Oral Answers to Questions

Sandy Martin Excerpts

Thursday 31st October 2019 Commons Chamber

[Sandy Martin (Ipswich) (Lab)]

Thank you, Mr Speaker, for making me feel welcome in the short time I have been here so far.

After “The Blue Planet” and other television programmes, after the in-depth investigations by Friends of the Earth and others, after the mass campaigning by schoolchildren all over the world to prevent plastics in our oceans and after the verdict against a major British company for exporting unsorted waste, can the Secretary of State explain to me why there was nothing in the Environment Bill to tackle waste once it has left this country or to ensure that material collected in good faith for recycling is actually recycled?

[Theresa Villiers]

The Government are absolutely determined to crack down on any unlawful waste exports and to ensure that waste that is exported is dealt with appropriately. I wish to emphasise that this Government are doing more or less more than any other Government in the world on this, including by making real progress in ensuring that we protect 4 million sq km of the world’s oceans by the end of next year.

Environment Bill

Sandy Martin Excerpts

2nd reading: House of Commons & Money resolution: House of Commons & Ways and Means resolution: House of Commons
Monday 28th October 2019 Commons Chamber

[Sandy Martin (Ipswich) (Lab)]

Members have made many excellent speeches. Unfortunately, time has been far too short for everybody to say everything they wanted, but I want to highlight a few of the points that were made. The hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Neil Parish) questioned how the Office for Environmental Protection would hold the Government or other public bodies to account, and that sentiment was shared by the right hon. Member for Ludlow (Mr Dunne) and the hon. Members for Newton Abbot (Anne Marie Morris) and for Waveney (Peter Aldous).

My hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield (Mary Creagh) described how far we have come as a member of the European Union and talked about the danger of regression from EU standards. My hon. Friend the Member for Bristol East (Kerry McCarthy) pointed out that having due regard to standards does not constitute accountability. The hon. Member for Truro and Falmouth (Sarah Newton) talked about the need for objective information, which is so important if people are going to make these provisions stick. My hon. Friend the Member for Newport West (Ruth Jones) talked about the need for more powers and resources for councils. The hon. Member for Gloucester (Richard Graham) talked about it being time to drop fracking, with which I strongly agree.

We have had less than three hours to debate the Second Reading of this mammoth Bill. It is a Bill that covers so many areas in which radical change is needed if we are to deal with the climate crisis and hand on to our children an environment that is fit to live in. The Government have been promising an environment Bill for years, and we have been demanding it for years. I hope everyone recognises the vital importance of enshrining the environmental protections that we currently enjoy as part of the EU in a British legislative framework that will safeguard that protection when we leave. As the Bill stands, however, it does not afford the environment the protection that it will need if and when we leave the EU, let alone provide a course towards sustainability and net zero emissions, which are critical if we are to survive. There are huge omissions to be filled and huge inconsistencies to be ironed out if it is to have the effect for which so many campaigners and hon. Members have been hoping.

The basic premise underlying the Bill—that we can and must replace the external arbiter of the EU with our own Office for Environmental Protection—depends on the OEP having the independence and the powers to hold the Government of this country to account, to prevent our law and our institutions from undermining our environment, to rule out actions that the Government might want to take and to impose fines for breaches. How can that be done by an OEP that has been appointed by the very Secretary of State that it is meant to be holding to account, without any meaningful involvement from anyone else?

Before EU regulations started to change the practice in this country, we were the dirty man of Europe. It was only because the Labour Government went beyond what EU regulations required that we now have protections that may sometimes go further than other European countries. It is a matter of regret that we will no longer be able to lead on EU environmental protection once we are no longer a member. How much of that protection will survive in the face of demands from US agriculture or multinational chemicals giants while we try in desperation to agree one-sided trade deals with much larger economic blocs?

Timing is another issue. Far too much in the Bill envisages decisions that will not take effect for years. How can we secure clean air for our children when many of the proposed measures will take 15 years to have any effect? There is no indication of the powers or resources that will be needed to take fossil fuel vehicles off our roads, but some 35,000 to 40,000 of our citizens die prematurely every year. This is an emergency, and rapid and radical action needs to be taken now.

On waste, where is the mechanism to end the export of plastic waste to countries that do not have the facilities to deal with it? Where is the commitment to resource our local authorities to enable the recyclable materials collections envisaged in the Bill? Where is the Government commitment to invest in recycling and composting infrastructure in this country? Where is the commitment to reducing waste in the first place? All the initiatives proposed in the Bill appear to depend on the private sector providing the finance, the investment, the facilities and even the administrators and scheme enforcement. Have the Government learned nothing from the fiasco of packaging recovery notes, which have done nothing to reduce waste or boost recycling?

