UK Food Security

Dan Poulter Excerpts

Tuesday 19th March 2024 Westminster Hall

[Sarah Dyke]

That is my very next point—the hon. Lady makes a very good one.

Unfair supermarket buying practices are leaving family farms teetering on a cliff edge. The current groceries supply code of practice is inadequate and rarely enforced. Nearly 70% of British fruit and veg farmers agree that we need tougher regulations to address the imbalance of power. Although our food system is structurally resilient, it is functionally non-resilient and it is not sustainable in the long term.

British farmers are receiving incoherent messages from the Government. On the one hand, they are told to engage more on sustainable practices, which is welcome, but on the other hand, this Conservative Government sign irresponsible trade deals with Australia and New Zealand that undercut our farmers on welfare practices and food standards. Good food security needs a trade policy that protects British agriculture.

We also need proper scrutiny of our trade deals. Even the former Environment Secretary, the right hon. Member for Camborne and Redruth (George Eustice), did not have a positive opinion of them, stating that the UK’s free trade deal with Australia was

“not actually a very good deal for the UK.”—[Official Report, 14 November 2022; Vol. 722, c. 424.]

We need to support the production of sustainable food at home and allow parity in the market. We should allow the system to put more emphasis on localism to provide a food system that is resilient and delivers a vibrant, cyclical local economy. I represent a constituency in rural Somerset, where people live next to local food suppliers, but their food is not always available to buy locally, despite the wishes of those producing it.

Polling by the Sustain alliance states that 75% of farmers indicated that gaining access to alternative, local markets gave them opportunities to demand a more competitive price for their produce, while keeping revenue local to create local jobs, and incentivise further investment on their farms. The current market limits those opportunities, whether that be difficulties with planning applications, stopping the construction of farm shops, for example, or the restrictions with buyer contracts that prevent farmers from shortening the supply chain.

[Dr Dan Poulter (Central Suffolk and North Ipswich) (Con)]

I congratulate the hon. Lady on securing the debate. I agree entirely that if we are to protect the consumer, we also have an interest in supporting and protecting the long-term sustainability of our food producers. On the point of planning, one of the biggest challenges we face is that, although we welcome the ability of farmers to diversify with farm shops or support renewable energy production on their land to some extent, there is a lot of pressure from developers to develop prime agricultural land for housing. Does the hon. Lady agree that more could be done, at national and local level, to support prime agricultural land for the production of food, rather than for housing development?

[Sarah Dyke]

I agree that there needs to be a balance between food production and housing supply. My view is that we need to ensure that housing is developed.

Neonicotinoids and other Pesticides

Dan Poulter Excerpts

Tuesday 5th March 2024 Westminster Hall

[Luke Pollard]

I agree with the Minister about the thresholds, but they do not detract from the fact that the Government have effectively established a baseline that they will authorise emergency use of neonicotinoids every year, notwithstanding that emergency use is subject to a threshold being met.

I do not see how we can be in the fourth year of an emergency without some urgent and emergency action being taken to address it. It would be kinder and more honest in this debate to say that the Government now have a standing policy to authorise the use of bee-killing pesticides for sugar beet crops, but a threshold has to be met. For me, that would seem a more honest appraisal because, after four years, it is a reality that this is authorised every year, and I do not think it should be.

[Dr Dan Poulter (Central Suffolk and North Ipswich) (Con)]

I am sympathetic to a lot of the points the hon. Gentleman is making, but does he not think that authorisation every year is a fairly reasonable position to get to in the absence of an alternative to neonics? One important thing that has not been discussed in this debate is that there is currently no viable alternative to neonics when the threshold has been met. Until we are in that position, authorisation may well be the reasonable course of action.

[Luke Pollard]

One advantage, or disadvantage, of having spoken in and called debates on the use of neonics is that I have listened to a number of Ministers cycle through the arguments for why authorisation is justified each and every year. In one earlier debate, the argument was put that we need to use the emergency authorisation because the new crop species are not yet online. In another, a Minister said that we need to use the emergency authorisation because the insurance scheme that would support sugar beet growers where there is disease in the crops is not yet online.

Those debates were many years ago, and we need to see honesty and transparency in this debate. I think the hon. Gentleman is saying that it would be reasonable to argue for using these pesticides if those things happen. What I am saying to the Minister is that we now have a standing policy that bee-killing pesticides are used on an annual basis, subject to a threshold. Let us be honest that it is a standing policy, and then we can debate whether the Government’s policy is right and what the alternatives are. At the moment, the annual reauthorisation is against the expert advice of the Government’s own scientific body, which does not support the position that we should be allowing these pesticides to be used on an annual basis.

[Dr Poulter]

I will give the hon. Gentleman a medical analogy—I am a practising doctor, as he may be aware. I may prefer certain medications over others and recognise that a medication I prescribe may have unpleasant side effects. Although I may wish that there was an alternative to that medication in development, at this moment it may be the only option available to me in my prescription repertoire to make the patient better. That is a similar situation to the one we are facing with the use of neonics. The issue here is what is being done to accelerate the finding of effective alternatives to neonics. That is the question we need to ask here, because we do not want to put farmers in a situation where the only viable treatment is completely banned.

[Luke Pollard]

I am grateful for that intervention. I am not a doctor, so I will not try to butcher a health analogy that might be shot down. I think the hon. Member for Central Suffolk and North Ipswich (Dr Poulter) is saying that we need to hear from the Minister about authorising neonicotinoids against expert advice, which the Government say they are following but are not, with a different excuse every year. I would like to see the destination we are going to. We have a standing policy now from DEFRA that that is authorised every year. It does not necessarily mean from what the Minister said in his intervention that they will be used every year, but they will be authorised every year. That is the standing policy.

The reality is that for the majority of years in this Parliament the Government have authorised neonicotinoids to be used in emergency cases. I do not believe we can have four years’ worth of emergencies. If a patient came to the hon. Member for Central Suffolk and North Ipswich four years in a row, I suspect he would challenge the use of the word “emergency” in that context. That is why I want this made clear. What is the Government’s destination? What is their plan? What are their alternatives for the use of neonicotinoids?

I do not want to limit what I say to farmers’ use of neonicotinoids. As this debate is about the broader use of neonicotinoids and we have established that neonics kill bees, that bees are essential for our ecosystem and that there is cross-party concern about the Government’s use of bee-killing pesticides, we have established that neonics are the problem. How they are deployed into our ecosystems is also a problem. We have looked at the neonic deployment in agriculture and sugar beets, but I want to talk about neonics in two other areas.

