Deposit Return Scheme

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Thursday 26th May 2022 Commons Chamber

[Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)]

Thank you very much indeed, Mr Deputy Speaker. What a pleasure it is to see you in the Chair. I should also like to thank Mr Speaker for granting me permission for this debate, and to welcome the Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St Edmunds (Jo Churchill), to her place on the Front Bench.

The issue before us today is Her Majesty’s Government’s proposed deposit return scheme for drinks containers, whereby consumers will pay a small levy upon purchasing a drink, which is then refunded once the container is returned to a collection point. Specifically, I wish to raise my serious concern that glass bottles are to be excluded from the scheme. The omission of glass represents a real and serious threat to the effectiveness with which a deposit return scheme in England and Northern Ireland can realistically be delivered. Quite simply, its exclusion would be a catastrophe for our natural spaces as we all look to stem the tide of drink container pollution. It also represents the direct betrayal of a promise made by the Conservative party to voters at the last general election, when we said in the manifesto that we would introduce a deposit return scheme for both plastic and glass drinks containers. I wish to use this debate today to urge Her Majesty’s Government to rectify this as a matter of urgency and to immediately revisit the scheme’s design so as to include drinks containers made from glass.

In 2019, the Conservative party laid out its ambitions for the future of our country in its election-winning manifesto, which attracted 60% support in the Kettering constituency. Central to our aspirations was positioning Britain as a world leader in rising to the environmental challenges that are facing our planet today. One of the challenges identified was how we manage and process waste, and in particular, combating the growing problem of discarded waste, of which drinks containers are a large part. In that manifesto, the Conservative party outlined plans for a world-class deposit return scheme for drinks containers in a bid to minimise their impact on the environment. The manifesto said:

“We will crack down on the waste and carelessness that destroys our natural environment and kills marine life. We will introduce a deposit return scheme to incentivise people to recycle plastic and glass.”

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Mr Hollobone]

I would be honoured and delighted.

[Jim Shannon]

I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on bringing forward this debate. In my council area of Ards and North Down, the council has a strategy and a plan of action for recycling. It includes many kinds of recycling and it tries not to leave anyone out of any part of it. The hon. Gentleman is saying that glass needs to be part of that programme, and that that needs to be a commitment. In my council area, each household has a glass return system and a plastic basin to put the glass into. They can also go to recycling centres, which are probably no further than three miles from any person. Those are examples of what we are doing in Northern Ireland, where there is a clear commitment, a strategy and a plan through the council, and across the Northern Ireland Assembly as well. Would he like to see more of those kinds of strategies?

[Mr Hollobone]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his helpful and interesting intervention, and I commend his local council for its recycling efforts. There are similar schemes across the four nations, but as I will come on to later in my remarks, the problem with leaving glass out of the deposit return scheme is that it will be a missed opportunity to increase overall glass recycling rates to the best international standards. At the moment, my understanding is that the Government’s proposal for the deposit return scheme in England and Northern Ireland will be different from the deposit return schemes in Scotland and Wales, which will include glass. One of the difficulties is that there will be different deposit return schemes in different parts of the United Kingdom.

[Jim Shannon]

Again, to illustrate the point and support what the hon. Gentleman is saying, the recycling schemes in our council area have, in a way, reached their peak. That is a problem. I think he is referring to something that I would fully support—I know the Minister will give her comments on the matter later—which is some way of raising awareness of the fact that there would be a reimbursement advantage for people who are prepared to recycle their glass. In anticipation of what the Minister will say, I will take a copy of the Hansard report of this debate and make sure that I show it to the relevant Minister at the Northern Ireland Assembly so that they can do the very same.

[Mr Hollobone]

As usual across so many issues, the hon. Gentleman and I are on the same page. My contention is that the United Kingdom will not be able to achieve the best international glass recycling levels unless glass is included in the deposit return scheme.

As Conservatives, we made a vow to voters to introduce a scheme that serves the public and Britain’s precious natural habitats. However, Her Majesty’s Government have so far committed to introducing, by 2024, a deposit return scheme across England and Northern Ireland inclusive of only plastic bottles and aluminium cans. Glass is a glaring omission.

A huge 86% of respondents to the Government’s first consultation on the deposit return scheme said they want glass to be included but, despite this overwhelming majority support from technical experts, charities, scientists and the great British public, calls for glass to be included have been ignored.

The scheme’s current design falls well short of what was promised and will see it fail to achieve what is required. A deposit return scheme that excludes glass runs the risk of being a global embarrassment for a country that seeks to position itself as leading from the front on environmental issues. In its current form, the scheme’s design will fail to crack down on glass waste and will miss a wonderful opportunity to protect our natural environments from glass pollution.

The case has been made that including glass is problematic. However, this case has been made by glass industry lobbyists who have a vested interest in ensuring glass containers are not included in such a scheme. One such argument is that glass, once collected, can be hazardous and dangerous for those charged with sorting it for recycling when it becomes broken. This works both ways, as it can also be argued that glass poses a greater risk to the public and pet owners when it breaks down in nature rather than in the controlled environment of recycling plants.

The lack of a deposit return scheme for glass containers poses a very real risk that such containers will continue to end up on our pavements and in our parks and outdoor spaces, where they will be a health and safety risk to UK residents. This public safety danger is unmatched by other containers. In that regard, the scheme’s current proposal fails to protect both the environment and the British public.

Additionally, glass industry lobbyists have suggested that the inclusion of glass will drive consumers towards purchasing highly polluting plastic bottles. However, with the public already widely aware of the prevalence and environmental impact of plastic pollution, I contend that these claims are speculative at best. If we are to tackle the waste crisis, we must trust consumers to do the right thing, but it is vital that we arm them with the tools to do so.

British Glass responded to the Government’s consultation, which closed on 4 June 2021, citing various concerns that have little foundation, one of which is that the inclusion of glass would have a detrimental impact on closed-loop glass recycling, despite the industry’s present inability to increase glass recycling rates. Indeed, British Glass explained in its response how the industry is committed to a 90% collected for recycling rate, and to an 80% remelt target by 2030 that would see 80% of all glass recycled back into new bottles and jars, but the stark reality is that this goal will almost certainly never be realised.

By global standards, the UK lags well behind its international counterparts in the collection and recycling of glass bottles, sitting behind countries such as Ireland, France, Spain, Italy, Belgium and Bulgaria. In 2020, the UK’s glass collection rate for recycling stood at just 76%, well below Italy, which boasts a recycling rate for glass bottles of 87%. Meanwhile, across the UK, it is estimated that 5 billion glass bottles are used each year. Under current recycling rates, this means some 1.2 billion glass bottles each and every year are destined to litter our environment or to languish in landfill.

Current systems to raise our collection and recycling rates are lacking. Much of the glass collected across the UK is not suitable for closed-loop recycling, where discarded bottles are turned back into new ones. That is due to the current collection process, which often sees the mixing of different colours and crushing during transportation. However, a well-thought-out, properly prepared deposit return scheme can address these issues with separated collection methods, which will make closed-loop recycling far more viable. That should be considered as a point of urgency, as it is estimated that a well-designed scheme for the UK could improve recycling rates for bottles and cans to more than 90%. At the same time as the Government are also presently consulting on the consistency of kerbside collections in England, with the laudable aim of reducing confusion, through their DRS plans they are paving the way for potentially four different deposit systems to be in place in the UK. Potential confusion among consumers caused by the current design is likely to undermine the effectiveness of England and Northern Ireland’s scheme. Both Scotland and Wales are set to see glass included in their schemes, but a lack of consistency across the UK as a whole, where consumers cross borders routinely, could see us fail to raise glass recycling rates to the levels they need to be, because consumers will not know when and where glass containers can be disposed of. The DRS for drinks containers should be designed with a view to avoiding this confusion and instead empowering the public to do the right thing.

British consumers are overwhelmingly in favour of a scheme that includes all beverage materials and are opposed to the exclusion of glass bottles. A Populus poll commissioned in 2020 by environmental organisation Nature 2030 found some 84% of Britons want all beverage containers to be included in the Government’s proposed scheme. That polling was welcomed by campaigners and academics, who outlined how a comprehensive deposit return scheme will give us the best chance to combat litter. What is vital, and something the Government must not ignore, is that the UK is not walking into unproven territory as it looks to deliver its own scheme; a host of countries have already implemented successful and highly efficient deposit return schemes inclusive of all materials. Those have been proven to dramatically increase collection and recycling rates, and can be used as a powerful template for Britain to follow in implementing its own scheme. Crucially, due to their success, those other international schemes prove that the issues raised by the glass industry lobbyists here are unfounded. Indeed, all-inclusive schemes are common across the world. From more than 40 such schemes globally, only three do not include glass bottles and they exclude glass because they already have in place a returnable system specifically for glass bottles, something that the UK currently lacks. Australia implements a deposit return scheme that also covers beverage cartons, while Canada’s scheme includes cartons, bags in boxes, and plastic pouches. Finland and Denmark, which are considered to implement world-class return schemes, enjoy incredibly high return rates of 94% and 92% respectively. These successes are widely regarded as being due to their systems being inclusive of all materials, with the simplicity of the system being crucial to achieving the public support needed for these schemes to be a success.

In my view, it makes little sense to deviate from such successful schemes, and even less sense when Scotland and Wales are looking to mirror the international successes. For example, Scotland is set to introduce a scheme that includes glass bottles by August 2023, while Wales is set to introduce a scheme that includes glass by 2024. It is vital to ensure interoperability among the schemes and to help consumers to adopt consistent and responsible behaviour across the four nations of the UK. Not only is the Government’s derisory decision to omit glass seeing us fail to be a world leader on the waste crisis on a global scale, but we are falling well behind Scotland and Wales.