Part 5, on water, makes no firm commitments to reduce water consumption or the carbon use of the water industry. The right hon. Member for Scarborough and Whitby (Mr Goodwill) talked about the improvements made in our water services since privatisation, but there has been a massive increase in the amount of money that households pay for their water since privatisation. Clearly some of that has gone into improving the water infrastructure, but a great deal has gone into profits for shareholders and massive pay cheques for executives.

Any Government that view the profit motive, rather than the best interests of people, as the most effective driver of policy is likely to see lower environmental standards. Without proper investment in the public sector, we will not achieve the step change that we need in tree planting, protection of our wildlife habitats, waste and resource efficiency, reducing the impact of water consumption or protection from chemical pollution. This Government do not have a good track record in investment in the public sector. They are introducing this Bill because they realise that they have to be seen to be doing something. We will hold them to what they say and use this opportunity to push for amendments that we believe could strengthen the Bill and make it genuinely effective. For that reason, we will not oppose Second Reading.

Plastic Food and Drink Packaging

Sandy Martin Excerpts

Thursday 24th October 2019 Westminster Hall

[Sandy Martin (Ipswich) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stringer.

I was delighted to read this report, and I congratulate the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Neil Parish) and his Select Committee on its production. It is wide-ranging, insightful, accessible, level-headed and challenging —all in just 41 pages of actual text. I actually enjoyed reading it; I apologise to any Members who might think I need to get out more. I fully support the emphasis that the report puts on using deposit return schemes to increase the quality and value of recycling, and I thank the hon. Gentleman for emphasising that today.

I hear what the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) is saying about the importance of working co-operatively with councils. That needs to come in before the strategy is created, as well as during the operation of any waste strategy. I agree with the Chair of the Select Committee about ensuring that a convenient and effective regime is in place for people to use before we start to impose any penalties on people for not using it. I agree with the hon. Member for Dunfermline and West Fife (Douglas Chapman) about the necessity for education and public information, to ensure that people know how the regime is meant to work.

The hon. Member for Carlisle (John Stevenson) said that he did not want us to impose things on people. Of course we need to work with industry and retailers, but we also need regulation to prevent bad practice from crowding out and undercutting good practice.

[Matt Rodda (Reading East) (Lab)]

My office and I ran a survey of small businesses in my constituency, and we discovered that many small business people are keen to support that work. They would be interested to read the report, although perhaps not quite as interested as my hon. Friend. Their issue, however, was that they wanted leadership from central Government. It is wonderful to see the level of agreement among the different parties represented in the Chamber today, but does he agree that what is needed is that leadership?

[Sandy Martin]

I absolutely agree. Far too much of the discourse about waste and the environment has been couched in terms that sound as though they are intended to make people feel guilty. We do not need to make people feel guilty; we need to put in place the regimes that enable them to do the right thing. I very much welcome the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol East (Kerry McCarthy) about the importance of Parliament’s setting a good example. That can extend to us as Members of Parliament—not only here in Parliament, but in our constituencies.

The hon. Member for St Ives (Derek Thomas) spoke about the unspoilt countryside in Cornwall, which I have enjoyed, like almost everyone else in this country. The important issue of plastic litter is clearly one of the public drivers in the debate about waste, and that is one of the good reasons why deposit return schemes are effective. In Germany, more than 98% of applicable packaging is recycled through deposit return schemes. As the hon. Member for Chichester (Gillian Keegan) pointed out, we could have people scouring the countryside, picking things up and ensuring they were not left lying around.

There was some discussion about local foods. The day before yesterday, I was rather distressed to see a response from DEFRA about Brexit, saying that we will need to rely more on local food and mentioning our ability to change over to root vegetables. I would support that, but they referred to cabbages and leeks as root vegetables; given that, I am not sure quite how much guidance we will get from DEFRA about what we should be eating. I absolutely agree about the need to get away from wholly unnecessary packaging and I am sure—well, I hope—that any strategy that the Government bring in will help to address that.

I also agree with the hon. Member for Chichester that people want to do the right thing. I had experience of that in Suffolk when we introduced a three-bin doorstep collection system, and there was an enormously high level of compliance. If we do the right thing, we will get people to comply with the regime.

The past year has been a bit of a roller-coaster ride for waste, and I feel we are on one of the high-speed sections at the moment—I very much hope that the wheels do not come off. A year ago, I was asked to take on the role of shadow Minister for waste and recycling. Within weeks, the Government published their strategy document “Our Waste, Our Resources”. Arising from that have been several extensive consultations, and several petitions and debates have arisen as the general public have made us all aware of the seriousness with which they take the issue.

Running in parallel with all that, the EFRA Committee committed to an in-depth examination of many of the trickier issues, of which the report is the result. Now, of course, we have the new Environment Bill, part 3 of which, on waste and resources, covers many but not all of the issues raised in the report. I say “covers”, but not necessarily “resolves”. I am certain that the work that went into the report and the evidence collected by the Committee were very valuable in informing the new Bill, but there are clearly concerns in the report, which I share, that are not yet resolved in the Environment Bill.