One is neonics’ use in imported food. For the countries where we have now signed trade deals that use neonics as standard in their agricultural production, how are we safeguarding our ecosystem and food supply against importing neonics in food, on coatings of food and in other agricultural products? We know that neonics, when exposed to the natural environment, get everywhere. We have seen studies recently, as cited in The Guardian only a month ago, that refer to neonics now appearing, according to a Swiss study, in children—in every child that was tested in the study. So we know that neonics are present.

We also know that neonics are present in our wildlife and in our rivers, as has been mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for City of Chester, and in our wider ecosystems. So we need to look at how we are getting neonics into those things and where neonics are imported in food.

Also, I have a concern that neonics are being used in flea treatment far too frequently. Dog and cat owners, in an attempt to look after their pets and make the right decision, are using neonicotinoids. Fipronil and imidacloprid are two different types of neonics used in flea treatment. We are advised to use it on the back of our pet’s neck and we are not supposed to touch the pet until it is dry. In practice, we know that the effects of those neonics and their ability to spread last for the duration of that flea treatment. We are seeing more neonics going into our rivers and watercourses as a result of flea treatments.

At the moment there is not enough focus on that area. If we have established that neonics are a concern for bees, we also need to understand the direction of travel. I do not come with a prescription for the Minister to cut and paste into policy; I am saying there is an issue here. It is important that we have an honest debate with members of the public who, I believe, are trying to do the right thing by their pets. Many of them would be utterly horrified and aghast if they found out that in trying to do the right thing to support their pets and prevent diseases they are harming our wider ecosystem.

There is a debate worth having, as the hon. Member for Central Suffolk and North Ipswich suggested, on a destination and how we address the problem. The authorisation for emergency use of bee-killing pesticides on sugar beet crops affects a certain part of the country primarily. It does not affect every watercourse or river catchment area, yet we are finding neonics in a wider variety of areas when bee-killing pesticides are used, so it is incumbent on us all to make a strong case against bee-killing pesticides in agriculture and also look at bee-killing pesticides used elsewhere.

Professor Dave Goulson, whom my hon. Friend the Member for City of Chester mentioned in her remarks and whom I met at a bee roundtable that I hosted a year or so ago to talk about bee-killing pesticides, warns that flea treatment harms fish and invertebrates that live in our waterways. Those are chemicals that were banned for agricultural use in the UK several years ago, and which remain banned for that use, but are allowed to be used in pet treatment—that is a question mark we have to look at. I have already spoken about the human health impacts; they are concerning and also need to be properly understood.

It is incumbent on all of us who campaign on bees, and who love bees, to make sure that our answers to this issue are clear on where we need to see action. The emergency authorisations for bee-killing pesticides in agriculture should end; they should not be allowed. I hope my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge will restate the position he has held in every one of the debates on this issue that I have spoken in over the course of this Parliament—that we should stop.

However, it is clear that there are also other challenges that we need to look at and investigate. Could the Minister explain where else we can look, and what science his Department is commissioning about the wider use of neonicotinoids and their pollution of our wider ecosystem? I do not think that any one of us present has the answer, but if we can agree on the problem, that will at least get us moving towards starting to address it.

I thank the campaigners—not only the wildlife trusts—who have been working on this and who are championing insects. Apart from bees, insects get a pretty bad rap—there are not many charities holding out for the daddy-long-legs, but without insects there is a really significant impact on our ecosystem. Insects should be championed much more. They are not just scary creepy-crawlies; they are absolutely essential for a vibrant ecosystem and the nature-based recovery that we all want to see.

In particular I want to thank Anabel Kindersley of Neal’s Yard Remedies for her tireless campaigning on this matter. No debate could happen without her continued pressure on MPs and her encouragement of us to keep pushing further and further. Bees and nature matter; if we are not having that constantly said, there is a risk that the wider use of neonics becomes something that is just accepted, and that their authorisation becomes an annual occurrence that passes without a parliamentary vote.

In previous debates I have spoken about the importance of a parliamentary vote. If something damages our environment, as we know that these pesticides do, and that is against Government advice, and against the principles of evidence-based policymaking and “following the science” that the Minister’s Department has set out, there should be an extra step before it is authorised.

The reason we do not have a debate and a vote on authorising bee-killing pesticides in agriculture is very simple—the Government would lose that vote each and every time. The Opposition MPs would vote against it and their own MPs would vote against it, and that is why we do not have a vote on it. That in itself should tell us a story about whether the use of those pesticides is acceptable behaviour.

In this latest authorisation, those chemicals are being used against the Government’s expert advice, and that is ill-judged and wrong. There has been no parliamentary vote on it, nor do I think the Minister wants one—it will not happen. I do not think we can have an emergency four years in a row without bigger action. That is why, whether we like it or not, bees are an election issue, and matter to the voters who we all represent. They are in decline across the country, despite the incredible efforts of local councils planting wild flower meadows and bee corridors, and of local people encouraging the use of hives. Pollenize is an amazing community interest company in Plymouth that puts amazingly-painted beehives all over our city and collects the honey, supporting nature-based recoveries. However, despite their work we know that that recovery is not working in the way we want it to.

This is not just about the emergency authorisation of bee-killing pesticides; it is about something else as well. This involves habitat loss and the wider use of neonics in our economy, and we must look at all of those. I look forward to hearing from the Minister, but I also look forward to hearing from my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge, so that we can be absolutely clear that those bee-killing pesticides would not be authorised if there were a change in Government. I would encourage my hon. Friend’s position on this matter to go in that direction.

If that were the case, there would be a greater focus on the issue that the hon. Member for Central Suffolk and North Ipswich mentioned—finding better ways of supporting our farmers who are affected by this issue. Not all farmers are affected, but some are, and they deserve support. If this were a genuine emergency it would be all hands on deck to try and solve this matter, but four years later it is still not all hands on deck. Four years later we are still here, having emergency authorisations passed without a parliamentary vote, and bees are still dying. That is why this needs to change; we need a change of approach, and I look forward to hearing from the Minister and the shadow Minister what that approach should be.

Sustainable Food Supply and Cultured Meat

Dan Poulter Excerpts

Wednesday 15th June 2022 Westminster Hall

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

I beg to move,

That this House has considered sustainable food supply and cultured meat.

Thank you, Dame Maria. I apologise for subjecting you to myself twice in one morning. I thank the Minister for Farming, Fisheries and Food, my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Victoria Prentis) for being here during an incredibly busy week for her. I know how hard she has been working, and I am deeply grateful for her presence. I would also like to thank the Good Food Institute, the Nature Friendly Farming Network, the Conservative Animal Welfare Foundation and Ivy Farm Technologies for opening my eyes and stimulating this debate.

It is a fact of parliamentary life that we go to a lot of receptions. Outside this place, people think they are a waste of time, but if we look and listen, we learn from them. The Ivy Farm presentation stimulated my interest in a subject that, frankly, I knew very little about until I was briefed. I am not starting from a conclusion; I am hoping to open an ongoing debate.