In an open letter, some 25 experts in the field recently urged the Government to introduce a deposit return scheme for drinks containers that mirrors Denmark’s system. Cross-party politicians, non-governmental organisations and academics are calling for the Government’s scheme to include all materials, including glass, plastic and aluminium. Denmark has a track record of fine-tuning its own scheme to be as effective as possible. It is a ready-made road map that the UK could follow and would help us to avoid the potential pitfalls that we may encounter along the way if we follow our own bespoke path.

I also wish to raise the issue of VAT. The Government currently plan to apply VAT to deposit return scheme deposits on top of the VAT already charged on the drink. The current expectation is that, if there were a 20p charge, it will be gross of VAT—that is, 17p plus 3p—which means that, if the customer does not return the drinks container that they buy, the producer will receive only 17p back instead of the full 20p. The Government will take the remaining 3p in VAT. If we factor in the estimated 28 billion containers on the UK market, that could mean as much as £185 million lost from the scheme through unredeemed deposits—assuming an 80% return rate—in the first year alone. That would create a situation in which the Government in effect end up profiting from the failure of their own deposit return scheme. What is more, adding VAT to the deposit fee effectively imposes a stealth tax on drinks producers, backing the industry into a corner and creating the real scenario of price rises for the products in question.

If the Government are serious about introducing a scheme, they need to avoid the noise from glass-industry lobbyists and deliver a scheme that works for the environment. Pandering to industry calls makes little sense in the face of overwhelming public support for glass to be included. Furthermore, there is a health and safety risk. Glass is a high-carbon, highly polluting material that presents a real hazard to the public once it is discarded in public places. We should look to create a scheme that drives up the collection and processing of such material, rather than one that makes closed-loop glass recycling more unattainable.

In conclusion, the omission of glass from the Government’s deposit return scheme represents a real and serious threat to the effectiveness with which a deposit return scheme in England and Northern Ireland can realistically be delivered. Quite simply, its exclusion would be a potential catastrophe for our natural spaces as we all look to stem the tide of drink-container pollution. It also represents a direct betrayal of a promise made by the Conservative party to voters at the most recent general election, when we said in our manifesto that we would introduce a deposit return scheme for both plastic and glass drink containers. I urge Her Majesty’s Government to rectify the situation as a matter of urgency and immediately revisit the design of their scheme so as to include drinks containers made from glass.

Agriculture Sector: Recruitment Support

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Wednesday 25th May 2022 Westminster Hall

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I am always happy to support the hon. Member for North East Fife (Wendy Chamberlain) in the debates she brings forward. Obviously, when I saw the subject of this debate, I wished to participate. It will be no secret that I declare an interest as a member of the Ulster Farmers’ Union. Back home, we own land; we are farmers.

The Minister will know that I am especially pleased to see her in her place, because I know that she is someone who sets out to give us answers. I am very pleased with that. I also look forward to the contributions of the two Front-Bench spokespeople, the hon. Members for Edinburgh North and Leith (Deidre Brock) and for Cambridge (Daniel Zeichner).

I want to make three points. My first point is about a scheme that is already in place. Secondly, I will refer to the contributions from the Department of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs back home in Northern Ireland and the young farmers’ clubs. Thirdly, I will refer to the visa scheme, which the hon. Member for North East Fife referred to in some detail. As the Member of Parliament for Strangford, I represent a very urban but also very rural constituency, so I am greatly exercised by this issue. I am particularly pleased to speak in this debate and congratulate the hon. Lady on bringing it forward.

Last week, I learned of a scheme—it was one I had not been aware of—because of an event held in this House. I was particularly encouraged to attend, especially when I found out exactly who was there. It was the 10-year celebration of the McDonald’s progressive young farmers programme. I know that the hon. Member for North East Fife was there. From the moment I walked into the Churchill Room, I was beset by Northern Ireland accents. It is such a pleasure to come here and hear my accent bouncing back from other people in some numbers—it is quite unusual in Westminster.

Of the four young people speaking, two were from Northern Ireland. One was young Carys Martin from Greyabbey in my constituency. When she told me who she was, I knew at once—as you do, Mr Twigg—that I knew her mother and father, as well as her grandfather, Billy Martin, who used to be the president of the Ulster Farmers’ Union in Northern Ireland. It is a family that is steeped in agriculture production. There were three other young farmers—one was from the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Upper Bann (Carla Lockhart). It is great to see our prominent agrifood work being recognised by McDonald’s. It is a great scheme.

Over the past 10 years, the programme has given progressive young farmers the opportunity to kick-start their careers in the food and farming industry by spending a year with McDonald’s, tracing every step of the supply chain. Throughout the programme, they receive mentorship from a host farmer, as well as some of the UK’s leading food supply companies, and gain in-depth experience in key agricultural sectors. This is a smashing scheme, one that does just what the title of the debate says: recruitment support for the agriculture industry.

The young people on the placement develop the broad range of knowledge needed to succeed in today’s world of food and farming. McDonald’s success in the United Kingdom and Ireland is underpinned by British agriculture. I am always very proud to say the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland—I have said it so many times. It is not meant to be offensive to anyone; it is how I feel. I feel the strength of the Union.

McDonald’s said:

“We are committed to sourcing quality ingredients and spend approximately £1 billion each year on our British supply chain.”—

that is significant, and tells us how important the scheme is. They continued:

“As part of that, we work with over 23,000 farmers across the country to source our products. All our beef is 100% British and Irish and we source all our pork from British, RSPCA Assured farms.”

What a wonderful programme this private enterprise has taken on and committed to over the last 10 years. How great to see Northern Ireland playing such a prominent role. The question we must ask is: are we supporting our young farmers and agri-workers in the same way. I believe we are, through the schools and colleges.

I move on to my second point, about the young farmers’ clubs of Ulster and those across this whole great United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. I used to be a member of the Ulster young farmers’ club when I was a wee boy in Ballywalter, which was not yesterday. It was a social occasion, but the activities it involved encouraged recruitment support for the agriculture sector, the very title of the debate—good things happen. We have Greenmount college as well.

I know that Minister Edwin Poots of the Department of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs meets the Minister regularly—they both tell me the same—which shows a strong governmental and ministerial partnership and input, which is beneficial for everyone, which is really good. I am greatly encouraged by what happens.

I move to my third point, about an issue that the hon. Member for North East Fife referred to. I voted leave in the referendum. By the way, it was a vote for the whole of the UK to leave, and not this—with respect—piecemeal deal that has so adversely affected people throughout the country, particularly in Northern Ireland. We are looking forward to addressing that issue with the support of the Prime Minister and others.

When I voted leave, it was with the understanding that farm workers would continue to have easy access to and fishermen would have easier access to our visa programme. The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, the hon. Member for Torbay (Kevin Foster), has been incredibly helpful in his support for the fishing organisations. The Minister here today works with them regularly—in the corridors of Westminster last week, she told me she had occasion to meet the representatives of the two fish producers organisations, Harry Wick and Alan McCulla. I know she looks forward to that and that they do as well. It is always about how we can help, which is why the Minister is appreciated so much by the fishing organisations.

Some of the agrifood producers, such as Willowbrook Foods in my constituency, have highlighted the fact that things are still complex. I know it is not the Minister’s responsibility, but we need to smooth those issues so that we can offer greater support to ensure that no harvest is left in the field and that producers have the support they need. Willowbrook Foods was very keen, along with Mash Direct—two of the major producers in my constituency—to offer help to the Afghan refugees. They were the first people to contact me. The war started on the Saturday and on the Sunday, they were on the phone to say, “Jim, if any of those refugees need placements or jobs, we are here.” I am always greatly encouraged by those who take their hands out of their pockets, get them dirty and do the work. Those people—those two companies—are examples of just that.

I will finish by saying that we must offer greater support to ensure that no harvest is left in the field, and that producers have the support they need. McDonald’s has sown into their programme; are we sowing to meet our needs? If not then, to the best of our ability, can we do better? I genuinely look forward to the Minister’s response. I have in Strangford a constituency that I believe is second to none—no offence to any other Member of Parliament, by the way. I see people who want to help, and I think that is what the Minster is looking for.

Food Price Inflation

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Thursday 19th May 2022 Commons Chamber

[George Eustice]

Our domestic production of food is crucial to our national resilience and plays an important role in our overall food security, as do open markets around the world. We will be setting out a food strategy in June that will deal with many of these issues and will set out our ambition to expand agricultural output.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I thank the Secretary of State very much for his answers to the questions—he is obviously over his subject matter. In my constituency, milk went up by 25p in one week and since March of last year the price has risen by more than 25%. That is only one of the cupboard staples, and an essential element for future health. What steps can the Secretary of State take with regional counterparts to bring down prices and ensure that the farmer is supported and helped? Will he bring to the ears and attention of the Chancellor the need to halt the plastic packaging tax, which has increased production prices for dairymen across all the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland?

[George Eustice]

There have been so many questions for the Chancellor that I am sure by now he has tuned in and is listening to proceedings. In answer to the initial part of the hon. Gentleman’s question, the Government are removing the tariff that was introduced on United States feed maize so that we can reduce some of the input costs, particularly for the pig and poultry sector. That will also benefit dairy farmers.