The report is extremely timely as it can inform any amendments that Members might wish to make to the Environment Bill; I am sure that there will be some. I will mention a few of the main themes, and ask the Minister for her reaction. First, and most importantly, the report is not complimentary about the Government’s lack of focus on waste reduction as the first priority. The industry tells us that there has been a significant reduction in the weight of some packaging, but that does not necessarily translate into a reduction in the environmental impact; if a turtle suffocates on a plastic bag, it makes little difference whether that plastic bag weighs one gram or two grams. Substituting plastic for card may well reduce the weight of the packaging but not its carbon footprint.

Between 2000 and 2010, there was a revolution in the recycling of waste in this country, driven largely by the landfill tax. During that revolution, household recycling rose by 235%. The landfill tax was a weight-based system. It was straightforward to understand and simple to administer, but recycling has plateaued for the past 10 years and it is time to move on to new, more effective ways of dealing with the problem. The highest priority has to be reducing the amount of waste that we generate, not just its weight. I ask the Minister whether the Government recognise the need to move away from weight as the prime factor in waste targets, and whether carbon impact might not be a better measure.

Secondly, I concur with the findings of the report, which, while clearly recognising the carbon footprint of plastic packaging and the potential environmental impact of plastic waste that is not properly disposed of, points out the danger of demonising plastic and letting other materials off the hook. As the report says, we urgently need more information about the overall life-cycle impacts of various packaging solutions, and the figures quoted in various parts of the report—and the inconsistencies between some of them—clearly demonstrate that we cannot rely solely on data from the industries involved to inform policy decisions.

There needs to be a far more effective independent research and data regime for waste and resource use. More significant investment in the area is likely to save huge amounts in developing our waste policies in the future. I challenge the Minister to tell us whether the Government intend radically to increase the resources available to the Waste and Resources Action Programme as a matter of urgency, and what other research and development investments in waste management the Government are contemplating.

Thirdly, the report rightly highlights the laxity of the current reporting regime for producers, with the threshold for reporting on packaging set far too high. I would be interested to hear whether the Minister believes that the statutory duty to comply with whatever waste regimes are introduced through the new Environment Bill should apply to all—or almost all—producers, or whether, once more, a substantial number of businesses will simply escape the system.

Fourthly, the report examines in some depth the problems associated with compostable plastics. The desirable disposal methods for compostable plastics and for recyclable plastics are completely different, and it is essential that they should be kept separate. Yet there is very little recognition of that in the Environment Bill, so I would be interested to hear from the Minister whether she will be guided by the report in amending the relevant sections of the Environment Bill when the time comes.

Finally, an issue that is touched on in the report, and has been mentioned by the Chair of the Select Committee, but is not, I believe, given sufficient emphasis, is the lack of recycling facilities in the United Kingdom, and the tragic impact on our oceans caused by the export of waste to countries that were clearly not equipped to deal with it in a sustainable way. That issue has, however, been extensively covered in a previous report this year from the Environmental Audit Committee, so I understand why the EFRA Committee would not want to repeat those findings.

There is plenty more that I could say about this excellent report, but most of it has been said by others already, so I will take my seat and listen with interest to what the Minister has to say.

[Graham Stringer (in the Chair)]

Minister, may I ask you to leave, if possible, 90 seconds to two minutes for the Chair of the Select Committee to wind up?

Draft Waste and Environmental Protection (Amendment) (Northern Ireland) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019

Sandy Martin Excerpts

Tuesday 22nd October 2019 General Committees

[Sandy Martin (Ipswich) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Robertson. I will not try to pretend that the eyes of the world are on us here in this room; I am sure that some or all of the hon. Members here would have preferred to be in the Chamber. [Hon. Members: “No!”] However, I am thrilled and slightly surprised to see that the hon. Member for Lichfield is perfectly capable of being in two places at the same time. I have a great deal of respect for that.

I am delighted to speak on the Waste and Environmental Protection (Amendment) (Northern Ireland) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019. Let us be very careful that we do not muddle today’s SI with the Waste (Miscellaneous Amendments) (Northern Ireland) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019 or the Environmental Protection (Amendment) (Northern Ireland) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019, because, of course, those are the amendments that we made in those regulations, and these are the amendments that we are making to the amendments that we made, which we are amending here today. Indeed, let us also be very careful in future not to muddle the Waste and Environmental Protection (Amendment) (Northern Ireland) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019 with the waste and environmental protection (amendment) (Northern Ireland) (EU exit) Regulations 2020, which we could very well be dealing with in three or four months’ time.