I will first place on record some quotes from the Government’s food strategy, which was published this week. The primary objective is:

“A prosperous agri-food and seafood sector that ensures a secure food supply in an unpredictable world and contributes to the levelling-up agenda through good quality jobs around the country.”

The second objective is:

“A sustainable nature positive, affordable food system that provides choice and access to high quality products that support healthier and home-grown diets for all.”

The next point follows on from what we were talking about this morning and relates to Ukraine.

“The conflict in Ukraine has shown us that domestic food production is a vital contributor to national resilience and food security. Domestic food production can reduce the offshoring of food production to countries that do not meet our high environmental and animal welfare standards.”

In the foreword to the document, the Secretary of State writes:

“Technological solutions are developing at pace. Our future farming policy will support innovative solutions to the environmental challenges we face.”

The final quote leads directly into what I want to briefly discuss this morning.

“Innovation will be a key component to sustainably boost production and profitability across the supply chain. We have committed to spend over £270 million through our Farming Innovation Programme and are supporting £120 million investment in research across the food system in partnership with UK Research and Innovation, in addition to other funding packages.”

That is the key and why I am standing here this morning. The potential, as I understand it, for cultivated meat is huge. Cultivated meat, scientifically, is meat processed and produced from tissue. It is not, and never will be, a replacement for fillet steak, a pork chop or a leg of lamb. What it can do is augment and supplement meat production in a way that reduces carbon dioxide emissions and the number of animals required for slaughter, which is an objective that most of us would like to see followed through.

I was astonished to learn that 18% of CO₂ emissions—more than all CO₂ emissions from transport globally—are caused by animals. As I understand it, the cultivation of meat can obviate a significant portion of those CO₂ emissions, and I believe that to be a desirable objective.

I wish to comment on one by-product of this issue. Earlier this week, the Prime Minister launched a “grow for Britain” plan in Cornwall; I simply say to the Minister, and through her to Downing Street, that it is an admirable objective, but if we are to grow for Britain, we need the farmland to grow crops on, which means not sacrificing our prime agricultural land to development in the way that “Builder Boris” is seeking to do at the moment. It has got to stop.

Let me come back to the issue of cultivated meat, on which I can be brief. Ivy Farm briefed me to indicate that, frankly, research in this whole area is lamentably underfunded in the United Kingdom and is therefore slow. Singapore approved the consumption of cultivated meat in 2020. In 2021, the United States approved a major research programme into the development of cultivated meat. China has put cultivated meat on its development road map this year. Canada and Israel are investing heavily indeed in this area.

My plea to the Minister is quite simple. As I said, I do not start from a conclusion, and I do not know what contribution cultivated meat can make in totality to our demand, consumption and sustainability, but I believe the potential is very significant indeed. If that is so, it seems to me that if we in the United Kingdom are to get ahead of the game—sadly, we too often remain behind the curve—we have to examine carefully our investment in research and development, and make sure that our regulation does not get in the way of the introduction into the market of cultivated meat.

[Dr Dan Poulter (Central Suffolk and North Ipswich) (Con)]

I congratulate my right hon. Friend on securing this debate. I sense that he may be drawing his remarks to a conclusion and waiting for the Minister to respond. Before he does so, could he perhaps also comment on the importance of a proper public sector food procurement strategy that backs British-produced food, be that cultivated meat or meat and other agricultural products that are farmed in this country? That is something we have not seen to date, and there is every opportunity, now that we left the EU, for the Government to take this issue forward.

[Sir Roger Gale]

That is slightly wider than the scope of this debate, but my hon. Friend is absolutely right to suggest that we need a co-ordinated initiative to ensure we deliver sustainable foods across the board. I know that the Minister will tell us we are largely sustainable and self-reliant with regard to meats and grains, and that there is a shortage in vegetables and fruit. I think we can go further. I know, because I happened to discuss this issue with the Minister only last night—I am sure she will answer my hon. Friend—that the Government have an initiative that may not be entirely Conservative but is certainly valid. It does not try to direct farmers on what they should grow but seeks to ensure properly that the right needs are met in the right places and at the right time.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Minister for Farming, Fisheries and Food (Victoria Prentis)]

It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dame Maria. I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for North Thanet (Sir Roger Gale) on securing a debate on such an interesting issue. In the Government’s food strategy, which we published on Monday, we acknowledged the opportunities for growth in the alternative protein sector. The sector covers a wide range of products and technologies—from cultured meat to the use of insect-derived protein in animal feed—that, as my right hon. Friend said, could be complementary to traditional animal systems.

[Dr Poulter]

On that point, protein from different sources has different qualities. Humans need protein that is as close as possible to the protein in our own bodies. That is why the points that my right hon. Friend the Member for North Thanet (Sir Roger Gale) made about cultivated meat are particularly relevant if we are looking at developing the sector. Quorn and other forms of protein do not necessarily have all the amino acids that humans need. Will my hon. Friend the Minister take that point back to the Department after the debate?

[Victoria Prentis]

My hon. Friend makes an important point. I politely refer him to the Government’s food strategy, published on Monday, which carefully makes the case for a healthy, sustainable and, above all, balanced diet that takes into account all the nutrients we need as the complex beings we are. Our food system is broad and complex, and the way we regulate it affects many different Government Departments. The way we talk about food is incredibly personal to the individual making food choices on a daily basis.

It is important that we as a Government do not stand here telling people what to eat but enable them to make healthy and sustainable choices. That is why it is important that we are having this debate today and looking at new forms of alternative protein that have not previously been available to us. The strategy identifies new opportunities to make the food system healthier, more sustainable, more resilient and more accessible to everybody throughout England.

I would like to give my right hon. Friend the Member for North Thanet the commitments about investment and regulation that he has asked for. On investment, the UK has been at the forefront of innovative protein development, and we will continue to financially support research and innovation in that area. Indeed, we are already doing so through our partnership with UK Research and Innovation, investing more than £130 million in research across the food system. We will continue to work with UKRI, industry and consumer groups to develop joint priority areas for funding, which will doubtless include alternative proteins.

On regulation, the Food Standards Agency is using the freedoms offered by Brexit to review our novel foods regulatory framework. Whenever anyone wants to put a new food on the market, they have to do so under the aegis of those regulations.

The food strategy commits the Government to developing dedicated guidance materials for those seeking approval for new protein products. A great deal of cross-Government work on alternative proteins is already taking place, with officials from the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs collaborating with the Food Standards Agency. The Cabinet Office is taking a very close interest in this issue, and cross-Government meetings are taking place with the Department for International Trade and the Department of Health and Social Care. A group is starting to form that will take forward the regulatory basis for alternative protein development, if that becomes sensible.

