Electric Car Batteries: Disposal and Recycling

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Wednesday 11th March 2020 Commons Chamber

[Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central) (Lab)]

It is a great pleasure to speak in this important debate. Although the Budget and, unfortunately, the coronavirus crisis will take the headlines today, the climate emergency and our transition to a net zero economy remain the greatest challenges facing humanity. We will have to change many aspects of our society to address them, and that includes what we drive.

Under the Government’s plans, 15 years from now internal combustion engines will no longer be sold new in this country. Moving away from petrol-based engines is a challenge, but also a huge opportunity for the UK automotive industry. Transport makes up 26% of emissions and the automotive sector can make a dramatic contribution to achieving a net zero economy and saving our planet. That will require a massive rise in the number of electric vehicles in the UK.

The Society of Motor Manufacturers & Traders expects registrations for electric vehicles to rise by 77% this year, and National Grid predicts that they will rise from 100,000 to 36 million by 2040—an increase of 36,000%. As part of that, the number of electric vehicle batteries will rise exponentially. There are a few hundred lithium cells in a Nissan Leaf and thousands in a Tesla—a second-hand market will undoubtedly develop. I want to emphasise what amazing technological innovation there has been in batteries in the last few decades.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

This is obviously an important issue. Does the hon. Lady agree that we need to be pre-emptively working rather than waiting until everyone owns an electric car? A massive environmental aspect has not been fully considered and planned for. The sheer volume of the cars that will be using these batteries demands better forward planning. We need that planning right now.

[Chi Onwurah]

The hon. Gentleman might well have read my speech, because those are exactly the points that I hope to make.

Returning now to innovation, when I studied electrical engineering at Imperial some decades ago, batteries were big, boring and messy. Now they are at the cutting edge of many exciting developments. We are getting down to the fundamentals of physics in the storage of energy and its applications everywhere from our smartphones to our national grid. Batteries are getting smaller, safer, more sustainable and more manageable, but we must also acknowledge that we are entering an era of battery reuse, recycling and transportation the like of which we have never before seen.

[Chi Onwurah]

I am sure that the right hon. Lady will understand if I say that I shall be pressing the Minister to address how the investment will be coming to Newcastle and the north-east.

Through this debate, I hope we can gain a greater understanding of the significant opportunity for our recycling sector across the country, but particularly the contribution that the north-east can make.

The most common battery types in modern electric cars are lithium-ion. They hold a high-energy density, with up to 700 watt-hours per litre, which is seven times the density of traditional LED batteries. That means that lithium batteries are more suited for use in electric vehicles as they can hold charge for longer-distance journeys. The expanding electric vehicle market will mean many more lithium batteries, and the typical warranty period for these batteries is eight years or 100,000 miles. Legislation requires that manufacturers take back the batteries, but it does not say what they should do with them. It says:

“Producers of automotive batteries must collect waste automotive batteries for free from their final holders, such as garages and scrapyards.”

There is no mention of lithium batteries in the Batteries and Accumulators (Placing on the Market) Regulations 2008, nor in the amendments in 2015. The European directive 2013/56/EU and the Capacity Labelling of Portable Secondary (Rechargeable) and Automotive Batteries and Accumulators Regulations all admit the legal framework for recycling. I hope the Minister will address that. In the not-too-distant future, we are likely to be facing a large lithium-ion battery mountain with nowhere for it to go unless we put the processes in place now.

Lithium batteries are not considered suitable for electric vehicle applications when their cell capacity falls below 80% of its original value. Their reuse at this point is known as second-life application, and there is interest in, for example, securing supplies to recondition for energy grid value balancing, or for using again in electric vehicles, or other applications.

Indeed, I should say that I underwent a revelation when I realised that the increasing demand for electric storage caused by the unpredictable or cyclical nature of many renewable energy sources, such as wind and tide, could be balanced quite literally by the fact that every car owner in the future will have a significant battery storage capacity sitting on their drive. That is true during the lifetime of the battery, but it is also a factor afterwards.

For example, in China selling a reused end-of-life battery can raise up to 10 times more for the owner than recycling. However, second-life applications delay, rather than eliminate, the challenge of recycling. Research also suggests that safety issues increase with second-life applications, given the absence of a regulatory framework. Stockpiling is unsafe and environmentally undesirable, and it is illegal to send electric vehicle batteries to landfill, so if the direct reuse of a lithium battery is not possible, it must be recycled. There are further environmental considerations. Batteries are made with expensive and rare minerals, the mining of which raises environmental—and often human rights—concerns. Recycling helps to minimise the need for new mineral extraction and provides the UK with resilience in the light of supply chain risks. I hope the Minister will agree that we should be encouraging a significant recycling programme.

There is also the safety risk. Without the capacity to recycle a large number of batteries appropriately and affordably, we could see overuse, fly-tipping and unregulated reselling. In the short time that electric vehicles have been about, not many battery packs have reached the end of their eight-year life, and there were only 1,262 electric cars registered in the UK eight years ago. That is going to change.

Petrol cars have significant safety risks too. Two cars in every 1,000 registered in the UK catch fire each year, but these are known to our fire services, who can extinguish petrol or diesel vehicle fires within one hour. By contrast, lithium-ion battery fires can take up to eight hours, and require different skills and tools to extinguish. Research from Newcastle University found that a damaged battery ignited twice within 24 hours and then again six days afterwards, with violent explosions being a potential feature of electric vehicle and lithium-ion battery fires. Furthermore, electric vehicles are not legally required to be marked with information on the batteries they contain for the information of arriving emergency services.

Ongoing work by the UK health and safety of energy storage governance group—chaired by the Institution of Engineering and Technology, of which I am a member—raised concerns that the Home Office system used by the fire brigade to report incidents does not actually have a category for energy storage systems. The group is working on a code of practice to support professionals, and I hope the Minister will discuss this with her colleagues.

There continue to be advances in battery technology, and I pay tribute to the work of the Faraday Institution’s SOLBAT project in seeking to bring solid-state batteries to the market. They lack the flammable liquid electrolyte found in lithium-ion batteries, and are therefore safer. However, we must assume that lithium-ion batteries will continue to dominate for some years to come.

There are no facilities in the UK to recycle electric car batteries, so the small volume currently being created are exported to Europe, where they are destroyed in high temperature furnaces. This enables the recovery of valuable critical elements such as cobalt and nickel, but at least 50% of the battery materials are not recovered. Currently, the number of electric vehicle batteries being sent for recycling in this way is so low that the Environment Agency does not even record the figures. When UK firms export their batteries to Europe, they have to pay a gate fee of thousands of pounds. This is not feasible in the long term, given the expected increase in numbers. I understand that ECOBAT Logistics, the largest UK recycler of non-lithium-ion batteries, is looking seriously at initiating a lithium-ion battery recycling industry in the UK. Is the Minister in talks with that company?

There is also a Brexit question. Without a recycling facility of our own, we will be in a vulnerable position when the EU transition period ends. The Government have yet to set out the UK’s equivalent of the waste batteries and accumulators directive 2006. We may face export restrictions or duties, and we would have to accept external prices since these materials cannot be landfilled. Given that, as the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) said, it will take planning and investment to develop the processes and permits for a battery processing factory in the United Kingdom, it is essential to get started now. We have to remember that it is not safe to stockpile these end-of-life batteries and let them accumulate in the UK.

I have talked a little bit about the challenges, because I want to emphasise to the Minister the importance of taking the right decisions now, but there are also opportunities that can help to level up our nation. The Faraday Institution-funded ReLiB project is researching ways to facilitate a circular economy in lithium-ion batteries, and Newcastle University has benefited from some of its work packages. Newcastle University is also proposing a battery safety health and environment hub on Tyneside. That is a fantastic idea. This hub would upskill and train those working with lithium batteries to safely manage and dispose of them, helping to address worker safety issues and some of the concerns I have raised. Would the Minister support such a hub?

[Jim Shannon]

Will the hon. Lady give way on that point?

[Chi Onwurah]

I am sorry, but I need to give the Minister some time to answer my questions.

At the moment, our fire services do not have the appropriate resources, training and personal protective equipment necessary to deal with these new challenges. It is estimated that up to 25% of the 510 fires in UK material recycling facilities in 2018 were caused by small lithium batteries. In 2019, one such fire in Dunbar, Scotland took over 40 firefighters to contain. A specialist training facility such as that proposed on Tyneside would have helped to reduce the pollution and damage. A recycling plant could have entirely avoided it.

