Unsustainable Packaging

Daniel Zeichner Excerpts

Monday 24th June 2019 Westminster Hall

[Daniel Zeichner (Cambridge) (Lab)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered e-petition 232684 relating to unsustainable packaging.

It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Sir George.

I welcome both Front-Bench spokespeople: my good friend and neighbour, my hon. Friend the Member for Ipswich (Sandy Martin), and the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. When I entered this place, he was the Minister responsible for cycling, and since then he has held a number of important positions. I am tempted to say that although we might be debating single-use plastics today, there is no such thing as a single-use Minister. I wish the Minister well when the recycling period comes round soon, and I wish both him and my hon. Friend the Member for Ipswich success in their search for a solution to reusable packaging, which is a subject I am pleased to raise on behalf of the Petitions Committee.

Let me start by reading the petition:

“Ban the use of all non-recyclable and unsustainable food packaging. Today the Earth is at a crisis point due to our plastic consumption, and as a result, people in the UK are more willing than ever to engage in recycling. Yet so much food packaging remains completely, frustratingly unrecyclable. Let’s aim for the UK to lead the world with a 100% recycling rate. Every day we send to landfill, to decompose over thousands of years: cereal box inner bags; peel-off film (fruit and veg punnets/ready meals/yoghurt pots); almost all plastic supermarket fruit and veg packets; crisp packets; sweets wrappers; chocolate bar wrappers; Styrofoam; vacuum pack plastic, to name a few. The British public WANTS to recycle but we can’t get away from the vast amounts of waste that poorly designed packaging creates—appoint people to design alternatives and the UK will thank you!”

What an uplifting petition. The sentiment behind it speaks for itself. It has been signed by 247,048 people—nearly a quarter of a million people—illustrating the strength of feeling. That includes nearly 1,000 people from my Cambridge constituency, where this is a matter of great interest and concern. It is clear that the public mood about packaging, whether it goes to landfill or pollutes our oceans and rivers, has changed over the past few years. We have woken up. There is genuine public recognition of the climate crisis and concern about the natural destruction caused by non-recyclable waste.

Over 14 million of us watched Sir David Attenborough’s “Blue Planet II”, which revealed the impact waste is having on our seas and wildlife. Hugh Fearnley-Whittingstall’s “War on Plastic” found UK plastic waste abandoned all the way in Malaysia.

[Alex Sobel (Leeds North West) (Lab/Co-op)]

As a member of the Environmental Audit Committee, on which the Minister served when we had the inquiry, we heard from groups in countries such as Vietnam, Cambodia and Thailand that they had UK plastic on their shores. Is it not time that we stopped exporting plastic waste and reprocessed it all here in the United Kingdom?

[Daniel Zeichner]

My hon. Friend makes a powerful point, which I am about to amplify. He is absolutely right that we have international responsibilities. As the public watched, listened and participated, that so grabbed society’s consciousness that a constituent wrote to me saying that there should be “regular showings and reshowings” of those programmes, as they are so convincing and powerful. I suspect in Cambridge they are rewatched on a regular basis already.

Attenborough calls plastic waste an “unfolding catastrophe”, and, sadly, the evidence backs that up. A report from charities Tearfund, Fauna and Flora International, and WasteAid has warned of a public health emergency, claiming that between 400,000 and 1 million people die each year because of preventable diseases linked to mismanaged plastic waste in developing countries. These diseases include diarrhoea, malaria and cancer, all of which researchers have linked to plastic waste building up near people’s homes or being burned, which can result in damaging fumes.

[Janet Daby (Lewisham East) (Lab)]

I am pleased that in my local authority of Lewisham, recycling rates have rapidly increased in recent years and that there will be a consultation looking at continuing barriers to recycling in the area. I am also aware that many local authorities find it difficult to find solutions for certain types of black and low-grade plastic. Does my hon. Friend agree that if the Government are to reach their stated target of eliminating plastic waste by 2042, the Minister would need to better regulate the type of plastic businesses are using and to do more to establish suitable sites for recycling?

[Daniel Zeichner]

My hon. Friend makes an important point, which I will come on to and which I suspect will be brought out in the wider debate. The black plastic issue is very real, and we need to ensure that our recycling systems are consistent across the whole country and can deal with these more difficult issues.

To return to the international significance of where our waste sometimes ends up, the reports I referred to suggest that one person dies every 30 seconds because of diseases caused by plastic pollution in developing countries. Such a statistic brings home how significant this is. What we do in our local recycling has global consequences. It is not simply waste in the United Kingdom that we must consider, and our ability to recycle.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on introducing the debate. He is of about the same vintage as I am, so he will remember fish and chips in newspaper. Does he welcome the commitment made by some chip shops and fast food outlets to focus on paper rather than plastic? That should be praised. Does he also agree that there must be more focus on packaging for online businesses and they should work with the Royal Mail to determine what level of packaging will protect goods, as well as the environment? Chip shops and fast food outlets are doing their bit, but more can be done with the Royal Mail and online packaging.

[Daniel Zeichner]

We are already diverting into a range of issues, and I will mention some examples. The hon. Gentleman gets there first on fish and chips; I am of an age that I can remember fish and chips in newspaper, so I agree with him on that. The point about the Royal Mail is not one I intended to make, so he has added an important point to the discussion.

To get back to the wider issues, it is clear to me that public pressure for action on all these issues is growing. We saw from the Extinction Rebellion protests, which have happened nationwide and are strongly supported in Cambridge, that these issues have seized the public policy agenda. The school climate strikes, which I found magnificent, uplifting and inspired, show that the next generation demands change. I am sure we all have examples in our local areas. Last Friday, I was at the Spinney Primary School in Cambridge, and I was impressed not only by the quality of the questions the young people asked but by the fact that they had held an “empathy for earth” day a week or two before, and one could see the young people’s enthusiasm.

We can see the public’s desire for meaningful change. The question is, what can we do? One area that we can start with is the food we eat. When options are given to people to avoid non-recyclable packaging, they can be popular. There are good examples of that, which we have begun to touch on.

I thank the Petitions Committee staff for their excellent work surveying more than 20,000 people on their attitudes to food packaging. For fruits and vegetables, such as bananas, apples, potatoes and onions, more than 99% of respondents said that, given the option, they would choose to buy the items without plastic packaging—that is, almost everybody. A large majority said that they would buy bread without plastic packaging—94.6%—whereas 94.9% said they would buy breakfast cereal without it, and 97.1% said they would buy nuts and dried fruit. Nearly 80% said they would choose to buy meat or fish without plastic packaging, so there is considerable public appetite for change. I will come to some issues around that later.

Last Friday, I welcomed the Petitions Committee engagement team—I thank those involved for their work—to Cambridge. We held a roundtable discussion with various organisations that are working hard to improve sustainability in how we eat and live our lives. In that discussion I heard from owners of sustainable shops, cafés and businesses, such as BeeBee Wraps, the organic reusable food wraps business; Cambridge Carbon Footprint, which promotes sustainable living, local resources and services; and Cambridge Sustainable Food, which focuses on partnerships, projects and campaigns that capture the imagination and increase the sustainability of local eating.

