Water Supply in Kent

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Wednesday 10th June 2026 Westminster Hall

[Sojan Joseph (Ashford) (Lab)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered water supply in Kent.

It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair this afternoon, Mr Twigg. I am grateful to colleagues for coming to the debate, but it is disappointing that we are having to have it at all, after the fourth incident—and the third major one—disrupting the supply of water to South East Water customers in six months. Between November and December, approximately 24,000 customers experienced low water pressure or little to no water supply. When supplies were restored, a boil water notice was issued. In January, about 30,000 customers again had to put up with little or no water supply. In April, around 6,000 customers experienced water supply problems, which South East Water said were

“caused by a burst water main.”

At the end of May, as we know, customers had to cope for 11 days with interruptions to their water supply. On that most recent occasion, around 22,000 customers across Kent, including roughly 4,000 in my constituency, were impacted.

Last week, during an urgent question secured by the right hon. Member for Herne Bay and Sandwich (Sir Roger Gale), I spoke about how, like many of my constituents, I have lost all faith in South East Water due to its repeated failures. Access to clean, reliable water is not a luxury; it is a fundamental expectation. When people turn on their taps, they should be able to rely on a consistent supply of water. That is the absolute minimum any water company should guarantee, but all too often South East Water is not meeting that minimum expectation.

The repeated disruptions are not only inconvenient but deeply distressing for residents, who should be able to rely on water. The impact of these repeated failures is evident from the Consumer Council for Water report last week, which showed that trust in South East Water had been “materially weakened”. More than half of those surveyed now store bottled water at home in case of future incidents.

The most recent incident occurred during a short period of hot weather, when the consequences of shortages can be especially acute. It affected households; farmers, whose livelihoods depend on a steady supply of water; and vulnerable individuals in care homes, where continuity of basic services is critical to wellbeing and safety. The wider economic impact must also be recognised. Hotels, restaurants and pubs across parts of the county were forced to close, losing vital income during what should have been a busy period coinciding with the school half-term holidays.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

The hon. Gentleman talked about farmers, who need water to give to their cattle. If they cannot do that, it is almost an animal tragedy waiting to happen. When there are water supply problems, many people suffer, but particularly farmers, who may have to look after 150 to 200 cattle, sheep or whatever it may be. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that farmers need to be looked after as a priority?

[Sojan Joseph]

I absolutely agree. There are many farmers in my constituency, and I have heard about the challenges they face when there are water shortages and they do not know when the water will come back—even the uncertainty is difficult for them.

For businesses, loss of trade is not simply a temporary inconvenience; it can have lasting repercussions. Taken together, South East Water’s failures highlight a pattern of underperformance that is no longer acceptable and that demands urgent attention and accountability. I welcome the confirmation from Ofwat that the recent incident will be part of its ongoing investigation into South East Water, but can my hon. Friend the Minister set out what actions the Government are taking to strengthen compensation arrangements for customers and what is being done to ensure that those affected by serious outages receive proper support and redress?

I want to recognise those who did their best during very difficult circumstances, including staff from local authorities, other agencies and the health and social care sector, as well as South East Water’s employees on the ground. I would also like to pay tribute to the Water Minister and her officials for the way they actively engaged during the latest incident. In the conversations the Government had with South East Water, did the company give any assurances that lessons would be learned? It is important to have a robust evaluation of the measures put in place to assess what was effective and, more importantly, what needs improving.

According to the company, it used tankers to supply more than 2 million litres of water to its network. More than a week after taps started running dry, I was still being contacted by constituents experiencing supply issues. The company needs to explain why it took so long to restore supply during this and other recent disruptions.

South East Water reported distributing more than 1 million litres of bottled water to customers. However, one constituent on the priority services register did not receive water at her property. After my office intervened on her behalf, we were informed that water would be delivered later that day, by which time the constituent had confirmed that her supply had already been restored. The issue of people on the priority services register being left waiting for water was raised in the House during previous outages, but it continues to arise. In any evaluation that takes place, consideration needs to be given to the location of water distribution stations. Those living in rural areas, elderly residents or those without access to a car cannot travel far to collect bottled water. Provision must reflect need.