Recycling plants, touching on the point made by the right hon. Member for Dwyfor Meirionnydd (Liz Saville Roberts), do need to be regional. Electric vehicle batteries are classed as hazardous waste, and the further they are transported, the greater the risk. As we have the skills in the north-east to support such a plant, we would welcome one in our region. We are a global leader in electric vehicles. The Washington Nissan plant introduced electric cars to Europe in 2011, creating a brand-new lithium battery plant from scratch in 18 months. Washington’s Envision-AESC factory is the first of its kind in the UK and leads the world in battery technology. It is eager to expand and exploit the new market opportunities offered by the lithium-ion technology revolution, and it has the knowledge to do so. We are going to need at least five battery gigafactories across the country to meet our decarbonisation targets—let us have one in the north-east. I know that that is more a matter for the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, but I hope the Minister will speak to BEIS about it.

Newcastle University is a centre of excellence in electric vehicles, leading a £300 million pound project entitled “Driving the Electric Revolution”. It has performed fascinating research on the systems integration of electric vehicle charging points. Northern Grid is actively looking at ways to integrate battery technology into the network. I am grateful for the Government’s commitment of £274 million between 2017 and 2021 to the Faraday Institution for research on the development and scale-up of world-leading battery technology in the UK. This has supported some of the research at Newcastle University. However, I am concerned that future funding remains unclear after this year. Will the Minister speak to her BEIS colleagues and meet me to discuss how Newcastle and the north-east can play a critical role in the safe storage, transportation and recycling of electric vehicle batteries?

We clearly need a circular economy for lithium batteries. Regulations, codes and standards are an important part of this, as are research and development to deliver at-scale recycling facilities, and safety guidance and training. I hope the Minister will welcome the opportunity to work with me to ensure that Newcastle can be a centre for all those things.

Flood Prevention: Rainwater Attenuation and Reservoirs

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Monday 9th March 2020 Commons Chamber

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

I rise to speak this evening on the topic of improving rainwater attenuation and storage, and preventing and mitigating flooding. For millennia, we have lived in this country in a temperate climate—a green and pleasant land, according to the immortal words of William Blake. We have enjoyed rain, but what we have seen in recent years and decades is freak weather, increasing rainfall and intense rainfall events. This February was the wettest month on record.

In my constituency, Welches Meadow—a field adjacent to the River Leam—has been under water for many weeks now. When I travel here by train, I pass through Warwickshire and Oxfordshire, and I see so many fields still inundated with water. Across the country, we have seen extraordinary weather events over many months, most recently with Storm Ciara and Storm Dennis, which have brought about so much devastation and damage. There have been winds of up to 80 or 90 mph, and my feelings and thoughts go out to all the communities that have been so affected: the Calder valley, Cumbria, Yorkshire, Derbyshire, the south-west, the south-east, Northern Ireland, Scotland, Wales—right across the country. We saw the extreme impact of Storm Dennis on south Wales just a few days ago. Back in November, there was flooding across Yorkshire, Lincolnshire and Derbyshire. We were told that this was a one-in-60-years event, according to the experts. But as we saw in Doncaster with 3 inches of rain falling in 24 hours, these events are happening so much more frequently than they were a few decades ago. I think back to 2004 and the terrible flooding in Boscastle—that tragedy when the rivers overflowed and the little town was almost washed away.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on raising this important issue. Does he agree that the recent floods have highlighted the fact that there must be a designated strategy—we look to the Minister for that—to deal with overflow? Does he agree that the harvesting of rainwater via attenuation ponds on farmland should be further investigated and initiatives introduced to make this attractive to farmers and landowners as a way forward in solving some of the flooding issues?

[Matt Western]

The hon. Gentleman makes a terrific point, as always, and I welcome his contribution, as ever. I will come on to those points a little bit later.

In Warwick and Leamington, we have had, over the years, serious flooding events ourselves. Back in 1998 and 2007, we suffered too, so I have compassion—as do, I am sure, my communities—for those who have been affected in recent weeks and months. In the watershed that we sit in of the Leam—the Avon river that feeds into the Severn—we are quite a way upstream and so relatively less affected than places such as Tewkesbury and elsewhere further down in the Severn valley.

Key to all this is managing flooding and the attenuation of the rainwaters, slowing the flow so that rivers, drains and other natural drainage can manage. Most of the time, natural systems can cope well, but when we see these extreme peaks, we need better management. So the priority must be for natural solutions, but they are not enough. Evidently, as we have seen, there needs to be urgent intervention and investment, but also, I would argue, a change to the planning and building regulations and how we use reservoirs.

Let me first deal with planning. Planning is of course critical—what is built where, bearing in mind the topography and the relationship with the watershed. I think back to the national planning policy framework, where too much power was given to developers to use land as the location for housing built at the wrong densities for communities in, all too often, the wrong places. I look to the south of Warwick and Leamington, where I am sure that the new residents who have moved in would have preferred to live in much higher densities with greater services, greater transport infrastructure and so on. Building over so much farmland has reduced the availability of land to absorb these high-rainfall events. Homeowners across the country have had their homes built on floodplains in areas where they can no longer get insurance, or if they can get insurance, the cost is prohibitively high and they are suffering because they cannot afford it. They are almost excluded from having insurance because of its cost.

Let me turn to building regulations. I think back to the Climate Change Act 2008, when we were promised zero-carbon homes by 2016. That was followed by the tragic Budget from the incoming coalition Government that tore up all that vision—that ideal—to see those great new Passivhaus homes built that recognised the importance of the environment in the equation. I am afraid that the Cameron Government of that time presided over the greatest act of environmental vandalism. Millions of homes have been built since, and their owners have missed out on what could have been fabulous zero-carbon or very-low-carbon homes. There was also the failure to recognise the importance of water in our environment. In his April 2011 speech, David Cameron said: “I want to rip up red tape. I want to get rid of that green cack”—I think that was the word. He got rid of the code for sustainable homes and replaced it with building regulations that did not go far enough. He wanted to save his friends the builders more money. He stated that, by changing the regulations, the builders would save £500 a home, giving them £60 million more a year in revenues. We have only to look at companies such as Persimmon, which is the most high-profile example, and the sort of profit it has made since to realise that that was a short-term and disastrous policy.

The building regulations could have included more sustainable water attenuation. Things such as sustainable urban drainage systems have been introduced, but I believe that greywater harvesting could have been the critical difference. Systems for the use of rainwater collected at source and stored are as cheap as chips, and for new build homes, they could have made a massive difference. Built at scale across new communities, they would have provided a huge rainwater storage capacity upstream, controlling the release of water into drains. When I renovated my home 10 years ago, I managed to put in a 1,500-litre capacity. For the 20,000 homes being built around Warwick and Leamington, that would have equated to 25,000 tonnes of rainwater being captured.

When researching this subject, I looked at fabulous periodicals such as Water. An article in July 2019 says:

“Different studies showed that, in urban catchments, the extensive installation of rainwater harvesting tanks could be an efficient support for reducing frequency and peak of stormwater flood.”

It cites some research that was done in the UK, while researchers in China found that

“the system has a good performance in mitigating urban waterlogging problems,”

reducing flood volume of 14%, 30% and 58% in the cases of maximum daily rainfall, annual average maximum daily rainfall and critical rainfall respectively.

Those are impressive figures, but as technology moves on, we see the introduction of smart rainwater harvesting systems. Another paper by academics was produced in Water in November last year. The study concluded that:

“smart rain watertanks operated as a system in real-time during a storm event… can significantly reduce the downstream peak runoff flow rate for a wide range of storm durations”—

30 minutes to 24 hours—and frequencies of between 50% and 1% annual exceedance probability. It went on to say:

“this is the first study to demonstrate that household-scale rainwater tanks could potentially provide peak flow attenuation performance across a wide range of storm event durations for rare events”—

in other words, a 10% to 1% annual exceedance probability. I cite that research to show that these systems are out there; we just have to adopt them as policy. That is what needs to be done, because after energy, water is a massive issue for us.

Per person, we use 142 litres of water per day, and a household uses 350 litres. If we were to introduce rainwater harvesting tanks, we would be able to assist in the demand and consumption within a property, not just the storage, which would help to mitigate flooding. We use 840 billion litres of water a year just for showers, 740 billion litres for flushing our toilets and a further 360 billion for washing machines and dishwashers. Some 25% of total water consumption is used for showers, and 22% just goes straight down the toilet. I see this as a huge opportunity to reduce bills and aid flood management. If we combine the greywater supply for toilets, washing machines and use in the garden, it would account for a third of the total and could save each household up to £150.