That was an illuminating discussion, and many complex issues arose. For example, inventing new types of potentially sustainable packaging seems to be easier than putting in place the infrastructure and processes to deal with them. There was a concern about the proliferation of new so-called sustainable packaging products and different recycling schemes. Jacky Sutton-Adam described the situation, saying

“we’ve broken all our eggs into a bowl, mixed them up but haven’t made the omelette yet.”

While the Government ought to be investing more in solutions and incentivising people to try new things, Irina Ankudinova and others believed that manufacturers should be required to show that a system was in place to deal with the waste before new packaging products were brought to the market.

[Mrs Anne Main (St Albans) (Con)]

The hon. Gentleman is making an important point about the packaging surrounding the goods we buy, but there are also the goods themselves. As the chair of the all-party parliamentary group on the prevention of plastic waste, I note that we have weaned ourselves off natural products and fibres and on to plasticised ones. Many of our clothes and carpets are polypropylene. We are wrapping plastic in plastic, and that is a real concern. Does he agree that we need to look at the big picture and have a shift back toward both more natural packaging and more natural fibres within the packaging?

[Daniel Zeichner]

I am grateful to the hon. Lady, who makes a powerful point; I will touch on it a little later, but I suspect that others will want to amplify it further. When I look around the world, there are other countries that have perhaps not gone so far down this path, and some of their lifestyles are very attractive—dare I say it, but even some European lifestyles are very attractive indeed.

On Friday, I was also able to visit the Cambridge Cheese Company, which cycles its cheese deliveries around the city and presents gifts in recycled wooden cheese boxes. I am grateful to a very helpful assistant in its shop, Jade Tiger Thomas, who showed me the amazing aforementioned BeeBee wraps and explained a scheme that allows customers to bring their own Tupperware or reusable boxes to carry cheese home, and reusable jars for olives and deli items. The company is a long-established Cambridge gem. Many hon. Members find themselves in Cambridge from time to time, and I thoroughly recommend that they pay it a visit.

This is not an entirely new phenomenon. A long time ago, when I was a student in Cambridge, I remember going to the legendary Arjuna Wholefoods and buying spices measured into brown paper bags. That was happening long before it became fashionable, and Arjuna’s has proved itself a long-term Cambridge institution committed to sustainability and reducing food waste.

Buying food without throwaway packaging is becoming increasingly popular across the country. At the start of the month, Waitrose began a trial in its Oxford Botley Road store of a new “Unpacked” model, with a dedicated refillable zone of products from wine to cereals, frozen pick and mix and a borrow a box scheme. It also has refillable cleaning products and sells plants and flowers without plastic. Most of us have probably read the stories in the newspapers. It is too early to have solid statistics on the success of the trial, but Waitrose tells me that the reaction on social media to the announcement of the trial was 97% positive and the store sold out of some products within the first week of the trial. I was told that

“customers have bought into the concept readily—they arrive with their own containers ready to fill with the loose cereals, pasta, fish and more. This started to happen within just a few hours of us announcing the trial”.

That put me in mind of happy times past in my life, in places such as Venice, where the wine shops allow people to take bottles to be refilled on a regular basis. Now, perhaps, we can extend that to washing-up liquid, even if it is slightly less enticing.

When these schemes are well advertised and communicated and efforts are made to help people to get acquainted with new ideas, such as the borrow a box scheme for those who may have been unaware or do not have their own, behaviour and culture change are possible. That can also be done on a smaller scale: the University of Sheffield students’ union has its own Zero Waste Shop, which sells a huge range of spices, herbs, grains, legumes, dried fruits and nuts by weight, so people can buy as much or as little as they need. Customers simply bring their own container, buy one from the shop or use one of the recyclable paper bags.

[Paul Blomfield (Sheffield Central) (Lab)]

I thank my hon. Friend for mentioning the University of Sheffield students’ union Zero Waste Shop. That is a well-established initiative, and I join him in celebrating the groundbreaking work that it has been doing for some time now.

Will my hon. Friend also celebrate the work of the university’s Grantham Centre for Sustainable Futures, which is looking at a range of approaches to eliminating plastic waste, recognising that, while we should be doing everything possible to minimise the use of single-use plastics, there will be some areas in which that is difficult? For example, we need to explore whether there is an opportunity to reuse single-use plastics currently used by medics. Similarly, the carbon emissions of recycling single-use plastic bottles could be more damaging than developing reuse. Does he agree that those areas are the innovations we should be looking at?

[Daniel Zeichner]

True to form, my hon. Friend raises the more profound points of the debate. Those are exactly the trade-offs that must be considered in depth and detail, and I will come on to some of them in a moment. He makes a powerful point that sometimes, the more obvious routes to doing the right thing might not have quite the consequences that one understood them to be liable to have.

I suppose the argument I am making is to encourage the zeal of the public to embark on this path, and the conclusion I will draw at the end is that they must be given help to ensure that they are indeed achieving the good outcomes that they are intending to achieve. This is a subject littered with potentially difficult trade-offs, and I am sure both Front-Bench speakers will refer those in the debate.

I will complete my tour of some of the great initiatives—

[Graham Stringer (Blackley and Broughton) (Lab)]

rose—

[Daniel Zeichner]

Or perhaps others might help me in that.

[Graham Stringer]

I am stimulated to get to my feet by my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield Central (Paul Blomfield), who is associated with the University of Sheffield, as I was some time ago, through the Sheffield students’ union. One of the things I learned at the university was that if we cannot measure it, or we do not measure it, we are unlikely to make progress with it.

Does my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Daniel Zeichner) agree that some of the Government’s statistics are extremely dodgy in this area, particularly on recycling? When waste is exported, we assume that it is recycled, but that is unaudited. The best way to deal with these things is, first, to deal with them domestically and, secondly, as my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield Central says, to reuse things rather than recycling them—glass bottles rather than plastic being an obvious example.

[Daniel Zeichner]

Once again, my hon. Friend introduces the gravity that I would expect of him, and he makes serious points. I am sure others will refer to the need to reduce, reuse and recycle in the correct sequence. The measurement issue is important. I am trying to adopt a non-partisan tone in today’s debate, because I suspect we are all trying to get to the same place, but he makes a very fair point about the need to ensure that the statistics on which we make decisions are reliable, and an even more important point that we cannot just export our waste and pretend that that is not having an impact somewhere else.

My final resting-point on my tour of great Cambridge places is Cambridge’s Daily Bread Co-operative, which is launching its zero-waste scheme this week. My point is that wherever we turn, we find people wanting to bring forward new and welcome initiatives. That brings me to the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee; I am standing opposite its Chair, the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Neil Parish), and I am grateful to him for being in the Chamber this afternoon. The Committee is in the midst of an inquiry on food and drink packaging, which has allowed me the delight of reading through both its proceedings and its evidence.

I suspect the hon. Gentleman will want to comment on some of that, but the experts consulted by the Committee tell us that while changes can be made, we must temper our enthusiasm with realism, because there is probably no easy answer or quick fix to the problem. Packaging plays an important role in keeping food fresh, safe and affordable, so although moving away from pre-packaged foods in shops, restaurants and cafes is probably possible, the question becomes more difficult and complicated when we consider freight and production.

Despite that, it definitely seems possible to me significantly to reduce the amount that we use here in the UK, but it would be simplistic to assume that we could just transfer that way of producing and transporting food all over the world, when in some places the same level of technology is not yet readily available.

