Recall of MPs Bill

Debate between Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park and David Heath

Monday 27th October 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Heath]

I do think that is a recipe for “populism”—in the worst sense of the word—and that it is open to abuse. It is a naive view that it would not be abused by those with deep pockets and strongly held views. It would be, and I do not believe that is necessarily in the interests of parliamentary democracy as we understand it.

To return to misconduct, several Members have rightly said that it is difficult to define the misconduct that we are talking about, so I looked around for an objective test of whether somebody had behaved improperly. I found that in England there is such a test, which many Members will be familiar with. English and Welsh law has the common-law offence of misconduct in public office, which is often used against public officials—most commonly against police officers nowadays, but also against council officials or others in the public service, including occasionally civil servants. The offence is understood by the courts and has been in existence for a long time—since 1783: Rex v. Bembridge, if anyone wants to look up the start of the offence.

If it helps the Committee, I will give a simple definition. Actually, nothing is simple in this area, because it is open to interpretation, but the legal definition—the working definition for the moment—of the offence is where somebody

“wilfully misconducts himself to such a degree as to amount to an abuse of the public’s trust in the office holder without reasonable excuse or justification”.

To an extent, therefore, it is a catch-all offence to deal with people who behave improperly. I felt that it might serve as an appropriate trigger for the public to have recourse to the system without having to go through the other mechanisms.

[Zac Goldsmith]

The right hon. Gentleman describes the offence as a catch-all, but the advice that I have had—I have sought advice on this—is that it is a catch-virtually-nothing-at-all. The Crown Prosecution Service has issued guidance saying that it should apply

“only where…the facts are so serious that the court’s sentencing powers would otherwise be inadequate”.

The House of Commons Library says:

“There are few prosecutions, suggesting that action is taken only when misconduct is particularly gross”.

And the courts have said:

“The threshold is a high one requiring conduct so far below acceptable standards as to amount to an abuse of the public’s trust in the office holder. A mistake, even a serious one, will not suffice”.

Is the right hon. Gentleman really adding anything at all to the Bill?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Heath]

My new clause is constructed in such a way that there would not be an appeal process because the court would not find on matters of guilt. It would find only on the prima facie case in the same way as a magistrates court when it sends an offence for trial at a higher forum. The electorate of the constituency are the court of appeal as well as the court of indictment, which seems to me appropriate.

[Zac Goldsmith]

One of my points was half-addressed earlier when the hon. Gentleman suggested that one of his arguments against the notice of intent to recall, which we are proposing, is that it would be awkward and inconvenient for MPs to have this bubbling away. However, the same arguments apply even more so to the fact that only 100 people could get headlines in the local papers such as “Misconduct Charges brought upon MP”—even if the attempt was vexatious. There is more room for that sort of mischief in the hon. Gentleman’s proposals than there are in my amendments. However, I have a question for him about the “gross dereliction of duty” in his new clause 7. How is it possible to find an MP guilty of gross dereliction of duty when there is no job description? Would this apply to an MP who refused to come here to engage, debate and vote, as is the case with some parties?

Food Fraud

Debate between Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park and David Heath

Monday 8th September 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Heath]

We made it clear that testing was the retailers’ responsibility. Retailers had not only a legal responsibility but a moral responsibility to their consumers to ensure that the material they put on their shelves was what they said it was. They were put in no doubt whatever that they had to up their game, and they did, and all credit to them. I have no criticism of the actions that the retailers took to meet the demands that we placed on them for this very comprehensive testing regime, which took place not just once but time after time to ensure that the incidents that had been identified had been eliminated and remained eliminated. I have one caveat, which the Minister may wish to address: I did not feel that I had the same level of commitment from the catering industry. I am worried that as a lot of food arrives unlabelled on tables across the country through the catering industry, that might perhaps still be a weak spot. I would like to think that continuing pressure will be placed on the catering industry to be as assiduous as I hope the retailers now are about composition, testing and ensuring the integrity of their systems.

