regatta, which has been a fixture of my community since 1867 and in which I declare an interest as an honorary president, has been required to alter the course of its race.

In October, a single clean-up of one stretch of riverbank populated by these boats yielded more than 1 tonne of waste. The Environment Agency has failed to get to grips with the situation over a period of years, meaning that the number of such boats in Elmbridge has risen steadily. At the last count, the tally was approaching 250.

Trail Hunting

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Tuesday 1st April 2025 Commons Chamber

[Perran Moon]

I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. Not only that, but in his constituency I have personally cleared land on which local hunts had created an environment for foxes to thrive. It is a complete nonsense to suggest that fox hunting is of any use in terms of pest control. It is not.

The 2004 Act was a response to the growing public outcry over the brutality of hunting practices. It made it illegal to hunt with hounds except in certain circumstances, in the case of registered hunts using scent trails.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

First, I commend the hon. Gentleman. I spoke to him before the debate, so he knows where I am coming from. I have a very different opinion, and the hon. Gentleman knows that; he respects that, and I respect him. I just wanted to put that on the record.

This is clearly a devolved matter, so England, Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales will make their own decisions separately. The hon. Gentleman has outlined his point of view, but does he agree that the hunting community deserve to have their voices heard and considered in that legislative process? The hunting community would dispute some of what has been said tonight. Just for the record, as a hunting man—one who has never hunted with horses or hounds—I think the hunting community should have the right to pursue it. What does the hon. Gentleman think? Before we go any further, let’s get the other point of view.

[Perran Moon]

I think it is absolutely right that all voices are heard, but that science is followed. Legislation should be based on evidence and science, and the evidence and the science suggest that the cruelty to the animal being pursued far outweighs the pleasure the hunt will give human beings. However, I am really happy for all voices to be heard in this debate.

Fly-tipping: Tatton

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Wednesday 26th March 2025 Westminster Hall

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I commend the right hon. Lady for securing this debate. She is right to highlight the issue in her Tatton constituency, which is similar to that in my constituency. One of the ideas mooted back home in Northern Ireland is putting CCTV where there is habitual fly-tipping. One of the requests was for the Government back home, the Police Service of Northern Ireland, local policing and community safety partnerships to make money available for CCTV. Does she agree that that might be a way of catching those who are fly-tipping regularly?

[Esther McVey]

That could well be a solution, or at least part of the solution. This issue impacts Members across the House, and I know that the Minister will have some thoughtful responses and will take that into consideration. We need to use all tools at our disposal to stop fly-tipping.

My residents are gravely upset about what goes on. Sometimes, no sooner have they cleared up the mess than it is back, and it keeps reappearing. Residents of Colshaw Farm tell me that what adds to the problem is that, particularly of late, the local council is not maintaining the area: grass is not being cut, verges are becoming overgrown and broken streetlights are not being mended. That can make matters worse by attracting people to the area; they think that they can tip under cover of darkness or hide their rubbish in overgrown grass or bushes. That needs to be resolved to remove their ability to do those things. Repairing streetlights and cutting grass and hedges are not complex matters to solve. We could all make sure that they are resolved.

The Countryside Alliance’s 2023 rural crime survey found that 35% of those surveyed had experienced some sort of crime within the past year, and the top reported rural crime was fly-tipping, at 37%. Residents tell me that fly-tipping is not pursued, even when there is photographic evidence—often with proof of the culprits. That corresponds with the latest figures: data for 2022-23 shows that only 110 people received a fine of more than £1,000, while more than 50% of the fines were between £200 and £500.

Tougher action needs to be taken. Police must investigate these incidents, and there must be tougher penalties. If perpetrators think they can get away with it, that they will not be investigated and that it will not be taken seriously—and if the penalties are not high enough—they will do the calculation for themselves: it is easier to dump their waste rather than disposing of it properly. The fines do not go far enough. They need to be higher and more severe.

In the last Parliament, the previous Government announced some sensible policies on this matter, not least putting points on the driving licences of individuals found guilty of this crime. I ask the Minister, in a constructive spirit, if she would revisit some of those suggestions and seek an agreement to further this policy. It could act as a deterrent, even a small one. There is no silver bullet, but a combination of different deterrents might work.