I am not just trying to be funny or to waste hon. Members’ time. The fact is that we are here amending amendments that were previously made in these three previous amending SIs, and one piece of Northern Ireland primary legislation that got away and failed to be amended at the time when the other amendments were being made. I say here and now that I am in no way casting any aspersions whatever on the DEFRA staff and others who have had to make such strenuous efforts over the past year to carry out a near-impossible job; but, however hard we try, we are not going to be able to get all the regulations right for leaving the European Union.

Our 46 years of regulatory alignment, 46 years of developing the most comprehensive and effective protections in the world for food safety, animal welfare, environmental protection and waste management, and 46 years of seamless, safe and trouble-free trade cannot be undone quickly or without extreme difficulty. I hope that hon. Members facing these detailed and technical SIs, which are attempting—sometimes unsuccessfully—to untangle the threads of the legislative fabric that we have woven alongside our European partners, will consider quietly and honestly whether they really think that what we are doing is in the best interests of the people of this country.

With the greatest respect to the Minister, who has attempted to explain away the change to the wording on taking into account the “best available techniques”, and her careful answer to the hon. Member for Lichfield, I am afraid I still do not understand why it is necessary to remove the words from the Waste and Contaminated Land (Northern Ireland) Order 1997. I am sure that the Minister would not want any best available techniques not to be taken into account. It would have been very helpful if the explanation had been given in writing, in the explanatory memorandum. I will be interested to see that explanation in writing in the future. I can quite understand why the Minister believes that the words are not necessary; what I cannot understand is why she believes it is necessary to remove the words.

The other matter that I have still not understood is why we need to move towards the aim of becoming something rather than aiming to become it, or indeed moving towards it. Perhaps the Minister will explain the significance of those changes, and also explain why we will not go the whole hog and consider the possibility of seeking to move towards the aim of becoming something. Most people would want to know whether we were actually going to achieve our aims and not have all this additional hedging added in.

I hope we do not have to hold many more of these amendment SI Committees. On that point, I confidently expect all hon. Members to agree with me, but I fear we have much of this to come.

Trade in Animals and Animal Products (Legislative Functions) and Veterinary Surgeons (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019

Sandy Martin Excerpts

Monday 7th October 2019 General Committees

[Sandy Martin (Ipswich) (Lab)]

I will not take issue with the wording or the provisions in the statutory instrument, but I will take issue with a lot of the implications and the way in which it has been brought forward. When we considered a whole raft of these statutory instruments back in April, we warned that the greatest danger to animal and plant health might come from imports from third countries that came through other European Union countries on their way to the United Kingdom, but that were no longer being checked by the European Union on the grounds that we were no longer a member. That still very much remains the case.

From reading this statutory instrument, it is clear that it is an attempt to shore up our defences against that danger, but I am not at all clear how that will happen. How will we have enough qualified staff to make all the inspections necessary when we have relied on the European Union to make checks and to set the criteria for those checks, and even relied on EU nationals being most of our veterinary surgeons and carrying out much of our other agriculture and animal-related work? Have the Government set aside any funding to increase the recruitment and training of scientists and inspectors for doing this work? On what basis can the United Kingdom assess the safety of third countries, when most of the labs, assessment procedures and criteria have until now been located, set or carried out in the European Union, with its far greater resources for so doing?

What assurance can the Minister give that the United Kingdom will not be bludgeoned into accepting dangerous imports as part of an unbalanced trade deal with the United States, China or any other large power? What would be the implications of losing recognised third-party status with the EU, which is a real possibility if we do end up having a trade deal with a third party that involves our importing things that the EU would not consider safe? Is there any intention of adding to our list importing countries that are not yet recognised by the EU as third-party countries? If so, why would we be more likely than the EU to recognise that they were a valuable and safe importer, given that the EU has far greater facilities and capacity for assessing whether a third party would be safe to import from? All those questions show the difficulty of this country suddenly starting to do for itself something that we have done co-operatively with the rest of the European Union for many years until now.

There is a real issue about the use of the made affirmative process, especially in this case. The Minister says that it is an urgent case, but the process does not allow for careful reflection. Over and over again with such SIs, we have seen small errors that could, and in some cases probably would, result in serious holes in our legislation that would allow serious breaches of this country’s plant and animal safety. Doing it this urgently does not allow for the sort of careful reflection that we need to get these statutory instruments right. It is not necessary to do this using the made affirmative process in any case, because we are meeting here today on 7 October, according to my watch, which comes before 11 October. I would be grateful if the Minister could explain why it is necessary to do this using the made affirmative process.

In any case, as my hon. Friend the Member for Garston and Halewood pointed out, if the Government were serious about doing a deal, and having a deal for us to leave the European Union, it would not be necessary to cover these statutory instruments today. If the Government are not serious about doing a deal, surely they are still serious about abiding by the European Union (Withdrawal) (No. 2) Act 2019, which would rule out a no-deal Brexit on 31 October.