It is important to remember where the most environmental damage is done. In evidence to the EFRA Committee inquiry, Peter Maddox, from WRAP UK, explained that

“when you look at a piece of meat, a nice eight ounce beefsteak in a package with a film on top…the carbon impact of the steak is over 100 times bigger than the carbon impact of the packaging. That packaging is providing extremely innovative barrier properties, which enables that meat to last a lot longer. If you did not have it in that pack, that meat might last three days. If you have it in a really good sealable pack, it will last 10 days. You start then thinking about what consumers want, reducing food waste and the fundamental economic value of that piece of meat. You need to think about it in terms of the whole product.”

Having read through the evidence, that message comes through loud and clear. The whole product and the whole life-cycle analysis are key. We must recognise that as we continue our efforts to reduce non-recyclable packaging. There is so much we can do, but it is realistic to admit that we cannot eradicate its use completely overnight.

However, we must not lose our ambition. The Royal Society of Chemistry, based in Cambridge, highlighted in evidence to the inquiry that, although bio-derived and biodegradable plastics will play a role in addressing the challenges caused by conventional plastic waste, they should not be used to legitimise a throwaway culture; they are not necessarily more environmentally benign than conventional plastics; and their impact as a replacement for conventional plastics must be considered on a life-cycle basis. This suggests that despite technological advancement, cultural awareness and change are still crucial. The UK cannot absolve itself of responsibility for mass corporate and personal behaviour change just because technology is advancing.

At the roundtable in Cambridge last week, Seigo Robinson and others were concerned that reducing non-recyclable plastic packaging was not necessarily compatible with the drive to reduce carbon dioxide emissions. For example, it was said that “carting around loads of refillable jam jars” would use “loads of CO₂”; we may not have been precise or measurable on this occasion, but hon. Members will get the point. Alternatives to plastic packaging, such as paper, steel, wood and glass, could sadly have far worse carbon footprints. People said that plastic pollution of the oceans and carbon emissions needed to go hand in hand, and argued that recycling ought to be a last resort; people should look at using reusable containers for many years before thinking about the need for recycling.

Continuing my spirit of generosity towards the Government—I have no idea why I am in this generous mood, but I am—

[Neil Parish (Tiverton and Honiton) (Con)]

He is a generous Minister.

[Daniel Zeichner]

Perhaps, and perhaps I have some sympathy with the Government’s current travails. However, it is fair to say that we have seen progress. The Government have looked at banning plastic straws, drink stirrers and plastic cotton buds, but I fear that they have so far been rather reluctant to introduce the fiscal measures that we now know do work. The plastic bag charge was discussed over many years, and it has now taken 15 billion plastic bags out of circulation. Imagine what proper fiscal incentives and taxes could do to change the way our society considers waste and how committed we all are to recycling.

The drink stirrer announcement grabbed headlines, but we need to seize this moment to make the “rapid”, “unprecedented” and “far-reaching” transitions that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report called for in October. In evidence to the EFRA Committee’s inquiry, the Green Alliance recommended moving away from piecemeal action and approaching plastic, packaging and resource use in general in a much more systemic way. This means viewing plastic as just one resource among many used in our economy, all of which have environmental impacts of some sort.

[Jim Shannon]

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the general public need to have a good look at how they perceive foods? I am always aware of this issue when it comes to the general public buying potatoes. What they want to see in Asda, Tesco and all the big superstores is a nice wee carton of half a dozen potatoes, washed, cleaned and ready for the pot. Potatoes as I and others in the Chamber know them come in a half a hundredweight bag bought from the farmer. You know something? That is real potatoes.

[Daniel Zeichner]

I am grateful for the intervention, but I think it leads us into a slightly broader discussion about people’s view of the world. I have to say that I rather hanker after a less homogenised culture in general. In a discussion we had last week, I recalled a time when we respected the seasons. We did not expect peppers to be available for 365 days a year, which perhaps gave us something to look forward to. There is something in the human spirit that we could look into. However, the supermarkets will say that it is what people want. That is the dilemma that we face.

Returning to the Green Alliance—I am on the way home from the supermarket—its overall recommendation is, to coin a phrase, to go back to basics: reduce the amount of unnecessary plastics used, reduce dangerous chemical use and rationalise the number of polymer types that go into plastic production to improve recycling, which is really important. That is all while promoting systems for reuse and ensuring that we use recyclable and recycled materials. It argues that this requires a more strategic approach to infrastructure, not simply leaving it to the market. I suspect this is where some of the political disagreements may emerge. However, I very much agree. I wish the Government would accept that challenge and develop a framework that advocates system change.

As the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton said when chairing the inquiry, reducing non-recyclable waste

“is going to be quite difficult to do…but it is how far we go and how wide we go…it is down to the big retailer as well as the consumer. It is going to be an interesting education for all of us”.

I very much agree. This is the point: we must take people with us, rather than being punitive, which is why education and making change easy for people are crucial. Essentially, if we make it too much of a faff for people to change their behaviour, people will be turned off and will not do it.

I believe that people want to do the right thing—to be environmentally conscious and to live sustainably—but time and resources dictate that we have to make this the easy choice, in a socially just way, and not simply for those who can afford the time or money to change their consumption habits. I hope the Minister will tell us how the Government might go about making this happen.

--- Later in debate ---

[Daniel Zeichner]

I am grateful to everyone who has contributed to this interesting and useful debate, which has been conducted in a positive and constructive spirit. The contributions from all the Front-Bench speakers were very welcome. I was particularly enthused by the Chair of the Select Committee, the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Neil Parish), and his passion for change, and I was very much taken by the hon. Member for St Albans (Mrs Main) and her talk of a plastic calamity or crisis.

I will conclude by returning to the petitioners. When they say:

“The British public WANTS to recycle but we can’t get away from the vast amounts of waste that poorly designed packaging creates”,

they are putting out a plea to us to get this right. When they say,

“appoint people to design alternatives”,

I am not sure who they have in mind, but if we do get it right,

“the UK will thank you!”

That is something with which we could all agree.

I will end on a slight note of difference: I do not entirely agree with the Minister that we are in exactly the same place. I suspect that in the end, the Opposition are a touch more interventionist—in fact, we are much more interventionist.

[Sir George Howarth (in the Chair)]

Let me take the slightly unusual step of saying from the Chair that this subject, which is hugely important to the people we all represent, has been covered so well that I am hugely impressed. I do not think that a single word was wasted in any speech made by anybody, on whichever side of the House. It has been a privilege to chair the debate.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered e-petition 232684 relating to unsustainable packaging.

Oral Answers to Questions

Daniel Zeichner Excerpts

Thursday 9th May 2019 Commons Chamber

[Dr Coffey]

Yes, we will. The plan will include targets to ensure that good environmental status is met for seabirds and set the indicators that we use to assess their status. Of course, we will continue to do other work such as reducing the impact of invasive species, which are damaging seabird colonies; carrying out the UK plan of action on seabird bycatch; and, as many across the House support, reducing marine litter, particularly marine plastic.

[Daniel Zeichner (Cambridge) (Lab)]

11. Whether he plans to meet representatives of the Environment Agency to discuss the recent pay dispute at that agency.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Dr Thérèse Coffey)]

No.