The third change I propose is in regard to reservoirs and detention ponds. I urge the Government to provide the Environment Agency with greater powers, to enable it to work more closely with the water utility companies, as proposed by my hon. Friend the Member for Halifax (Holly Lynch) in her Reservoirs (Flood Risk) Bill. Such an approach would allow the water companies to run at lower levels in reservoirs when high rainfall is anticipated, and the trials undertaken by Yorkshire Water at six reservoirs upstream in the Calder valley have shown that this could greatly mitigate flood events if run at levels below 100%. It has trialled it at 90%, and now it is going to trial it at 85%. As I understand it, similar trials and conversations have been happening at Thirlmere reservoir in Cumbria, and at the reservoirs in the upper Don valley and at Watergrove reservoir in Rochdale.

A change in the legislation is needed. As the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) so beautifully put it, we have huge opportunities, particularly with farmland. I speak to farmers in my local area, and I spoke to those at Canalside—a community supported agriculture project just outside my constituency, with which I used to have a considerable involvement—and they cannot sow or put in onions for the next harvest because the ground is so waterlogged. That is what we are seeing for farmers all over the UK.

To summarise: what we have witnessed—not in recent weeks or months, but actually years—is that we are having more frequent, more intense and more severe weather events than we were having 30 years ago. I lived in London 25 years ago and I now of course live here again, and when I compare and contrast the sort of weather we are having now, I see that the climate has really changed in that 25-year period. It is really quite remarkable.

My thoughts are with all the communities that have been affected by these terrible floods most recently, but we have the wit and the knowledge to bring about change. If we change the planning legislation, do not build on the floodplain, change the building regulations and reintroduce the code for sustainable homes, plus include the fitting of greywater or rainwater harvesting systems, it would be as cheap as chips, as I say, for any new build property. That is what we can do: we can build storage upstream in these communities for them to use the water, or for it to be released when it is the right time to do so, and ease the pressure on the precious infrastructure that we have in our drainage system. At the same time, we could turbo-boost the sustainable urban drainage schemes, and introduce more small reservoirs, detention ponds, swales and infiltration basins.

I also urge the Government to revisit the scheme for an Abingdon reservoir, and likewise in Maidenhead and elsewhere across the country. To my mind, if we are prepared to spend £1 billion a year on flood defence measures, surely a more sensible thought is to spend money further upstream, think about how we can detain the water, think about attenuation systems—I evidenced that through the two academic papers detailing what can be achieved—and, finally, give the Environment Agency greater powers over reservoir management, as proposed by my hon. Friend the Member for Halifax, which I believe would be a very welcome amendment to the Environment Bill.

--- Later in debate ---

[Rebecca Pow]

But it still stands that it is a local planning decision to allow building on floodplains to go ahead, and that is very much an MHCLG agenda.

I want to talk about the reservoir issue that the hon. Gentleman raised. Many people are suggesting that that provides a simple answer to some of our flooding issues and also our water supply issue, but of course they are very complex issues involving a range of stakeholders and they have to be considered in relation to how reservoirs might be managed and operated throughout the year. On that, I must give assurances that flood and coastal erosion risk management is a big Government priority now, with £2.6 billion already devoted to this area in the last spending round up to 2021 and the recent announcement, to be confirmed in this week’s Budget, of funding for flood defences of £5.2 billion. That will be helping a further 2,000 new flood and coastal defence schemes and better protect 336,000 properties across the country.

There are of course reservoirs at the moment that are used for flood risk management. The Environment Agency operates more than 200 reservoirs around the country, especially for flood attenuation. That is their purpose in life and the amount of water in them during non-flood conditions is kept deliberately low in order to maximise the storage available during high rainfall and storm events. Many of those reservoirs have been operated this winter, and, in combination with other flood defence measures in the catchment, have provided protection to a great many people.

[Jim Shannon]

Farmers and landowners are not averse to the idea of setting some of their land aside for attenuation ponds. Might the Minister and her Department incentivise that with some sort of grant for land set aside for that purpose? It is not just the farmer who gains, but the other people in the area, particularly householders.

[Rebecca Pow]

The hon. Gentleman will know that in the Agriculture Bill that has just gone through its Committee stage, farmers will be paid for delivering public goods. Flood resilience is included, so consideration will be given to a whole range of projects, which could include farmers holding water on their land to help with flood alleviation.

I return to the issue of reservoirs; water company reservoirs in particular were mentioned. Our water company reservoirs have a very different purpose in respect of drought attenuation—we must not forget that only months ago we were facing potential drought scenarios. Over summer 2018, the country dealt with very dry and warm weather, with water companies experiencing some of the highest demand for water for their customers. We have to pay as much attention to the risks associated with too little water as we do to those associated with too much.

UK Fisheries

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Wednesday 12th February 2020 Westminster Hall

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I thank the hon. Member for South East Cornwall (Mrs Murray) for bringing the matter forward, and for her commitment and energy. She is a credit to her constituency. I thank the Backbench Business Committee for the selection of the debate. It is essential, during this time of transition, that we get things absolutely right for our fishing industry. I refer to the industry, rather than to fishermen, because it is about more than the livelihoods of fishing families. It is about an entire industry—the suppliers, the hospitality industry, exports and wider matters. I must give credit where it is due—and not simply to the members of the fishing communities, who have been tireless in their work to secure the future of the fishing industry for the benefit of us all. I must also thank the Fisheries Minister; he knows that he is highly esteemed among all of us who are involved in the fishing sector, and I thank him for all his hard work. I also thank the Immigration Minister for his willingness to make himself available. There are four Members present—they know who they are—who have been working hard on the tier 2 fisheries exception. That is something where we want to see the full potential coming in.

Non-European economic area fishing crew has been an ongoing issue, and the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (David Duguid) referred to it. I look forward to working with him and others to bring forward a pilot scheme, which I hope can be endorsed post-Brexit. Our fishing fleet is competing directly with the EU’s, and that means that in Northern Ireland we are competing with Ireland’s fishing fleet. To reach our potential we must have skilled and experienced crews in place. That does not just happen, but it needs to happen for us to succeed. I am very much looking forward, now that we have left the EU, to the extra quota being dispersed among fishermen within the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, so that we all gain. Just last week, it was mentioned in the press that the Government are to spend some £30 million on fishing enforcement vessels. It is heartening to know that the Government are spending that money, because it means that the EU fishing fleet cannot come willy-nilly into the waters around the UK and take advantage of the fish resources that belong to us here and not to them.

The Dublin Government first introduced legislation designed to resolve the issues around the recruitment of non-EEA fishermen in 2016, but Irish over-15-metre trawlers are entitled under the common fisheries policy to fish anywhere in the waters around Ireland and the United Kingdom. Ironically, non-EEA fishermen employed in Northern Ireland on over-15-metre trawlers are restricted to operating outside the UK’s 12-mile territorial limit. Again, that puts us at a disadvantage. There are not many options outside the 12-mile limit. We can contrast that to the options available for fishermen working, for example, from Peterhead or Fraserburgh, who have the whole of the North sea at their disposal. Even before the UK becomes an independent coastal state, Northern Ireland’s fishing fleet’s ability to operate competitively with our nearest EU neighbour is being compromised. It is clear to me that the fishermen in Northern Ireland—in Portavogie in my constituency and in Ardglass, Annalong and Kilkeel—need to have the same opportunities as those in the rest of the United Kingdom.

The dominance of the under-10-metre fishing fleet in England Wales is not reflected in Northern Ireland, and it therefore follows that the allocation on that merit does not suit our fleet. The under-10-metre question creates an issue for us, and I would appreciate it if the Minister would respond on that. I have corresponded with other elected representatives—MPs and those in the other place. Margaret Ritchie, who used to be the Member for South Down, will raise in the other place the fact that each devolved Administration must determine how to allocate the fixed quota allocation to its own industry. I am glad to see that. We have a Northern Ireland Assembly in place now and a Minister, Edwin Poots, who can do it, and make the right decisions.

You have been clear about the timings we should work to, Sir George, so my last point relates to the fact that Northern Ireland’s biggest market, as with most things, is mainly Great Britain. We need a clear view of how the trade will operate. I want to know exactly what it means. Will fishing boats landing their fish in Portavogie, Ardglass and Kilkeel have a tariff? Will they not have a tariff if they land fish in Scotland or Wales or England? While I welcome the Government’s commitment to no checks in the trade of food products with Great Britain, I have yet to see how it will work in reality. I urge the Government to give clarity on those essential aspects for the Northern Ireland economy.