Communication is another persistent failure. Constituents received little or no information, and updates were often inconsistent. I know that is something that the Water Minister has raised with the company, but it is simply not good enough for constituents to be left wondering what is happening to their water supply, or when it will be restored.

South East Water’s communication with Members of Parliament also needs to improve. During the recent meningitis outbreak, alongside daily updates from the UK Health Security Agency, MPs were offered regular virtual meetings to answer questions. Although South East Water sent out daily email updates, the information I received from constituents often contradicted what the company was saying. It took direct contact from my office to request a virtual briefing before one was arranged.

Of course, the most important lesson to be learned is how to prevent future water supply disruption in the first place. Each time an incident occurs, a different reason is given, whether that is a plant failure, severe weather, a burst water main or increased demand during hot weather. Those explanations do not change the underlying reality: for years the company has prioritised shareholders’ interests over those of its customers, and has failed to make the necessary investment in its infrastructure.

After years of under-investment, South East Water’s ageing and leaking infrastructure is struggling to cope. That cannot be allowed to continue. After all, if my constituents have poor service from their telephone provider, they can change their network, but because water companies have a monopoly, South East Water’s customers have no choice but to put up with this failing company.

This lack of resilience in our water infrastructure is particularly concerning, given the need for more housing in my constituency and across the county. During the Conservative Government’s last year in power, planning applications were at their lowest point for a decade. As we look to fix this problem, it is important that housebuilding takes place with natural resources such as water in mind. That includes ensuring that water companies and housing developers make the necessary investment in infrastructure.

What action can the Government take to give councils, such as Ashford and Folkestone and Hythe in my constituency, and other planning authorities confidence that all water companies make that investment, to ensure that current needs are met and that future growth, including the demand for affordable housing, can be supported? Building on the proposals set out in the water White Paper, will the Minister update the House on what action the Government are taking to deliver a water system that the people of Kent can depend on?

Climate change makes this challenge more urgent. Last week, the Environmental Audit Committee took evidence on the impact of extreme heat, and we heard that we are likely to see more frequent heatwaves and periods of extreme temperatures. Kent and the south-east of England will be particularly exposed, which will have implications for water supply. Hotter weather increases demand, while dry summers reduce availability. As the Environment Agency has pointed out, Kent is already marked by exceptionally low rainfall.

While I welcome the proposed Broad Oak reservoir, South East Water is not expected to submit a planning application until 2028 at the earliest. That will take time to deliver, and even if it is in place, further action will still be required to safeguard supply. In last week’s urgent question, the Minister mentioned that the Government are looking at desalination plants as part of the longer-term answer to water supply challenges. Those could provide a reliable source of clean drinking water that is independent of rainfall, particularly during prolonged dry periods. I would welcome further details on the role the Government see for desalination within a balanced, long-term strategy for Kent’s water supply.

I would like to ask the Minister one final question. This Government have taken strong action by nationalising the steel industry to protect it for future generations. They have also addressed the failure of rail privatisation by bringing rail companies back into public ownership. Given the steps they have already taken on water, which include passing the Water (Special Measures) Act 2025 and giving the Environment Agency more powers to monitor water companies, what consideration have the Government given to taking failing water companies into public ownership?

Water Safety

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Tuesday 9th June 2026 Westminster Hall

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

It is a real pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms McVey. A big thank you to the hon. Member for Southampton Itchen (Darren Paffey) for highlighting this issue at such a timely moment as we begin—hopefully—to enjoy the better weather and are seeing preventable deaths, particularly of young people, in our waters. It saddens us all greatly when we hear of the unnecessary loss of life.

As we look to the summer, we look for those days of summer fun. I grew up in a different time, but I learned to swim at school, and that probably gave me an advantage. Our school had swimming classes and everybody learned to swim, and it did not do us any harm. I am reminded of the time that I went on holiday to Florida and the three boys were small—aged eight, six and four. We arrived at the villa and they were all excited to be getting into the pool, as we always are when the sun is shining. The youngest boy just walked straight on to the water. I do not know what he thought he was going to do, but he certainly was not going to walk on it. The second boy shouted to him, “Swim, Luke, swim!” but Luke was not swimming anywhere, so I dived into the pool and pulled him out. There is danger in water, wherever it may be—even in swimming pools and ponds. My five-and-a-half-year-old grandchild learned to swim this year in Portugal. The Minister does not have responsibility for education, but she will understand, as we all do, that it is really important that we all learn to swim.