[Daniel Zeichner]

That is very disappointing to hear. We have just heard praise for the Environment Agency, but its staff have seen a 20% cut in real terms over the past decade. The agency is suffering from recruitment and retention problems and, inevitably, low morale. Will the Minister think again and at least press the Environment Agency to reopen the discussions?

[Dr Coffey]

No, because it is an operational matter for the Environment Agency and it would not be appropriate for the Government to get involved in the human resources issues of an independent agency.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Dr Thérèse Coffey)]

I had better answer this with a coat of honey. It is important that this Parliament is open to nature. We have already seen great changes through the Administration Committee and what we are trying to do about elements of plastic. The Department already has a beehive on its roof and I am keen that we should continue to do whatever we can as leaders. I am sure that my hon. Friend will also be very aware of the national pollinator strategy and how important it is to the future of biodiversity and sustainable food production.

[Daniel Zeichner (Cambridge) (Lab)]

T5. At Treasury questions a few weeks ago, Ministers boasted about how much hauliers had saved through the freezing of the fuel duty escalator. When I challenged them on the environmental impact, they looked absolutely amazed, as though the thought had never cross their minds. Should the Secretary of State be in a position of influence later this summer in a new Administration, will he be equally blinkered or will he be bold in tackling emissions from road transport?

[Michael Gove]

I am frankly amazed at the suggestion that any Minister should indulge in something as prideful as boastfulness. I suspect that my Treasury colleagues were pointing out that this Government combines economic efficiency with environmental stewardship in an unprecedented fashion, which is why we have been responsible for reducing carbon emissions faster than any other G20 nation while at the same time growing the economy over the past 20 years by more than 66%.

Environment and Climate Change

Daniel Zeichner Excerpts

Wednesday 1st May 2019 Commons Chamber

[Daniel Zeichner (Cambridge) (Lab)]

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker.

I think we were all impressed by the passion of the children across the country who have taken action over the last few weeks and those in Extinction Rebellion who had never been involved in protests before.

We can all talk about climate change, but seeing the evidence at first hand makes a real difference. I was fortunate to visit the British Antarctic Survey in Cambridge last week, where Dr Huw Griffiths, who I was paired with in a Royal Society scheme and who was just back from the Antarctic, and Professor David Vaughan showed me their extraordinary ice cores. Ice cores are dug down deep into the ice, forming a pathway back into the past, with little bubbles from centuries past captured from the atmosphere. They are able to chart the rises and falls in temperature and emissions in the atmosphere and show exactly what has happened to our climate over the last few millenniums. The chart shows temperatures going up and down, up and down, and we should be entering the cooling period, but the chart shows that temperatures are going up. That graphic representation makes it all clear.

That is why the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change was so right last year to demand “rapid”, “unprecedented” and “far-reaching” transitions. We are not seeing that from the Government. For example, we have not seen cuts in road transport emissions, so why were the Government so pathetic in their response to suggestions that they look again at the fuel duty escalator? For goodness’ sake! It was introduced by a Conservative Government. Why was there such a negative response to Labour’s brave suggestion to restore our bus services by transferring money from vehicle excise duty? Those are the kinds of things that will make the difference—not honeyed words, as we heard from the Secretary of State, but rapid, unprecedented and far-reaching transitions. That is what we need.

Oral Answers to Questions

Daniel Zeichner Excerpts

Thursday 28th March 2019 Commons Chamber

[Daniel Zeichner (Cambridge) (Lab)]

The east of England is a dry region with many houses planned for the future. Dr Robert Evans of the Global Sustainability Institute at Anglia Ruskin University tells us that many of the streams he regularly monitors are already drying up. What is the Secretary of State doing to ensure that we have enough water for future houses in the region?

[Michael Gove]

The hon. Gentleman is also a wonderful addition to the House of Commons. I would like to cultivate him. He is a tall poppy in this House and certainly no blushing violet. He makes a very serious point. I have been talking to Anglian Water and others recently. The Environment Agency chief executive, James Bevan, has pointed out that water scarcity is a significant environmental danger. We need to work together to deal with it.

Oral Answers to Questions

Daniel Zeichner Excerpts

Thursday 21st February 2019 Commons Chamber

[Michael Gove]

My right hon. Friend makes an important point. He is absolutely right. From the time of Earl Baldwin to this day, people have looked to the Conservative party to safeguard the welfare of the nation and to stamp out cruelty. Puppy smuggling is one of the vilest types of crime against animals, which is why we have introduced provisions to ensure that it is only from appropriately licensed breeders that individuals can find the companion animals that give us all such joy in our lives.

[Daniel Zeichner (Cambridge) (Lab)]

Last week, as we have heard, thousands of young people, including hundreds in Cambridge, showed that they recognise that we are facing a real climate emergency. Would the Secretary of State like to meet some of them so that they can impress that sense of urgency on him? He might even meet some Sheermanites.

[Michael Gove]

I should be more than happy to do so. This issue is very close to home for me as well. I appreciate that last Friday was an important day for many young people and an opportunity for them to say to my generation that more must be done.

Water Industry

Daniel Zeichner Excerpts

Tuesday 22nd January 2019 Westminster Hall

[Gareth Thomas (Harrow West) (Lab/Co-op)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the future of the water industry in England and Wales.

Customers and employees should be helped to take back control of the companies providing our water and taking away our sewage. The people of England should once again be front and centre of their water industry. Democratic, publicly owned businesses operating in the private sector, regulated with vigour by a more effective Ofwat is the Co-operative party’s vision of the future of the water industry. I am proud to chair that political party. I am grateful to the Backbench Business Committee for the opportunity to explore that agenda through this debate.

Nationwide, John Lewis, the Co-operative Group, the Royal London insurance company and NFU Mutual are just five successful examples of people-run businesses—mutuals—where profit is sought not to line the pockets of wealthy investors, but to reward customers and employees, and to invest in local communities. Such businesses are inspiration for reform of the water industry.

Margaret Thatcher’s decision 30 years ago to privatise our water industry has created an expensive, unaccountable and unfair system. No other country has a fully privatised system of water and sewage services with so little competition. The resulting monopoly businesses are overseen by a woefully weak water regulator. Unsurprisingly, the consumer voice in England carries little weight against the interests of distant investors, whose decisions have seen water bills rise by 40% above inflation since privatisation.

[Daniel Zeichner (Cambridge) (Lab)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that the rather poor practices of some water companies have led to widespread public disillusionment? When I worked for Unison a few years ago, an excellent report was published showing some remarkably creative accounting, which seemed to suggest that money was being diverted not to investment, but to shareholders.

[Gareth Thomas]

My hon. Friend and the trade union movement in general have pointed that out on a number of occasions. I will come on to one of the trade union movement’s particular campaign issues.

Water companies have become a desirable global financial commodity, bought and sold by big banks, international infrastructure investors, pensions and sovereign wealth funds. Since privatisation, as my hon. Friend just pointed out, dividend payments have been very high, at an average of £200 million a year per company, and £2 billion a year in total. Over the past 30 years, at least £48 billion has gone directly to shareholders.

