Genetic Technology (Precision Breeding) Bill

Debate between Daniel Zeichner and Jim Shannon

Report stage
Monday 31st October 2022 Commons Chamber

[Daniel Zeichner]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for her intervention. She is absolutely right; people should not be careless about antibiotics and that was not an approach to be encouraged at all. I share her concerns.

Amendment 3 would strengthen the Bill by harnessing the good that can be created through such technologies and ensuring that they are not developed and used for purposes that would not deliver beneficial outcomes—surely that is an objective we can agree on across the House. We believe that would take the Bill much further forward in establishing the kind of regulatory framework that really would place the UK in a leading position. That sits alongside our new clauses, which would establish a single, robustly independent regulator, along the lines of the very successful and genuinely world-leading Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority. That regulator does not just approve an application, but tracks, traces and checks over time. That is an important and very different approach, and one discussed in Committee by expert witnesses.

Our new clauses would ensure that Ministers’ decisions on gene editing are properly guided by the environmental principles set out under the Environment Act 2021, and that there is no regression from the environmental standards agreed in the trade and co-operation agreement, which is pretty important when it comes to trade issues. Our new clauses would build an environment in which the UK really could attract the worldwide talent and investment in gene editing research and development that we all want to see.

On animal health and welfare, I turn to our amendment 4, which I am delighted to see has been endorsed by Compassion in World Farming and 12 other animal protection organisations, including the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals and the Conservative Animal Welfare Foundation. The amendment would require a range of animal health and welfare factors to be taken into account by the Secretary of State when deciding whether to issue a marketing authorisation for a gene edited animal. We appreciate that gene editing can be used in the same way as “traditional” selective breeding to produce fast growth, high yields and large litters, which, sadly, we also know are capable of causing suffering in farmed animals.

Clearly, we have existing legislation to protect animal health and welfare, but the concern is that we should be very clear at the outset that we do not want to see gene editing used in ways that make it more possible for animals to endure harm and suffering. As the Nuffield Council on Bioethics put it,

“animals should not be bred merely to enable them to endure conditions of poor welfare more easily or in a way that would diminish their inherent capacities to live a good life.”

Some researchers aim to use gene editing to improve disease resistance in livestock. Of course, that could be hugely beneficial and could help to reduce the serious harm caused by the overuse of antibiotics, for instance. It would be hugely beneficial if we could find ways to tackle porcine reproductive and respiratory syndrome in pigs or avian flu. But the public would not want to see gene editing used to allow animals to be kept in poorer, more crowded, stressful conditions by making them resistant to the diseases that would otherwise result.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

When it comes to this genetic technology, the farmers I represent are keen to see this happening in a way that does not harm their animals. They are not out to harm them; they want to protect them. I know that the Minister understands that, as my local farmers and I do. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the farmers do not want to see anything happening that will harm the animals?

[Daniel Zeichner]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for making that point, but of course there are always economic pressures and this is about making sure we guard against those. The Minister will be familiar with the chlorine-washed chicken debate, where lower welfare standards are disguised and the Government are always at pains to assure us, “We’re not going to tolerate that.” So they must not allow new scientific developments to be the tech equivalent; there must be no backsliding.

Referring to the power of gene editing to reduce the risk of disease, Nuffield’s 2016 ethical review of genome editing highlighted the problem. It said:

“If this risk were reduced or removed altogether then it might be easier to pack more animals together in crowded spaces.”

That is the concern, so let us guard against it. We believe we can create a regime that can do much better than that, but it requires this Bill to be strengthened to make it happen.

On transparency and labelling, the research carried out by the Food Standards Agency and others has clearly found that although consumers support genetically edited foods having a different regulatory system from genetically modified foods, they overwhelmingly want effective regulation of gene edited products, with transparent information and clear labelling.