[Zac Goldsmith (Richmond Park) (Con)]

I enjoyed my hon. Friend’s tribute to British food earlier, to which I completely subscribe. Does he share my hope that we will do everything we can to maintain the high standards of British food as progress is made in the transatlantic trade and investment partnership? As negotiations continue, there is tremendous pressure from US agribusiness to try to weaken our resolve to avoid unlabelled GM food, beef treated with hormones and poultry meat that has been contaminated with chlorine, and we should do everything we can to resist that pressure and to maintain the standards that he has just praised, which I totally support.

[Mr Heath]

I see no reason to compromise on high standards of quality. There are areas that I think we can quite properly discuss with the United States in which the answer is labelling and letting consumers make the choice rather than simply having bans. Some of the areas the hon. Gentleman mentions fall into that category; others do not. I have no interest in hormone treatments being used in this country and think that it would be a very great shame if that were standard practice in our dairy herds. We have been down that road before; I remember having exactly that conversation 30 years ago when I was leader of the county council and American Pharmaceuticals proposed to bring in bovine somatotropin to increase yield in our dairy herds. As a Somerset representative, I would say that we simply do not want that. It will be bad for our cattle and for their welfare and it will also be bad for the industry as regards consumer acceptance of a very wholesome product. I have a lot of sympathy with what the hon. Gentleman says.

Amendments to Bills (Explanatory Statements)

Debate between Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park and David Heath

Wednesday 6th November 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr David Heath (Somerton and Frome) (LD)]

Those hon. Members who recall that I used to sit where my right hon. Friend the Deputy Leader of the House now sits, long into the night discussing similar matters, may think it an act of sublime masochism for me to be standing here prolonging proceedings this evening, but I feel strongly about this issue. I do not want to detain the House for long, but I wish to express my support for the position of the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas), because I simply do not recognise the arguments adduced against what has been suggested. I well recall the pilots, because I was the Deputy Leader of the House who proposed the pilot scheme. I was also one of the Ministers for one of the two Bills—the Electoral Registration and Administration Bill—involved in the pilot. On the part of Government, I did not see it as an excessive burden, and nor do I believe that the civil servants who supported us found it an excessive burden simply to state the purpose of Government amendments for that Bill.

[Zac Goldsmith (Richmond Park) (Con)]

I am not surprised to hear that my hon. Friend supports the amendment, which I will also be supporting if it comes to a vote. Does he agree that even if it does add an extra burden and its requirement leads to extra work, it is a small price to pay for improving the legislative process? The one thing we are all paid to do here is to legislate, and people often have no idea what they are voting on. Surely that is a scandal and it requires a bit of investment to address it.

[Mr Heath]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that. I agree that it is better to have clarity, so that not just Members in this House but others looking at our proceedings can understand what we are debating.

There are other benefits to be had. I have always had this romantic view that we can improve the procedures of this House and do things in a more effective, focused and timely way. That would help everybody who has come to a debate on amendments and found that the purpose of the proposer of an amendment was quite different from what they had imagined when they first read it. That applies not only to Back Benchers, but to the Government. Very often Ministers have learned screeds of paper telling them what the civil servants who support them in the Bill believe the Opposition Member was intending by their amendment, only then to find that that was absolutely a wrong guess.

Bee Health

Debate between Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park and David Heath

Tuesday 26th March 2013 Westminster Hall

[The Minister of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Mr David Heath)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Benton. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Truro and Falmouth (Sarah Newton) not only on securing a debate on an important subject, but on the balanced way that she presented her arguments.

A healthy bee population is crucial not only to agriculture, but to the environment and the economy, so we have to get this right. I have a record of raising these issues when in opposition: some five or six years ago, I was one of those who was pressing strongly for a proper approach to bee health and for the then Government to invest in it. It is therefore a particular pleasure for me to respond to this debate on behalf of my noble friend Lord De Mauley, whose responsibility it is, and to highlight what we have been doing to improve bee health, and our future plans.

Over the past five years there has been a welcome resurgence in interest in keeping bees. Many new beekeepers have turned to local and national beekeeping associations for information and support on how best to look after the pollinator species. The British Beekeepers Association, for example, reports that its membership has increased from some 16,500 in 2009 to 25,000 in 2013. The Government are playing their part in supporting and maintaining that growth in interest. The main focus of our efforts to protect bee health is through the work of the national bee unit, which is acknowledged as having one of the best bee health surveillance programmes in Europe.