Oral Answers to Questions

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Thursday 28th April 2022 Commons Chamber

[Jo Churchill]

I am working with my hon. Friend the Member for Taunton Deane (Rebecca Pow) on this, because the challenge in sewers is acute with the build-up of wet wipes. As I say, we have recently conducted a consultation. That consultation has now finished. We are now reviewing the results, and we will be bringing forward more information shortly.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I thank the Minister for her response, and in that theme of positive strategy going forward, what discussions has she had with the Department of Health and Social Care about the packaging of medical supplies being more readily recyclable? The pandemic has clearly illustrated and highlighted the reliance on single-use plastic, and we must do everything we can to reduce that.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

T5. Farmers across the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland are very innovative and want to diversify. Can I ask the Minister a straightforward question? What is being done to encourage farmers to do just that to help the economy?

[Jo Churchill]

Up to 2028-29, we will be investing £270 million across a programme of innovation to boost research and development, and innovation. I spoke to Northern Irish farmers only this week. They are with us in driving that forward.

--- Later in debate ---

[Andrew Selous]

My hon. Friend has done the House a great service in putting the matter on the record, because I do not think that it was widely known that in the areas that Russia had previously occupied in Ukraine, freedom of religion had been restricted in such a serious way. I am sure that she agrees with the Archbishop of York, who wrote in The Yorkshire Post on Good Friday that we

“must all rise up to make sure Putin does not win”,

so that what she is talking about does not continue.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

Has discussion been raised with the global bishops to ascertain how the thriving Anglican Church in Africa can further be instrumental in promoting the treasured freedom of religious belief?

[Andrew Selous]

The hon. Gentleman is quite right to raise the issue. Unfortunately, there are serious abuses of freedom of religion and belief across large parts of Africa. The subject will be a major issue for discussion at the Lambeth conference, and we are working with the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office to make improvements in the area.

Food Security

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Thursday 31st March 2022 Westminster Hall

[Deidre Brock (Edinburgh North and Leith) (SNP)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered food security.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hollobone. I thank the Backbench Business Committee for recognising the importance of food security and allowing this debate. A debate on food security was needed before the crisis in Ukraine, and it is even more urgent now. Before I turn to issues of food security in the UK, I want to address the situation in Ukraine, which remains absolutely critical.

Our immediate focus must be on doing everything possible to support the people of Ukraine and address their humanitarian needs. Russia’s brutal war is now into its second month. The United Nations World Food Programme estimates that at least 30% of the Ukrainian population is in dire need of lifesaving food assistance, and early data indicates that 90% of the people remaining in the country could face extreme poverty, should the war deepen even further.

Of course, the humanitarian emergency does not end in Ukraine. We urgently need to get to grips with the real threat of a global food shortage. Russia and Ukraine are ranked among the top three global exporters of wheat, maize, rapeseed, sunflower seeds, sunflower oil and fertiliser. There were already food shortages in parts of north and east Africa, which sourced almost of all of its imported wheat from those two countries.

Ukraine is also the single biggest supplier of food to the World Food Programme, which might be forced to cut distribution in places such as Yemen, Chad and Niger, while taking on the feeding of millions of hungry people in and around Ukraine. According to WFP officials, all of that points to 2022 being a year of catastrophic hunger. Without urgent funding, the programme’s director predicts a hell on earth in some of the most impoverished regions in the world, potentially resulting in famine and destabilisation in parts of Africa and the middle east, as well as mass migration.

The scale of the crisis cannot be understated, so I am eager to hear any indications at all from the Minister of how the UK Government are preparing for such a global security emergency.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

There is another thing that exacerbates the issue. If the Ukrainians are to put the harvest in, they have 10 days from now to do it. That focuses attention on where the problems are.

[Deidre Brock]

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. That point very much sharpens our minds.

An immediate reversal of the cut to foreign aid might be an obvious first step to help with all of this, but we need to go even further if we are to prevent the hell on earth that the UN has warned of. At the same time we need to examine how best we safeguard domestic food security by supporting our farmers, producers and consumers while continuing to uphold our commitments to sustainable, nature-friendly food production. Even before the war in Ukraine and the sanctions on Russia, our farmers faced a tidal wave of costs for fertiliser, fuel, energy, seed and feed.

The price of fuel, which continues to play a critical role in UK food production and infrastructure, has risen even further as a result of the war, and farmers who were already warning of increasing fertiliser costs have seen the Russian invasion send prices rocketing even further. Yes, we need to reduce our reliance on artificial fertilisers, pesticides and fuel in food production and agriculture, and tackle the many challenges that, as Nature Friendly Farming reminds us, are the result of

“a global food system that is already in crisis”,

but the transition to sustainable, holistic food systems will not happen overnight.

Ministers recently suggested that there is enough manure and slurry to compensate for the fertiliser price increases, but that suggests a lack of understanding of what is actually happening on the ground. Are the Government considering securing the supply of fertiliser for UK farmers, at least in the short term, by subsidising costs and protecting the ability to produce the 40% of fertiliser produced domestically? I am interested in the Minister’s answer to that.

On top of that, as the National Farmers Union of Scotland and others have highlighted, grain price increases will impact on both the costs of livestock production and shop prices for consumers. The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs recently acknowledged that the price of wheat, which the pig and poultry sectors rely on heavily for feed, had already doubled since Russia’s invasion.

Meanwhile, with Ukrainian workers making up around 60% of seasonal agricultural staff, the war is compounding the existing labour crisis in the industry. The Scottish National party has asked repeatedly for immigration to be devolved to Scotland—so far to no avail—but at the very least we want to see immigration policy greatly overhauled, so that we can set up the humane and practical approach that, among other benefits, would see us attract the seasonal and permanent staff that our industries require. Agriculture was already suffering from post-Brexit shortages of such workers, as well as haulage drivers and processing staff. That was the message that the Scottish Affairs Committee heard loud and clear on our recent visit to horticulturists and soft fruit providers in Perthshire and near Dundee.

This all points to the great likelihood of reduced yields, with a knock-on impact on supply. I am already hearing of Angus farmers deciding not to plant wheat this year because the costs do not make it viable any more, and of others forced to reduce their livestock numbers. If that is repeated across the country, there will be far-reaching implications not just for farmers, but for food processors and manufacturers, and ultimately for prices in supermarkets.

Of course, millions of households across the UK were already struggling with soaring food bills long before the crisis in Ukraine. A 2018 report by the UN’s Food and Agriculture Organisation revealed that 2.2 million people in the UK were severely food-insecure—the highest reported rate in Europe—and the situation has worsened since the pandemic. The Food Foundation reports that the percentage of food-insecure households increased from around 7.5% pre covid to almost 11% by January 2022, affecting nearly 6 million adults and 2.5 million children. That is a national scandal and is set to intensify, with the Office for Budget Responsibility forecasting the biggest annual fall in living standards since records began in 1956. The Food and Drink Federation reminds us that February 2022 saw the highest rate of food inflation in a decade, with folk on the lowest incomes, who spend more of their household budget on food and fuel, hit the hardest, as seems to happen so often. Worryingly, the forecasts do not yet account for the possible effects of the conflict in Ukraine on food or other commodity prices. The FDF estimates that cost rises could take seven to 12 months to feed into consumer prices.

These cold, hard statistics reflect a bleak reality in which more and more households are indeed being forced to choose between eating and heating. Unbelievably in 2020s Britain, we are hearing of food bank users declining potatoes and root vegetables because they cannot afford to boil them, so it was disappointing that the Chancellor’s spring statement made what I have to describe as very little effort to grapple with food insecurity and poverty. The increase in cash in the household support fund is of course welcome, but I am afraid that it is nowhere near adequate. The Trussell Trust, the UK’s largest network of food banks, has warned that the failure to bring benefits in line with inflation will drive more people to emergency food parcels. The Chancellor protests that he cannot do everything to help the UK’s poorest households, but uprating benefits is one thing that he could do right now as a lifeline for some of our most vulnerable constituents, and I beg him to do something about it immediately.

Unfortunately, I have to say that the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions did not seem to recognise the link between the benefit system and food security. At a Work and Pensions Committee hearing last month, my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow South West (Chris Stephens) cited a 2018 study showing that the poorest tenth of English households would have to spend 74% of their disposable income if they followed the Government’s guidelines for a healthy diet, compared with just 6% for the wealthiest decile. The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions repeatedly opted not to respond to the points raised by my hon. Friend, deferring to the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs on these issues.

I was therefore very pleased that the media reported last night that the Minister responding to us today would be chairing a crisis meeting this morning to discuss food prices and related issues. The Minister looks puzzled, but it was in The Guardian last night—I am sure she will be able to address that when she responds. We look forward to hearing more about that, and we certainly look forward to hearing about the outcomes and the actions that the Government will take to address the shocking reality of food poverty and inequality. Those in DEFRA really must work more closely on this issue with their counterparts in the Department for Work and Pensions. According to the Trussell Trust, 47% of people using food banks are indebted to DWP, and yet it has taken until this year to add questions related to food aid to the DWP’s family resources survey. That is a pretty sorry oversight. The response to the pandemic has shown that holistic, cross-departmental action can be mobilised when the moment calls. Given the scale of this crisis and the confluence of threats, we must see a similar approach taken to food security both domestically and internationally.