It all sounds very exciting, although it is fair to say, as my right hon. Friend did, that not everyone agrees on the extent of the predicted benefits of the development of alternative proteins. However, it is clear that cultured meat presents a number of fascinating and promising opportunities for the future, and that this innovative technology may well present real economic growth potential. Though some market predictions are perhaps over-optimistic, there is clearly a willingness among private investors to invest in this exciting new industry.

There are significant challenges, specifically around scaling up the new technologies to make them commercially viable and taking steps to address any concerns about consumer acceptance. Government officials from across Whitehall will continue to work together on this matter. I am not going to tell people what to eat, but I want our consumers to be presented with a wide range of clearly labelled options. Not starting from a conclusion is a very good attitude to take towards new forms of alternative protein.

I refer all Members to the Government’s food strategy, which we published on Monday. It sets out exciting new policy ideas and a determination to support our farmers and producers to help us with our food security. It sets a goal of national production, and it also includes the new and quite brave idea of a land use strategy, which I think will address some of my right hon. Friend’s concerns about where we build, where we grow, and where we let nature thrive without growing. The most important takeaway from the strategy is that the Government are committed to supporting farmers to produce the food we need for our national food security—an issue that has rightly gone to the very top of the political agenda.

There are also exciting points in the strategy about public procurement, including the fact that we now have a 50% goal for sourcing locally, and exciting announcements about innovation and technology, which will help to address the matters that were covered in the debate. It makes important points about sustainable farming—regenerative farming, which we will hear about in the nature-friendly farmers meeting that many of us will be attending—and makes it clear that farming, the environment and nature are not exclusive, but can and must go hand in hand. In helping our farmers to produce the food we all need, we have to make sure they do so in an environmentally sensitive way.

Question put and agreed to.

Ofwat: Strategic Priorities

Dan Poulter Excerpts

Thursday 9th June 2022 Commons Chamber

[Philip Dunne]

My right hon. Friend is right to refer to other polluters. If we take a look across the country as a whole, we will see that it is roughly evenly balanced between pollution from water treatment plants and storm overflows and pollution from agriculture. In the Wye, pollution is particularly prone to come from agriculture. As he knows, I am one of his parliamentary neighbours and our waterways along the whole of the Wye and the Lugg catchment are very affected by intensive poultry farming and the phosphates that it generates through spreading litter on the fields.

The Government need to join up their support mechanisms for agriculture. Now that we have left the EU, we have the opportunity through the environmental land management scheme to redirect support in a way that meets not only the objectives to ensure viable agriculture in this country, but other objectives of the same Department—the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs.

I would like to see a more joined-up approach, so that we can use the mechanisms that exist, such as the sustainable farming incentive, the environmental land management scheme system and the farming rules for water to ensure that we are not only helping farmers to generate and maintain a viable business—I should declare an interest as a farmer and a recipient of the basic payment scheme at the moment—but improving our waterways. My right hon. Friend was absolutely right to raise that issue.

Sewage discharges at the scale that I have mentioned must stop. Campaigning groups up and down the country, with which I have been working, have recognised that for some time—from national organisations such as the Rivers Trust, which I have mentioned, the Angling Trust and Surfers Against Sewage, which was mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Worthing West (Sir Peter Bottomley), to individual catchment campaign groups such as Windrush Against Sewage Pollution, which gave powerful evidence to our Committee. All have been focused on raising awareness and urging the Government to take action to compel change in the behaviour and performance of water companies, and they are right to do so.

This is why the strategic policy statement for Ofwat is so critical: it is the primary mechanism through which the Government, via the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, are able to influence the economic regulator, Ofwat, to refocus the prioritisation of capital expenditure for the next five-year pricing period—from 2025 to 2029—of the water companies in England, which are responsible for the treatment of sewage and other waste water.

The latest strategic priority statement for Ofwat was published on 28 March, when we had originally sought to hold this debate, having previously been laid before the House in draft for the statutory 40 days. This document is therefore the critical point of influence and the device through which we in this place can persuade the Government to reprioritise Ofwat to compel water companies to act to reduce pollution of our waterways for which they are responsible.

[Dr Dan Poulter (Central Suffolk and North Ipswich) (Con)]

I agree with my right hon. Friend’s point about Ofwat, but there is also another issue here relating to the planning system. We find that some of the water companies are not statutory consultees for large-scale new residential developments, and those residential developments can have a vast impact on the amount of surface water run-off at times of heavy rainfall. Moreover, new developments can impact on existing sewerage networks, which, historically, can often be very inadequate. How important would he consider that to be as a part of tackling this issue of sewage discharge into rivers?

[Philip Dunne]

Again, my hon. Friend has made a point that I was intending to make in my speech. In fact, it is my final point. I have something specifically to address that in a request to the Minister when we get there. He is absolutely right: development puts pressure on the water treatment works without requiring developers to contribute to improving that infrastructure.

Waste Industry: Criminality and Regulation

Dan Poulter Excerpts

Tuesday 1st February 2022 Westminster Hall

[Aaron Bell (Newcastle-under-Lyme) (Con)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered criminality within and regulation of the waste industry.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Gary. I thank the many Members attending today for their time and engagement on this important topic. I have a lot to say, but will try to leave space for everybody else. I also welcome the Minister to her place. I welcome the engagement we have had since she took up her role late last year. I thank her Department for supporting that engagement. Her recent visit was incredibly well received in Newcastle; I am grateful that she took the time to understand the nature of the problem I have in Walleys Quarry, and to hear personally from affected members of the community, including schoolchildren.

The key point I am here to make is that the current nature and scale of waste crime in this country is beyond the capacity of the Environment Agency as a regulator. The regulatory regime is no longer fit for purpose for two main reasons: the changing nature of the crimes being committed and the failure of the Environment Agency to keep pace and act with sufficient robustness and force against them. It has sadly become a regulator that is no longer feared, but is mocked, with criminals able to carry out offences under its nose.

Let us be clear: waste crime is not victimless. It threatens the environment and human health, and undermines investment, growth and jobs within the legal waste and resources sector. For the 2018-19 financial year, the Environmental Services Association estimated the cost of waste crime to be £924 million in England, and it will be more than £1 billion by now. Waste crime significantly reduces the viability and competitive advantage of legitimate businesses, which are being undercut by criminals. That creates unfair competition and ultimately burdens the taxpayer or the landowner who has to step in when criminals walk away leaving abandoned and toxic sites.

As the House knows, I have repeatedly raised the issue of Walleys Quarry. We have an infamous smelly problem on our doorstep in Newcastle-under-Lyme. It has made it all the way to the Court of Appeal—and perhaps even to the Supreme Court—in the case of Richards v. Environment Agency, which you referred to, Sir Gary, in your precursory statement. I do not wish to rehash the full story again. It is on the record and the Minister knows it well by now.