[Alex Chalk (Cheltenham) (Con)]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way. The former Prime Minister had a deal that dealt with the money, citizens’ rights and the transition period. If the hon. Gentleman was so keen on a deal, which part of that package did he, in truth, disagree with?

[Sandy Martin]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for raising the same question that members of his party have raised over and over again. There are lots of things that I disagreed with in the former Prime Minister’s deal, but this is not the time or place to go into them. That is not within the scope of the regulations; what is within scope is the real danger we are putting this country in on animal health and the possibility of the spread of disease as a result of the determination to go for a no-deal Brexit.

--- Later in debate ---

[George Eustice]

I shall try to deal with as many of the points that have been raised as possible. Starting in reverse order with the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Windsor, it is indeed the case that these powers, having been brought across, give the UK Government the power and the ability to change the list should, for instance, the European Union have a more lax state of affairs than us. Should it take unnecessary risks with food safety or public health, we would have the option to change the list to have a more stringent approach should it be necessary.

The purpose of amending the regulations now is, in the initial instance, to give the European Union the reassurance that we have all of the powers that we need dynamically to align our regulations on some of these SPS issues with the EU so that it can be reassured that we are not going to depart during that transitional period from the inspection regime that it currently has.

The hon. Member for Ipswich, the shadow Minister, raised the issue of goods from third countries. He is concerned that they may not be checked or inspected at all, but that is not the case. Currently, goods that come into the European Union will be checked in accordance with European standards. Goods that come into the UK on the day after we leave the European Union will also be checked, as they are now, on behalf of the European Union, in exactly the same way that they are now. Where we have transit goods—goods that are landed in another EU country but are destined for the UK market—they will be checked in exactly the same way as they are now when they come into the UK.

So it is already the case that goods in transit are inspected in the UK when they arrive, not at the port of entry. In so far as they are not coming through as goods in transit, but are simply landed in another EU port and then re-exported to the UK, they would undergo the same checks as they do today through the EU’s own system.

The other point I want to make is about rapid alert systems. The EU system is called RASFF: ports in member states can alert one another to problems that they have encountered at the border. The UK contributes the vast majority of the data to that, far more than any of the other countries. I think that for some items, as much as 75% of the intelligence on the system comes from the UK. We have to understand that the EU does not have its own inspection taskforce; it relies on member states. Currently, this task is performed at border inspection posts by the Animal and Plant Health Agency on our behalf, which does a very thorough job. That is where the expertise comes from; it does not come specifically from the European Union.

It may be the case that more goods have to go through the transit route to get to the UK. We anticipate an increase in the number of transit goods, which could mean up to around 8,000 extra checks at UK border inspection posts compared with now. However, we believe that we already have the resources to manage what is a small increase, based on the number of checks that we already do.

The hon. Member for Ipswich asked why we need to use the urgent procedure for this regulation. A European Union SCoPAFF meeting is taking place on 11 October, a few days away; that is not long. It has been a rather moving date: at one point it was going to be earlier in October, then at another point it was going to be 18 October, and it now seems to be moving again to 11 October. Given the importance of getting that third-country listing, we believed it was important to ensure we had done everything possible to provide the EU with the reassurance it wanted to be able to expedite that listing. That is why we made this regulation under the urgent procedure.

The hon. Gentleman ventured into a number of other areas, including the so-called Benn Act—the European Union (Withdrawal) (No. 2) Act 2019. However, when challenged on some of those points, he also pointed out that they were outside the scope of what we are discussing today, so I will not be drawn into those issues save to say that this Government are working very hard and energetically to get an agreement, and have come forward with a sensible proposal to replace the so-called Irish backstop.

[Sandy Martin]

Why is it necessary to bring this SI forward now if there is no chance of our leaving without a deal on 31 October, and if there is a chance of our leaving without a deal on 31 October, how does that square with the European Union (Withdrawal) (No. 2) Act? That was the point I was making about that Act.

[George Eustice]

I am sure the hon. Gentleman will be aware that the European Union (Withdrawal) (No. 2) Act does not say there cannot be a no-deal Brexit. It requires the Prime Minister to send a certain letter on a certain date. We do not yet know whether the European Union would agree to extend; we do not know what terms it would demand or extract; and we do not know whether those terms, and any counter-offer it made, would be acceptable to the Government, Parliament or anybody else. There are still many uncertainties here, and we are clear that we will leave, with or without a deal, at the end of October. That remains the Government’s position, and it is therefore prudent to prepare for all eventualities, which is why this SI is necessary.

Finally, I will deal with a point made by the hon. Member for Falkirk about vets and veterinary capacity. This particular regulation is more about the inspections that APHA would conduct on behalf of the Government on imports from third countries, and less about the export health certificate. No veterinary capacity is really relevant to those inspections, other than the APHA port inspections that we already carry out. As I said, I believe we have sufficient capacity to manage that small increase in load.