Analysis by Greenwich University suggests that the more than 40% increase in household bills in that time was driven mainly by the need to finance growing interest payments on debt—a point that the trade union movement in particular has highlighted. That analysis shows that accelerating debt levels are the result of the high dividend payments paid by water companies to their shareholders, which exceeded the privatised companies’ cash balances in every year bar one since 1989. Indeed, it is striking that total payments to shareholders are very similar to the total outstanding debt burden of privatised water companies, with at least £48 billion in payments in the past 30 years and at least £51 billion in total debt.

The Leader of the Opposition and, in particular, the shadow Chancellor deserve considerable credit for highlighting the lower cost of water bills in Scotland, where Scottish Water is publicly owned. While bills in Scotland are 2% less in real terms than they were 18 years ago, English water bills increased by some 13% in real terms over the same period.

Privatisation has not meant more investment. Indeed, annual investment in water supply infrastructure was lower in 2018 than it was in 1990 and has fallen by about 10% in the past 10 years. All of the capital investment made since privatisation could have been covered using only the money generated by customer bills. Instead, much of the income generated by water bills appears to have been used to pay the interest on debt built up by the privately owned water companies, in turn to fund dividend payouts.

Despite similar levels of capital investment, we are now in a situation in which, according to research by the University of Greenwich, consumers in England are paying £2.3 billion a year more for their water and sewerage bills under the current privatised system than if the utility companies had remained in state ownership.

--- Later in debate ---

[Richard Benyon]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right to mention that project, which was initially developed around Dartmoor. It is an extraordinary scheme that is really working, and that I hope will become even more mainstream in the near future.

[Daniel Zeichner]

The right hon. Gentleman’s points are similar to those brought to my attention by Anglian Water, which services my region. I do not think that anyone disputes that good work is being done, but the unhappiness is with some of the extraordinarily labyrinthine financial arrangements that sit behind the companies. Does he agree that if that could be resolved, in many of the ways my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow West (Gareth Thomas) suggested, it would solve some of the dilemmas? No one is challenging the good work that is being done.

[Richard Benyon]

There has absolutely been bad practice. I have had my concerns about Thames Water in the past, but today the company has capped its dividend payments, is investing more in resilience and is doing a whole new range of different activities, and my concern is that we risk cutting off an enormous amount of infrastructure investment if we do not get this right. I think there is a way forward, and I will touch on it in a moment.

Compared with 30 years ago, customers are now five times less likely to suffer from supply interruptions, eight times less likely to suffer from sewer flooding and 100 times less likely to have low water pressure. The hon. Member for Harrow West talked about Welsh Water; he is right that people sometimes suggest that it is a mutualised organisation, when it is a private company. Welsh Water loses 121 litres per property in leakage, which is more than nearly every other water company. Its average combined water and sewage bill is £439, which is 8% higher than the average English and Welsh bill, at £405. It is higher than the bill in six English companies, and that is in a country where there is no shortage of water. I come from the Thames Water region and we are short of water there, but in Wales they are not so I cannot understand why the bills are so high. In Welsh Water, the average number of minutes lost due to supply interruptions is 43 minutes, which is about 400% higher than in most other companies, where fewer than 10 minutes are lost.

The picture is not universally wonderful, and there occasionally needs to be a bit of balance in the subject. Water companies have reduced leakage by a third since the 1990s. We are about to see an incredible increase in innovative methods of detecting leakage, and it is right that in the current price review round there is an enormous driver on those companies to crack down on it further.

On the environment, standards have dramatically risen, with the welcome return of wildlife to rivers that had been biologically dead since the industrial revolution. Otters rely on healthy rivers and were thought to be on the verge of being wiped out 30 years ago, yet they are now seen in every county in England.

The average domestic water bill is just over £1 a day—that is £1 a day to get all the water we need into the household, and all the sewage and waste water out. Although bills went up immediately after privatisation to help deal with decades of under-investment when the industry was owned and run by the Government, bills have stayed pretty much the same in real terms since 1994 after inflation, and are set to fall in real terms over the next few years. By 2025, bills will have fallen in real terms for a decade. The industry’s independent regulator Ofwat—which has just come in for some stick—has calculated that bills are £120 lower than they would have been if the combination of privatisation and tough independent regulation had not happened. Bills would have been £120 more per household if the industry had remained in public ownership.

On the subject of customer satisfaction, the hon. Member for Harrow West has said that people are terribly dissatisfied with their water companies. I went on the internet last night to look at what Ofwat, the Consumer Council for Water and individual water companies are saying, and customer satisfaction levels for water and sewerage services are around 90%. As politicians, would we not love to have a bit of that, particularly at the moment?

Oral Answers to Questions

Daniel Zeichner Excerpts

Thursday 12th July 2018 Commons Chamber

[The Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (George Eustice)]

My hon. Friend raises a very important point. Earlier this year, we invited calls to a small grants scheme to promote farm productivity. It was over-subscribed, so we have put in an additional £7 million, making a total of £23 million. We intend to have additional calls later this year.

[Daniel Zeichner (Cambridge) (Lab)]

Yesterday, senior industry leaders were in Westminster as part of the Prince of Wales’s corporate leaders group, which is facilitated by the Cambridge-based Cambridge Institute for Sustainability Leadership. Industry will be key in tackling the environmental challenges of the future, but when will the Government acknowledge that far from being a burden, intelligent regulation is the key to environmental innovation?

[Michael Gove]

I think the Government have always acknowledged that. In the spirit of your comments about not underselling myself, Mr Speaker, I refer the hon. Gentleman to the speech I gave at the Policy Exchange four weeks ago on the need to reform capitalism. I am afraid that that is something only the Conservatives would undertake, because while we can reform capitalism in the interests of the country, the hon. Gentleman’s right hon. Friend the leader of the Labour party would destroy capitalism and, with it, torpedo this country’s prosperity.

Fur Trade

Daniel Zeichner Excerpts

Monday 4th June 2018 Westminster Hall

[Daniel Zeichner (Cambridge) (Lab)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered e-petition 200888 relating to the sale of animal fur in the UK.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hollobone. The e-petition, headed “Ban the sale of animal fur in the UK”, explains:

“Fur farming was banned in England and Wales in 2000, followed by Scotland in 2002. However fur products can still be legally imported from other countries and sold here in the UK. Much of this fur comes from countries that have very weak or no animal welfare laws at all.”

I introduce the debate on behalf of the Petitions Committee and will begin with some history. The issue has become one of wide public interest, culminating in a significant campaign to build on previous legislation and end fur imports, but there has long been concern about the issue.

[Nick Thomas-Symonds (Torfaen) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend has mentioned the legislative history; does he agree that the sensible next step is to extend the fur import ban to all species? Many of my constituents have emailed me to request that.

[Daniel Zeichner]

I assure my hon. Friend that that is the direction in which I shall proceed in the next few minutes.

To return to the history and as the petition states, 18 years ago Parliament banned fur farming in England and Wales. That ban was extended to Scotland and Northern Ireland in 2002. As the petitioners note, that means that in effect we now outsource the issue. We do not want fur farming on our own doorstep but are currently not strong enough to end our complicity in what can only be described as animal suffering. To end it, and reflect the national will, which clearly is that we should go further than we have done, we need more than just a domestic fur farming ban.