The Government are trying to gloss over the issues by inventing the entirely non-scientific term “precision breeding”. I could speak at length about this term; I will not, but there is much dispute about it. It is a term without clear scientific meaning. Frankly, it has been invented by the Government for their convenience and is a misnomer. Telling us in a rather paternalistic tone that we need not worry because there is no difference between gene edited or traditionally bred crops and livestock does not convince. There is a risk that, as worded, the Bill will allow trans-genetic transfer—effectively, GM through the back door. I know the Government deny and dispute that, and we had a lengthy discussion about it in Committee, but I and many others remain unconvinced.

Leaving that matter aside, it is perfectly reasonable for people to want, and to be able to know, how their food has been produced. Clear labelling is the way to deal with another potentially difficult issue: the legitimately held views of different Administrations in the UK. It is fair to say that the devolved Administrations are not happy with the way in which the issue has been handled so far. I suggest that the Government tread carefully. Clear labelling is a sensible way forward.

Labour is also concerned at the number of key elements of the Bill left to secondary legislation, with little or no opportunity for scrutiny or amendment. The Government must spell out the detail to boost confidence for businesses and consumers. The organic sector and those developing cultivated meat have expressed concerns over the lack of clarity in the Bill, which once again risks driving investment and research elsewhere.

It should not be forgotten that the Regulatory Policy Committee made a damning impact assessment of the Bill, giving it a red rating because it failed to take into account the impact of creating a new class of genetically modified organism; failed to assess the impact on businesses, especially SMEs; failed to acknowledge and assess competition, innovation, consumer and environmental impacts; and failed to address the impacts arising from removing labelling and traceability requirements. I hope the Minister will address those points.

In addition to that list of failures, the Bill fails to address the trade implications of the misalignment in regulation of genetically engineered organisms between the UK’s devolved nations and with our EU neighbours. That could have a significant impact on many food businesses that are struggling to rebuild trade with EU countries despite all the self-inflicted red tape, added costs and barriers that the Government have created.

Badger Culling

Debate between Daniel Zeichner and Jim Shannon

Monday 21st March 2022 Westminster Hall

[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.

Agriculture

Debate between Daniel Zeichner and Jim Shannon

Wednesday 2nd December 2020 Commons Chamber

[Daniel Zeichner]

This is possibly not the place to have this debate, but my hon. Friend is right to raise it and the Minister will have the opportunity to respond later. Of course, we are seeing problems with wool, as well, so it is a troubled time for people. Obviously we hope that we end up without tariffs, because that will be a much better outcome.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

Clearly the rules, as the Minister set out, are specific to England, but the shadow Minister referred to the movement of cattle and sheep in the United Kingdom mainland. He will know, as we do, that that movement of traffic is to and fro from Northern Ireland to the mainland. When it comes to the movement of any animals, does he think we need continuity with the payment scheme and the flexibility to be able to move cattle and sheep not only north and south from Northern Ireland to the Republic of Ireland, but from Northern Ireland to Scotland and to England and Wales?

[Daniel Zeichner]

The hon. Member tempts me further and further away from the instrument. I can assure him I will be coming to some of those points, because it is obviously key that we resolve these issues of movement within the island of Ireland. They are complicated and pressing for many, many people.

We are told that this instrument does not relate to withdrawal from the European Union, which is a welcome relief, I suspect, given the number of instruments we have been discussing in recent weeks. Indeed, it comes from the newly passed Agriculture Act 2020. It makes provisions for better traceability. It was noted as an instrument of interest by the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee, and the Minister has outlined many of the proposals, so I will not repeat all of that.

The proposals set out by the AHDB for a new livestock information service system are important. It will provide a multi-species traceability system, and DEFRA tells us that it will enable the Department and the Animal and Plant Health Agency to trace all livestock movements through a single, more efficient system, which would be welcome, because livestock are currently identified through three separate livestock traceability systems: one for cattle, one covering sheep and goats and one for pigs. The service was introduced over the past two decades as various pieces of EU legislation came into force. As the Minister said, the existing systems are species-specific, so keepers with more than one species of livestock need to switch between databases. The existing systems are also designed to collect, rather than share data and, extraordinarily, are paper-based.