My summer holidays were spent with my friends, jumping into the quarry and enjoying the cool water on a sticky day. I can probably go back further than just about anybody in the Chamber—my loss of hair and wrinkles are an indication of that. Times have changed, but the joy of cooling off and splashing with friends has remained. We would have jumped into the quarry and off the harbour at Ballywalter, down where we lived when we were younger. I am old enough to remember depth charges: you curled yourself into a ball, jumped into the water and the water splashed everywhere. It was part of the youthful exuberance that we had. We were never alone; we always had friends with us, and maybe that was one of the things that made it all right.

However, the danger appears to have been enhanced, and those simple pleasures can have deadly results. My heart goes out to every family feeling the pain of the recent losses in water. The hon. Member for Southampton Itchen read out the names of those who have died. That was a very poignant moment. It focused our attention on where we need to be, and we thank him for doing it, even though it was hard to comprehend the massive loss of life. My prayers and thoughts are with all those families at this time.

In Northern Ireland, our emergency services and local authorities have been warning that open water sites have hidden life-threatening hazards. Disused quarries are exceptionally dangerous due to unpredictable depths, submerged machinery, sudden drop-offs and stagnant toxic water conditions. The water in quarries does not flow; it just gathers and gets toxic. The water might look refreshing, but jumping into it can have dire results. I understand the temptation to enjoy our beautiful local landscape when the sun comes out, but I cannot stress enough how dangerous unsupervised open water swimming can be.

Quarries, in particular, are death traps. Their water may look calm and inviting on the surface, but underneath lies intense cold that can cause immediate muscle paralysis and shock, even in the strongest swimmers. The hon. Member for Southampton Itchen outlined the theory of floating in the water. That is very easy to say, but it is not easy for someone to realise that they can float, because panic sets in. Maybe one of the things that we need to be doing in schools is teaching people how to have that immediate reaction of letting themselves go completely still and float. That could save their life.

I went to the local press to urge parents to have frank conversations with their children about the risk of trespassing on industrial or abandoned sites, because peer pressure can often lead to tragic decisions. We have seen devastating tragedies across Northern Ireland in the past, and the UK mainland has seen more deaths of young boys and girls in the recent heatwave. It is devastating trying to understand the loss of life. I do not want to see one more local family heartbroken this summer. My plea is clear: “Please stick to designated supervised swimming areas, obey all the safety signage and look out for one another. A split-second decision to jump into a quarry is simply not worth your life. Enjoy the sun and water responsibly.”

More can and should be done. We should make a co-ordinated effort in schools to talk about the danger, and have a social media campaign and a television campaign about it. All those things are important, and they should come in March, April or May, as the summer months arrive and people’s minds turn to water, rather than in December—unless they are targeted at wild water swimmers, of course. I wouldn’t be swimming in December, that’s for sure.

All these tools must be utilised, because we saw 19 people lose their lives during the May heatwave in the UK, 13 of whom were children. The question must be asked: are we doing all that we can? The answer is that we could do more to prevent these deaths, and we must do more UK-wide. We need to ensure that, if residents spot individuals trespassing or swimming in prohibited high-risk areas, they report the activity to local authorities immediately to prevent potential accidents, and that there is an immediate response from a staffed police service that has the manpower to make a difference. In addition, lifesaving rubber rings should be provided in harbours and other potential swimming places. Water safety affects every constituency in the UK and the response must be greater, so that we never again have a month in which so many lives are lost and so many families are broken.

Those families who have lost loved ones are in my prayers—they are in all our prayers—but we must act to prevent more deaths, if at all possible. I look forward very much to hearing the Minister’s response. She always gives us encouragement, which helps us all to deal with difficult situations. I again thank all the Members who have participated in the debate.