It is becoming painfully clear, even if local councils cannot see it, that the limits on council waste sites are adding to this problem, along with limits on bin collection services and new costs for bin collection. For example, Cheshire East council has recently taken the disastrous decision to close waste centres, reduce bin collections and require an additional payment for green bin collections. If a tip remains in their area, residents seeking to visit it at the weekend or on a bank holiday need to book. Again, it creates a barrier to doing the right thing if someone has to go through all these hurdles to dispose of their rubbish properly. Starting next year, bin collections will change from fortnightly to three-weekly, as well as the council charging for green bins. In Knutsford, since changing the green bin collection, we are seeing more and more garden waste being dumped. One resident told me that is because people cannot afford the green bin charge, which has locally been called the green bin tax.

On top of that, Cheshire West and Chester council launched a consultation in July on its proposals to change the way waste disposal is managed. Among the proposals is a change to limit the amount of DIY waste that can be brought to tips without charge, and a pre-registration of vehicles arriving at the tip. Councils say they are closing their tips and reducing access to waste collection because it will save them money. Cheshire West and Chester council says that the changes will help them reach their climate goals. In reality, local authorities spent an estimated £64 million in 2023 clearing up fly-tipped waste from public areas, which is an enormous burden on the public purse. These measures are more likely to act as a catalyst for fly-tippers, and any savings from the cost of green bins and closing down tips are likely to be eaten away by the cost of fly-tipping. Once again, I believe that shows a lack of foresight.

The latest available data shows that there were 4,108 incidents of fly-tipping reported in Cheshire East in the year leading up to March 2023, which is 79 a week. Residents cannot afford for that number to keep growing. We need better financial management and a deeper understanding of how to prevent the issue. Fly-tipping is not a victimless crime; the victims are the landowners, the local communities and taxpayers who are left to shoulder the cost. If someone dumps on private land, it is the private owner who has to clear that up.

We need a joined-up approach that aligns Government policy with councils, and consistent enforcement measures and deterrents for potential offenders. We cannot continue to pay the price for other people deliberately leaving their rubbish on somebody else’s land. It is not just the cost to remove the rubbish; dumping waste presents a risk to public health. Some people do not know what has actually been dumped—it could be toxic waste—and if it is left there for some time, it will attract vermin.

There is also a concerning increase in levels of large-scale commercial tipping on our farmlands and in our countryside, which is growing to an alarming scale. I do not know why people are doing it; I do not know the root causes. I am not saying it is an escalation of fly-tipping—although we are seeing an escalation of fly-tipping in its size and regularity. Instead, it is people buying land in the countryside under the guise of doing something else, opening illegal tips as if they were commercial tips, and charging people to bring their rubbish to dump on agricultural land. That will be toxic waste—it should have been disposed of elsewhere, but it would have been much more expensive to do so, so they are dumping it on our rural land.

This issue is not being taken seriously enough. It is a major problem now arising in Tatton, High Legh, Mobberley, Sproston and Little Leigh. Even if the Minister cannot mention that particular problem today, I would like her to think about what we can do to stop all types of tipping and fly-tipping. This is serious criminal activity. We must break the pattern of crime to ensure the environment and local residents are protected, improve access to our tips and local amenities, and extend their opening hours to enable people to get rid of their waste.

I have some questions for the Minister. What steps can the Government take to ensure that the police force, the councils and the environment agencies work together and escalate this crime to the level of seriousness and importance that it deserves, so that we can work actively to rectify the issue, clear up the mess and bring the perpetrators to justice? Will she consider implementing a national strategy on waste disposal, ensuring that tips remain open and accessible and that bin collections are regular, to prevent councils from reducing access to those services? Finally, what actions can the Government take to tackle large-scale commercial fly-tipping, particularly when it is linked to organised crime?

Fishing Quota Negotiations: Impact on UK Fleet

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Wednesday 26th March 2025 Westminster Hall

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

It is a pleasure to speak in this debate and to serve under your chairship, Mr Vickers. I commend the hon. Member for St Ives (Andrew George) for setting the scene so well. Fishing is important to me, as the representative of the village of Portavogie. The hon. Member for South Down (Chris Hazzard) takes his money but does not take his seat in this House, so I also have to speak for the fishing sector in Kilkeel and Ardglass. I am quite happy to do that; I do it regularly to represent the collective viewpoint of the sector and to ensure that we have a voice in this House.

I liaise with the fishing bodies in Northern Ireland. The feeling, as things stand, is that they are happy with the quota negotiations at the moment, provided that the Government continue to deliver to the sector in Northern Ireland the quota allocations that they have indicated they will deliver, and that they do not take a backward step and grant the EU more than it has currently, at the expense of our fishing industry.