The Scottish Government issued a position statement on a human rights approach to tackling food insecurity in February 2021. In October, they began a consultation on a national plan to end the need for food banks; they have introduced the Good Food Nation (Scotland) Bill, which lays the foundation for Scotland to become a good food nation. I look forward to hearing from the Minister that there are similar levels of commitment to similar actions from the UK Government. I also look forward to hearing when their overdue response to the national food strategy can be expected. A Scottish food security and supply taskforce has been set up jointly; it will meet frequently over the coming weeks to identify and respond to disruption to food security and supply resulting from the war in Ukraine. I am interested to hear from the Minister whether an equivalent is being set up by the UK Government.

We really do need to prioritise self-sufficiency once again and support our farmers to sustainably maintain production levels. NFU Scotland and many others have also warned about the domestic impact of what many see as a laissez-faire approach to post-Brexit trade deals and importing cheap foods with lower environmental and animal welfare standards. We should be building resilience in domestic food production, not threatening it.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

First of all, I thank the hon. Member for Edinburgh North and Leith (Deidre Brock) for setting the scene so very well. I do not agree with all her comments in relation to Brexit, of course; she knows that. However, I understand the importance of this debate. When she said to me, “Jim, can you come down to the debate?”, I said, “Yes, I definitely will, because I want to make a contribution”. That is because my constituency of Strangford is a food producer that produces way above what we use, which I will refer to later.

I am aware that we are perceived as a nation that has plenty of food; unlike some countries, where there is not enough food to go round, we have an ample supply. The UN has a goal of zero hunger by 2030 and produced a report to that effect. The UN has said:

“The latest edition of that report, which was published mid-2021, estimated that between 720 and 811 million people went hungry in 2020. High costs and low affordability also mean billions cannot eat healthily or nutritiously. Considering the middle of the projected range (768 million), 118 million more people were facing hunger in 2020 than in 2019”.

Those are the figures when it comes to food security, because I believe that our obligation is not just to ourselves and people back home—we have that obligation because we are constituency MPs—but to the rest of the world as well; we have a duty in that respect, too.

Other speakers have already touched on Ukraine; we know what the issues are very clearly. I understand that we want the war in Ukraine to finish as soon as possible, because that will mean getting some sort of normality back—not just in Ukraine, which is important, but to return to the food security we had before.

In Northern Ireland, we export 80% of our products across the UK and the world. I am thinking of Lakeland Dairies—the Minister might know many of these companies by name—which exports many products all over the world, and of Willowbrook Foods and Mash Direct. Those three companies alone, including those who work in them, probably create somewhere between 2,500 and 3,000 jobs in my constituency.

I am aware of the global problem, but I am also aware of the problem in this country and in my constituency. I will give a couple of examples, if I can, to reflect where we are back home as well. One teacher spoke to me recently about getting the threshold of benefits lowered this year, because she was concerned about her pupils. She said that she could see that pupils from working families were under pressure. How could she see that? During covid, she sat alongside her children as they ate their lunch together—that is what they are doing, as they are not yet back in the assembly hall—and she noticed a pattern among a few children, in terms of the amount and quality of their lunch in tandem with the time that wages are paid. She said to me:

“Jim, I believe that some of my children are hungry during school and it breaks my heart.”

That teacher has since taken to bringing in a bowl of fruit for the children. They are allowed to pick a piece to snack on at lunchtime, if they want. The school cannot fund that, but she does it because she is burdened and that is commendable—commendable, but also lamentable. The hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport (Luke Pollard) referred to that, and others will.

No child in Strangford or anywhere across the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland should be hungry, and a proportion of the population are now not entitled to benefits. Some are parents who have to tighten their belt when it comes to the groceries. My mother had four children, including me. She said that there were not enough potatoes in Comber to fill us. In Comber, they plant a lot of potatoes and they sell over Northern Ireland, the Republic of Ireland and the UK. I do not now show the excess of eating too many potatoes, but in my younger days perhaps I did—I used to be 17 stone, and am now a very trim 13 stone. I have got it down and will keep it that way, if I can.

This morning on the TV, people were talking about the prices in chip shops; this is an example. I am sure everyone saw it, but if they did not, try to watch it tonight if possible. Fish and chip shops are under incredible pressure. For every £100 they spent last year, they now spend £150 this year. That is a 50% increase, and some chip shops will not be here—that is the fact of it.

I understand that growing children are voracious, but when we realise that it is cheaper to buy four packets of crisps than a bunch of bananas, we understand why children are nutritionally challenged and some have challenging weights. This would not be a debate if I did not mention the Northern Ireland protocol, but I do so because we have special challenges because of it.

Some companies do not want the hassle of the documentation resulting from the protocol, but those that bother charge more per item—not per shipment—to cover it. That has led to less variety and less ability to shop for value. People take what is on offer and scrape the pennies together to cover it, so £1 items are now £1.29—we do not have to be mathematicians to work it out, but that is a 29% increase. Children pay the price of the Northern Ireland protocol with the sacrifice of high-quality, affordable and nutritious food and its availability.

I always ask the Minister, and I ask again: have discussions with Cabinet colleagues to address the issue. In Cabinet Office questions today, a colleague asked the question, and the Minister responded, but whatever the response we want, I believe in seeing the finished article, rather than the words.

Last year, the Trussell Trust provided some 79,000 parcels in total to children and adults in Northern Ireland. In all, 2.5 million food parcels were given out across the UK. I will finish with this comment: yes, we might be able to get access to food security as a nation, but families simply cannot do it all. The hungry child at lunch making do with half a sandwich and a yoghurt, while watching other children tuck into full meals, is a reality in my constituency and others. That needs to change radically. We have the capacity to do that, and we must have the will to do it as well.

Minister, I look to you—I always do, because you are a lady and a Minister who understands the issues—to work with colleagues to do the right thing and to make lives better.

Badger Culling

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Monday 21st March 2022 Westminster Hall

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I thank the hon. Member for Don Valley (Nick Fletcher) for introducing this e-petition debate. I want to adopt a similar attitude to that of the hon. Member for West Dorset (Chris Loder), as I have the same point of view.

I declare an interest, as the owner of a farm—not worked by us but by our neighbours—of beef and dairy cattle. As a representative of a rural constituency with a large number of farms, I am very well acquainted with this topic through my farm, my neighbours’ farms and farms all around the Ards peninsula. We have the second largest milk production in Northern Ireland—second only to East Antrim. Across the Ards peninsula, mid-Down and my constituency, we have a large number of farmers who depend on having a bovine TB-free herd to be able to progress their business. That is why I adopt the same attitude as the hon. Member for West Dorset. I respect and understand the reasons for the petition, but it would be remiss of me not to put on the record that I support the control of badgers.

I represent a constituency where the control of badgers is very important for the farming sector—it is crucial. My farmers tell me regularly that they have had tests done. Hopefully, in most cases, the reactor test is not inconclusive, and they do another test and get the free rein that they hoped they would have. On occasions, however, it has not worked that way. Therefore, it is very important that the dairy and beef sectors are protected. Given that 276 cows are slaughtered every week in Northern Ireland after reacting to a bTB test, this is a matter of great interest. I know it is not the Minister’s responsibility—this is a devolved matter for the Department of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs—but we in Northern Ireland would like DEFRA to work in tandem and partnership with DAERA back home.

Although it is true that farmers receive a financial payment for the market value of their reactor cattle, there is no compensation paid for the loss of any production. We should not think that the financial end of things compensates totally for what is lost, because it does not. Some farmers who come to me to regularly have some of the most incredible pedigree herds in Northern Ireland, so if they lose stock, they do not just lose that animal; they lose production and the pedigree of that animal, perhaps for a generation. I also have many farmers who take their cattle across to the mainland to sell—I know that the Northern Ireland protocol has made that a wee bit more difficult but, by and large, farmers have been able to manage the system over the last period of time—so I am conscious that bovine TB strikes fear into them.

Many hon. Members represent constituencies with farmers, and farmers love their animals with a passion and want them to do well. Ultimately, their cattle will either produce milk or end up in the food chain in one way or another, but my point is that farmers look to protect their animals, and they need to protect them from bovine TB.

Lakeland Dairies in my constituency is probably one of the largest producers of milk powder, which it exports all over the world. In my constituency, and across the neighbouring constituencies of Lagan Valley, South Down and North Down, we need to have a good product that is safe, so that we can export it. Some 80% of our agrifood products are exported across the world. My farmers are heavily involved in dairy and beef cattle and want to protect their herds from bovine TB, and it is important that we do everything we can. Although I respect the petition and understand the reasons behind it, I respectfully say that we also need to have control. It is a bit like how we control the foxes so that they do not kill all the birds. We also control magpies, greyback crows and so on. We do those things to keep the balance in the countryside and, hopefully, to help our stock to progress and do well.

Much of Northern Ireland has been running a vaccination and selective elimination programme. The disappointing 2021 data saw an increase in the number of bovine tuberculosis reactors removed from farms in Northern Ireland. In total, 14,355 reactors were compulsorily slaughtered because of a reaction to a test. We should be under no illusion how much of an impact that can have on our farmers and the job they do.

Our agrifood exports from Northern Ireland are so important. We export 80% of what we produce—we cannot use it all in Northern Ireland—so it is important to have a top-class, bovine TB-free herd. Worryingly, however, the figures have increased by 11% since 2021, and almost 9% of herds in Northern Ireland had the disease by the close of 2021.

As I said earlier, I declare an interest as a member of the Ulster Farmers Union, and I want to quote it:

“The movement trends of these figures continue to demonstrate that despite the current programme to control/eradicate bTB that the current measures are at best treading water or dare we say”—

this is the UIster Farmers Union talking, not Jim Shannon—“sinking slowly.” It continues:

“For the first time in generations, there has been a story of hope given to our members over the last number of months.”