It might be helpful if I quickly set out what the national bee unit does. First, it has an inspection and enforcement role: the unit has a team of some 60 professional bee inspectors out in the field controlling notifiable diseases and surveying for exotic pests. Thanks to their work and the results of the random apiary survey, which is internationally probably one of the biggest bee health surveys of its kind ever undertaken, we now have a detailed understanding of the health status of the nation’s bees and can use that information to target our inspection programmes to best effect. I am pleased to report that the incidence of the two notifiable diseases—European and American foul brood—remains nationally low, with infection rates around half those observed during the 1990s. Also, most importantly, no evidence has been found of exotic pests, such as the small hive beetle, and the pests remain absent from the UK.

Secondly, the national bee unit and its inspectors provide advice and support to beekeepers on pests and diseases, with emphasis on varroa management, during their inspection visits, or through training and education programmes jointly run with beekeeping associations. Last year, the unit took part in nearly 500 training events attended by more than 22,000 beekeepers. Guidance is also provided online: the unit’s website, BeeBase, provides a wide range of information for beekeepers to help keep their honey bees healthy and productive. I am pleased to report that the number of beekeepers registered on BeeBase has increased from some 12,000 in 2006 to more than 29,000 today. All those services are provided by the inspectors without charge.

Protecting bee health is not something the Government can achieve by themselves, nor should it be. The various challenges and threats can be properly addressed only through effective partnership working. The Government are co-funding a range of beekeeping association-led initiatives that are already beginning to deliver improvements with, for example, 400 new beekeeper trainers being trained and a suite of new training materials and courses already available. One of those programmes is the development of an apprenticeship scheme to encourage young people to become bee farmers, and we are working with the Bee Farmers’ Association to develop the programme further.

That is the context of what we are doing, but I know my hon. Friend and many of our constituents are worried about the perceived threat from the neonicotinoids. I take that threat extremely seriously. We must take any threat to bees and pollinators seriously, and we have kept the evidence on neonicotinoids under open-minded scrutiny. We have consistently made it clear that we will restrict the use of such products if the evidence shows the need. That is the crucial point for us at the moment as a Department that works on the basis of evidence. Although the potential for toxic effects has been shown, Government scientists and the independent Advisory Committee on Pesticides last year advised that the evidence then available did not indicate harmful exposure in the field. The field evidence is limited, however, and focused on honey bees, so we commissioned research on the field effects of neonicotinoids on bumble bees. That work has just been completed and the results are positive, although not conclusive. In particular, the researchers found no relationship between colony growth and neonicotinoid residues in pollen or nectar in the colonies.

Following completion of the study, DEFRA has drawn up a short assessment of all the key current evidence, which I have arranged to be placed in the Library— hon. Members might like to look at it. The assessment cannot exclude rare effects of neonicotinoids on bees in the field, but suggests that those effects do not occur in normal circumstances. We are also analysing the implications for the environment and for agriculture of possible restrictions on neonicotinoids. If neonicotinoids were not available, farmers would switch to alternative insecticides that remain legally available, and it is important to understand the implications of that.

The European Commission proposed significant restrictions on neonicotinoids, which, as my hon. Friend mentioned, was put to a vote on 15 March. The United Kingdom abstained. I underline that we did not take that step because we have closed our mind to taking action; we abstained because the Commission’s proposal was not well thought through. We have urged the Commission to complete the scientific assessment, taking account of our new research. We have also emphasised the need to assess the impacts of action, so that the measures taken are proportionate to the risks. We will continue to make that case in Europe.

The difference between the laboratory tests on which much of the information is based and the field trials that we have now undertaken is that the dosage levels are not comparable. The dosage in the field is much lower than that used in the laboratory experiments, so the toxicity might not be demonstrable or replicable in field conditions. We need to investigate that important aspect further.

[Zac Goldsmith (Richmond Park) (Con)]

A number of European countries certainly believe that the evidence justifies a moratorium—we know that from the vote. The Minister’s Department also believes that there are risks, although it is not convinced that the risks are high enough to justify a moratorium. Would he, as a secondary step, or perhaps as a compromise, consider doing what many have recommended, which is introducing a moratorium on the use of neonicotinoids for non-farm applications, such as golf courses, private gardens, urban areas and so on? That might help the scientific process and the journey that DEFRA is currently on.