[Gordon Marsden (Blackpool South) (Lab)]

I was one of the MPs who voted for that ban in 2000. No man is an island, and no animal is either. Does my hon. Friend agree with my constituent, Candace Gledhill, about the cruelty by which foxes, minks and raccoon dogs are kept in

“wire-mesh cages on fur farms for months on end”

and

“coyotes and other animal are caught in the wild using crude, inhumane steel traps”?

Does he agree that if we do not act on the matter and do at least what it is possible for us to do here, we are complicit in that cruelty?

--- Later in debate ---

[Daniel Zeichner]

Once again, I agree; I shall come on in a moment to some of the cruelties that have been described—but I am still trying to look back 20 years. I shall get there. The ban was originally proposed by my hon. Friend the Member for Garston and Halewood (Maria Eagle), in her private Member’s Bill, the Fur Farming (Prohibition) Bill. As some of us have cause to reflect, such Bills do not always get all the way, and sadly it was defeated in 1999. At that time, it was pointed out:

“The conditions in which mink are kept and slaughtered—highlighted last year by releases of mink by animal liberation activists—are now widely considered unacceptable. Mink are not domesticated, but are forced to live in small cages. Many show symptoms of extreme stress before being gassed and skinned.”

Those conditions continue today.

[Mr Jim Cunningham (Coventry South) (Lab)]

The debate is timely and my hon. Friend is to be congratulated on it. About 48 hours ago, a television programme was shown about mink farming purely for fur. Since 2000, 50%—5,000—of such farms are in 22 countries in Europe. That shows that there is a job of work to be done; does my hon. Friend agree?

[Daniel Zeichner]

I find myself in much agreement today—

[Tim Loughton (East Worthing and Shoreham) (Con)]

The hon. Gentleman is very generous. I, too, was around as a Member of Parliament when the Fur Farming (Prohibition) Act 2000 was passed. Eighteen years later, it is inconceivable that other European countries, in particular, did not follow suit. Does the hon. Gentleman agree, on the day when we debate the Ivory Bill, by which we will end that abhorrent trade, we can find ways to end the abhorrent trade in fur in this country, and to make exemptions where they are needed for historically and culturally valuable objects? Clearly, that can happen, and frankly it must, sooner rather than later.

[Daniel Zeichner]

Once again, I am in agreement. I am still trying to go back 20 years in my speech. I shall advance slowly.

[Simon Hoare (North Dorset) (Con)]

Give up!

[Daniel Zeichner]

No, I am not going to give up—but I give way.

[Zac Goldsmith (Richmond Park) (Con)]

Before the hon. Gentleman steps back 20 years I ask him to step forward a few months, because as we leave the European Union whatever barriers may have prevented us from raising standards on imports at the point of entry will have gone. We will be free to decide whether we want to continue to import the proceeds of one of the grimmest of human activities. I suspect that, like people who have signed the petition and the majority of those who have written to their MPs, the majority of Members would support such a move.

[Daniel Zeichner]

Tempting though it is, I do not intend to widen the debate on to other issues. I am still trying to go back 20 years, so I shall continue for the moment. At that time we were of course fortunate in having a Labour Government, and they took up the cause. The Fur Farming (Prohibition) Act 2000 was passed, and the then Minister of State, Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, Baroness Hayman, said:

“It has a simple and a clear basis. The Government believe that it is wrong to keep animals solely or primarily for slaughter for the value of their fur. In the Government’s view, fur farming is not consistent with a proper value and respect for animal life.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 19 July 2000; Vol. 615, c. 1130.]

That was true then, and is true now for the huge numbers signing the petition—hundreds in every constituency—and for many other people, which is why it is wrong for our country to continue to support such an industry, whether it lies inside or beyond our borders.

[Henry Smith (Crawley) (Con)]

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that many consumers who think they are purchasing fake fur products are actually purchasing real fur products, and that in the past few years there has been quite a trend for what is really cruelly produced real animal fur to be retailed as fake fur? Does he think that trading standards need to play a role in ensuring that there is greater awareness and proper labelling of fur products?

[Daniel Zeichner]

The hon. Gentleman is prescient. I will come on to fake fur later, and I agree with his observations.

Since the implementation of the ban, we have effectively continued fur farming internationally, by allowing in fur imports. Some estimates put the value of the fur imported at £670 million. Humane Society International, which has campaigned powerfully on the issue, estimates that, based on the value of pelts at auction houses, that may equate to some 2 million animal skins imported into the UK in 2016 alone.

I want to say a little more about the conditions in which animals are kept. Beyond the simple idea that farming animals simply for their fur is wrong, the animals in fur farms are too often forced to live in terrible conditions. Humane Society International recently held a drop-in for MPs, and I am sure that some colleagues present for the debate will have attended it. We saw harrowing videos of how animals are treated in the fur trade, and we saw examples of cages and the very small spaces in which animals farmed for fur spend their entire lives. It was a very graphic demonstration of what we are talking about, and it is not easily forgotten—as it should not be.

There is plenty of expert scientific evidence. The European Commission Scientific Committee on Animal Health and Animal Welfare puts it clearly:

“Current husbandry systems cause serious problems for all species of animals reared for fur”.

As we have heard, animals such as foxes and minks are suited in their natural habitat to roam far and wide. When those animals are farmed for fur they are kept in small cages less than 1 metre square.

[Mohammad Yasin (Bedford) (Lab)]

We rightly banned fur farming about 20 years ago, to end such barbaric and unnecessary suffering, but does my hon. Friend agree that as long as we continue to import fur we are complicit in creating a market so that animal suffering continues?

--- Later in debate ---

[Daniel Zeichner]

I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend and near neighbour. Complicit is a word I have already used, and that is effectively what we are by maintaining this trade.

[Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing the debate and on a very fine speech. By banning fur imports, we would depress that market, but would we not also set a good example to other countries? We have a proud record of humane treatment of animals in this country and we could inspire other countries to do the same.

[Daniel Zeichner]

All my hon. Friends are so prescient that my hon. Friend has now stolen my peroration, but never mind; we will come to that in time.

On the subject of faux fur, I do not think anyone, on witnessing or reading the evidence given recently to the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee about the living space allocated to some of these poor animals, could help but be sickened.

[Maria Eagle (Garston and Halewood) (Lab)]

It was my Bill, which was talked out in 1998, that became the 2000 Act. One reason I took it forward was that the Farm Animal Welfare Council had made clear that there is no way to humanely keep wild animals such as mink in cages and farm them—I do not really call it farming—for their fur, and that a ban was the only way to tackle the inhumanity that that implied. It is true in this country, which was the first nation to ban fur farming, and true in the rest of the world.

[Daniel Zeichner]

I absolutely concur with my hon. Friend’s comments, and commend her for the work she did all those years ago. Now we have the opportunity to build on that and go further.

Going back to the awful conditions faced by animals, sometimes they are overfed to become much larger than their frames are suited to. Apparently that yields more fur but, unsurprisingly, it can give the animals terrible health problems. As some hon. Members have already mentioned, while fur farms in the UK were at least regulated, we have no control over those fur farms abroad.

[Susan Elan Jones (Clwyd South) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend is being very generous in the time he is giving people. Does he agree that, 20 years or so ago when the ban was brought in, absolutely nobody would have thought there would be such a market for the import of animal fur, and it is vital we toughen the legislation on that?

[Daniel Zeichner]

Once again, I agree with my hon. Friend.