It is always good to recognise something to hold on to—some hope—and to see farmers, and the Ulster Farmers Union, which represents them, encouraged. The Ulster Farmers Union goes on:

“The revised bTB strategy brought about the suggestion of change of approach. This detailed document, although containing some points which are not acceptable to our members, showed intent to tackle the burden of bTB on our farms. Meaningful wildlife intervention has been proposed as a precursor to entering a vaccination phase in later years, within the preferred method.

UFU’s goal is ultimately to deliver to farmers a healthy cattle population alongside a healthy wildlife population.”

There is a balance to be struck, and the farmers are committed to that as well.

The Ulster Farmers Union continues:

“Having witnessed the success of wildlife intervention in England firsthand, UFU continue to support this proposal”,

and it urges our DAERA Minister back home, Edwin Poots, who is the equivalent of the Minister here today,

“to deliver an announcement on the intended way forward with the upmost urgency.

For generations, our members have presented their animals for testing within the required timescales to comply with regulations. Reactors have been and continue to be taken from farms in all corners of NI. Despite this, distress and heartache still continue to burden farming families because of bTB. The time for change is now.”

I reflect that opinion of my farmers back home and across the whole of Northern Ireland. The Minister always responds—I mean this honestly—to an issue. It is my hope that we in Northern Ireland can work alongside her here at Westminster, because, when it comes to addressing this issue, I believe that it is something that we can do together better.

I am very pleased to represent my farmers and my neighbours—farmers across the Ards peninsula, Ards, mid-Down, Strangford and indeed the whole of Northern Ireland. Although I will never advocate cruel and barbaric mechanisms for TB control, I do advocate very strongly that the farming industry must have a part in finding the solution to the problem, and any discussion on this topic must take in the needs of those who provide our food in an environmentally sustainable and cruelty-free method.

We have an issue with TB; that cannot be denied. It can be detrimental to our farming sector, and that, too, cannot be denied. Although badgers are important and must be handled compassionately—I think that is the thrust of what we are all saying today—so, too, must the cattle, and we must get this right. One of the major agrifood sectors in Northern Ireland must be able to continue to deliver jobs and an economic boost for Northern Ireland. As I said, 80% of our produce is sent overseas. That indicates the importance of this petition. It also indicates the importance of our farmers and our farming sector being protected. For me, that is the most important thing.

--- Later in debate ---

[Daniel Zeichner]

I hear the hon. Gentleman’s point. However, he will know, full well, that others will disagree that that is what is actually going on. The worry expressed by the petitioners today, and by many others, is that this looks like a massive cull of an iconic species in our country.

[Jim Shannon]

Does the hon. Gentleman recognise the economic boost that comes off the back of cattle no longer being lost? Protections should be taken to ensure that they are not lost. I know the hon. Gentleman has a love of and interest in farming, but there really must be a methodology to protect the cattle, the industry, the sector, and the jobs. Sometimes, that has to mean the culling of badgers.

[Daniel Zeichner]

I will come to the hon. Gentleman’s points, because I think that the crux of the question is, “Does the culling of badgers achieve the desired result?” That is one of the points at issue. I find it slightly surprising that there are no tests once badgers have been culled, so we do not really know the ratio of infected to healthy badgers being killed. Perhaps the Minister could explain why those are not done.

Staggeringly—to many of us—the current system is set up so that, in some instances, badgers that have been vaccinated will then go on to be culled. A couple of years ago, I visited the Derbyshire Wildlife Trust and its volunteers to see just how badger vaccination works, and to meet a badger. I am grateful to Debbie Bailey and her colleagues for letting me join them—I must say, very early in the morning—to see how it is done. It is painstaking work, carried out by volunteers, and with financial support from the Government. However, as I say, incredibly, those very same badgers, vaccinated at taxpayer expense, are then sometimes shot as part of the cull. Can the Minister explain how that makes sense?

I warned earlier that the statistics can be read in many different ways, but I would also point out that, during the past decade, the number of cattle slaughtered due to TB has remained fairly consistent, at between 26,000 and 33,000 per year. In 2021, the number of cattle slaughtered decreased by only 1% on the previous 12 months to 27,581, with more cattle slaughtered in 2021 than in 2013, the year that the culls started. Herd incidence was at 8.8% in 2021—down only 0.6% on the previous year—and has also remained fairly static throughout the cull, at between 11% and 8.6%.

As I have been at pains to point out, different people will read those figures in different ways. The hon. Member for North Herefordshire will perhaps see them as a great success, while others will look at them and say that there are many other variables, and that there has not been sufficient progress to justify a Government policy costing millions of pounds and resulting in the deaths of close to 150,000 members of a protected species.

I would appreciate it if the Minister explained what she takes from those figures and whether she considers the cull to be a success so far. To mix my metaphors, I would say that the Government have placed too many of their eggs in one basket—each year, ramping up the killing, licensing more and more cull areas, but to insufficient avail. The science around this has long been contested. I think we have heard accounts of that. It has been looked at on a number of occasions.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jo Churchill]

That is the date that I have been directed to. As my hon. Friend knows full well, as do I as somebody who worked in the Department of Health and Social Care during the pandemic, these things have a habit of not always coming through. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Scarborough and Whitby said, something might be deemed unpalatable or it may not have the degree of sensitivity we need, but it is right that we try to ensure that the vaccine for both cattle and badgers is where we are getting to, so we can drive down and deliver on what the Godfray review said—that we should replace culling with vaccinations and disease surveillance.

We are developing several schemes and initiatives to make it simpler for those who are suitably trained to start vaccinating badgers. There is no single measure that will eradicate bovine TB in England by 2038. That is why we have to continue to have a wide range of interventions. We need to strengthen cattle testing and movement controls, which the hon. Member for Cambridge mentioned. We have to improve biosecurity on the farm and when trading, and we need to develop that cattle vaccine, in addition to building our support of badger vaccine. Cattle controls and measures continue to be the foundation stones on which our TB eradication strategy is based.

[Jim Shannon]

I thank the Minister for her positive response and for clearly charting a way forward, which hopefully will address the issue. Has the Minister had the opportunity to speak to the devolved Administrations, in particular Edwin Poots, on this subject matter?

[Jo Churchill]

I was, in fact, due to go tomorrow, but I am now unable to. I dare say those conversations will happen in short order. I know that my Northern Ireland equivalent is looking at this issue at the moment, and it is hoped that we can learn from one another. We can certainly get those conversations where we can all be enabled to make the right decisions as swiftly as possible.

The hon. Member for Weaver Vale pointed out that culling causes badgers to move, and perturbation, as my hon. Friend the Member for North Herefordshire said. Taking that into account is important. That is why we need a gradual, monitored, evidence-based approach, so we do not risk perturbation and the disease getting a hold. We need the areas that can cull to do so while we build the vaccination capability and a vaccinated population.

The strategy is rooted in routine and targeted testing of herds, movement restrictions on infected herds, rapid detection and removal of cattle testing positive. My hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset (Chris Loder) said that it is particularly stressful when a calf is involved. We do have an isolation policy so that a positive cow is pulled out in order that the calf can be born.

Measures such as the statutory testing of cattle, movement between farms and surveillance at the slaughterhouse also apply. Over the last 12 months, we have compulsorily slaughtered more than 27,000 individual head of cattle in England to control the disease. Many of us represent rural constituencies, and we have heard today from virtually every Member about the misery that both sides of this bring to people. The cost to Government of dealing with the disease is about £100 million a year; it is a huge burden for the taxpayer.

One of our top priorities, as I have said, is to develop the vaccine for cattle so that it does not interfere with the TB testing regime. We hope to get that introduced within the next five years. It is expected to be a game changer in providing a strong additional tool to help to eradicate the disease. It is important that we look at the trials that are ongoing at the moment and we get the evidence base. There is not a single answer to the scourge of bovine TB, but by deploying a whole range of policy interventions, we can turn the tide on this insidious disease and, we hope, achieve the long-term objective, which I think everybody shares, of ensuring that we make England officially TB free by 2038—sooner if we can make it, but definitely not much later.

Animal Welfare (Sentience) Bill [Lords]

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Report stage
Monday 14th March 2022 Commons Chamber

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

I will speak in favour of new clause 5, which would ensure an annual report including,

“the number of sentient animals killed or injured”,

as a result of pollution, a description of water companies’ actions to protect animals and an assessment of the impact of Government policy on those two things. I will also speak briefly in favour of new clause 6, which we do not intend to push to a vote, which would establish an annual report into the ways the Government have taken into account animal sentience when establishing new trade deals.

Turning to new clause 5, Cumbria contains two national parks, the Yorkshire Dales and the Lake District, the latter being a world heritage site. The richness of our biodiversity throughout Cumbria is of great importance, not least in our rivers and lakes, whose ecology is of global significance as home to countless species. Yet Government policy threatens that diversity and damages animal welfare. In 2020, across the United Kingdom, water companies were permitted to dump raw sewage into our waterways on 400,000 occasions for a total of 3.l million hours, at enormous cost to the lives of aquatic and semi-aquatic sentient animals. At the River Lune near Sedbergh, we saw the longest discharge in the country lasting for 8,490 hours. At Derwentwater, a discharge of 8,275 hours took place. Is it any wonder that only 14 % of Britain’s rivers are classed as being in a “good” state?

