Food: Waste

Debate between Lord De Mauley and Lord Palmer of Childs Hill

Tuesday 29th October 2013 Lords Chamber

[Lord De Mauley]

I was with the noble Lord until shortly before the end, which is why we place such store by the “Love Food Hate Waste” programme, which was initiated by WRAP. The good news, which the noble Lord may not know, is that “Buy one, get one free” deals represent a relatively small proportion of supermarket promotions. The majority of promotions are temporary price reductions: for example, “Was £8, now £6”. “Buy one, get one free” deals are often on non-perishable items or items with long lives, and WRAP is working with retailers to encourage alternative promotions for perishable foods.

[Lord Palmer of Childs Hill (LD)]

My Lords, in his initial reply, my noble friend the Minister mentioned excessive packaging. What success has there been in reducing excessive packaging? We still have lots of wrapping around our shirts and around cucumbers, all of it unnecessary, yet at the same time we are telling local authorities to increase recycling.

[Lord De Mauley]

That also is a very important point. We have some pretty aggressive packaging recycling targets, which go up to 2017. However, particularly in respect of food, there are relatively limited opportunities for more substantial reductions without resulting in product damage due to underpackaging. The environmental impact of that would be greater than that of the packaging itself.

Armed Forces: Accommodation

Debate between Lord De Mauley and Lord Palmer of Childs Hill

Thursday 1st March 2012 Lords Chamber

[Lord Palmer of Childs Hill]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government, in the light of recent reports, whether they intend to continue to provide accommodation for families of service personnel.

[Lord De Mauley]

My Lords, we recognise the importance of continuing to provide accommodation for our service personnel and their families, and anticipate no fundamental change to that principle. Accommodation provision is currently being examined in the future accommodation project as part of work on the new employment model. It is too early at this stage to speculate as to what changes are likely to be forthcoming, as all proposals are still in development and will not be reported upon until late autumn this year.

[Lord Palmer of Childs Hill]

My Lords, I thank my noble friend for his reply. As he will remember, during the passage of the Armed Forces Bill I drew attention to the poor state of accommodation of Armed Forces personnel. Does my noble friend agree that subsidised housing is, as has been quoted, a “staunch pillar” of the military covenant? Will he explain to your Lordships’ House how forcing married soldiers living in Army accommodation out of their homes is consistent with the military covenant? Will he confirm reports that the new employment model will cut housing entitlement to eight or 10 years’ service? Finally, does he agree that within the employment model that he describes, under which soldiers will be able to buy their own homes, it should be a choice not a requirement?

[Lord De Mauley]

My Lords, the provision of accommodation near the duty station continues to be seen as an important enabler of operational effectiveness, and there are no plans to remove entitlement to it based on a defined point in a service person’s career. As my noble friend said, accommodation is a fundamental part of the Armed Forces covenant, and noble Lords will recall several valuable improvements made to the covenant during the passage of the Armed Forces Bill through your Lordships’ House last autumn. It is much improved as a result.

Armed Forces Bill

Debate between Lord De Mauley and Lord Palmer of Childs Hill

Thursday 8th September 2011 Grand Committee

[Lord Palmer of Childs Hill]

I beg to move.

[Lord De Mauley]

My Lords, I have nothing to add to what I have said so far.