The future is bright for the fishing industry, but it is in the Minister’s hands—no pressure. I beg him to work closely with his team, and to work closely with us, the elected representatives, and the regional administrations, so that this once in a lifetime opportunity can be exploited for the benefit of the UK as a whole.

Waste Incineration Facilities

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Tuesday 11th February 2020 Westminster Hall

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I thank the hon. Member for Washington and Sunderland West (Mrs Hodgson), and congratulate her on setting the scene so well, as she did in her speech last week.

The thrust of the debate so far is how we get rid of waste in a way that meets the environmental standards we all want. It is clear that something must be done to address the disposal of waste. The first thing is for more people to realise that they should reuse and recycle or pass things on to others to use. The world cannot contain a continued throw-away mentality. I have seen such a change in my local area from the encouragement of recycling—not only kerbside recycling, but also at household recycling centres, where people are asked to categorise their waste. That encourages much more recycling and less landfill waste.

I agree that we cannot continue to use landfill as we have done, but it must be acknowledged that there is still a need for an end destination for products that cannot be recycled—and the sea is not the place for them. We all know about the number of plastic articles in the sea; it is very obvious. By way of illustration, The Times today has a story about a whale with waste material wrapped around its body. Divers went down to cut that away from it. I am all for the end of single-use plastic and was heartened to read of a plant that might possibly be used as a plastic substitute that biodegrades. I am happy to see that some supermarkets are considering refill stations for cereal and even shampoos. However, while we can do much in that way, there still must be waste. Shipping it to other countries for disposal is not the answer. We cannot continue to use landfill as we do.

As the Minister knows, the matter is a devolved one for Northern Ireland. I want to refer to a project that has just been given approval by the Northern Ireland Environment Agency on behalf of councils. The key point for Northern Ireland, looking forward, is that landfill across Great Britain and Europe will be an option for only between 5% and 10% of waste by 2035, or 2025 in Scotland and Wales. That is the direction of travel, and for Northern Ireland to keep up we must build energy recovery infrastructure to process what is not recyclable.

I had a meeting to address the matter last Friday—it just happened to be then, with this debate happening today—to discuss proposals by arc21, where six local authorities come together. That body is attempting to design a programme to support and enhance recycling targets and waste issues. One of the projects deserves a closer look, and I met representatives to discuss it last week. The Becon consortium has developed plans to co-locate a mechanical biological treatment plant and an energy-from-waste plant using an incinerator with an energy recovery process at the Hightown quarry site on the Boghill Road, Mallusk. A visitor centre will be part of the project. A briefing I received on the proposed project states:

“This project represents a private sector major investment for Northern Ireland—approximately £240 million in development and construction alone. In the construction of the new waste facilities, local contractors will be used wherever possible, thereby maximising opportunities for employment and benefiting the wider local economy.”

Some 340 permanent direct and indirect jobs will be created, as well, when the plants are operational. The briefing says the project will provide a sustainable, long-term solution for the management of residual municipal waste in the arc21 area, assisting the six councils, including the one I represent, and where I live, to meet future climate change targets such as landfill diversion and increasing recycling. The briefing says it will increase arc21 constituent councils’ overall recycling rates by up to 10%, through the extraction of plastics, metals, aggregates and other valuable materials through the MBT. That could divert up to 250,000 tonnes of municipal waste from landfill per year and contribute to Northern Ireland’s greenhouse gas emissions targets through a reduction of approximately 57,500 tonnes of CO₂ equivalent per year, relative to sending waste to landfill.

Obviously, air quality is a massive issue for us as well. Last week I asked a question in the House about the fact that two hours of exposure to diesel emissions leads to 24 hours of negative effects. The briefing I have been referring to states that the project it describes would enhance Northern Ireland’s security of supply and increase diversity of energy production by exporting 18 MW of electricity to the national grid—enough to power in excess of 30,000 homes annually and help Northern Ireland to become less reliant. The correct energy efficiency balance is needed to ensure that the air quality is right and ensure that waste materials are disposed of.

Thanks to the return of devolution, our local authority and Ministers in the Northern Ireland Assembly will, I am sure, consider every facet of that proposal, although I do not know what their deliberations will result in. I do know that it is important that we think outside the box on this issue and that we secure a better way of doing things. If that means that block grants are needed, let us sow into the lives of our children’s children and use our finance now to make a real difference to the country that we leave them.

I honestly believe that we must have a UK-wide strategy; while that is not the Minister’s responsibility, it is important that we have one. I look forward to her response. I believe that the end of the world will not come a second before the Lord ordains it, but I also believe that we have a duty to be good stewards of this wonderful world that has been granted to us. It is past time that we do what we can to be invested in our world and not simply to survive our time in it.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Whitehead]

The hon. Member read my mind. I was about to say that I do not want to blame local authorities for the actions that they have taken over a time when they have had no money to deal with the issue. They have merely had exhortations from central Government, and there have been no resources to go alongside the actions that they are required to undertake. There is a temptation to try to resolve the problems in a local area by going into partnership with a waste company. That may produce a solution to the local waste disposal problems, but it will do so at the cost of a 20, 30 or even 40-year contract that will fix the future policy of that local authority or consortium of local authorities.

It is imperative to recognise that to move up the waste hierarchy nationally, we need the resources to get away from incineration. There are further exhortations on the matter in the waste strategy. We cannot simply say that local authorities must have separate arrangements for collecting all the waste food in their area; we need to ensure that local authorities have the resources to enable them to move up the waste hierarchy without being subject to the temptation of using large incinerators to solve their problems.

We are at a turning point. The future is net zero; it cannot be incineration. We have to move rapidly up the waste hierarchy, and there are challenges and obstacles to that ambition. There will be some residual waste, but, as hon. Members have mentioned this morning, the current definition of residual waste encompasses things that it should not. For example, only 9% of plastic film is recycled. Most of it is incinerated or goes into landfill. Recently, I asked questions about 47 containers of plastic waste that were exported to Malaysia, and that the Malaysians did not want. They sent the waste back and said that it had been illegally exported to Malaysia.

[Jim Shannon]

When we recycle, we think that the waste will go wherever it should go. However, those containers of plastic that went to Malaysia and are now sitting there, waiting to be returned, show us that there needs to be accountability in the process. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that we need to know where recyclable waste ends up?

[Dr Whitehead]

Absolutely. Part of moving up the waste hierarchy involves a proper and full accounting of what goes in and out at each stage of the process. I recently asked the Minister to assure me that the plastics that come back to the UK in those containers will be properly dealt with and will not just go into incineration or landfill. Other countries have started to bar us from using waste export as a route out of doing a proper job of recycling and moving up the waste hierarchy. We therefore need the next generation of resources to deal with that move up the waste hierarchy. We simply do not have enough plants in this country that can properly recycle all the different grades of plastic waste, and we do not have enough anaerobic digestion plants to deal with the putrescibles that will come out of the waste stream. The Government have a substantial responsibility to ensure that those facilities are available, so that we can move up the waste hierarchy as fast as we need to on our path towards a net zero economy.

I am sure that the Minister will have words to say on this, and I hope to hear from her plans to make real the Government’s rightful exhortations to move up the waste hierarchy. She will be delighted that, unlike last week, I will now cease my comments and give her plenty of time to tell us what the Government will do in the new era that we are moving into.

Oral Answers to Questions

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Thursday 6th February 2020 Commons Chamber

[Rebecca Pow]

This Government take air pollution extremely seriously. We are investing £3.5 billion in air quality and clean transport. We are helping local authorities to tackle air quality through the implementation fund and the clean air fund, with a £572 million budget and a lot of expert advice. I am overseeing many programmes being rolled out, and the right hon. Gentleman will see a great deal happening this year.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

Two hours of exposure to diesel fumes leads to 24 hours of negative impact upon a person’s health. What is being done to reduce diesel fumes for ordinary people in our communities?

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Edward Leigh]

Absolutely. I am sure the Comptroller and Auditor General, who is completely independent in what inquiries he undertakes, will certainly want to do a report on the value for money of that Department and, perhaps, of our exit from the European Union in totality.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

With particular reference to Commonwealth countries, what does the right hon. Gentleman believe is the result of work carried out? How can we do more to see better guidelines in place and in operation throughout?

[Sir Edward Leigh]

That is a very good question. Clearly, the NAO, which is not concerned with policy matters but with economy and efficiency, will have its focus laser-like on how we can ensure, both in Northern Ireland and in the rest of the United Kingdom, a good exit from the European Union, good outcomes and, above all, value for money. There is no doubt that a very large sum of money could be wasted—for instance, in the recruitment of extra civil servants. We will have to ensure that we look laser-like at getting value for money.