The Government’s Environment Act 2021 acknowledges the problem and sets an ambition to reduce the pollution in our rivers caused by the dumping of raw sewage. Of course, as we all know, the Government had to be dragged kicking and screaming by Opposition Members, their own Back Benchers and members of another place to even do that.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

Is the hon. Member aware that today’s papers have indicated that while some of the beaches in the UK have the blue flag designation that shows that the water should, in theory, be acceptable, that designation is sometimes not acceptable either?

[Tim Farron]

Yes. Often rivers can meet an acceptable standard but in reality not be healthy places, particularly as regards biodiversity and wildlife. The hon. Gentleman makes an extremely good point and makes the case as to why the increased scrutiny that the new clause would bring about is that much more important.

The ambition of the Environment Act, which was given Royal Assent last year, is open-ended. There are no meaningful targets or timescales to prevent water companies from dumping raw sewage into our rivers, harming fish and other animals. In 2020, water companies made £2.2 billion in profits. At the same time, as I said, they were dumping sewage in our waterways on 400,000 separate occasions. What kind of accountability is that? What kind of justice is that? What kind of impact is that having on our wildlife? The new clause would expose that.

Between 2018 and 2021, there were only 11 prosecutions of water companies for dumping sewage in our lakes and rivers. United Utilities, which serves Cumbria and the rest of the north-west, was responsible for seven out of the 10 longest sewage leaks in 2020, but, outrageously, was not fined even once. Despite the damage done to the ecology and animal life in rivers such as the Leven, Crake, Brathay, Kent, Lune, Sprint, Mint and Gowan, discharges are permitted either because Government will not stop them or because hardly any of the offenders are ever meaningfully prosecuted. The meres, tarns, waters and lakes of our lake district are all fed by rivers into which raw sewage can be legally dumped. I am particularly concerned about the ecology of Windermere and the failure to take sufficient action to protect the animal and plant life that is so dependent on England’s largest and most popular lake. The new clause would hold Government and water companies to account so that our wildlife and our biodiversity is protected.

New clause 6 addresses the impact of trade deals on the welfare of sentient animals. This country has concluded trade deals with Australia and New Zealand, and any scrutiny of those deals is now effectively meaningless because the Government have already signed them. Yet the impact on sentient animals will be enormous. Free trade is vital to liberty, prosperity and peace, but trade that is not fair is not free at all. These trade deals are not fair on animals and not fair on the British farmers who care for our animals. In Australia, for example, huge-scale ranch farming means the loss of many times more animals than in the UK because of the absence of the close husbandry that we find on British family farms. Some 40% of beef in Australia involves the use of hormones that are not allowed in the United Kingdom. Cattle can be transported in Australia for up to 48 hours in the heat without food or water. These are clearly lower animal welfare standards. By signing these deals without real scrutiny, the Government have endorsed that cruelty and enabled it to prosper at our farmers’ expense. Lower standards are cheaper, so these deals give a competitive advantage to imported animal products that have reached market with poorer animal welfare, thus undermining British farmers who practise higher animal welfare standards. That is why the new clause is important—because it seeks to hold Ministers to account and to limit how much they can get away with sacrificing the welfare of sentient animals at home and abroad in order to achieve a politically useful deal.

Despite this, this Bill has much to commend it. However, the new clauses would allow the Government to look the British people in the eye and say that they were prepared to take on powerful vested interests in order to protect animals and our wider environment. In seeking to press new clause 5 to a vote, I urge Members in all parts of the House not to take the side of the most powerful against those creatures that are the most defenceless.

--- Later in debate ---

In summary, I broadly welcome the Bill. Bringing animal sentience into the centre of UK legislation is to be welcomed. However, I want to see more signs of that being put into practice across Government Departments, so that they work together to promote the health and welfare of the animals in our care, which we fundamentally understand as sentient beings.

[Jim Shannon]

It is a joy to follow the hon. Member for Penrith and The Border (Dr Hudson). He set out comprehensively what he hopes the Bill will achieve. He also outlined some things that need to be done, but on which we are perhaps not there yet. I put that on the record. I am pleased, as I always am, to see the Minister for Farming, Fisheries and Food, the hon. Member for Banbury (Victoria Prentis) in her place. I know that both she and the Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, the hon. Member for Bury St Edmunds (Jo Churchill) will respond to our concerns.

The Minister for Farming, Fisheries and Food has responded to a number of debates I have attended on puppy smuggling, an issue I feel incredibly strongly about. The steps the Government are taking tonight will be very helpful in tackling that issue. The intention is clearly to tighten the requirements of the pet travel scheme to tackle this very cruel trade. The hon. Gentleman and others referred to increasing the age at which a puppy can enter the country, as well as banning the importation of dogs with cropped ears and heavily pregnant dogs. Those measures are vital. However, I am aware that the Dogs Trust is calling on the Government and the Minister to introduce visual checks to ensure that that good work will not be in vain, and to put a stop to puppy smuggling once and for all. I seek reassurance from the Minister that the Bill will achieve that. I hope we can achieve that, but if we cannot, what will be done to ensure that it can be stopped and to ensure that the Bill contains the correct protocol for carrying out the law?

In conversations I have had with the Minister, through debates in Westminster Hall and in this Chamber, one of my concerns has been about working alongside the Republic of Ireland and its legislation. Northern Ireland, of course, has a border with the Republic of Ireland, so it is important to get that right in relation to puppy smuggling. In the past, the Minister has reassured me on that point. Perhaps she could confirm that on the record.

Northern Ireland has led the way on microchipping dogs and cats. Indeed, in Northern Ireland we are doing many things on animal sentience. Dogs are more than a cosmetic piece for show, whenever you go somewhere. Dogs have always been incredibly important to me—all my life, I have always had a dog. I see dogs mostly as hunting dogs. I am very pleased to be a fully involved member of the sporting community, as are many Conservative Members. In particular, I commend the hon. Member for The Cotswolds (Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown) for the hard work he has done with the Minister to deal with some of tonight’s issues. It is good to see that in place.

[Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown]

I am very grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way. I use this intervention to inform the House that my constituent has brought 55 different databases to produce one horse database, with all the biological markings of horses on it. He is working—and I am working with him—with senior civil servants in DEFRA to produce a similar database for dogs and cats. As a further refinement, there are some rogues out there who remove microchips from dogs and put in a substitute microchip. I am working with the police to put the DNA that forces like my own collect into the database so that we can see when microchips have been removed and replaced.

[Jim Shannon]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention, and he is right in what he says. A lot of dogs have been stolen during the covid period and having microchips in place was one method of trying to find out where they had ended up. He has referred to one methodology to make sure we can improve the system, which is what he is committed to. I hope that tonight we can see more of that improvement happening.

This legislation is mostly UK-based and England-based. Like the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Tim Farron), and indeed the Minister, I am keen to see steps in the right direction on water quality. I very much welcome the stance we have taken in this House on fur and foie gras. Like others, I seek the Minister’s assurance that we have a duty to prevent the importation of fur and foie gras. Will she confirm whether that is something that could rightly be achieved in this Bill? If it is not, what forthcoming legislation could address it? I, for one, agree with the comments on this of the hon. Members for Bristol East (Kerry McCarthy) and for Pontypridd (Alex Davies-Jones), among others. I am probably a plain eater, but the general public out there are probably very much opposed to those two things.

The hon. Member for Penrith and The Border referred to the issue of food quality, and it is important to have that in place.

[Carla Lockhart (Upper Bann) (DUP)]

The hon. Member for Penrith and The Border (Dr Hudson) made a powerful point on the standards that we adopt here in the UK. My hon. Friend will know that our Northern Ireland farmers lead the way on animal welfare standards. Does he agree that it is vital that this Government ensure in any future trade deals that our markets are not flooded with cheap, substandard products that do not adhere to the high welfare standards that we have in this country?

[Jim Shannon]

I certainly do, and I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. I know that the Minister agrees with it, and I know that what we have tonight is a commitment to ensure that Northern Ireland can retain its standards, and that the deals with Australia, New Zealand and elsewhere will not have an adverse impact on the great sector we have in Northern Ireland and indeed in the whole UK. For us in Northern Ireland it is so important to have these standards in place, because we export 80% of our product.

I have one more point to make, and I make it as an animal lover. It relates to the protection of our pets and animals, which is a passion of mine. Since I was a wee boy in Ballywalter, which was not yesterday but back in the 1960s, I have always had a dog. After I met my wife, we always seemed to have a cat. My mailbag has been replicated throughout the whole constituency of Strangford, and again I seek some reassurance that we are in the last stages of getting this right. We are making vast steps in the right direction, but there is a balance between animal welfare and our obligations to the farming community. I declare an interest, as a member of the Ulster Farmers Union, which is the sister body of the National Farmers Union here on the mainland. This delicate balance must be kept, even in these last stages of amending and pushing through this legislation. Again, I am pleased to work with and support the Government on what they are bringing forward. Others have also made magnificent contributions to help get the legislation to where we want it to be.

[David Simmonds (Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner) (Con)]

We heard again, in the opening remarks of the hon. Member for Oldham West and Royton (Jim McMahon), that ours is a nation of animal-lovers, and that view has been reflected in contributions from Members on both sides of the House tonight. I have considerable sympathy with the observation made by many—particularly the hon. Member for Pontypridd (Alex Davies-Jones)—that if we are to remain a nation which fulfils that ambition, we must update our legislation from time to time. The UK is a country known throughout the world for what is often a very good process for identifying effective and proportionate regulation. That is reflected in the Bill, which is why I support it so strongly.