The message from my fishermen—from the Anglo-North Irish Fish Producers Organisation and the Irish Fish Producers Organisation—is simple. The Minister has met them and he knows that. I hope that he will come over sometime shortly to meet our fishermen, and I look forward to that. I know they have a very high opinion of him; they see him as one who stands firm, and they hope that the Government will stand firm and not—to use a pun—row back on where we are at the moment.

The Northern Ireland industry’s priority for the negotiations is not necessarily quota; it is access to the Republic of Ireland’s 6 to 12 nautical mile zone, which we lost through Brexit. My questions to the Minister will be along those lines. In the original withdrawal agreement, France was granted access to UK waters—specifically, English waters on the south coast—on the basis of grandfather rights. There is therefore, I believe, a precedent for offering access to limited named vessels in the negotiations. The principle of promoting access for UK vessels to EU waters has mixed receptions from those who want their scallopers—and we have many of them in Northern Ireland—to have access to French waters, and those who would like to see EU vessels, with the exception of EU-owned flagships, out of UK waters.

It is my belief, as I said, that the top priority for the Northern Ireland fleet in the upcoming negotiations is to have access restored to those parts of their traditional fishing grounds, which they had grandfather rights to, that lie in the 6 to 12 nautical mile zone of Irish waters. Given that precedent was set when the UK granted access to its territorial waters to a limited number of named EU vessels, will the Minister confirm that he will press for Northern Ireland’s vessels to have the same privilege as those granted by the previous Government to the French? That is the first of my three questions.

My second question comes from the—I will use an Ulster Scots word—shenanigans being played out between the UK and the EU. The UK has banned bottom trawling in some areas of UK waters that are important to the French trawling fleet. I understand the reason for that and I support it. The ban applies to both the UK and all other countries. By way of retaliation—the French are well known for their retaliation; if we give them a kick, they kick us back almost twice as hard—the French have linked fishing rights to the Security Action for Europe initiative. There is always a clause or add-on to anything that the French do—I could make some further comments, but I will not. There are claims that the EU is trying to play politics with the livelihoods of UK fishermen by attempting to link defence contracts to fishing rights, so will the Minister take this opportunity to renew his commitment to treating food security as national security, and will he commit to pushing back against any attempt to use our fishing communities as pawns in wider political games? I know the Minister: he is an honest politician and an honest Minister. His fight will be for our fishermen, and I wish him well in that.

Our fishing industry relies on the Government to be its mouthpiece and its strength. I know that that is the Minister’s desire and I believe that now is the time to prove to our fishing crews and fish producers that this new Government are on the side of our industry and prepared to push and, if necessary, fight their part. The industry is more than the fishing crew; so many subsidiary businesses rely on it. On behalf of those people—my people—I ask the Minister to send the clear message from our Government and this House that the fishing industry is alive and well and ready to thrive even more.

--- Later in debate ---

[Melanie Onn (Great Grimsby and Cleethorpes) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Vickers. I congratulate the hon. Member for St Ives (Andrew George) on securing this important debate at a critical time in the EU negotiations. I had not intended to make a speech—I was just going to intervene—but I heard him lamenting the interventions.

I will focus on a couple of points. The first is about science, and the second is about the EU negotiations. My constituency of Great Grimsby and Cleethorpes has a long-standing, proud fishing heritage. It had the largest fishing port in the world at its height, although things have moved on significantly since those days; what we have left is a single company that operates a fleet that largely fishes out of Peterhead, where the majority of the fish are at the moment. We have a significant fish-processing sector that employs around 6,000 people. The scope of the fisheries sector extends far beyond catching, and that is worth remembering in this debate: the number of jobs in the entirety of the sector is important all around the coast of this nation.

I was struck by the comments made by the hon. Member for St Ives about the differences in expectations between supertrawlers and individual fishers. We talk about the fishing industry as if it is one industry rather than a collection of individuals, some of whom are self-employed or run small or microbusinesses. It is worth considering that there are differentials in size, scope and range of capacity between the businesses that operate around the country, as there are in other sectors, where there are large businesses as well as small and medium-sized enterprises. That may well assist with some of the issues the hon. Gentleman raised.

What struck me from the speeches of the hon. Member for St Ives and the hon. Member for Gordon and Buchan (Harriet Cross) is that we talk about relying on science to drive our fisheries and to give us the scope of the TAC, but the science is often too slow. It does not meet the needs of fishers, who are looking not only for what they are going to be catching today, but, hopefully, for what they will be catching in six months or a year’s time. Although things have improved, there is still room to improve and speed up the flow of information from the scientific community to inform the fisheries community, to ensure that it is properly reflected in the amount and the species that fisherman are allowed to catch.