Agriculture Bill

Jim Shannon Excerpts

2nd reading & 2nd reading: House of Commons & Money resolution: House of Commons & Programme motion: House of Commons & Money resolution & Programme motion
Monday 3rd February 2020 Commons Chamber

[Luke Pollard]

Perhaps the Government’s whipping arrangements are somewhat flawed tonight, but with a majority of 80 the Bill will proceed, unless the hon. Gentleman would like to join me in the Lobby. If he is so worried about the future of the Bill, he is welcome to join me in expressing the serious and heartfelt concerns not just of Opposition Members, but of organisations that work day in, day out with our agricultural communities, which are worried that while they are improving standards in the UK, we will leave the door open to their being undermined. That is not something I can accept.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I understand what the hon. Gentleman is saying, but does he accept that the farmers of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland have a commitment to deliver high-quality products that they can sell all over the world, and they have no intention of changing the regulations that ensure that those products continue to be delivered? Does he accept the Secretary of State’s assurance on the need for the devolved Administrations to be part of that? They accept that being part of the regulations is the way forward.

[Luke Pollard]

The hon. Gentleman is right. British farmers do not want lower standards; they are proud of the standards they uphold and we are proud of what they grow and how they grow it. What worries us is the risk that, despite those high standards, the door could be opened to lower-cost, poorly produced food imports. That concern is shared by farmers. That is why the importance of putting legal protections in the Bill is so clear. Why is the Secretary of State not proposing legal protections so that chlorinated chicken and hormone-treated beef will not be on sale in our shops, restaurants and takeaways? Why is she not insisting that our farmers’ best practice is not undercut by US mega-agriculture? Why does she not made upholding Britain’s example on animal welfare her red line that she refuses to cross?

Speaking frankly, few in this House believe that the Secretary of State will last long in her job with the reshuffle coming up, so she had nothing to lose in making the case to support our British farmers to stop them being undercut. If she had done so, she would have been the farmers’ hero—a protector of the environment, an upholder of promises to the electorate, someone we could all be very proud of—but her silence on the issue of leaving out legal guarantees from the Bill points to one inevitable conclusion: the promises made by the Prime Minister to uphold the standards are disposable. They are liable to be rejected and replaced at will to secure a bargain-basement trade deal with Donald Trump and usher in a potential for chlorinated chicken, hormone-treated beef and more besides to be sold. If the Government say that that is not happening, why is it not in the Bill? Why will that point not be put into law?

Bovine TB: Compensation

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Wednesday 29th January 2020 Westminster Hall

[George Eustice]

My hon. Friend makes a very important point; none of the tests that we have are perfect. TB is a difficult, insidious and slow-moving disease that is sometimes difficult to detect. We are doing a big piece of work to try to improve diagnostics, including by looking at options such as the phage test, and in recent years our use of the interferon gamma test—the more sensitive blood test—has been more widespread.

A relatively small additional number of animals fall into the category highlighted by my hon. Friend the Member for St Ives. Around 550 animals per year are picked up through routine post-mortem inspections during commercial slaughter, either because they became infected between tests or because they were missed by less than perfect tests.

Since 2006 compensation for TB-affected animals is determined through table valuations, whereby the compensation paid for the animal mirrors the average price paid on the open market for similar types of cattle. There are around 51 different table value categories, which are based predominantly on the subdivision of non-pedigree beef cattle from pedigree beef cattle, and non-pedigree dairy from pedigree dairy. There is a whole range of subcategories based on the age of the animal.

My hon. Friend the Member for Congleton (Fiona Bruce) made the important point that farmers will sometimes say that the table valuation does not represent the value of the animal. That can be difficult, and we are constantly looking to refine the tables, because the value of a small pedigree Dexter cow might be very different from that of a pedigree Hereford or a pedigree South Devon, which are larger animals. We recognise those issues and are constantly trying to refine the tables. It is also important to recognise that we went to a table valuation system, because prior to 2006 there were individual valuations for each animals. Unfortunately, however, we found that land agents would often tend to value up animals, and the taxpayer was not getting good value for money as a result of individual valuations. That is why we introduced a table valuation system. It is different in Wales, which remains on an individual valuation system.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

We have had a large number of bovine TB outbreaks in Northern Ireland, especially in my constituency of Strangford. We want to make sure that the compensation scheme to which the Minister refers is uniform across the whole United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. I want to be sure that, for any potential legislative changes to the compensation scheme that result from this debate, discussions will take place with the Northern Ireland Assembly and, in particular, with the Department of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs, to ensure a uniform response across the whole United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.

[George Eustice]

Disease control and dealing with epidemiological outbreaks, including TB, are devolved matters, so each part of the UK has a different approach. In Scotland there is not currently a TB problem as it does not affect the badger population. Wales has a severe problem but is not using culling at this stage. In England we are starting to make significant progress through culling. Northern Ireland is trialling different approaches, such as “test, vaccinate or remove”, although that is rather expensive. It is a fully devolved matter that is decided by the relevant Administration—we are delighted that there is a new Administration in Northern Ireland.

To support and inform the table valuations, we collect data for around 1,250,000 animals every year from the sales of store cattle, calf sales, breeding and dispersal sales. That ensures that the table values are based on real sales data and are as accurate as possible. I take on board the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Congleton and others about the table valuations, but I hope that she understands why we switched to that system over individual valuations.

To return to the specifics of this case, decisions on whether meat is fit for human consumption are made by the official veterinarians who work for the Food Standards Agency in the slaughterhouse. Their decisions are based on findings from the post-mortem inspections that they carry out, as enshrined in the food hygiene regulations. Those involve a set of criteria and an approach very different from what a DEFRA or Animal and Plant Health Agency vet would use on-farm.

When post-mortem inspection reveals lesions indicative of TB in more than one organ, or in more than one anatomical region, the whole carcase is declared unfit for human consumption. As my hon. Friend pointed out, that occurs in a relatively small number of cases, but I appreciate the significance to the farmer affected. About 6% of such cases are picked up in that way. However, when a TB lesion has been found in only one organ or just one part of the carcase, only the affected organ or part of the carcase is rejected. In the vast majority of cases, therefore, when an animal goes to the slaughterhouse and is not condemned entirely, there is generally a significant salvage value.

DEFRA only pays statutory compensation when it has deprived someone of their property to help eradicate a disease. The reason involves DEFRA requiring that an animal be killed as a disease-fighting requirement. DEFRA uses legal powers under the Animal Health Act 2002 to dictate that an animal must be seized, and it has enforcement powers to seize and remove an animal if, as sometimes happens, a farmer resists. In such instances, it is deemed appropriate that the farmer should be compensated.

When a farmer has an animal that has been picked up not by a test—therefore not compulsorily slaughtered by DEFRA—but only on arrival at the slaughterhouse, that situation is much more in the realm of commercial risk. An animal can be condemned for many different reasons for which a farmer would not be compensated, and it is regarded as an issue of commercial risk.

The situation can be addressed in two ways. First, in the specific case of the abattoir concerned, perhaps abattoirs need to be clear in their contracts with farmers and stipulate who is liable in the event that a carcase is condemned. If an abattoir wanted to make it clear that it would not pay for a condemned carcase, stating that in a contract could mean that the county court might find in a different way.

Secondly, we have done some work with NFU Mutual. The National Farmers Union and NFU Mutual are working on an insurance policy product to deal with such situations—either an abattoir can take out insurance to cover the cost of an animal where that happens, or the farmer could arrange to take out some insurance to cover such issues.

To go back to the intervention of my hon. Friend the Member for Congleton (Fiona Bruce), many farmers who have highly prized show-winning cattle—not just pedigree beef or dairy cattle, but ones that have a huge value—privately insure them, to top up the difference between the table value and the actual value. The commercial insurance market will help farmers to cover those costs and to protect them against loss of their prize-winning bloodstock.

I accept the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for St Ives about the need to share more effectively the details of how the TB compensation system works. We are looking to address that by publishing a briefing note on TB compensation, which will go on to the TB information hub operated by the Agriculture and Horticulture Development Board. More generally, there is always room to improve communications, so we will continue to work with the farming unions and others to meet the needs of those who deal with such difficult situations. We invested £25,000 in that TB hub website to improve information available to farmers and give them other practical advice on aspects of their TB programme.

I hope that I have been able to address some of the issues raised by my hon. Friend. He will be disappointed that I have not announced at the Dispatch Box that cases such as his will in future be compensated, but I hope he understands that to do so would be a leap from what we have always done as a nation, in particular since the Animal Health Act 1981, in which the clear concept was of a duty on Government to compensate when we required animals to be destroyed for disease-fighting reasons. Unfortunate cases in which we have not required compulsory slaughter are very much in the realm of commercial risk. It is for abattoirs and farmers through their contracts, or for both through insurance products, to cover their risk.