I will briefly mention that, since the last time I spoke about this matter in the House, the hydrogen sulphide emissions have this year risen back up to levels not seen since May of last year, when they were at their peak. Residents are reporting—I have smelled it myself—that the stink is well and truly back, and very much present in their day-to-day lives. It is an ongoing problem, making some vulnerable people ill, affecting people’s mental health, and making thousands miserable and affecting their quality of life.

The borough council is now concerned that the Posi-Shell capping, which was mandated last year, has failed and there are now increasing fugitive emissions from the site. Together with the county council, it believes that the EA’s normal regulatory approach has run out of road and is seeking a new approach. I believe that the Minister should have on her desk a letter from Councillor Alan White, the leader of Staffordshire County Council, making exactly that point and asking to meet her to discuss the matter. I hope she will be able to accommodate that.

I want to focus on how Walleys Quarry shows the flaws in the current regulatory environment. As a precursor, I will briefly tell hon. Members the story of a company called Atlantic Waste. Over the winter of 2003-04, the Environment Agency received many complaints from local residents about odour coming from King’s Cliffe, a waste site near Peterborough run by Atlantic Waste. The agency was concerned about inappropriate deposits and treatment at the site, and decided to investigate. That investigation revealed that several hundred thousand tonnes of waste had been deposited above agreed levels, and the height of the waste threatened to make the landfill unstable.

Instead of complying with that investigation, Atlantic Waste’s chief executive, Adrian Kirby, and its marketing director, Adam Share, did some investigating of their own. They hired a detective agency, Active Investigation Services, under the guise of concerns about break-ins. That detective agency accepted Atlantic’s proposal to tap phones and hack into computers. It hacked into residents’ computers by sending them emails with attachments purporting to contain the results of tests undertaken on the landfill.

When the police began investigating that agency, they found a complex web of staff, associates and clients involved in illegal activities. That detective agency had fitted devices to telegraph poles and roadside junction boxes all over the UK, and listened in to more than 1,000 calls. Following that investigation, Adam Share and Adrian Kirby were arrested. Each pleaded guilty to conspiracy to cause modification of computer equipment and conspiracy to intercept communications unlawfully. Adrian Kirby received six months in jail; Adam Share received three.

A handful of years later, Adam Share, now a convicted criminal, was appointed to RED Industries Ltd. Under Mr Share’s control, RED Industries took over Walleys Quarry landfill, in Silverdale in my constituency, the very same landfill I have brought to the attention of the House over and over again. It is incomprehensible that a man with that history would ever be allowed to operate a waste site, yet that is the bizarre and troubling world in which we find ourselves. That would not be allowed in the football business, where there is a decent, fit and proper person test. Yet in the waste industry, it seems that nothing could be done to prevent a man with a proven disregard for the law, for the regulator and for residents from assuming responsibility for an environmental permit.

In a letter to me dated 6 May 2021, Sir James Bevan, chief executive of the EA, confirmed that, in the case of an application to transfer the permit, the regulations require that the EA consider

“whether the prospective new owner is likely to comply with the permit conditions”.

In considering that, it may take into account management systems, technical competence, compliance history, financial competence and any “relevant” convictions, which they are allowed to take into account. That does not include spent convictions but, even if Mr Share’s conviction had not been at that point spent, it was not apparently relevant, despite the EA itself being a victim of his previous crime.

We must have a better fit and proper person test if we are to avoid criminals entering the waste industry. The rehabilitation of offenders is a noble goal, but it cannot override good sense and the public interest. People with a track record of disregarding the regulator cannot be allowed to simply bide their time and re-enter the industry a few years on.

Walleys Quarry has also taught me a lesson about the problem of perverse incentives in the current regulatory regime. Landfill tax was introduced very successfully by the Conservative Government in 1996 to disincentivise landfill and encourage the switch to more sustainable waste management. It has worked: the amount of waste going to landfill has decreased by over 50%, and household recycling has increased by over 70%. However, the consequence of the incentives that the landfill tax creates has been to increase the attractiveness of the waste industry to organised crime, and we know that there are very few barriers to entry in that business.

Landfill tax fraud often consists of falsifying paperwork relating to the classification of waste in order to pay less or zero tax—for example, labelling active waste as inactive, or hazardous waste as non-hazardous. Organised crime groups and repeat offenders can deliberately and routinely evade significant amounts of landfill tax by misdescribing waste. To illustrate the problem, from April 2021, the rate for inactive waste is only £3.10 per tonne and the standard rate is £96.70 per tonne. That differential of nearly £100 per tonne results in enormous profits for the businesses involved. Businesses that routinely mislabel waste can rack up millions of pounds of illegitimate profits, robbing Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs of an estimated £120 million a year. The regulatory regime is inadequate in the face of such incentives.

Compounding the problem, there appears to be insufficient scrutiny applied to the operations and accounts of those companies that regularly declare high levels of inert—that is, the £3.10 a tonne—landfilling. This is not really an economic crime: fraudulent misdescription can have significant impacts on the environment, wildlife and communities. Major air quality incidents can be caused by misdescribed waste containing plasterboard or other high-sulphate waste entering landfills that lack the specialist measures required. Hazardous waste that is misdescribed as non-hazardous could have a very significant impact on the health of people and the local environment.

That has a direct bearing on the situation at Walleys Quarry. In evidence presented as part of the recent Court of Appeal case Richards v. the Environment Agency, a representative of the EA explained that the increased level of hydrogen sulphide—the eggy smell—coming from Walleys Quarry landfill was most likely the result of gypsum-containing high-sulphate waste being deposited in that landfill, contrary to the permit. That can have occurred only as a result of some part of the waste chain mislabelling that waste, or the waste not being properly separated from other waste. There is either fraud or negligence somewhere in the chain.

Several people have contacted me to make specific allegations about illegal activities at Walleys Quarry landfill. I will, of course, keep them all anonymous, and I am aware that we need to follow due process because there is an ongoing criminal investigation into the allegations. However, I am keen to put on the record some of the longest-standing, best-evidenced allegations, some of which I and the Environment Agency have been aware of for nearly 12 months. The EA informs me that any investigation might take multiple years, and I feel that my constituents deserve to know the true scale and nature of the problems that have been reported to me.

In February last year, I was contacted by an anonymous individual who alleged that the current operator was using the site to bury hazardous waste outside its agreed permit. I was told that that activity increased dramatically during lockdown, a period during which the EA ceased many of its normal activities. Employees who would have been involved in this activity were named, but I will not name them here. According to the anonymous source, the order to bury that hazardous waste came directly from Mr Adam Share, who is the company’s chairman and owner; from Mr Nigel Bowen, the company’s CEO; and from Mr Jon Clewes, the technical operations director. There have been other, less specific allegations from multiple other sources. Many whistleblowers have come to me. I have passed all the allegations on to the Environment Agency.