I am told that the AHDB will also run a unique number identification service on behalf of England and Wales, which will control the issuing of official individual identification numbers to animals. The Scottish Government and the Department of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs in Northern Ireland have noted that they will pursue their own systems for issuing identification numbers to animals. The service will operate in England but because, as has been said, animals can and do move across borders, the instrument applies across the UK so that AHDB may handle data on animal movements and traceability systems outside England where necessary to allow a complete picture of animal traceability. Further collective work involving all four Administrations is aimed at agreeing a UK view of key data to support traceability.

As I said, AHDB has established a subsidiary company, Livestock Information Ltd, to carry out the services on behalf of AHDB and DEFRA. We are told that the estimated cost is £32 million over three years, and the projected monetised net benefit using a 10-year appraisal method is conservatively placed at £30 million. AHDB says that improved traceability data will enable a range of other benefits, including reducing the impact of endemic diseases, increasing our ability to act quickly and proportionately in the event of an exotic disease outbreak, and improving livestock business productivity.

Some questions follow from that, however. Under the provisions of the instrument, each devolved Administration will have their own database. How will we be able to trace animals as they move across borders? On the implementation of the system, will there be an instant switchover, or a transition period in which both old and new systems operate alongside one another? What is the timeframe for getting the new traceability system up and running?

Farmers currently pay a levy for the use of AHDB services. In bringing the new traceability system under the remit of AHDB, DEFRA says there are no plans for a new levy to fund any of the services the regulations bring in. “No plans” is a term that is regularly used, often euphemistically. Can the Minister give a guarantee that there will not be a levy? It appears that Livestock Information Ltd will cost £32 million of taxpayer money that is immediately handed to a subsidiary in which DEFRA has a minority stake. Will the Minister explain why that is?

Looking at the direct payments instrument, we have been here before. The draft regulations are laid under the new Agriculture Act 2020 and need to come into force on 1 January 2021 to ensure that direct payment support will be available for farmers in England for the 2021 claim year. The Government have confirmed the continuation of direct payments for 2020 in the Direct Payments to Farmers (Legislative Continuity) Act 2020, which we discussed back in January, but as we heard earlier this week, some of the payments will be phased out in England under the new Agriculture Act from next year over the following seven years, beginning with a 5% to 25% cut in farmers’ income next year.

This statutory instrument has been noted as an instrument of interest by the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee. According to DEFRA, the instrument aims to maintain the status quo as far as possible for farmers next year. The instrument sets rules about the financial ceilings used to calculate farmers’ direct payments, giving the Secretary of State time to determine the ceilings for the 2021 claim year before the start of that year, as the current financial ceilings extend only to the 2020 claim year. It also removes from 2021 elements of direct payments that have not previously been implemented in England, some of which have been used in the rest of the UK. The Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee notes that separate legislation will be required for the Government’s planned reforms to phase out direct payments from 2021.

Back in January, when we discussed the Direct Payments to Farmers (Legislative Continuity) Act, Labour pressed the Government on the need for a legislative mechanism for direct payments to farmers to be continued beyond 2020. We predicted that we would be back later in the year—and here we are, with the Government using the Agriculture Act as that mechanism to use this SI for 2021.

We welcome the shift from supporting land ownership to helping farmers restore land and improve our natural environment, but farmers are rightly concerned about how they are going to survive during the transition the Government propose. On Monday, it was revealed that direct payments will start to be cut next year, and will be cut by 50% by 2024, yet the new environmental land management schemes will not fully up and running until 2024. What was once envisaged as a bridging sustainable farming incentive payment will not be available for farmers until 2022, and in the view of many, including Labour Members, there is still too little detail of the schemes to help farmers to plan for uncertain times ahead. Based on DEFRA’s own statistics, 75% of farming enterprises are currently unprofitable without direct payments. We fear that many farms will be left financially unviable under the Government’s proposals.