Finally, I make an offer to my hon. Friend the Member for St Ives, given that he is a close neighbour all the way down in west Cornwall. I am more than willing to meet the particular abattoir owner concerned and to discuss the matter with him. My hon. Friend mentioned the Godfrey review, and we will be responding to that imminently. It will include some proposals to do with TB compensation but, alas, not the one that he is seeking for me to confirm today. However, we have had a good debate and covered many different areas. Again, I thank my hon. Friend for bringing the issue to my attention.

Question put and agreed to.

Direct Payments to Farmers (Legislative Continuity) Bill

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Committee stage & 3rd reading: House of Commons & Committee: 1st sitting: House of Commons & 3rd reading & Committee: 1st sitting
Tuesday 28th January 2020 Commons Chamber

[Simon Hoare]

Yes, chalk land, just like the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Cheltenham (Alex Chalk). I thank my hon. Friend for that sedentary heckle. It is more chalk land and therefore is predominantly, although not exclusively, arable.

Certainty is important because we are dealing with long-term planning. Do farmers have the confidence to ask lenders for money to buy a new piece of farm equivalent? Do they have the confidence or certainty to plant a certain crop? Some of my local farmers in North Dorset now grow milling grains for the German beer sector. Some of them are growing white poppies, the stalks of which are exported to Hungary for medical purposes—so that medical opium can be extracted to provide painkillers. If someone is going to put their herd or flock into a growth spurt, and if they want to see them calve and lamb, they want certainty that there is some basic underpinning to their sector. That is what the Bill does, which is why it is to be supported.

The huge scope for agritech is important, and I am certain that we will hear that echoed in the debates on the Agriculture Bill—this Bill and the Agriculture Bill are in effect two sides of the same coin. Again, the agritech sector needs certainty. There are productivity benefits and environmental benefits to it, so we must make sure that the sector, which is growing and really taking root in the UK, has the confidence to continue.

My final point is with regard to audit. Various Members have probed the Minister about the performance of the Rural Payments Agency and how, effectively, it will look. Some within the agency will be suffering from Stockholm syndrome, and they need to be freed from that and to be able to take a lighter touch. However, in reference to the point about the audit trail made by the Chairman of the Select Committee—I congratulate him on his recent election—we must not throw the baby out with the bathwater. The British taxpayer must be certain that the payments made to farmers are fair, needed and transparent. Therefore, let us make sure that there is a clear audit trail on this homegrown UK system, so that not only British farmers have confidence and certainty, but the British taxpayer has certainty that their money is being put to good purpose to support and to encourage agriculture, that vital mainstay of the British economy.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for North Dorset (Simon Hoare). I congratulate the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Neil Parish) on his re-election as Chair of the Select Committee. He brings a wealth of experience to that position, and we wish him well in it.

I am very pleased to speak in this Bill Committee, both on direct payments and on the commitment that the Minister has given. As always, I am pleased to see him in his place. He understands agriculture, just as he understands fishing, for which he also has responsibility. We look forward to his co-operation with the Northern Ireland Assembly, and particularly with the Minister for Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs, Edwin Poots, who is my party colleague.

The agrifood sector is vital to the economy of Northern Ireland, and of my constituency in particular, whether we are talking about milk, beef, sheep, lamb, poultry or arable crops. Sustainability, to which the Minister referred, is critical to enable the agricultural sector to maintain its high food standards, and to gain through its partnership with the manufacturing companies.

[Neil Parish]

I am sure that my hon. Friend agrees that family farms are a structure that is to be found across the whole United Kingdom, but nowhere more than in Northern Ireland. This Bill and the future of agriculture are critical to Northern Ireland.

[Jim Shannon]

I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention. I agree wholeheartedly, and will go into that shortly.

I want to talk about the farmers who do well, the companies that work through them, and the partnerships that are established. Lakeland Dairies, which employs some 260 people, produces milk and powder and exports them across the world. There is also Rich Sauces, Willowbrook Foods and Mash Direct. Those are just four of the companies in Northern Ireland that work in partnership with farmers. Farmers with direct payments enable those companies to produce good products, which they sell across the world.

Farmers in my constituency and in Mid Down are ranked second for milk production across the whole of Northern Ireland. I declare an interest, Madam Deputy Speaker: I am not only a member of the Ulster Farmers Union, but a farmer, so I understand the importance to my neighbours of milk and the whole sector. I received correspondence from the Ulster Farmers Union, the sister organisation of the National Farmers Union. I welcomed the announcement from Her Majesty’s Treasury on farm funding for 2020, as it delivers on the commitment made by the Conservative party, and by the Minister. It is essential that Northern Ireland’s share of UK farm funding is maintained. It is my understanding that Her Majesty’s Treasury has confirmed to the Department of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs in the Northern Ireland Assembly that the money will be rolled over from 2019 to 2020.

We hope that DAERA will be able to pay 100% of payments by mid-October. Has the Minister had an opportunity to discuss the nitty-gritty directly with the new Minister in Northern Ireland, and is there an understanding of how we will achieve the things that we wish to?

Getting a new Northern Ireland agriculture policy up and running by 2021 will be very ambitious, but I hope that the Government are up to the challenge. Last week, the Ulster Farmers Union’s beef and lamb policy committee met to discuss the priorities for the new Northern Ireland Agriculture Minister. The UFU’s hill farming policy committee will meet this week to look at its key priorities. I tell the Minister that because it is important that we work together, and that what is happening in Northern Ireland is mirrored by what is happening here.

--- Later in debate ---

[Luke Pollard]

I thank the Minister for repeating what he said in Committee of the whole House. There is cross-party support for the Bill but, as my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Daniel Zeichner) said, that does not mean that there are not some issues worth highlighting. As I said on Second Reading, I declare an interest in that I am a proud brother of a sheep farmer in Cornwall who farms rare breed sheep and is married to a beef farmer; in fact, they are both based just up the road from the Minister’s constituency.

We will not be opposing the Bill, but I need to add the climate crisis to the context that the Minister set out, because listening to the remarks of Government Members there seems to be a slight disconnect between what is in this Bill and the forthcoming Agriculture Bill, and what is in the notes that they are being given to read out. It is really important that we get this right. The Government are proposing moving from a system of supporting farmers via the land they own to a system of supporting farmers based on environmental land management and other environmental public goods. This will be a good scheme if delivered correctly. It is not a subsidy for productivity or food production. After listening to some of the speeches on Second Reading and today, I am concerned that not all Government Members have quite understood this, so I encourage colleagues to consult the recently re-elected Chair of the Select Committee on Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, to whom I pass on my congratulations; it is always good to see Members from Devon in places of authority.

It is important that we get this right because if we are fighting on the wrong pitch, we cannot do a decent job of scrutinising the biggest fundamental changes to our agricultural system since the Labour Government’s introduction of the Agriculture Act of 1947. That is why we need to make sure that this is done properly.

The Minister could address elements raised by his hon. Friends and, indeed, by my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge, about the future of the Rural Payments Agency. The hon. Member for North Dorset (Simon Hoare) raised some valid concerns about the culture of the RPA. I commend the work of the officials there who have been working under immense pressure not only because of the potential changes how the CAP has worked but because their budget has gone down from £237.6 million when the Conservatives came to power in 2010 to just £95 million in 2017-18. If we are to change our agricultural system, the culture of the organisations that work in agriculture will also need to change, and that will need to be properly scrutinised and given time to bed in. It would be worth the Minister reconsidering our amendments that would have given Ministers slightly more leeway to look at that.

This Bill needs to be seen in concert with the Agriculture Bill. I appreciate that the Minister said that time is of the essence, and indeed it is, but time has not been of the essence over the past 14 months as Ministers sat on the Agriculture Bill, the Fisheries Bill and the Environment Bill. They have been taking it very easy, with a laid-back and pedestrian attitude. It is therefore somewhat cheeky but appropriate for the Minister to say in this context that parliamentary scrutiny cannot be delivered now because we have taken so long to get to this point. That excuse needs a bit more work, because we need to guarantee that Henry VIII powers are not being used disproportionately. I fear that in this setting they should have been used in a slightly different manner. We do need to get this right.