The House may be aware that on 20 January this year, I raised concerns about so-called lawfare in a debate in the Chamber led by my right hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr Davis). I referred to attempts by The Guardian to publish an article about Walleys Quarry. I have been aware since November 2021 that it has been attempting to publish a story about the true scale of the issues at Walleys Quarry in my constituency, based on insider testimony from whistleblowers and backed up by emails from within the company. It has thus far been prevented from publishing by legal threats made by RED Industries against the newspaper.

With the permission of Rachel Salvidge, a journalist who has had the courage to pursue the story in the public interest, I will read the allegations that she has been seeking to publish:

“Hazardous waste, including arsenic, rat poison and zinc, has been tipped at a Newcastle-under-Lyme landfill, which is now a subject of a criminal investigation.

The Guardian has seen internal emails discussing the practice at Red Industries, the operator of Walleys Quarry Landfill. A whistleblower, a former senior executive at Red, has alleged widespread illegal behaviour at the firm, and has accused the regulator, the Environment Agency, of being ‘asleep at the wheel’.”

She continues:

“the whistleblower has provided the Guardian with emails which appear to show that hazardous material is routinely dumped at Walleys to save the company money.

In October 2019 Red’s compliance officer emailed colleagues about a shipment of cavity wax from a car manufacturer: ‘Is this for ATM or do we have another route in mind?’ This cavity wax is hazardous and organic, and should be shipped overseas to a company called ATM in Holland, which breaks it down into safer waste, but this process is expensive. In the emails, Red’s group commercial manager replies ‘Walleys TFS’.

According to the whistleblower, this is an internal code for sending hazardous waste to Walleys that should be safely shipped overseas. As a result, the former senior executive said the cavity wax was secretly dumped at the landfill. Another email refers to ‘everyone’s favourite Walleys TFS route’ for the cavity wax.

The manufacturer of this cavity wax warns the material is ‘toxic in contact with skin’ and ‘toxic if inhaled’. Dr Cecilia MacLeod, an expert in contaminated land from the University of Greenwich, said exposure to components in the wax ‘can cause issues with development and can also cause dermatitis and breathing difficulties’.”

The article continues:

“In July 2020 the group commercial manager emailed colleagues about a waste shipment of spent bullets containing hazardous levels of arsenic and zinc. ‘What do you reckon to this shit show of a material—sounds like a wash and Walleys TFS to me’—again, the whistleblower says, using the internal code ‘Walleys TFS’ to divert the hazardous waste to Walleys landfill.

Another email chain discusses a large shipment of rat poison. A Red employee asked ‘Are you able to accept this to landfill, or would it not be suitable?’ Their manager responded ‘Work your majik’, and the shipment was sent to Walleys landfill, the former senior executive said. The rodenticide is highly toxic as it can be fatal if swallowed, breathed in or if it comes into contact with skin.”

She continues:

“A former Red employee told The Guardian ‘We used to take advantage of the fact that the EA were stupid. It’s not difficult. When the EA came to inspect we didn’t worry, we just made sure that all the stickers looked nice. They weren’t chemists, so you could always hide things.’

Only solid waste is permitted at Walleys landfill, but The Guardian has seen evidence that Red has also been tipping hazardous paint. In July 2020 a Red compliance officer emailed colleagues about a ‘paint route’. The shipment was ‘coming as haz and they are priced £200/tonne...we haven’t got the money for any TFS’.

The former senior executive told The Guardian, ‘This material is hazardous so Walleys would not be permitted to accept it, but in reality this is where the paint tins are going.’ The manufacturer of this paint warns: ‘This product is classified as dangerous... Exposure to component solvent vapour concentrations...may result in...respiratory system irritation and adverse effects on the kidneys, liver and central nervous system.’

A former Red subcontractor has also told the Guardian how paint was concealed in other legitimate material: ‘They’d mix it with cement to try and thicken it up...and load it into a skip and tip it like that.’

MacLeod described the pollutants as a ‘horrible cocktail’ and said that Red might think that mixing paint with cement would stabilise and solidify it, ‘but not all the volatile organic compounds get locked up...they’re still there and you will have respiratory problems if you take these things in’.

A former senior executive at Red sent some of these emails to the Environment Agency in May 2021, along with testimony of Red’s alleged lawbreaking. In December, the EA announced a criminal investigation into Red.”

I thank Rachel Salvidge for providing me with that information.

Investigations of the public record show examples of staff at RED Industries demanding that the wording of compliance assessment report forms issued by the EA be changed, and the EA acquiescing. To paraphrase my constituent Dr Michael Salt, a nuclear scientist who has volunteered a significant amount of time to the “Stop the Stink” campaign, “If I said the same to the Office for Nuclear Regulation, they’d have something to say about it.”

The Environment Agency is a regulator with no teeth that inspires no fear and in which I cannot have confidence. There are clearly serious failures here, for which the Environment Agency must account. In the light of these revelations, I must ask that the operator’s permit be suspended while the allegations are fully investigated. The EA’s current approach has not worked if the only explanation it can find for why we are, once again, seeing exceedances of the World Health Organisation odour annoyance limits is the cold weather. If there are such serious issues with its handling of such a sensitive case, how can anyone have confidence that it is handling more routine issues appropriately?

Another area that the Walleys Quarry experience has taught me needs reform is the bonds that permitted operators must hold. They are staggeringly insufficient in the eventuality that an operator walks away from a landfill or goes bust. I am aware that many constituents are joining a class action against Walleys Quarry. If it is successful, it would almost certainly make the company go bust, and there are not sufficient bonds to account for that. Surely, walking away from its responsibilities should not be a “get out of jail free” card. The bonds need to reflect the actual risks involved.

The cost of doing bad business is not high enough. The fines when people are found to have breached the rules are too mild to be a proper deterrent. I refer to some other recent cases as examples. In November 2019, a company director was fined £1,272 for abandoning a Shropshire waste site. Clearing the site cost £45,000. In July 2021, a man was fined £1,000 for dumping waste in south-west London, plus £500 costs and a £100 victim surcharge. The clear-up and associated costs to the landowner totalled in excess of £100,000. Those are simply not sufficient deterrents.

On funding for the regulator, I note the recent articles on the front page of The Guardian, but I have personally been repeatedly assured by the EA that there is no issue relating to costs or resources in the regulation of Walleys Quarry.

[Dr Dan Poulter (Central Suffolk and North Ipswich) (Con)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on making such a strong case on behalf of his constituents who have been affected by this case. On a broader point, one of the challenges that the Environment Agency faces is being able to collect and collate the right information to bring an effective prosecution or take action against offenders. I can think of a similar case with different circumstances in my constituency, where there have been those kinds of challenges. What would he ask the Minister to do to support the Environment Agency in bringing together the right information in such cases to challenge them?