However, the hon. Gentleman has raised a point about export health certificates, where goods going the other way would need some veterinary attestation to say that the goods are what they said they were. We have been offering free training for official vets to sign EHCs. Some 736 have registered with APHA, and 564 are already enrolled on that course. I am told that 152 have qualified, and the number of official veterinarians who can sign EHCs for food products has increased by 200 since 8 February, to 835. We are also looking at additional approaches, such as having certification support officers so that this work can be done by people other than fully qualified vets. We are conscious that there will be an increase in burden when it comes to export health certificates, and we have been working to build capacity in that area.

I hope that I have managed to address most of the issues that have been raised, and therefore commend the regulation to the Committee.

Question put and agreed to.

Animal Health and Genetically Modified Organisms (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019

Sandy Martin Excerpts

Monday 7th October 2019 General Committees

[Sandy Martin (Ipswich) (Lab)]

Nobody who was aware of events in this country in the late ’80s is relaxed about the danger of allowing the reappearance of bovine spongiform encephalopathy in this country, so I am sure that the Minister would want to do everything necessary to ensure that it is not introduced from outside. European Council Regulations No. 999/2001 and 1069/2009 and the associated Commission decisions have been vital in dealing not only with BSE but with scrapie in sheep and other transmissible spongiform encephalopathies. By strictly regulating the import and export of all sorts of animal by-products, the EU has managed to control these diseases. I wonder how we would have fared if the EU had not existed at the time, or if there had been the same attitude to regulations that we see in some quarters now.

We are very worried that any deviation from EU regulations in this area, or reduction in the level of compliance, might lead to increased risk of importing or incubating BSE and other TSEs. Clearly, this SI is an attempt to ensure full alignment with EU regulations, and we are not going to argue with that, but we believe, as I mentioned with the previous SI, that driving this forward under the made affirmative process runs the very real risk that there might be mistakes, or gaps.

[Mr Goodwill]

Is it not the case that the mistakes that were made and the changes in the process that allowed BSE to develop happened while we were members of the European Union and under EU regulations? The idea that leaving the European Union will make that sort of thing more likely seems a rather spurious argument.

[Sandy Martin]

That is one for the historians, but the right hon. Gentleman overlooks the fact that the European Union managed to contain what was a very nasty and difficult outbreak, and to reverse a situation that might well have been extremely difficult to reverse in the context of international trade in animal products at the time. We have seen other animal diseases that were far more difficult to stamp out, over a much longer period of time, in the past. Clearly, no organisation will be an absolute guarantee against something new occurring, but learning from the problems that occur and ensuring that they do not reoccur must surely be one of the main objects of any organisation, whether a trade organisation or any other co-operative organisation.

As I said, the made affirmative process removes much of the depth of scrutiny that these instruments ought to have before they are made, and that risk is exacerbated by the speed at which some of these regulations are having to be driven through. I would like the Minister to reassure us that there are no plans to move away from adherence to these regulations once we have left the EU.

Will we be able to use the European trade control and expert system to ensure that the regulations are being complied with, if we leave the EU without a deal? Are there genuine plans to replace the TRACES system with a home-grown one for use in this country, and if so, why? It seems to me that a system that is used by every country in Europe is far more likely to be effective than one cobbled together in a single country, which then may or may not fit with what its trade partners are doing.

As for the amendments in regulation 5, dealing with genetically modified organisms, it may be the case that this SI does not make any changes in policy, but how likely is it that, once we are no longer members of the EU, this Government will maintain the same stance towards GMOs that the EU currently does? Will the Government maintain equivalent regulations to the EU on GMOs? If not, how will that affect our ability to export agricultural products to the EU, not to mention the possible effects on the environment? Whatever the limited scope of these SIs may be, the very fact that we are having to introduce them demonstrates the extent and complexity of the protections for our health and the health of our agriculture, which are being put at risk by the threat of a no-deal Brexit.

Exiting the European Union (Agriculture)

Sandy Martin Excerpts

Tuesday 1st October 2019 Commons Chamber

[Sandy Martin (Ipswich) (Lab)]

It takes a certain ingenuity to come up with new things to say about some of these statutory instruments, especially as I spoke at length about this one the last time we saw it. On Thursday, I stayed to listen to the Leader of the House and he took great relish in reading out the titles of the statutory instruments in what was a bit of a performance. But this is not a game. The details in the regulations that we have in the European Union have produced unparalleled food safety in this country—far better than the food safety that pertains in the United States—and exemplary environmental protections. We need to have SIs that are accurate and fit for purpose to make sure that we do not lose that food safety and environmental protection when we leave the European Union.