There are also elements of how we can support rare breeds, and other items that were discussed on Second Reading but were not mentioned in Committee and are still issues of concern for our rural communities—not only for hill farming, which I mentioned before, but for crofters, as raised by colleagues in the Scottish National party. We need to make sure that those specific types of farming are supported in any extension or new form of agricultural support. The Minister has a timeline whereby he wishes to reform agricultural support in the next few years or so, but by loading all the changes towards the end of that process, and not the start, we are giving our farmers notice that there will be considerable changes but not enough time to get it right.

The hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Tim Farron) spoke about the importance of the ELM schemes and getting those right. This is a technical detail that I am not sure that everyone has been following. If we are to get this right, it is really important that the ELM schemes are properly scrutinised and given time so that we can not only see what the consequences are but improve them before there is a large-scale roll-out. The farming sector is willing to work with Ministers on this to get it right. We know that the “public money for public goods” approach is a philosophy that is supported by many in the farming communities, but we cannot have a new philosophy, a new approach and a new funding system implemented too fast without the proper time to bed it in and improve it to make sure that it all works. The Minister is speeding through this Bill when we could have the option of looking at whether the system needs to be extended for a further year in due course.

[Jim Shannon]

On the point about the importance of this transfer, does the hon. Gentleman feel that it is very important in terms our sheep markets, as the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Tim Farron) said? The hon. Member for Carmarthen East and Dinefwr (Jonathan Edwards) referred to the 95% of lamb produce that goes out of Wales. In Northern Ireland the figure is 97%. With the changes coming in, it is very important that we hold on to the markets where we can sell that stuff in the meantime.

[Luke Pollard]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that comment. This goes to the heart of some of the debates that might transition into our discussions on the Agriculture Bill.

I want us to have a farming system that reflects the climate crisis, taking due cognisance of food miles and the carbon intensity of importing food from one side of the planet to another when our home-grown local produce is of exceptional quality and something that we can be very proud of. Speaking as a west country MP—indeed, the Minister is another—I think we need to recognise that the south-west creates some of the most fantastic foodstuffs in the country. Representatives from right around the country have their own produce that they can be very proud of. British produce is something that we should be very proud of. I encourage all Members to support buying goods with the red tractor logo to make sure that we take steps to encourage consumer behaviour in buying local.

That is really important, because in any future trade arrangements discussed in other legislative vehicles, we need to ensure that our UK farmers are not undercut. It is important that we set out what that means, because chlorinated chicken and hormone-treated beef are of concern to many people. This does not mean that UK farmers will be treating their chickens with chlorine or using antibiotics on an industrial scale as US agriculture does; it means that we will be allowing access to our market for food produced in that way. It is not the chlorine or the antibiotics that are the main concern—it is the fact that they are used in the first place because the animal welfare standards for those animals are so low. We will need to rehearse and repeat this argument as we get closer to Second Reading of the Agriculture Bill.

It is also important to set out that we need a fairer form of farm support that makes sure that our farmers get their payments on time. Improvements have been made but there is still more progress to be made. We need to support our farmers in decarbonising agriculture, partly by allowing our natural habitats to thrive. We must ensure that farm run-off does not pollute our watercourses, as we heard earlier. We must create a system where we are moving effectively and efficiently towards public money for public goods, not a form of farm subsidy.

This Bill completes a technical amendment that the Minister could, should and probably would have made a year ago, if he had been allowed to by the Whips. I am glad it has been done now. However, as we lead up to the Agriculture Bill, we must make sure that we have a system of farm support, and a debate, that is worthy of the importance of the high-quality, nutritious, locally produced, decarbonising food production that all our farmers and, indeed, our voters want to see.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jim Shannon]

It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Tim Farron), who speaks passionately for his constituents. He talked about the importance of farming to his constituency and the high-quality products that his farmers produce. My farmers in Strangford produce equally high-quality food that goes all over the world. One example is a milk product that goes to Lakeland Dairies and then travels as far as China. The former International Trade Secretary helped to secure a contract with the Chinese authorities worth £250 million over five years for that product. That high-quality produce made in my constituency is so important.

[Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)]

Does my hon. Friend accept that, while it is important that any payment system to farmers be directed towards protecting the rural environment, it is equally important that there should be no disincentive to produce high-quality food?

--- Later in debate ---

[Jim Shannon]

I thank my right hon. Friend for his intervention and agree wholeheartedly with him.

Direct payments have made some really important environmental projects happen across Northern Ireland—projects that probably would never have seen the light of day and that tie into the Government’s policies on the environment and climate change. As I said to the hon. Member for Ceredigion (Ben Lake) earlier, it is not possible to stop those environmental schemes, especially where tree-planting is involved, because it is important that a number of organisations continue that work over time. The National Trust has made a commitment to plant trees in 500 of the properties for which it has responsibility. The Ulster Farmers Union and the National Farmers Union are encouraging their members to do likewise. It is vital to ensure that those schemes continue. We cannot remove a tree-planting scheme and turn the land back to agricultural land; it is not possible.

[Ben Lake]

The hon. Gentleman makes a good point. Surely this underlines the importance of ensuring that we get things right now, because as he just outlined, it is not easy to make up for any mistakes that are made.

[Jim Shannon]

Absolutely. The Government and the Minister have ensured today that the regional Administrations in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland are part of this project together. It is my hope that, under this Bill as it is coming forward, direct payments can continue. I would like them to continue long beyond that, but this process moves us towards where we need to be.

There is a very important point for Northern Ireland. The Chair of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee, the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Neil Parish), referred to this earlier, and I want to conclude with this comment. In Northern Ireland, we have a history and a tradition of small farms. My farm —the farm we have in our family—is only 62 acres. Farms are getting bigger now because they have to do so to move forward, but I think it is really important that this direct payment scheme enables small farms to be viable and makes them sustainable for the years to come. Many, myself included, probably across all of Northern Ireland, were reared on a farm of 60 or 70 acres, with their children going to school, and their whole life was sustained on that. It is really important for the future that Northern Ireland and those small farms can be sustained, be viable and have a future. We wish to have that future within the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. We do not want to be any different; we want to be treated the same in Greyabbey, where I live, as in Gloucester or anywhere else.

Industrial and Commercial Waste Incineration

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Tuesday 28th January 2020 Westminster Hall

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I congratulate the hon. Member for Cardiff South and Penarth (Stephen Doughty) on introducing this debate. This is the second debate in Westminster Hall that we have both participated in today, the first one being at 9.30 this morning.

This issue hit the headlines in Northern Ireland when the Northern Ireland Assembly collapsed and a decision was taken by the permanent secretary to allow an incinerator to go ahead, after a Planning Appeals Commission decision deemed the application acceptable. At that time, Mrs Justice Keegan ruled that that a senior civil servant did not have legal power to give the green light to the major waste disposal facility at Hightown Quarry in Mallusk, following the collapse of devolution, leaving the application waiting for the new Minister. Many of the questions about that have been raised by the hon. Gentleman.

We have to find a method of waste disposal. We create the waste and we have to get rid of it—that is a fact of life. How do we do that? We encourage councils to recycle using the carrot and stick approach: if they recycle, that is great and they may win an award, but if they do not, there will be financial penalties. I understand and agree with encouragement. My council has been proactive and has met every target it has set; every new target it has set, it has met that, too. We all know how it goes: glass in one bin, plastics and paper in the other one, and green waste. This issue is above and beyond that.

It is not clear how we deal with the issue of burning waste, but Government must lead the way. Controls must be in place to address the issue of landfill and the lack of space, but also to ensure that any incineration that takes place is done in the right way and is as environmentally friendly as possible.

Figures were published in the weekend press about air quality in the United Kingdom. The number of deaths has risen. The proportion of deaths in Northern Ireland due to air quality is higher than the UK average. We have a serious problem in Northern Ireland, as we do in the rest of the United Kingdom. I agree with my colleague the Minister for the Department of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs, Edwin Poots, about waste incineration in Northern Ireland. He said that he did not believe that burning waste was necessarily damaging to the environment, but that incineration

“requires an awful lot of waste and there are better ways of dealing”

with it. For him, the issue was clear. He highlighted the fact that European countries with some of the highest green credentials use incineration. I agree that it is uncertain whether Northern Ireland needs an incinerator of this scale—that is probably the case in many parts of the United Kingdom, as hon. Members have mentioned.

We put so much pressure on our local councils, yet this debate and the ongoing issues at home show that there must be clearer guidance from the Minister. We look to her for a positive response. I hope that direction and guidance comes from this debate.