[Sir Gary Streeter (in the Chair)]

Order. Interventions must be brief.

Food and Drink: UK Economy

Dan Poulter Excerpts

Wednesday 1st December 2021 Westminster Hall

[John Stevenson]

I very much agree with my hon. Friend; it is about striking a balance between the two. Clearly, at this moment in time there is a shortage of labour, and the industry needs to secure that labour if at all possible. However, I think the industry itself would accept that driving productivity is equally important, and that through productivity it can quite often end up needing fewer employees while being a much more productive sector. My hon. Friend will know from our visits to factories that the food and drink sector is an incredibly innovative and productive sector overall. It is therefore vital that industry and Government work together, so I would be interested to know what actions the Government are taking on the issues I have already mentioned.

As I have already said, the food and drink sector is a hugely important part of our economy. It employs a large number of people and contributes significantly to our economy, but there is the danger that the Government add more and more cost and regulation, which endangers its success. A small but significant example is the definition of “small and medium-sized enterprise” in the Health and Social Care Bill, which could have a huge impact on UK businesses and give a competitive advantage to foreign competition.

[Dr Dan Poulter (Central Suffolk and North Ipswich) (Con)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing the debate. One area in which I am sure much of the UK food and drink industry would welcome greater support from Government is that of honest food labelling. As it stands, food could be farmed in Argentina or elsewhere overseas, but packaged in the UK and still labelled as UK produce. Does he agree that the Government need to look at that area, so that we can back British farmers and British food producers more effectively and make sure we have informed consumers who can back our food producers in the shops?

[John Stevenson]

My hon. Friend makes a valid point. Interestingly, food labelling could potentially give us an advantage as a country when selling those products: the UK label, the Union Jack, has great resonance with many overseas consumers as well as our own domestic consumers.

On the cost and regulatory side, we also have the prospect of the extended producer responsibility. The sentiment behind it may be sensible, but the additional cost to the industry will potentially have serious consequences. Have the Government fully thought through the very real cost implications? I appreciate that the relevant primary legislation, the Environment Act 2021, has already passed, but it is the secondary legislation that will determine the detail. As the Minister will know, the industry is concerned about the scope, timescale and implementation of those regulations. It believes that the costs have already risen and could reach £2.7 billion for the industry, which will inevitably be passed on to the consumer. Indeed, it is estimated that each household will face a £75 increase in its annual food bill. Is that something that the Government are happy with? If not, will they work with the industry—particularly, as I have already mentioned, the FDF—to ensure that the regulation and costs are proportionate, and that the industry can absorb them without losing its competitiveness? If it cannot, there is a real danger that the regulations could backfire and be detrimental to an important sector of our economy.

In conclusion, I look forward to hearing from the Minister on the specific points I have raised. I look forward to her comments on how she intends to properly and fully support what is one of the unsung successful sectors of our country, but also one of the most important, as has been conclusively demonstrated during the pandemic through the industry’s performance in making sure that we continue to be fed at a very difficult time. I also hope that the Minister and her Department will fully recognise the importance of this sector, celebrate its successes, and truly be a champion of the industry.

COP26 and Air Pollution

Dan Poulter Excerpts

Tuesday 2nd November 2021 Westminster Hall

[Jane Hunt (Loughborough) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to speak before you today, Sir Gary. I congratulate the hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr Sheerman) on this interesting and informative debate.

Clean air is essential for life, health, our environment and the economy. Air pollution has reduced significantly in the last decade, but there is still more to do. We have a clean air strategy, which details how the UK will go further and faster than the EU in reducing exposure to particulate matter pollution. It sets out a goal to halve the number of people living in locations with concentrations of particulate matter above the WHO guidelines. The Environment Bill will build on that strategy, setting two air quality targets by October 2022, a target to reduce the annual average level of fine particulate matter— or PM2.5—and a further target to improve air quality. This action to improve air quality is backed up by £3.8 billion.

However, the Committee on the Medical Effects of Air Pollutants advises that a focus on long-term average concentrations of PM2.5 is the most appropriate to deliver public health benefits. That brings me to a point that fits in somewhat with what the hon. Member for Edmonton (Kate Osamor) said. I alert Members to the number of incinerators that are currently being planned or in the process of being built. I believe there are 18usb along the M1 in one section alone. One such incinerator is in a leafier constituency than Edmonton —at Shepshed in my Loughborough constituency. It is near to Shepshed town centre, but it is also close to Loughborough University, my biggest employer and home to élite athletes from around the world, who obviously run about and do all sorts of things in the open air. Also 3,000 houses are expected to be built just across the roundabout from the incinerator. When I mention the incinerator with local and national organisations, they often say to me, “Yes, but the M1 creates quite a lot of pollutants already and therefore it is very difficult to monitor and understand the impact of that particular incinerator.” However, as the hon. Member for Huddersfield said, we are bringing in electric and hydrogen vehicles, which I would like to see myself, and we would like to reap the benefits of those vehicles in Loughborough to lessen the impact of PM2.5.

[Dr Dan Poulter (Central Suffolk and North Ipswich) (Con)]

My hon. Friend is making a very good speech and I congratulate the hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr Sheerman) on bringing this debate. My hon. Friend makes a good point about incinerators. Would she agree that incinerators have often been built to deal with the undesirability of landfill, but that has created a perverse incentive in the system? If we are going to look at issues such air pollution and clean air, we need to do that in a holistic way with other decarbonisation targets and priorities. That is what has created this problem in her constituency, and in others.

[Jane Hunt]

I absolutely agree. My hon. Friend could not have put it more precisely. That is the difficulty. Will the Minister consider the impact of the waste strategy at the same time as air quality? Air quality impacts on the future of our country and our constituents.

[John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab)]

At the moment, the Prime Minister is still at COP. There will be a major discussion around air pollution and what can be done globally, but we need to ensure we are acting locally as well, so I want to raise the issue of air pollution in London overall, particularly in relation to Heathrow airport.

In the 1970s, when we agreed to the expansion of Heathrow airport through a fourth terminal, it was about jobs. At that point, we had our first inkling of what air pollution could do to the overall environment, as well as to individual health. Since then, we know so much more, which is why the inspector in the fifth terminal inquiry recommended that there should be no further expansion at Heathrow on environmental grounds. Yet the Government still have the potential for a third runway at Heathrow on their policy cards.