A recent survey of landowners and farmers by the Country Landowners Association found high levels of concern about the implementation of the new ELM schemes, with 76% of respondents fearing that the payments would not be sufficient and 57% thinking that administration would be poor. The Rural Payments Agency will be administering new payment schemes—we all know that it has had a troubled history, although it has improved in recent times—and there remain real doubts about the capacity to deliver new systems alongside administering legacy payments.

The high-risk approach to our farmers’ future security is, I am sorry to say, of a piece with the highly ideological approach that the Government have taken to farming post Brexit. The Government still refuse to back British farmers with a legal guarantee that they will not be undercut by cheaper, lower-standard food allowed in through trade deals that, despite the claims, will still lack proper parliamentary scrutiny.

I will not go over familiar ground again, the Minister will be glad to hear, but let me put some specific questions on this instrument. The draft regulations that she has come forward with today provide farmers with direct payments for just 2021. Will regulations need to be laid every year for the seven years of the agricultural transition period to continue direct payments in their current form prior to phasing out? When are the Government going to come forward with regulations for phasing out direct payments?

These provisions remove a number of elements of direct payments that have not been applied in England but have been elsewhere in the UK. These include the redistributive payment and voluntary coupled support schemes that have been used in Wales and Scotland. They also take out the active farmer provision and basic payment scheme agri-environment transfer. Will the Minister confirm that there is nothing here that will restrict devolved Administrations from making their own choices? While we understand the concerns about the active farmer provision, we still believe that measures are needed to ensure that money goes to farmers, not just landholders.

This is a continuation of direct payments to farmers for next year, which is welcome, but we know that the Government are planning to cut direct payments for next year. What support are they going to give farmers facing a 5% cut in their income next year? Has DEFRA undertaken an impact assessment on what direct payment cuts would look like to farmers in different sectors and farm sizes, and will they release that impact assessment?

We know that different parts of the UK will now be pursuing different payment support schemes for farmers, as agriculture is a devolved area. How will the Government ensure that we do not see market distortions emerging across the UK? Given its past performance failures, can the Minister guarantee that the Rural Payments Agency is competent to administer the many changes and parallel systems emerging over the next few years?

In conclusion, let me turn to perhaps the most complicated of the three SIs before us, on WTO compliance. This instrument has been made under the Agriculture Act but relates to the withdrawal of the United Kingdom from the European Union. It introduces a legal framework to ensure UK-wide compliance with WTO commitments on the use of domestic support for agriculture. I understand that this is a largely technical change following our withdrawal, so this SI was not reported on by the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments.

While a member of the EU, UK interests at the WTO were represented by the European Commission, which was responsible for ensuring that the UK complied with WTO agreements. That included the WTO agreement on agriculture, which sets out a number of general rules and commitments that signatory nations must follow on agricultural trade practices, including disciplines on domestic support, market access and export subsidies. Following the UK’s withdrawal from the EU, the UK will now represent its own interests at the WTO, and the UK Government will be responsible for ensuring that the UK complies with its obligations and commitments as an independent WTO member. These include obligations relating to the classification and notification of domestic support and the UK’s commitment to reduce its aggregate measurement of support.

As the Minister said, this instrument specifies the amount of amber box payments that may be given in each country of the United Kingdom—amber box payments being those that have trade-distorting effects, which are limited under the WTO agreement on agriculture. This instrument also outlines the procedure for classifying such schemes and permits the Secretary of State to request information where this is needed to enable the United Kingdom to satisfy its obligations. The explanatory memorandum says that it

“allows for each UK administration to design and implement their own agricultural support schemes within an amber box spending envelope.”

These provisions stem from part 6 of the Agriculture Act, and they were criticised at the Committee stage by the devolved Administrations. There were concerns that, despite agriculture being a devolved area, the Act gave the Secretary of State the centralised power to decide how farm support payments everywhere in the UK will be classified in relation to international trade rules, and to set limits on how much can be paid out by each Administration. At the Committee stage of the Agriculture Bill, Labour sought to amend the Bill by requiring Ministers to consult with each devolved authority on a draft of the relevant regulations. This was rejected by the Government, but the Minister committed to consult with the devolved Administrations on the making of regulations under part 6.