Oral Answers to Questions

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Thursday 4th June 2026 Commons Chamber

[Mary Creagh]

I thank my hon. Friend and constituency neighbour for his question. I know about the issues around Coventry and Rugby, and I share his frustration at fly-tippers. Courts now have the powers to issue up to nine penalty points on fly-tippers’ driving licences, to ensure that they think twice before doing a job for their mates at the weekend. We expect these powers to be used consistently. We have the National Fly-Tipping Prevention Group, and the Environment Agency is stepping in on serious cases through increased funding, stronger powers and joint action.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

May I thank the Minister for her commitment and for her response to the hon. Member for Rugby (John Slinger)? It is good to have a policy that seems to be working and, here on the United Kingdom mainland, it is very obvious that it is. I know the Minister is off to visit Northern Ireland; we have similar problems in Northern Ireland, but there does not seem to be the same drive or the same action taken. Will she involve herself with the Minister in Northern Ireland’s Department of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs, Andrew Muir, to ensure that he is proactive as well?

[Mary Creagh]

I am always happy to visit Northern Ireland, not least because I have relatives in Magherafelt. I can tell the hon. Gentleman what we are doing about digital waste tracking. It is now impossible for a cow to be registered, as happened under the legacy system. We will have identity checks, criminal record checks and competency checks, so it will not be a free-for-all. Waste carriers will have to show their permit numbers on advertising and on their vehicles.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Solicitor General]

I recognise that all those affected by the Grenfell Tower fire have faced a long and deeply painful wait for answers. Justice needs to be delivered as swiftly as possible. I understand that my colleagues in the Ministry of Justice have been working for months with police, prosecutors and courts to ensure that the system is ready to hear complex cases without further delay.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I thank the Solicitor General for that reply. In recent times in Northern Ireland we have successfully concluded two corporate manslaughter cases in a positive fashion; there were guilty verdicts in both cases. If it is the intention, as I think it may be, for the Solicitor General to look at making changes to corporate manslaughter cases, will she share the detail with the Northern Ireland Assembly and the relevant Minister?

[The Solicitor General]

It is good to hear about those successful cases in Northern Ireland. There may be lessons to be learned from those, so I am happy to look into the detail and work with the hon. Gentleman.

Agriculture: Government Support

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Wednesday 29th April 2026 Westminster Hall

[Richard Foord]

My hon. Friend rightly mentioned farming profitability. Minette Batters, the former president of the NFU, conducted a review of farming profitability in December and came up with more than 50 recommendations. It would be interesting to hear from the Minister the Government’s reflections and progress on fulfilling some of those.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I congratulate the hon. Member on securing this debate. On profitability, the Treasury has treated agriculture support as a discretionary expense. Does he agree that we need an increased, ringfenced, multi-annual farm support budget that is fully inflation-proof, taking into account the fact that otherwise we cannot expect our farmers to meet world-leading animal welfare standards?

[Richard Foord]

The hon. Member is right to talk of inflation-proof, because we have seen costs skyrocket in recent months. Fuel and fertiliser costs have shot up, while the price of feed for livestock is set to follow. Farmers are facing volatile international markets, while being told constantly that support is under review or “being monitored”.

Regulation of the Marmalade Market

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Wednesday 15th April 2026 Commons Chamber

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I commend the hon. Lady for securing this debate, and I spoke to her this morning to ascertain her thoughts on this matter. We were brought up on marmalade back in Ballywalter. My mum made marmalade. She is now 94 and not making marmalade any more, but although I am no Paddington Bear, I love nothing more than a good round of marmalade and toast. When I say that I enjoy it, I mean marmalade and not citrus jam. Does the hon. Lady agree that my constituents in Strangford and across Northern Ireland, with EU labelling interfering with our produce, deserve the same consideration as her constituents, and that labelling must reflect the hard-won distinction of marmalade, and not fruit jam or jam, just for the ease of the EU?

[Tessa Munt]

I partially agree with the hon. Gentleman, although if we were part of the EU, we might find ourselves in the position of being able to influence that a little more. He is right to recognise that our jams, spreads and marmalades have a distinctive characteristic. Indeed, they are one of our largest exports to countries such as Japan and Australia, because of the quality of our jams and marmalades.