It is not new that fishing is used as a negotiating tactic, particularly when it comes to defence. It was critical in the establishment of NATO, much to Grimsby’s misfortune in the 1970s. The agreement with Iceland that started the cod wars of the 1970s was purely down to the negotiations around the establishment of NATO and the United States having a base in Iceland. That impinged on the area in which Grimsby trawlers could go out and catch. This is not new, then, and it poses an inherent danger when the desire for safety and security in our nation is potentially weighed against livelihoods and an industry.

When it comes to defence in these very insecure times internationally, we should be aware of the likelihood of the EU’s expectations, and we should go into things completely open-eyed but unafraid to defend what remains of our fishing sector, to give it the hope it needs to sustain and grow. It is important that we do not serve up too much politics in that effort. The conversations since we left the EU, with many years of the Conservative party wrangling over the issue of Europe, have been unhelpful when it comes to the practical manner EU member states tend to undertake their negotiations. It is important to have a level head and maintain a practical and clear-eyed perspective on the negotiations. Despite the noise we hear from EU member states, we must remember that it is a negotiation, so people will raise flags about the issues important to them.

When it comes to exports to the EU, there is an opportunity for UK fisheries in much of what we catch and farm. With their slightly non-white-fish palates, EU member states will want much of the crayfish and speciality fish that do not tend to get eaten in this country. There is plenty of opportunity and not as much to fear as we have heard this morning. I wish the Minister and his colleagues all the best in the course of the negotiations, and remind him not be afraid to stand up for UK fisheries, whether in Scotland or Cornwall—

[Jim Shannon]

And Northern Ireland!

[Melanie Onn]

And Northern Ireland. I apologise to the hon. Gentleman—how could I be so remiss as to forget Northern Ireland the day after his birthday?

I remind the Minister to celebrate the UK fishing industry, to stand firm and to promote the opportunities that come from the great-quality products we have in the UK, which I know members of the EU community want. We have quite a lot of strength in our fishing arsenal.

Veterinary Products in Waterways

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Tuesday 25th March 2025 Commons Chamber

[Rachel Gilmour]

I am coming on to that later, but the hon. Member is absolutely right.

It is also important to note that the economic costs of mitigating the environmental and health impacts of these chemicals are substantial.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

Would the hon. Lady give way?

[Rachel Gilmour]

With pleasure—and happy birthday.

[Jim Shannon]

I commend the hon. Lady on bringing this issue forward. She is right to outline the problems with fipronil and what it can do to our water, but there are many other things that can affect water. Northern Ireland Water goes around all the farms providing a free service collecting herbicides, weed killer, sheep dip, insecticide sprays, rodenticides, fungicide sprays, veterinary medicines and empty containers. Take all those things out of the country and away from the waterways and we can make our water cleaner. This issue is not just about the specific chemicals that the hon. Lady mentions; there are many other things that need to be removed as well. Does she agree with that?

[Rachel Gilmour]

I thank the hon. Member for his interesting intervention. I agree, and I will talk about farmers in particular in a moment.

It is also important to note that the economic cost of mitigating the environmental and health impacts of these chemicals is substantial. Water bills are set to rise precipitously this year, causing pain to the average consumer. In Tiverton and Minehead, rises of 20% and 32% have been announced by the two water companies that supply us. Purifying contaminated waterways and restoring the ecosystems blighted by those chemicals requires significant financial resources, placing a burden on communities and straining local government purses. How much of that financial impact is reflected in these bill rises? Are consumers facing price rises in their water bills because we are not effectively regulating problem products such as neonics?

We know that there is an issue with our water quality—the issues at Dunster beach and Blue Anchor in my constituency spring to mind. That is why the Government passed the Water (Special Measures) Act 2025—and why my party leader fell into Windermere several times during the general election campaign to raise awareness. When will we clean up our act and put in place the firmest restrictions on these polluting water companies? When will we look at what we can do to stop other pollutants from getting anywhere near our waterways in the first place? I will be interested to hear from the Minister whether this cost has been factored into the Government’s thinking on this issue, and whether there could be some answers to the questions I have posed.

On a broader note, I will touch on how we can help our farmers and those in our rural communities with these environmental challenges. Our waterways make up a key part of our natural biodiversity, but each part relies on the other. That makes the recent decision to axe the sustainable farming incentive scheme all the more worrying and damaging to our rural communities. If there is not the money for sustainable farming, agricultural practices will naturally follow economic sense, if not the careful environmental custodianship on which our farmers pride themselves.