Going back to those fur farms abroad, the evidence is somewhat contested and there are different conditions in different countries, but it seems to me that the straightforward answer to that is to stop the outsourcing in general. It is not a case of it being out of sight, out of mind; while we are still allowing imports and the sale of fur in this country, I fear we are still complicit, culpable—call it what you like, but we are responsible. Turning to public opinion, it is clear that there is overwhelming public support for a fur ban.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for bringing this debate. Some 100,000 people signed this e-petition, and 400,000 people signed a petition taken to 10 Downing Street. That is an indication of the large volume of the general public who are against any type of fur farming whatever. Does he agree that it is time the Government listen to the half a million people who have said, “We need action and we need it now.”?

[Daniel Zeichner]

Once again, I agree with the hon. Gentleman. The petition itself is testimony to the strength of public feeling, but on top of that, a YouGov poll in February this year showed that 69% of the public, nearly seven in 10, would support a ban on the import and sale of fur in the UK. There is a significant majority across Labour, Conservative and Liberal Democrat voters too. It is cross-party. It is not a party political issue; it crosses party political allegiances.

[Andrew Selous (South West Bedfordshire) (Con)]

I am extremely grateful to the hon. Gentleman, who is being very generous. I understand that we currently import fur from two other fellow European Union members, Poland and France. Does he know whether we have the power to prevent the imports as an EU member?

[Daniel Zeichner]

I thank the hon. Gentleman; I will come very specifically to that point later in that speech, but my belief is that we do have the power.

[John Spellar (Warley) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend is right to draw attention to the widespread public support. One should always be careful to differentiate grassroots and astroturf in email responses. On this issue, it is clear that there has been sustained interest for a long time from all the different areas of my constituency, all indicating a deep and long-standing concern that the trade should be ended. I am sure that that is true of other hon. Members as well. That is not just a transient mood, but a long-standing demand.

[Daniel Zeichner]

My right hon. Friend makes a good point. The number of hon. Members present shows the breadth of support, and the petition shows that it is consistent across the country. It has also been a response to some strong campaigns. There have been 109,554 signatures to the petition, but there is a spectrum of support behind it from significant organisations, including the Humane Society International; businesses such as Lush; and a range of cultural figures such as Brian May of Queen and Evanna Lynch of “Harry Potter”. It is fair to conclude that our country wants to ban fur.

It is not just the UK. Last week I had the pleasure of meeting a Finnish member of the European Parliament, Sirpa Pietikäinen, who leads the cross-party group on animal welfare. She assured me that there is growing and widespread support not just in the Parliament but in countries that have traditionally been more sympathetic to the fur trade.

The faux fur issue is an added complexity that is currently being probed by the EFRA Committee. The public are being duped into buying fur by mistake. We have a bizarre situation where less scrupulous retailers, or retailers that have been misled by wholesalers or people further down the supply chain, mislabel their products as faux fur when in fact they are real fur. That is partly a consequence of the fact that, from some suppliers, the real fur is very cheap, which says a lot about how it is produced.

[Sir Roger Gale (North Thanet) (Con)]

The nub of this particular item on the hon. Gentleman’s agenda is that it is perfectly possible for anybody half-bright to tell the difference between faux fur and real fur. It is done all the time. The fact is that it is because it is cheap that this material is brought into the country and sold by supposedly reputable outlets. They are conning the public. Should we not throw the book at the people doing that?

[Daniel Zeichner]

I will agree and disagree with the hon. Gentleman. It is absolutely right that we look hard at the people doing that, but in some cases it is not necessarily easy to tell. Hon. Members who were shown examples at the exhibition in the House a few weeks ago saw that, if it is only one or two pieces disguised within a wider piece, it is hard to tell. Some are very cheap indeed—fur bobble hats keep turning up in this context. The consumer is unlikely to know that fur is in the product. It is important that we crack down on those retailers, but to do so we must have a system. That means giving trading standards officers across the country support and resources.

Of course, if we ban fur imports in general, customers will no longer be in the position of buying what they think is fake but is actually real. Many organisations that made submissions to the EFRA Committee’s inquiry on the fur trade lamented the inadequate fur labelling regime we have in this country, which leads to some of that mis-selling. Hopefully, from that Committee’s work, we will see some practical recommendations.

It is worth noting in passing that the evidence from both the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy and the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs to the Select Committee noted that the Government have not carried out any assessment of the size of the fur trade in the UK. That could show either a lack of diligence on the Government’s part, or that the contribution to the UK economy is of no great significance. I suggest it is probably the latter.

The hon. Member for South West Bedfordshire (Andrew Selous) asked whether we can ban fur should we wish to. The advice I have been given is that we can. Straying into trade territory, which is slightly controversial at the moment, I am told that the World Trade Organisation rules contain article XX (a), which provides an exception to the trading rules for measures that are necessary “to protect public morals”. In 2010, the European Parliament and Council banned trade in seal products in the European Union. That led in 2015 to a challenge from Canada and Norway, which fell when the WTO upheld the right of the EU to prohibit trade in seal products because it was a proportionate measure necessary to protect public morals. That may not be quite the terminology we would use, but hon. Members will get the drift. That important case indicates that WTO members have the freedom to define—with proof—their interpretation of that phrase.

[Maria Eagle]

Does my hon. Friend agree that, because we no longer produce fur domestically, the WTO could not conclude that anything we did was about benefiting our local industry?

--- Later in debate ---

[Daniel Zeichner]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. She again pre-empts my argument—I will come to that strong point in a moment.

There is a clear case for that same WTO exception to be applied because there are legitimate and widespread public moral concerns about fur, as we have heard. Similarly, within the European Union, as we currently are, our trade is governed by the principle of the free movement of goods, as set out in articles 34 and 35 of the Lisbon treaty. Article 36 provides a similar clause to that in the WTO rulebook, permitting trade barriers in specific circumstances. It says:

“The provisions of Articles 34 and 35 shall not preclude prohibitions or restrictions on imports, exports or goods in transit justified on grounds of public morality, public policy or public security; the protection of health and life of humans, animals or plants; the protection of national treasures possessing artistic, historic or archaeological value; or the protection of industrial and commercial property. Such prohibitions or restrictions shall not, however, constitute a means of arbitrary discrimination or a disguised restriction on trade between Member States.”

I therefore argue that there is a legitimate argument for the UK to prohibit fur imports on grounds of public morality, similar to the exemption allowed under WTO rules, which has been used successfully, as I just mentioned.

I am told that there is no known EU case precedent for the application of the public morality exemption in the trade of cruel animal products, so this would be an important first and perhaps a welcome gift to our friends in Europe. Crucially, as the UK has no domestic production of fur, as my hon. Friend the Member for Garston and Halewood said, a UK fur import ban could not be viewed as disguised discrimination or protectionism. To use that defence to impede trade, we will need to prove that the public morality against the fur trade is significant and sustained, which is demonstrated, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Warley (John Spellar) said earlier, by decades of deep support for a ban in opinion polls, plus the massive public response to the Fur-Free Britain campaign.

[Heidi Allen (South Cambridgeshire) (Con)]

I do not wish to draw the hon. Gentleman away from the core of the debate, but given that he has just outlined why he believes that there are grounds within EU legislation for our stopping the import of fur, does he think that we might set other precedents and extend that to the import of foie gras, which I am deeply uncomfortable with?