The latest information is that Heathrow and the area around it is the second major hotspot for nitrogen dioxide pollution in London. It breaches the legal limits, and has done for many years. To be frank, the roads around Heathrow are above the legal limits, including for PM_2.5 and nitrogen dioxide, and have been for at least the last decade. We now know much more about the impact of that on the health of people in the west London area, with links to respiratory and heart conditions, and, thanks to work in the United States, we know that this is linked to cancer as well. We cannot go to COP and argue with other countries about the need to tackle air pollution while we allow such polluting expansions as the third runway. It is a stark example of the impact on people’s health.

I have raised in this Chamber before the fact that children in my local schools have to hand their puffers into a special box and our teachers in Hillingdon have to be specially trained to deal with respiratory conditions in those children. If we are talking seriously about COP and the impact we are having on our environment, there has to be a time when we draw a line under Heathrow expansion. I believe that this is it.

We have never had a full health impact assessment of the third runway expansion. We have had some health impact analyses, all of which have said that there will be an increase in mortality and morbidity linked to respiratory and other conditions.

[Dr Poulter]

I agree with much of the sentiment of what the right hon. Gentleman says. He and I may disagree about some of the issues and merits or demerits of the recent Budget, but I am sure we will agree that the cut in air passenger duty for short haul flights was a slight disappointment. Does he agree with me that that is something that the Chancellor might want to reconsider?

[John McDonnell]

I made that point in the debate on the Budget, and I do not want to be repetitious. The issue for me is that any tax relief or tax reduction that either promotes further emissions or supports those polluting our environment is clearly contrary to Government policy, as far as I can see. On that basis, I hope that, as a result of COP, in the next few weeks or perhaps months the Government will firmly come down as opposed to further Heathrow expansion.

Plastic Waste

Dan Poulter Excerpts

Wednesday 8th September 2021 Westminster Hall

[Elliot Colburn]

I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention. That is an incredibly important thing, which the Government should definitely look at, and I urge the Minister to take that away. The deposit return scheme described applies only to plastic bottles, and we know that there are opportunities and examples from around the world of where that can be expanded to include much more, so that is definitely something that should be looked at.

Although it is important that the Government take action and that businesses take on more responsibility, old habits die hard, as the saying goes, and our biggest challenge is potentially changing our own individual behaviour.

[Dr Dan Poulter (Central Suffolk and North Ipswich) (Con)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing the debate on this important issue. He has outlined many measures, and I remember a measure that was introduced by the coalition Government: the plastic bag tax. He was talking a moment ago about personal responsibility. Will he urge the Minister to increase the plastic bag levy to encourage people to take greater responsibility in their shopping habits?

[Elliot Colburn]

The 95% cut figure is proof of the success of the plastic bag tax. It has obviously worked, so I urge the Minister to do as my hon. Friend suggests.

I have a strange sense of déjà vu here. The hon. Member for Hampstead and Kilburn (Tulip Siddiq) mentioned my time as a councillor. Indeed, this was the first topic I ever spoke about as a councillor, when we were discussing it during a full council motion almost three years ago. The point I made then still stands: without buy-in from people at large, with all of us playing our part, lasting change will be difficult. Those survey responses from members of the public point to some really important things that need to be done, particularly on education and ensuring that transitions and changes are as simple possible for people to make. Later this year, I hope to do my part in that by hosting a local event to coincide with COP26, during which I hope to have a session on the changes we can make right here, right now to reduce the amount of plastic waste that we contribute.

The central message I will leave behind is the need to look at the circular economy and always keep one eye fixed sharply on the top of that waste hierarchy. If that is done right, we can bring businesses and individuals along with us—not as some kind of burden or punitive measure, but as a positive contribution to our environment, to the world that we live in, and to the creatures with which we share it.

Oral Answers to Questions

Dan Poulter Excerpts

Thursday 22nd April 2021 Commons Chamber

[Rebecca Pow]

The report highlights that there is no safe limit of PM_2.5, which is why it is so important that we get it right. That is why we are taking so much advice on it. The WHO has acclaimed our clean air strategy as world leading and

“an example for the rest of the world to follow”.

It sets out the steps that we are starting to take to improve air quality. The Environment Bill will introduce a duty to set a long-term target on air quality and an exposure target, which nobody has done before. We will give the issue all the attention it deserves.

[Dr Dan Poulter (Central Suffolk and North Ipswich) (Con)]

What his Department’s policy is on the use of neonicotinoids in agriculture.

[The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (George Eustice)]

DEFRA applies the precautionary principle in relation to pesticides. We therefore supported a ban in 2018 on the use of neonicotinoids to treat crops. Given what the current science tells us about these pesticides, they can be authorised for use only on an emergency basis if very specific circumstances are met and with the appropriate environmental safeguards.

[Dr Poulter [V]]

Farmers in the east of England very much welcome the Secretary of State’s dispensation for the use of neonics in treating aphids. What I want from the Secretary of State is some reassurance for the farmers in the east of England that, until a suitable alternative to neonics that is evidence based is available, he will continue to use the dispensation so that we can properly support our farmers to grow crops and protect them from aphids.

[George Eustice]

As I said, these are emergency authorisations that we grant on an annual basis. In the case of this application for the current year, we added additional conditions to those that have been proposed by the applicant—in particular, adding another 10 months to the period before a flowering crop could be sown. Also, in this case, the threshold for pests was not met and was therefore not needed, but, of course, if there is an application in a future year, we will look at that again.

Oral Answers to Questions

Dan Poulter Excerpts

Thursday 15th October 2020 Commons Chamber

The hon. Member for City of Chester, representing the Speaker’s Committee on the Electoral Commission was asked—

[Dr Dan Poulter (Central Suffolk and North Ipswich) (Con)]

What steps the Commission is taking to help ensure public confidence in the impartiality of the Electoral Commission.

[Owen Thompson (Midlothian)]

In its most recent public opinion survey, in February this year, the words most frequently used by voters to describe the commission were “independent”, “important” and “professional”. The commission plays a vital role in maintaining fairness, trust and confidence in our democratic processes, both as a whole and in the nations of the UK. Its work ensures that UK election processes are accepted and that the funding and spending at elections and referendums are transparent.

[Dr Poulter [V]]

The Darren Grimes case flagged up some serious concerns about the capacity and ability of the Electoral Commission to prosecute cases. In fact, the trial judge found the Electoral Commission to be at fault for reversing the normal criminal justice burden of proof. Surely this undermines the concept of political impartiality. What steps are being taken to improve the investigative processes of the commission?

[Owen Thompson]

The commission’s legal fees in that case were approximately £228,000, including solicitors’ fees of £138,000 and barristers’ fees of £90,000. The commission also paid £535,000 towards Mr Grimes’ legal costs. Significant amounts of money are being spent in campaigning to influence voters, and it is right that the regulator for political finance should investigate and make findings on evidence of concerns. It is also right that the regulator should defend its findings in court. On this occasion, the court did not agree with the commission’s findings, and it accepts that decision.