The Government have outlined in their explanatory memorandum for this SI:

“These regulations were drafted in consultation with policy officials from the devolved administrations, who were given the opportunity to comment at each drafting stage. It was possible to accommodate the majority of their comments and suggested changes whilst recognising that UK Government’s position is that ensuring compliance with international obligations remains a reserved issue.”

I have to say that, from speaking to some of my Scottish colleagues, I am not entirely convinced they completely agree with that characterisation of the discussion. So can the Minister explain what consultations have been had with the devolved authorities on the content of these regulations, how the majority of their comments and suggested changes were accommodated, and what suggestions, if any, were not accommodated?

In conclusion, these are indeed an eclectic group of instruments, but they are all important to make sure our farmers are paid, to ensure that we use the latest technology to best effect to maintain the health of our livestock and to ensure that agricultural support systems are WTO-compliant. We are not opposing them, but there are questions I have posed, and I look forward to hearing the Minister’s answers.

ARM: Foreign Acquisition

Debate between Daniel Zeichner and Jim Shannon

Monday 21st September 2020 Commons Chamber

[Daniel Zeichner (Cambridge) (Lab)]

Earlier this evening, BBC Look East reported that this was a debate worth waiting up for, so we surely must not disappoint. I am very grateful for the opportunity to raise an issue vital to my constituency, but also important for the future of the wider UK economy. I declare at the outset that I am a member of Unite the union, and I am very grateful to it for giving me the opportunity to hear directly from members employed at the company.

This urgently needed debate is to secure answers on the future of one of the UK’s most successful tech companies, ARM, which is based in my constituency. It was confirmed last Monday that it was being sold to the American tech firm Nvidia. Since it was founded in 1990 in Cambridge, ARM has become one of the UK’s best home-grown technology success stories, with huge global reach. It now designs and licenses the basic blueprints of chips used in around 90% of the world’s smartphones, as well as countless sensors, smart devices and cloud devices. Hundreds of global companies license its designs, including Apple, Samsung, Huawei and Qualcomm, putting the UK firmly at the centre of global technological development. ARM employs around 2,700 people in the UK, many in highly skilled, high-tech jobs. They work in its headquarters in Cambridge and across the country in Belfast, Manchester and Warwick.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

First, I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on securing this Adjournment debate. I share his concern, as I have a number of high-tech and modern manufacturing companies in my constituency. Does he agree that the proposed sale will be against the national interest and the UK’s ambitions to be a European technological powerhouse? It is important for us in the UK to look after our own.

[Daniel Zeichner]

The hon. Gentleman anticipates my arguments, because there can be little doubt that this home-grown tech star is a great national asset for the country. Back in 2016, alongside many in Cambridge and across the UK tech sector, I was hugely disappointed to see ARM sold to the Japanese conglomerate SoftBank. I warned then that we were losing control of this important national asset, and I fear we are now seeing that warning borne out.

ARM’s sell-off in 2016 was backed by this Government with conditions that its headquarters would stay in Cambridge and its staff would be maintained, and so far that guarantee has been honoured, but we are now faced with a new situation with the news of the sale last Monday. Back in 2016, the then Chancellor, Philip Hammond, considered it so significant that he announced the deal personally and legally binding guarantees enforceable by the Takeover Panel were secured. This time there has been silence from Government—a silence that I hope will be broken this evening. Although I recognise the sensitivities around commercial confidentiality, the same applied back in 2016. We need to know what the Government’s view is on the transfer of a key UK- based technology giant, particularly in such uncertain times.

Unsustainable Packaging

Debate between Daniel Zeichner and Jim Shannon

Monday 24th June 2019 Westminster Hall

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

Fur Trade

Debate between Daniel Zeichner and Jim Shannon

Monday 4th June 2018 Westminster Hall

[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.