My constituency is unashamedly suburban in character. Given that past debates of this kind have been characterised as pitting town against country, it is enormously helpful for me to be here as the representative of a constituency where there are more than 80 farms and where fishing and fishing-associated businesses are very much present, but which also contains a significant number of members of animal welfare and, indeed, animal rights organisations. Throughout the Bill’s progress, I have been struck by the messages that have emerged and have shown how strongly people feel about the need for us to ensure that the update in the Bill is turned into practical reality. We sometimes have lengthy debates in the House and pass laws that appear to be stringent, but then fail to ensure that they are reflected in the experience of the people or, as in this context, the animals that they are designed to protect.

I have a great deal of sympathy with what was said by the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Tim Farron), although like many others I am not sure whether this Bill is the right place for his new clause, because in my constituency the River Colne has been hugely affected by sewage discharges. That has in turn affected fishing lakes and businesses involved in, for instance, water sports. We need to ensure that the measures outlined in the House during the passage of the Environment Act 2021 find their way into rigorous enforcement so that our constituents see cleaner, safer water, both for livestock and for human use, as part of their day-to-day lives.

I am a greater fan of the EU lawmaking process than, perhaps, many other Members. My experience has been mainly on the education side, but I think that ensuring that every stakeholder has the opportunity to contribute so we can ensure that the laws that emerge from their contribution reflect the widest possible range of concerns and are as effective as possible is a very worthwhile process. My right hon. Friend the Member for North Thanet (Sir Roger Gale) expressed concerns in this regard. In the spirit of trying to create legislation that constitutes an effective compromise and will make the difference to animal welfare that we want to see, I wholly endorse amendment 2, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for The Cotswolds (Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown), and I hope that the Government will adopt it enthusiastically tonight.

Both my right hon. Friend the Member for North Thanet and the hon. Member for Bristol East (Kerry McCarthy) spoke of the need to ensure that we make a real difference. Whether we are talking about dogs or horses, animals kept as pets, animals that are part of our food industry, animals in our farms, animals in our rivers or animals that may be bred for sport, we must not just refer sentimentally to the highest possible standards, but ensure that our laws are in step with those in other countries, especially when it comes to trade deals. The food businesses in my constituency need to see high standards in the United Kingdom that reflect the high standards they expect to find in the markets with which we trade, and we need to ensure that those markets can trade freely with us on the basis of a high degree of parity.

Oral Answers to Questions

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Thursday 10th March 2022 Commons Chamber

[Rebecca Pow]

I am tempted to ask whether my hon. Friend joined the swimmers with her bathing costume on. I thank her for her work in campaigning on this matter, which she constantly talks about with me. I am delighted that we recently confirmed funding for East Sussex County Council’s Blue Heart project, which she was very proactive about, to help to reach “excellent” bathing water status. That very much focuses on what to do about the surface water and how to separate it from the sewage. That fits fully with all the work we are doing, as a Government, to make a game-changing difference on improving our water quality.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

In the past, central Government have helped the Northern Ireland Assembly to address some of those issues, through finance but also through physical help. Has consideration been given to undertaking a UK-wide survey of coastal erosion with a view to taking a UK-wide approach and reinforcing coastal roads and homes on those roads that are unable to withstand these storms, which appear to happen more regularly than ever?

[Rebecca Pow]

We take coastal erosion extremely seriously, which is why 17% of our flood protection budget is going to be devoted to coastal areas and coastal erosion. We work very closely in advising and liaising with the devolveds, which we are always happy to do. We are updating our shoreline management plans, which will help inform us, and we are happy to share information with our colleagues in the devolveds.

--- Later in debate ---

[Andrew Selous]

I have seen the report and I share my hon. Friend’s concerns about its findings, which show the political and economic instability and the social intimidation that people are facing. The international ministerial meeting in July will provide an opportunity for that research to be widely shared and for the report’s concerns to be addressed.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

At the summit coming up this year, it will be really important to have individual stories from the countries where persecution is rife, whether that is China, India, Pakistan, Iran or other parts of the world. Will that be part of the conference?

[Andrew Selous]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, who takes a very serious interest in these matters. He is absolutely right. The Archbishop of Canterbury has just been in Pakistan, including Peshawar, where Pastor William Siraj was horrendously murdered on 30 January this year. Those stories must be heard, and he is absolutely right.

Food and Farming: Devon and Cornwall

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Wednesday 23rd February 2022 Westminster Hall

[Sir Geoffrey Cox (Torridge and West Devon) (Con)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered food and farming in Devon and Cornwall.

I am most grateful and delighted to have secured this important debate on food and farming in Devon. It is good to see so many of my colleagues from Devon, and it is very good, if I may say so, to see some honorary Devonians this morning: the hon. Members for Strangford (Jim Shannon) and for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Tim Farron). It is a particular joy to see them so interested in food and farming in Devon. Of course, many of the themes on which we will touch will be of common interest to those whom they represent and so, speaking for myself and, I am sure, all my colleagues, we are delighted to see them.

I should say straightaway that I own farmland in Devon and derive an income from it. Although I do not myself currently farm the land, it is eligible for some of the schemes that I will discuss today and therefore it is possible that I might benefit from them.

A prosperous and flourishing agriculture in the United Kingdom is in the national interest—I do not imagine that that is a controversial statement in this company. It is not a dispensable or superfluous activity. Recent international events have confirmed, in the most dramatic way, that food production, and more specifically food security, is of increasing national importance and should be a vital Government priority. It does not need much imagination or foresight to see that, for some time now, we have been living through a new and unstable phase of international affairs. The effects of pandemics, wars—threatened and actual—and climate change are thrust upon us with every news bulletin. We cannot take for granted an uninterrupted international supply chain and an endless stream of imports.

On Monday this week, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence observed that the impact of a Russian invasion in Ukraine—now already in action—would be to remove access to the breadbasket of the world. It would have the most deleterious impacts upon vulnerable states and nations throughout the world. Similarly, the gradual erosion by climate change of fertile and cultivable areas of the world, increasing regional tensions, confronts us with a growing threat to the interest of this country in ensuring a constant and adequate food supply to its people. Perhaps not for a very long time has it been so critical that our domestic agricultural policies—under our own exclusive control again after 45 years—should be got right. That is no doubt why the Government sensibly included a legal duty on Ministers, in devising the financial support schemes, to have regard to the need to encourage the production of food and to report each five years to Parliament on food security.

However, agriculture in Devon and Cornwall, like farming all over the country, faces a time of great unpredictability and uncertainty. It must adapt to the major implications of the Agriculture Act 2020 and of changes in our trading relationships after our exit from the European Union.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I congratulate the right hon. and learned Gentleman on initiating the debate. It is specifically about food and farming in Devon, but, as he rightly said, when it comes to farming, Northern Ireland is comparable. Does he agree that, while farmers in my constituency and across Northern Ireland have recently had a reported rise in income, their outgoings will far outstrip their income, and that, if any modernisation or diversification is to take place, the Government need to step up and implement funding streams that can be allocated to those who need them most, UK-wide? The right hon. and learned Gentleman and I discussed this before the debate. He and I understand well that our Minister in Northern Ireland has grasped the important issue of farming—I know that the Minister here has done the same—but does he feel that whatever happens in Devon, the same should happen in Strangford?

[Mr Clive Betts (in the Chair)]

I thought the hon. Gentleman wasn’t going to make a speech this morning.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Geoffrey Cox]

The panel of wisdom assembled this morning is extraordinary; it is almost as if my hon. Friends have read the speech that I prepared last night. Of course the issue of labour is critical.

I supported the departure of this country from the European Union. I believed in every fibre of my being that the freedoms it would permit our nation, if seized and enacted, would bring great benefits, not only to the farmers of our country but to our country as a whole. I do not believe the people of this country would fail to understand the need of British farming for skilled labour. I do not think that was the objection of the millions who voted for Brexit. They would understand a policy of flexibility.

There is no need for us to maintain, with adamantine stubbornness, a policy that leads to labour shortages in British farming. So I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Newton Abbot (Anne Marie Morris) completely. Nowhere is this uncertainty felt more keenly than in Devon, where 13% of the economy of the county consists of food production, almost twice the national average. No one seriously argued that an area-based direct payment scheme, such as the one we have, should be retained. Agricultural support should be aimed, as far as possible, at those who look after and promote the wellbeing of the land, or who genuinely make their livelihoods from it.

The aims and intentions of the Agriculture Act 2020 were widely supported, including by me, but those direct payments accounted on average for 55% of the total farm incomes of England. In the south-west, even with the farm payments, the farm business survey found that the average income of a lowland grazing farm in 2019 was just £4,048. Without those payments, there would have been a loss of £10,000, or closer to £14,000 if existing agri-environmental payments are included.

Last year, the Agriculture and Horticulture Development Board found that the levels of the new environmental land management scheme then published would, even at the advanced tier to which many could not aspire, not remotely replace the current payments. Yet, according to the agricultural transition plan, by 2024 the direct payments will have been reduced by half, and by 2027 they are due to end completely.

The Public Accounts Committee has described the Department’s approach as “blind optimism”. I do not know, but I certainly hope that that is not an accurate description, and I look to the Minister to reassure me. So far, however, no impact assessment has been published of the effects of the design of these new schemes on food production and farming in Devon, or elsewhere. Nor have measurable standards yet been published by which the environmental benefits and farming outcomes can be assessed.

The Minister herself, in answer to a question about upland farming in April 2020, nearly two years ago, said that she understood the need for payment rates to be attractive to achieve the level of uptake and the environmental outcomes we need to see. The Government have suggested—I believe is an accepted and understood figure—that only if we achieve participation in the sustainable farming incentive of around 70% of all farmers can the scheme succeed.