Direct Payments to Farmers (Legislative Continuity) Bill

Jim Shannon Excerpts

2nd reading & 2nd reading: House of Commons
Tuesday 21st January 2020 Commons Chamber

[Tim Farron (Westmorland and Lonsdale) (LD)]

It is a privilege to follow the hon. Member for Eddisbury (Edward Timpson). I recall the Crewe and Nantwich by-election in 2008—the weather was quite nice, and I congratulate him on his first victory. I spent some time in Eddisbury in, I think, ’99 for the by-election, when Stephen O’Brien, his predecessor but one, was first elected, so I know where it is—there is a good chippy in Winsford, if I remember correctly. I genuinely mean it when I say that the hon. Gentleman was an excellent children’s Minister. This will massively hamper any rise he may subsequently make, but if the Prime Minister should be thinking of a reshuffle, he could look no further than him. I also thank him for paying tribute to his excellent and very principled predecessor, Antoinette Sandbach, my former hon. Friend.

Let me make a little confession. Some years ago, before Brexit was even a thing—back in the day when the Prime Minister thought it was madness to even countenance leaving the European Union—I said that I could see one advantage in the United Kingdom departing the EU: I could see how we could spend the common agricultural policy money better than it is often spent through the current system. That does not mean that I predicted that a future Government would spend it better, but I could see how they could—that is an important caveat.

The Bill is necessary and provides a modicum of certainty for farmers as we leave the European Union in just a few days’ time. It permits a small island of temporary predictability in a sea of uncertainty. It kicks the can a few yards down the lane, but it will do nothing to disguise the chasm that is opening up for farmers as we leave the EU. The Government believe that they have a mandate to “get Brexit done”, but nowhere is the nonsense behind that statement laid bare more than in the case of our farming industry.

I will tell the House what Brexit has done: according to the Secretary of State last week at the Oxford farming conference, it has done for the basic payments scheme—which constitutes 85% of the income of the average livestock farmer—starting in less than 12 months. It has done for free access for British farmers to their most important export market—90% of Cumbria’s farm exports are to the European single market. If the Chancellor of the Exchequer is to be believed, it has also done for our alignment with the single market and will therefore usher in a new era of red tape, costs on farm businesses and non-tariff barriers to trade.

The idea that a 12-month stay of execution for farmers equates to certainty is, frankly, laughable. Even if the Government were to make a commitment for the whole Parliament, anyone who thinks that even five years constitutes the long term in farming cannot be taken seriously.

The Government’s stated position—reiterated again at the Oxford farming conference—is that the BPS will be phased out over a seven-year period from next January. I am privileged to chair the all-party group on hill farming and I was very pleased to hear the shadow Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport (Luke Pollard), refer to the importance of hill farming to our country as a whole. In our view, it is a dangerous thing to start phasing out the basic payment when we have yet to clarify what will replace it: the ELMS—the environmental land management scheme—which will be available for some farmers in 2024, we are told, but not all farmers until 2028.

With all due respect, farmers lack confidence in Governments of all colours and their ability to deliver an as yet undefined new payment on time because they have consistently failed to deliver existing payments over the last two decades. Being told for certain that you will lose 85% of your income while being offered the dubious possibility that you might have something else in future is unlikely to get Britain’s farmers dancing in the street.

The Bill is a necessary one-year fulfilment of the obligations of the withdrawal agreement. It is not a real commitment to farmers. Even if the Government were to bodge together extensions of one year at a time for the inevitable slippage on the roll-out of ELMS, what does that do for the ability of farmers to plan for the medium term, let alone the long term?

Why does this matter? It matters because over the transition period of seven years, the Government’s plan will reduce Britain’s capacity to feed itself in the future. We think far too little about food security. Some 50% of the food that we consume is imported. Twenty years ago, the figure was more like 35%. It is an extremely worrying trend. If the ability of farmers in the UK to make a living and compete is further undermined, this situation will only get worse. That will be bad for the environment, for British farmers and for the security of our country, as we cut ourselves off from our most important trading partner.

We need to think of the bigger picture and the long-term impact. You can tick the boxes with legislation such as this and “get Brexit done”, but that is a slogan with a heavy price tag—a price tag that in the case of our farmers could be fatal. The production of food must be considered a public good, but it is certain that the loss of BPS with an as yet undefined replacement will see people leave the industry. Some will flee before it gets too bad, others will be forced out when they cannot make ends meet. To put it bluntly, if we are to deliver public goods through farming, we need to make sure there are some farmers left to deliver those public goods by 2028. Without those farmers, who will deliver biodiversity programmes? Who will deliver natural flood management schemes? Who will deliver growth and maintain the woodlands and peatland necessary to absorb CO₂? In Cumbria, including the lakes and the Yorkshire dales, who will maintain our footpaths and our rare historic breeds? Who will beautifully keep and present the landscapes that inspired Wordsworth and inspire 16 million people to visit us every single year?

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

This morning, the National Trust held an event downstairs. It was keen to show what it was doing on the environment. It has plans across its 500 properties to plant more trees and thereby be the lungs of the United Kingdom. There are many groups and landowners doing lots of things to help to tackle climate change.

[Tim Farron]

The hon. Gentleman makes an important point. Farmers are at the forefront of tackling climate change—they see the climate changing before their eyes, they are the eyewitnesses to our changing planet and the damage being done. In the uplands, in Cumbria and elsewhere, it is they who have the ability to help to protect the towns and villages from flooding by planting more trees, managing the land and more generally ensuring the carbon sink that will help to protect our planet. Without them, who will maintain the backdrop to the tourism economy in Cumbria, which is worth £3 billion a year and employs 60,000 people? Indeed, 80% of the working-age population of the Lake district currently earn their living there.

How can farmers be expected to invest in the long term if they can only look ahead one year at a time? Like most farmers, I accept that in the long term BPS needs to be replaced by public payment for public goods— no argument there—but “public good” needs to be defined widely enough for farmers to make a living, especially farmers in the uplands of Cumbria. I am not saying, therefore, that we should scrap ELMS and keep BPS forever, but I am saying that the Government should not delude themselves into thinking they can make radical change as seamlessly as they appear to think.

The Bill is necessary and we will support it—not just not oppose it—but it does not answer the need to pave the way for a new system. The Government cannot be permitted to do the bare minimum to fulfil the obligations of the withdrawal agreement, with no thought to the impact in real terms. The Government must protect British farming and therefore the environment—and therefore food security, rare breeds, heritage, landscape, our tourism economy—so will the Government now commit to transition arrangements that allow farmers to survive that transition? In short, I say to the Government: do not remove a penny of BPS from anyone until ELMS is available for everyone.

[Scott Mann (North Cornwall) (Con)]

I welcome the new shadow Secretary of State to his place. It is nice to have a fellow west country MP there and I look forward to working with him on the Agriculture Bill and the fisheries Bill and, importantly, on putting provisions on angling into the latter.

I am pleased to have been called to speak on Second Reading of this very necessary Bill. The Government’s manifesto commitment to invest £3 billion in our farmers and farming communities over the lifetime of this Parliament is to be welcomed. Continuity is so important to our farmers now, with all the uncertainty in the marketplace, and the Government have proved again that they are committed to our farmers and our farming communities. We are moving from a rather ridiculous system where people are paid for land rather than public goods. Farmers in the UK receive £3.5 billion annually in farming support under the common agricultural policy. More than 80% of the support is paid directly to farmers, based broadly on land and land management. A lot of that is taken up by hedge funds and other financial organisations, which receive an annualised income. We have to move away from that system to something that supports our farmers and farming industry.

The previous CAP had nothing in place for soil erosion. We lose 2 billion tonnes of top soil into our rivers every year. We need a replacement to ensure that that does not happen. There is very little in there about habitats, save for the rather dysfunctional element of pillar 2 of the CAP funding; very little about production, other than silly things about people having to grow three crops; and nothing about catchment farming. I hope we are moving away from a system where our farmers have to map their land. I have dealt with countless constituents who have brought cases to me where their topographical land management has been done from an aerial viewpoint and where the numbers the RPA says they have they do not actually have. Moreover, many of my moorland farmers have been waiting three years for payments under pillar 2—the higher stewardship element. That is unacceptable. We need to move away from the historic system to a better system.

What do we want from a new agricultural scheme? I am no expert, but I tend to listen to people who are. I have regular meetings with farmers in my constituency of North Cornwall. They are the custodians of the countryside and understand what they want from a future agricultural system.

[Jim Shannon]

The National Farmers Union has a clear idea of what it wants from the changes, and its sister organisation back home, the Ulster Farmers Union, of which I am a member, has the same ideas on going forward. The hon. Gentleman has mentioned the importance of touching base with our farmers and whose who own the land. How important is it that the Government listen to the NFU and the UFU?