Farmers are suffering at the hands of this Government, and with them so suffers our environment. Will the Minister take this opportunity to reassure the House that her colleagues in the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs are doing everything they can to support our farmers as they balance the agricultural and environmental needs of the land? Will she also ensure that due consideration is given to the restoration of the SFI scheme, so that we can keep making progress on our environmental goals, hand in hand with farmers, and not be distracted from the harms of damaging products such as the neonics that I have been talking about by losing our much needed local and rural allies?

I am aware that this speech has been slightly doom and gloom, but I will now turn to what we can do as an alternative. Research has shown that the likes of coconut oil, citronella oil, good old lavender and eucalyptus provide good natural and, most importantly, non-toxic alternatives for flea and tick repellents. The market is awash with collars for cats and dogs infused with these essential oils, which are both practical and natural. There has been very little emphasis on these solutions. We should be doing much more to promote the benefits of these chemical-free remedies.

As seen in recent developments in Switzerland, where the Government are carrying out water testing, there is a clear need for environmental impact assessments of the use of fipronil and imidacloprid. These should be launched as a matter of urgency, and I would welcome the Minister’s reflections on this point. We Liberal Democrats have called for any emergency authorisations of neonics to be revoked, and for the introduction of tighter restrictions on their use. I invite the Minister to comment on the state of play and whether there is a serious appetite in the Government to address this issue.

It is clear that we have a serious challenge on our hands. As the hon. Member for Truro and Falmouth (Jayne Kirkham) said, these products are advertised widely and sold ubiquitously. I am not blind to the fact that these products have brought undeniable benefits in pest control, but their unintended consequences serve as a stark reminder of the need for sustainable and nature-friendly practices. I genuinely believe that there is a desire to do more to regulate these highly toxic chemicals. Lawmakers were right to impose a blanket ban on fipronil and imidacloprid in agricultural settings in 2017 and 2018. The will should be there to ensure that these products cannot be allowed to continue damaging our freshwater ecosystems. Further regulation is the only way forward to remove harmful contaminants and arrest the degradation of aquatic fauna in this country’s waterways.

The Government also need to go further and faster in regulating our waterways and the water companies damaging them overall. The Water (Special Measures) Act is a good first step, but the Government can and must do more. Ofwat is failing in its duties. The time has come for a new clean water authority to replace it as we up our game in protecting our precious waterways. I see no reason why reforms designed to keep neonics out of our waterways cannot come hand in hand with our push to keep sewage and other contaminants and pollutants out of our waterways.

In the short term, for neonics, restrictions should be placed on the trade of fipronil and imidacloprid, with the only exception to their continued use coming under strict conditions of prescription only by veterinary medical professionals and for a limited time period. We know that Amazon and the over-the-counter market in pet stores can lead to the propagation of those products in our natural environment, so restrictions would make some sense.

When the time allows, a ban for all other usage should certainly be in the Government’s scope. It is clear that decisive action must be taken on this matter. Could the Minister shed some light on whether the Government would be willing to assess the potential merits of moving in that direction? From all that I have seen, that appears the prudent—and perhaps only—direction to take.

Oral Answers to Questions

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Thursday 20th March 2025 Commons Chamber

[Emma Hardy]

I thank my hon. Friend for raising this issue and for his recent letter. He is right to be angry about the poor state of his flood defences, and I am sure his constituents value him as a local champion, raising that in the Chamber. To rebuild after Conservative failure, we have had to urgently move £36 million into maintenance funding this year. As I have mentioned, the projects to receive funding in the next financial year are being agreed and will be announced shortly.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

Under the previous Government there was, prior to 2019, a strategy from Westminster to address flooding and coastal erosion across this great United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. All the regions were able to benefit from that, including my constituency of Strangford, where coastal erosion is a massive thing, taking away some of the major roads and thoroughfares. Will the Minister consider renewing that strategy and starting it again, looking at all of the United Kingdom as one job lot? That would thereby help us all to get the benefit in addressing coastal erosion and the flooding that the hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mr Brash) referred to.

[Emma Hardy]

I thank the hon. Member for raising his concerns about coastal erosion, and he is right. It is a huge problem, and with climate change it is only set to get worse. I completely recognise how it is impacting coastal communities. His suggestion to bring together the different devolved Governments to discuss this issue is really interesting, so let me take that away.