[Daniel Zeichner]

I am grateful to my constituency neighbour. I had not necessarily considered that, but as so often with legislation, it seems that there is more scope to do things than people tell us. There may be more flexibility than is sometimes suggested, so that may certainly be worth looking at.

[John Spellar]

That is an extremely important point and is actually an important part of the wider debate. Many of these issues are not a matter of EU regulation—they are a matter of political will and choice in this country. The debate’s clear message to the Minister needs to be that the Government have options and should exercise them, and not keep hiding behind a figment of rules from Brussels, which do not have the weight that the Government put on them.

--- Later in debate ---

[Daniel Zeichner]

I once again find myself very much in agreement with my right hon. Friend. My conclusion is very much on those lines, which you will be glad to know I am finally coming to, Mr Hollobone.

The Government’s response to the petition said:

“While some fur products may never be legally imported into the UK the Government’s view is that national bans are less effective than working at an international level on animal welfare standards.”

That sounds very laudable, although it is in fact civil service waffle. I hope the Minister will show some more ambition, exactly as has been suggested. The Government’s response sets up a false dichotomy. A national ban would not stop our Government from continuing to work on international animal welfare, and it would give our country a firm platform from which to work with others. We should be leading, as we should be in Europe generally.

Having had a quick glance at the House of Commons Facebook page and its coverage of the debate, I have to say that I do not think I saw one comment advocating maintaining the import of fur into this country. The vast engagement seems to be entirely on the side of a fur ban, which also seems to reflect the feelings and the comments made by hon. Members.

The EU banned the import and export of cat and dog fur in 2008, and the Fur Free Alliance has active campaigns across the world. New Zealand prohibits mink fur imports; India banned imports of several species of fur; São Paulo adopted a fur farming ban in 2014 and an import and sales ban in 2015; and West Hollywood became the first city in the world to ban the sale of fur in 2013. A few months ago, San Francisco became the largest world city to ban the sale of fur. Designers such as Gucci and Versace have adopted fur-free policies, as have high street retailers such as Topshop and House of Fraser.

Britain has a chance to lead the way in Europe and across the world and become the first country to ban fur imports and trading. What an opportunity we have.

[Alex Chalk (Cheltenham) (Con)]

The hon. Gentleman has been incredibly generous with his time. Does he agree that we in this country sometimes underestimate our power to influence and show leadership? What a powerful statement of intent it would be if we were to take this decisive action and ban fur imports into our country.

[Daniel Zeichner]

I am grateful that there has been a cross-party voice appealing to the Secretary of State, who is not normally shy in coming forward to seek such opportunities. Why will he not grasp this one? This is what the public want. It is the right thing to do.

--- Later in debate ---

[Daniel Zeichner]

It has been a good debate and there have been many thoughtful contributions from all sides.

I joined the Petitions Committee only recently, and this is the first time I have introduced a debate. It is a testimony to the power of the e-petitions process that so many people got engaged, signed the petition and are watching us today. My worry is that they will think that all we have had is a debate. That is the challenge for the Minister to go away to think about.

We have had a discussion with excellent contributions. The one made by my hon. Friend the Member for Garston and Halewood (Maria Eagle) was particularly telling. She started on this process many years ago and summarised the debate with passion, saying that, in effect, there is no such things as humane fur farming. There is the question of whether a ban can be made while we are members of the European Union but, in my limited experience of this place, one thing that I have noticed is that what we can do often depends on whom we ask and how much we want to do it. That is the real question.

We have heard from every single political party in the House—from Conservative and Labour Members, Liberal Democrats and the Scottish National party—and there is almost unanimity. One of the great Presidents of America, Lyndon Baines Johnson, famously said that politics was about counting the votes. I have been counting the votes and—I am looking at the Government Benches—some Members have self-declared already, tonight. This House has the votes. What it needs is a Government willing to introduce a ban. That is what the public expect.

I hope the Minister will go back to the Secretary of State with the very strong message from this House that it is time we banned the fur trade.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered e-petition 200888 relating to the sale of animal fur in the UK.

Oral Answers to Questions

Daniel Zeichner Excerpts

Thursday 7th December 2017 Commons Chamber

[Michael Gove]

Thanks to my hon. Friend’s advocacy, I have had the opportunity to visit one of the distilleries in his constituency. I hope to be able to visit many more over the next few weeks, months and years. He is a brilliant advocate for the interests of the Scotch whisky industry. There are huge opportunities as we leave the European Union. There has been a particularly dramatic increase in exports of single malts since 2000 because of the effective and principled advocacy of people like him. Whether it is Glenlivet or Aberlour, they roll around the tongue perfectly, and they both have no better advocate than my hon. Friend.

[Daniel Zeichner (Cambridge) (Lab)]

T4. A quarter of our rivers are at risk from unsustainable abstraction, which is a particular problem in the south and east. When will the Government actually take action to tackle unsustainable water abstraction?

[Dr Thérèse Coffey]

We have been considering this carefully. I hope that we will be able to make an announcement on the publication of our abstraction plan within the next month. I am sure the hon. Gentleman will enjoy reading it, and I am happy to discuss it with him later.

UK Bee Population

Daniel Zeichner Excerpts

Tuesday 14th November 2017 Westminster Hall

[Alex Chalk]

Of course. This is not a zero sum game. It is not the case that a product that is bad for bees is therefore good for farmers or the other way around. It is not beyond the wit of our scientists to come up with products and pesticides—by the way, pesticide is not an evil word—that can be sprayed on to our crops without causing the collateral damage that we want to avoid.

It is the points made already that lie behind an apocalyptic quote attributed to Albert Einstein—of course, it may well be entirely apocryphal. He is alleged to have said:

“If the bee disappeared off the surface of the globe then man would only have four years left to live.”

That may be a little apocalyptic, but it does make the point that bees play a crucial role in our food supply.

[Daniel Zeichner (Cambridge) (Lab)]

The hon. Gentleman is making a very good speech. I would like to go back to the point about the alternatives. I wonder whether he saw the observation by the excellent Bumblebee Conservation Trust, which said that

“many other non-neonicotinoid pesticides can and do cause harm to bumblebees and other pollinators, and we must ensure that neonicotinoids are not simply replaced by equally-problematic equivalents.”

Does he agree that there is a danger of a switch back to dangerous pyrethroid-based pesticides and that we equally need to guard against that?

[Alex Chalk]

We must not move from the frying pan into the fire. It seems that the Government have been absolutely robust in showing that it is only those products that can show they do not cause that collateral damage that will get through the net. That principle must be maintained, because pollinators are in decline worldwide.

This is not purely a UK situation or indeed a European one. The trend is not uniform, but an independent review of the evidence on the status and value of pollinators published by the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs back in 2014 drew attention to the large losses caused by the varroa mite in the early 1990s. Since then, there has been, as has been said, the Asian hornet. Indeed, the loss of flower-rich habitat is another important cause of the recorded decline in diversity of wild bees and other pollinating insects. If I may be parochial just for a moment, that is just one of the reasons why I am so delighted that Cheltenham Borough Council was persuaded to rethink its plans to rip up the vibrant and diverse floral displays that nourish local pollinators in the town.