I understand that elements of the new scheme are still under development, but I must tell the Minister that neither the current published rates, nor the schemes as so far defined, are attracting much enthusiasm from the farm businesses and farmers I represent. They simply cannot yet see sufficiently how these schemes will be relevant to the economic survival of their farms. That anecdotal evidence is supported by the growing chorus of concern from the industry. The Tenant Farmers Association, farming one third of the land in England, has described the current plans as

“a complex patchwork of small schemes of limited impact with little which seems to stitch them together.”

The Select Committee on Environment, Food and Rural Affairs—it is a pleasure to see its Chairman, my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Neil Parish), here this morning—the National Audit Office and the Public Accounts Committee have all expressed their growing sense of dismay and apprehension. Steadily and relentlessly, the clock is ticking down for Devonshire and Cornish farmers. In the meantime, as the hon. Member for Strangford pointed out, their costs continue to soar.

I understand that in the cockpit of a commercial aircraft coming in to land, sirens and alarms will go off if the plane is approaching the runway either too low or too slow. The sirens are going off now on the Department’s transitional plan. If the market is to play a greater role in farm incomes in the future, it might be less troubling if one could see the necessary vigour and energy invested in creating new markets for British produce around the world—if we could see a bright and bold new vision of a British agricultural export agency with a mission and a passion to convey the magnificent story we have to tell about the quality of British food and to convert it into new opportunities. Perhaps the Minister might say a word about what the Government are doing in this respect.

If Devon and Cornwall’s farmers could sense that the Government were willing to invest in them and back them with the kind of tailor-made and well-designed policies that would lift their collective sales, I have no doubt that they would accept with alacrity the challenge of adaptation, investment and flexibility that these changes will require of them.

[Jim Shannon]

I was watching “Countryfile” on Sunday night, and sugar beet producers in England were mentioned. As we all know, there is an onus on the Minister, but there is also an onus on the companies that buy the product to give farmers the right price for their product. In many cases, the processing company that was mentioned—its name has escaped my mind—has upped its price, but the price has not kept in check with the cost. The right hon. and learned Gentleman is right to press the Minister, but does he agree that we should also press companies to give the producers—the farmers—the right price for their product?

[Sir Geoffrey Cox]

I completely agree that fairness within the supply and the price chain is vital. I think we have lost some momentum that we gathered a few years back with the enactment of various measures that this Government took in trying to create greater awareness of these matters within the industry and the price chain.

The hon. Gentleman has pointed out one further aspect of what I am attempting to convey. What we need is a conviction at the heart of Government of the importance of British farming. I do not doubt that the Minister herself has that conviction. I do not doubt that the Secretary of State, who is a valued colleague of ours in the south-west, has that conviction. I sometimes doubt that, at the centre of the Government’s councils, that conviction is always as persuasive and influential as it should be. I simply say again: at a time when we are confronting another dictator on the borders of Europe, how much more evidence do we need that food security should be a crucial priority at the heart of Government policy making?

If farmers felt that policies were being designed in our post-Brexit world to lift them up and help them make the most of the market, I have no doubt that they would seize those opportunities with alacrity. They were told that regulation would be handled differently and would not, as so often is the case, stifle farmers with bureaucracy and penalisation, but that there would be—I quote from the transition plan—a “new, more effective approach”. Well, someone appears to have forgotten to send the memo to the Environment Agency. Its new guidance on the farming rules for water has caused widespread dismay about the spreading of muck. I understand that dairy farmers are being visited today and told that they must build more storage for their slurry and invest in their farms—investment that they can ill afford at the moment, and even if they can afford it, they are frequently refused planning permission at the instigation of Natural England.

Again and again I hear the same of other agencies like Natural England, whose chief executive I have invited to a summit meeting on Dartmoor later this year to discuss its relationship with working farmers on the moor. We must see this fabled new approach manifested in the everyday experience of farmers. We must take the freedom that our departure from the European Union has conveyed upon us and create the light-touch, unbureaucratic approach for which the farming community is yearning. We must also see the sums promised for investment in on-farm productivity materialise, increase, and be simple to access and draw down.

Perhaps it is too lugubriously pessimistic to remind oneself of the ill-fated Rural Payments Agency and the long history of misery that its performance in administering the area-based payments so often caused those who had to deal with it. Perhaps it is too easy to believe that the administration of these new, as yet undeveloped and unfledged schemes will suffer the same fate in execution as they have appeared to in design. There are more hopeful omens: all is not doom and gloom, as I know the Minister will tell us. The countryside stewardship applications have been simplified, the rates have been increased and—lo and behold—there has been a 30% increase in the uptake of that scheme. Nobody rejoices in that fact more than I, but as the Minister will accept, it is not by itself enough. I hope she will give us this morning greater grounds for hope than, I am afraid, my more pessimistic observation produces at the moment.

This is not just a question of the observable facts. Sometimes one must rely on one’s intuition, and the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs so often seems to wear an air of defeatism and lack the foresight, conviction and urgency that the situation demands. If they do not feel they are getting a fair audience at the heart of the councils of government, I understand that. That is why each one of us sitting here this morning can play our part in lending strength to my hon. Friend the Minister’s elbow and that of her boss, the Secretary of State. We stand here at their side, urging them on, willing to play any part—willing to march, to organise and to express solidarity with the team that we send into battle to fight the British farming corner in the Cabinet and the Government. In that fight she can count on my loyal, steadfast support.

I cannot, I am afraid, touch much more on optimistic and encouraging notes, because I must now turn to the topic of pigs. The Minister knows that pig farmers have suffered acutely from the effects of the pandemic. I have had correspondence with the Secretary of State on this pressing issue. The measures taken by the Government have been welcome, but inadequate to prevent a silent catastrophe on pig farms in Devon. Barely a quarter of the 800 visas for butchers have been taken up. The situation on the farms is just as desperate as when I first corresponded with the Minister last year—indeed, more so. One such local farmer has written to me just this week to say that even after culling hundreds of animals,

“we have 2,700 fattening pigs here whereas we would previously only have had 600 weaners and 650 newborn piglets. We have had to make significant investment”—

they have spent over £100,00—

“into adapting buildings to house all these much larger pigs, as well as buying two new bulk bins to store the extra food and also having to install extra feeding equipment. Meanwhile the cost of animal feed has continued to rocket. The financial burden is immense. The stress of this situation is terrible.”

Thus writes a farming family from Langtree, in Torridge in Devon.

Just yesterday the Irish Government followed other Governments, including Northern Ireland and Scotland, by announcing a hardship fund to allow flat-rate payments to farmers who send more than 200 pigs to slaughter each year. The week before last, there was a crisis meeting with the Minister. I would be glad to hear the progress that the Minister is making in this emergency—and it is an emergency.

There is a silent catastrophe going on in pig farms not only in Devon and Cornwall but throughout our country. The issue requires urgent action. The national interest demands that the Government place food security and agriculture in this country at the heart of their policy making. Surely, as the party of the countryside, we cannot stand by while farming—the very sinew of our rural communities—withers away. Of course adaptations to economic circumstances and modern requirements are necessary but, as the uncertainties and perils of world events remind us with acute and ever-growing force, the neglect of our domestic capacity to feed ourselves would be an omission for which the British people will, rightly, not forgive us.

Agriculture: Sustainable Intensification and Metrics

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Tuesday 22nd February 2022 Westminster Hall

[Julian Sturdy (York Outer) (Con)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered sustainable intensification and metrics in agriculture.

It is a pleasure, as always, to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Davies. In bringing forward this debate, I declare my interest as an arable famer and as chair of the all-party parliamentary group on science and technology in agriculture.

The world needs to increase food production and availability by 70% by 2050 to keep pace with the food needs of a rapidly increasing and expanding global population in the face of climate change and the increasing pressures of the world’s finite natural resources. With its good soils, temperate climate, professional farming sector and world-leading research and development, Britain is uniquely placed not only to optimise its capacity for sustainable and efficient food production, but also to become a global hub for agriscience excellence and innovation, exporting technological solutions, attracting inward investment, and fostering international research co-operation. Outside the EU, Britain has a unique opportunity to lead in those fields and to put significant vigour and evidence at the heart of UK policy development.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I also declare an interest as a landowner and as a member of the Ulster Farmers’ Union. I commend the hon. Gentleman for bringing this debate forward. My constituency of Strangford is able to yield three potato crops a year due to sustainable, innovative farming and premium land. Does the hon. Member not agree that a UK-wide survey of soil quality and climate may enable farmers to slightly change their methods and allow us all to reap the benefits of additional produce with minimal environmental impact?

[Julian Sturdy]

I completely agree with the hon. Gentleman. Soils play a hugely important part in the wider metrics of agriculture. Knowing the Minister very well, I know that she shares a passion for soils, so she might touch on that in her response.

Early action by the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs to make gene editing regulations more science-based and proportionate, which realigns our approach with that of other countries such as Australia, Japan, Brazil, Argentina and the United States, is a positive and welcome first step. I am pleased to see that coming forward in a statutory instrument at the beginning of March, I believe—perhaps the Minister can clarify that.

Members of the APPG for science and technology in agriculture led calls for the Government to take action on that issue during the passage of the Agriculture Act 2020, and we are grateful to the Minister for listening and responding to those calls. Access to precision breeding tools will bring new opportunities to keep pace with demands for increased agricultural productivity, improved and more efficient resource use, more durable pest and disease resistance, better nutrition, and improved resilience against climate change.