I have a series of questions for the Minister. How many SIs are still to be corrected before we can be sure that the safety of agricultural products we import will not be compromised? How will we know whether we have found all of those SIs? In answer to the right hon. Member for Wokingham (John Redwood), I have to say that while I would very much like us to grow more food in this country—I have mentioned broad beans—and there are various food groups where we could grow more of our own, I do not think we have time to grow a fully formed olive grove in Wokingham before 31 October. We will still need to continue to import food.

How can we be sure that all the other SIs are now fit for purpose? What will happen to all the SIs that are planned for next week if Parliament is prorogued again? If the Government are convinced that we will have a deal, why are we making preparations to leave without one? Can the Minister tell us whether he believes there is any likelihood that the House would vote to leave the EU without a deal, because I do not think there is? If we are going to leave without a deal, how can we support our agriculture and fisheries without passing the Agriculture and Fisheries Bills, which got so far before being shoved on to the backburner? I am sorry to have asked all those questions, but the fact is that I and this side do not believe that we are going to be fully ready to leave the EU on 31 October.

Exiting the European Union (Pesticides)

Sandy Martin Excerpts

Tuesday 1st October 2019 Commons Chamber

[Sandy Martin (Ipswich) (Lab)]

Whatever the risks to food safety and to agricultural producers and retailers from any errors in the other SIs we have debated, which deal with markets and import and export licences, they are massively enhanced by the risk of errors in any SIs pertaining to pesticides. This SI amends serious errors in the previous SI and gives us no confidence that there are not errors in other SIs dealing with regulations from the European Union that protect our health and our environment.

I am not enough of a lawyer to know whether it makes any difference to somebody who wishes to try to get away with an increased residue of 1,4-dimethylnaphthalene that it was identified in the previous SI as “1,4-dimethyl- napthalene”. However, other errors clearly would have allowed the use of dangerous pesticides, dangerous quantities of pesticides or inappropriate applications of pesticides if they had not been corrected by this SI. I direct hon. Members to regulation 6(4), which reverses the erroneous omission of provisions of annex 2 to regulation (EC) 1107/2009.

The problem we have is that, given the long, convoluted and dry naming of all these SIs, it is extremely difficult to identify where the errors are, but they are really important. In this case, if it were not for the correction in this SI, we would not have been able to prohibit the approval of active substances, safeners and synergists with endocrine-disrupting properties. Endocrine-disrupting properties have a significant effect on animal and human health.

If there are similar errors in other SIs, there is a real risk that we may open ourselves up to unhealthy reduction of our safeguards as part of negotiations to achieve a trade deal with the United States, where we know environmental health and human food safety take a back seat to profitability—in particular the profitability of the United States’ own producers. Our food safety and health, and the health of our environment, should not be up for negotiation. We have a real fear that, if we leave without a deal, there are other SIs that will open us up to that danger.

Oral Answers to Questions

Sandy Martin Excerpts

Thursday 25th July 2019 Commons Chamber

[Theresa Villiers]

We have gone further than any other Government in history on tackling plastic waste. I acknowledge the concern felt about the matter that the hon. Gentleman has raised. We will always try to move as fast as we can to ensure that we are taking the most effective action possible, but we also need to take time to ensure that we get it right. I assure him that I will be working hard to ensure that this action is delivered as soon as possible.

[Sandy Martin (Ipswich) (Lab)]

I welcome the new Secretary of State to her place.

On 1 May, this House unanimously supported Labour’s declaration of an environment and climate emergency. The Center for International Environmental Law predicts that plastics will contribute to 13% of global carbon emissions by 2050 if no action is taken, yet the Government’s plans do not envisage that extended producer responsibility for packaging will come into force before 2023 or that a 75% recycling rate will be achieved before 2030. Does the Secretary of State accept that the emergency requires much faster action?

[Theresa Villiers]

I look forward to working with the shadow Front Benchers on these issues. We have gone further and faster than the previous Labour Government with radical changes, including the plastic bag tax and our plans to ban plastic stirrers and other plastic products. We are a world-leading country on this issue, and we will continue to be so because we are determined to tackle the problem.

Unsustainable Packaging

Sandy Martin Excerpts

Monday 24th June 2019 Westminster Hall

[Sandy Martin (Ipswich) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir George.

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Daniel Zeichner) for his excellent speech introducing the debate. As he says, the public determination to deal with the scourge of plastic packaging is overwhelming, and MPs and the Government need to take heed of those concerns and act now.

I also thank all hon. Members who spoke and intervened, and I am delighted that there is a high level of agreement across parties on the issue. I will pick out a few points. My hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham East (Janet Daby) said that any recycling solutions we introduce need to fit with local authority capabilities. My hon. Friend the Member for Leeds North West (Alex Sobel) mentioned that there is no point trying to prevent plastic pollution in this country if we do not manage to prevent it in other countries and in their oceans.

The hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Neil Parish), in his substantial speech, made the strong point that we can reduce plastic packaging—that that is eminently achievable—but that we need to ensure that the correct plastics are treated in the correct way. He also made the case for a coherent national system, a case with which I very much agree. The hon. Member for Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock (Bill Grant) pointed out the importance of enabling communities to combat plastic litter. The hon. Member for St Albans (Mrs Main) said that we need to recognise the difference between items for which plastic packaging is unnecessary and those for which it is a sensible solution, and the importance of ensuring that compostable plastic really is compostable.

The petition calls for an end to non-recyclable and unsustainable food packaging, and goes on to call for a 100% recycling rate. My hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge made the point that it is not enough to call for packaging to be recyclable—it has actually to be recycled. Virtually every form of waste could be recycled if the public were able to separate it out, the local authorities were able to collect it, the plant were there to process it, and the manufacturers were willing to use the resulting recyclate rather than cheap raw materials. Some materials are clearly far more easily recycled than others, and when materials can be and are being recycled people need to know that.

[Mrs Main]

Thinking about my Appspond Lane heap of wood, does the hon. Gentleman agree that there has to be a market, some incentivisation to use the recycled goods? Otherwise, they become a valueless commodity; they might be recycled but no one wants them.

[Sandy Martin]

The hon. Lady is exactly right. That is clearly an important part of the entire recycling cycle.

There is no point allowing manufacturers to claim that a package is recyclable when they know that the facilities do not exist, and even less so when the cost of doing so would be ridiculously prohibitive. For instance, it is theoretically possible to recycle the traditional crisp packet, but I believe it currently costs more to recycle it, taking into account the collection costs, than the original cost with the crisps in it. The Government’s strategy paper “Our Waste, Our Resources: A Strategy for England” acknowledges that to a certain extent, but it still refers to targets for making packaging recyclable, so my first ask of the Minister is whether the Government will measure recyclability in future by whether the material is actually recycled, or simply on the basis of a theoretical claim by industry?

My second ask of the Minister is whether the Government will consider a graduated tax on plastic packaging, rather than a flat-rate tax on that which contains less than 30% recyclate. Many manufacturers are already pledging to move well beyond 30% recycled packaging, and I would submit that any regulation that aims to persuade people to do less than they are already doing voluntarily is either pointless or window dressing. Major multinational companies, such as SC Johnson, the American cleaning products company that makes the Ecover brand among others, are already aiming for high percentages of recycled material in all their packaging, and it would be a travesty if the 30% flat rate allowed other less ambitious companies to undercut their prices simply because the tax regime did not incentivise higher rates.

The plastics packaging industry makes various claims trying to minimise the perception of its impact. Plastics do not make up the majority of waste, measured by weight, but neither the climate change impact nor the pollution impact of waste is dependent on weight. Yes, of course, we want a sustainable solution for construction hardcore, but the environmental impact of a tonne of inert mixed rubble is negligible in comparison with the enormous problem that would be represented by a tonne of polystyrene foam or polythene bags.

The feedstock for most plastics is still fossil fuel, and the absolute necessity eventually to bring to an end the consumption of fresh fossil fuels, if we are to achieve net zero emissions by 2050, must include an end to the use of fossil fuels to create plastics as well. The industry proudly insists that 78% of plastics are currently recovered, but that mainly refers to recovery through incineration in energy-from-waste plants. The exact efficiency of the electricity generation varies from plant to plant, and depends on the mix of waste being incinerated, but we can be sure that plastic incinerated in an energy-from-waste plant will generate significantly less electricity than the oil it was made from would have done in a conventional oil-fired power station.

We do not use oil-fired power stations any more, as a rule, because of their unsustainable climate change implications. How much more unsustainable is it to incinerate plastic in an energy-from-waste plant? My third ask of the Minister is whether the Government have any plans to ensure that the proposed extended producer responsibility for packaging production will simply be allowed to subsidise more energy-from-waste plants, or whether they have any plans to ensure that the money is used to incentivise recycling instead?

As the petition makes clear, the public want to be able to recycle their packaging, but the best way to deal with unwanted plastic waste is to not create it in the first place. My hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge mentioned all sorts of imaginative ways in which mainly small retailers are avoiding the use of plastic packaging, all of which are laudable. However, we need a consistent, across-the-board step change in the way we purchase goods, the way packaging is designed, the materials it is designed from, and the way it is dealt with at end of life. Only a coherent national strategy from Government can achieve that, so my final ask of the Minister is this: will he pledge to ensure that all the good intentions, suggested actions, aims and targets in “Our waste, our resources” are pursued, accelerated where possible, and not shoved into the long grass under the next Prime Minister?

Dealing with our waste will be a crucial part of our ability to deal with the environment and climate emergency that we face. We need to reduce the amount of waste we create, and to reuse our packaging wherever possible and recycle or compost what is left, if we are to achieve zero net emissions by 2050 or stand any chance of maintaining any quality of life on our planet, for ourselves or any other creatures.