Farming

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Thursday 13th March 2025 Commons Chamber

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

It is a pleasure to speak in this debate, and I thank the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael) for leading it. I am always so proud to stand up in this place and represent farmers in Strangford and across Northern Ireland, who are nothing but dedicated to their trade. I declare an interest as a member of the Ulster Farmers Union.

Farming is massively important in Northern Ireland, where it contributes £2.5 billion annually to the economy. Furthermore, we are pivotal to the agricultural output of the United Kingdom, accounting for growth of 5.6%, which is more than any other nation that contributes to this great United Kingdom. Northern Ireland exports large amounts of beef, dairy and poultry to GB, the Republic of Ireland and further afield. Lakeland Dairies in my Strangford constituency sends its milk products all over the world. That creates a sense of just how important our farmers are.

To state the obvious, it is no secret that I, my party colleagues and other Members across the House were shocked and saddened by the Chancellor’s decision in November to introduce inheritance tax for family-run farms. The fact is that 65% of farmers cannot and will not survive this. Living on a farm and having great relationships with my neighbours—every one of them spoke to me before this debate—and local farmers in my constituency, I know all too well the impact this will have.

[John Cooper (Dumfries and Galloway) (Con)]

I thank the hon. Gentleman, who is in fact my neighbour, for giving way. He talks about the number of farms that will be affected by this. It is far higher than the Treasury tells us. We know that the Scotland Office is compiling its own figures, to push back against the Treasury figures, which will no doubt be trotted out here again today. Is there not a fundamental problem here, as the vast majority of farms will be affected by this?

[Jim Shannon]

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right, and he sums up our views.

The decision to introduce the farmers’ inheritance tax will destroy the very essence of what so many farmers have worked hard to achieve. I have called on numerous occasions for the Minister to support us. He is an honourable man. He could be a friend of the farmers—we will see just how much of a friend he is—if he contacted the Chancellor and suggested to her that one solution is to increase the threshold from £1 million to £5 million. If that is done, farms will be saved, as will the future of family farms in Northern Ireland. Does he want to be the farmers’ friend?

[The Minister for Food Security and Rural Affairs (Daniel Zeichner)]

I am the farmers’ friend.

[Jim Shannon]

When the Minister approaches the Chancellor and persuades her to increase the threshold from £1 million to £5 million, he will be my friend forever, and he will be the friend of all the farmers in my constituency. He needs to do that. The National Farmers Union and the Ulster Farmers’ Union have the solution.

If I can digress slightly, Northern Ireland has one of the highest tuberculosis rates in Europe, with over 10% of our herds affected annually. What discussions has the Minister had with the farming Minister in Northern Ireland, Andrew Muir, in relation to TB and avian flu, to ensure that we can overcome these setbacks together?

Our food security and farming industry matter. It is the young farmers who we are fighting for—I am fighting for my neighbours’ sons who want to have a farm for the future. There are so many expectations on farmers. I am pleased to see that there has been a boost in the conversations surrounding the declining mental health of our farmers, which is another massive issue. There is no doubt that our farmers need to be supported, not torn down by a Government who are meant to represent them.

To conclude, I am proud of our farming industry and grateful for it, and I want it to succeed. For those who represent rural constituencies or those who do not, the importance of agriculture cannot be disregarded, and we must make it a goal to preserve, protect and progress the success of farming across Northern Ireland and the rest of the United Kingdom. We need the Minister to stand up for farming; we all look to him to do that. Go to the Chancellor, tell her what we need—to increase the threshold from £1 million to £5 million—and things will be better.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

Sustainable Farming Incentive

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Wednesday 12th March 2025 Commons Chamber

[Daniel Zeichner]

Again, I refer the hon. Gentleman to the point that I made earlier. If we started a consultation on a first come, first served scheme, everybody would apply that day and we would have to shut it at that point. That is a flaw in the way the scheme was designed.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

The Minister is much liked in this Chamber, as we all know. However, it is disappointing to hear that new applications for the sustainable farming incentive have been paused in England. It is understandable that that is seen as a betrayal by so many farmers. Agricultural support is different in Northern Ireland, but the funding comes none the less from central Government. Will the Minister assure me that funding for Northern Ireland farmers, which comes from here, will not be reduced or falter as a result of today’s announcement, and that steps will be taken to protect our agriculture industry and our farmers, who are the backbone of our economy?

[Daniel Zeichner]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his kind words, and I suspect that we shall renew our acquaintance in Westminster Hall this afternoon. I can assure him that this announcement will make no difference to the funding arrangements for Northern Ireland.