While the 60% requirement remains in law, the Breakfast Foods (Amendment) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2026 removed the requirement to display total sugar content as a percentage on labels. Instead, producers will have to display

“energy value amounts of fat, carbohydrates, sugars, protein and salt.”

Unfortunately, that does nothing to encourage marmalade to be made with 60% sugar content, although I understand the driver behind the regulations.

This matters, because the rules governing marmalade are not arbitrary, but grounded in just over a century of scientific research and culinary practice. The requirement for 60% sugar content was not dreamed up by bureaucrats; it was developed through rigorous experimentation in the early 1920s at the University of Bristol’s Long Ashton research station. That facility is not in my patch, but I am proud to consider Bristol University one of my local universities. Long Ashton research station—now closed—is but 15 minutes’ drive from the boundary of my constituency, and I believe it is also famous for being where Ribena was developed.

The scientists were interested not merely in taste but in consistency, preservation and reliability. Before their work, recipes varied wildly, yields were unpredictable and the shelf life of marmalade was uncertain. They established a standard that ensured that marmalade would set properly, taste balanced and keep for extended periods. That west country connection is not incidental; it is foundational. The work carried out in Long Ashton helped to define what we now recognise as traditional British marmalade. It brought together food science and domestic practice, producing recipes that became a benchmark for generations of home cooks and commercial producers. To depart from those standards is not to innovate; it is to move away from a carefully developed and distinctly British product.

The 60% sugar threshold is critical. At that level, marmalade achieves the correct gelled consistency, a bright and appealing appearance, and a balanced flavour that is neither overly bitter nor cloyingly sweet. It also ensures a shelf life of up to a year when properly sealed. Drop below that threshold, and the product becomes fundamentally different: looser, duller, less stable and far more perishable. In my debate back in 2013, I described such products as “gloopy sludge”. I then had to apologise to the Americans and the French for describing their efforts as such, but I am not doing that this time, of course. These are not minor variations, but material differences that consumers have a right to understand.

Under the new labelling rules, that understanding becomes hard to access. While full nutritional information will still be provided, the removal of a clear, single sugar percentage risks obscuring whether a product meets the long-established British standards. An obvious response might be that the reduction in sugar is a good thing, as we are rightly encouraged to reduce our sugar intake. However, lower-sugar marmalades tend to be boiled for longer, which lowers the water content and ultimately results in a higher sugar content following the boiling process. The right response for those who wish to reduce their sugar intake is to moderate the amount of marmalade we put on our toast in the morning.

[Adam Jogee (Newcastle-under-Lyme) (Lab)]

I confess to the House that I prefer English strawberry jam to marmalade, but my wife is an assiduous and loyal orange marmalade fan—

[Jim Shannon]

Of course—she’s Northern Irish!

[Adam Jogee]

It must be a Northern Irish thing. She often purchases marmalade at one of the excellent shops in Newcastle-under-Lyme. May I congratulate the hon. Lady on an excellent and interesting speech, and on giving voice to the sweet, sweet tastes of Paddington Bear himself?

Waste Crime: Knowsley

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Wednesday 25th March 2026 Westminster Hall

[Anneliese Midgley (Knowsley) (Lab)]

I beg to move,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

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

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

[Anneliese Midgley]

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Mary Creagh]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Jim Shannon]

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

[Mary Creagh]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Question put and agreed to.

Oral Answers to Questions

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Thursday 19th March 2026 Commons Chamber

[Dame Angela Eagle]

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

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

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

[Mr Speaker]

Good luck with that!

Flooding: Rural Communities

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Wednesday 18th March 2026 Commons Chamber

[Alicia Kearns]

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

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

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

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

[Alicia Kearns]

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

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

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

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

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

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

Fur: Import and Sale

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Tuesday 10th March 2026 Westminster Hall

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Environmental Protection and Biodiversity

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Tuesday 3rd March 2026 Westminster Hall

[Chris Hinchliff]

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

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

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Chris Hinchliff]

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

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

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

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

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

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

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

[Jim Shannon]

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