[Mr Heath]

We will consider the effectiveness of all propositions that are on the table. My concern about agricultural use is that we need to assess carefully the environmental consequences, including the consequences for bee health, of using other substances, such as pyrethroids and organophosphates, as an alternative. I will certainly consider what my hon. Friend has to say.

We have joined some of the UK’s major research funders to fund projects aimed at researching the causes and consequences of threats to insect pollinators, including honey bees. Understanding the threats will help us to identify the best possible action to support those species for the future. That is the key, given the role of pollinators in agricultural production, estimated to be worth more than £500 million, and in our overall food security. The initiative’s total spend is up to £10 million over five years, to which DEFRA has contributed £2.5 million. We look forward to seeing the results of those studies over the next two years.

My hon. Friend the Member for Truro and Falmouth mentioned that there are other stress factors, and she is absolutely right. The other stress factors include weather—the point made by the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon)—pest infestations or infections, nutrition and hive management. We need to consider all those factors in the round. She also mentioned the key importance of having a bee strategy, and emphasised that pollination is more than just about the role of honey bees. Lord de Mauley has announced that he is considering exactly what she suggests—the development of a more holistic health strategy to cover all pollinators—and he has been meeting interested parties, such as Friends of the Earth, to explore what added value that approach might bring.

I end by stressing to hon. Members that the Government are committed to continue playing their part, working in partnership with beekeepers and other interested parties, to sustain the health of honey bees and other key pollinators. This is an extraordinarily important subject, and I and my noble Friend Lord de Mauley are determined to get it right. We must do so by considering all the consequences and taking action as seems appropriate on the basis of the evidence. I am grateful to my hon. Friend for introducing the debate.

Ash Dieback Disease

Debate between Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park and David Heath

Monday 29th October 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Heath]

We will certainly issue such guidance. The ban also deals with the movement of timber and timber waste products in this country. There is no evidence that the pathogen persists in felled trees and wood products but, nevertheless, we believe that an appropriately precautionary response would be to restrict movements in this country, and that is what we have done.

[Zac Goldsmith (Richmond Park) (Con)]

Ash is not the only tree in this country that is under assault from invasive species. In parts of Richmond park, up to 50% of our great oaks show signs of acute oak decline, and about 70% of horse chestnuts in the country show signs of bleeding canker. Surely we can make better use of our island status and apply stronger and better controls at points of entry.

[Mr Heath]

We can do a number of things. Obviously, we cannot prevent the spread of wind-borne disease, but we can look carefully at where import controls are required. We have instructed the agricultural attachés network in our embassies to monitor local intelligence, so that when there are outbreaks of tree disease, we can deal with them in a timely and effective way. The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right that ash dieback is not the only disease to consider, because we also have phytophthora, Asian longhorn beetle and sweet chestnut blight. We are having to cope with a number of serious tree diseases, and we are applying the necessary resources to do so.

Badger Cull

Debate between Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park and David Heath

Thursday 25th October 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Heath]

I listen to a range of scientific opinion and take the evidence that was revealed by Krebs and Bourne in their trials. It shows that a cull would reduce the incidence of the disease by 16%, which the Government believe is a worthwhile objective. Through a range of measures that we can take, we can finally start to bear down on the disease, and not a single country has ever successfully borne down on the disease without dealing with the reservoir in wildlife. The decision to cull badgers has certainly not been easy and has not been made lightly, but we have to take action and get on top of this devastating disease.

The vaccines that we all hope will be part of the solution are still years away, despite what some people would have us believe. It is not as simple as jumping on a plane, going to talk to an official in the European Union and getting the vaccines ready for use. More research is needed. We are demonstrating our commitment to vaccines by investing a further £15.5 million in vaccine development over the next four years. Let us remember that £43.7 million has been spent since 1994.

So that Members understand the process, I will explain what is needed to get a vaccine into use. Six tests have to be passed before we have a usable cattle vaccine. We first need in-principle agreement from the Veterinary Medicines Directorate to a market authorisation for the vaccine. That is what the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion said had appeared on the DEFRA website: the use of the BCG—hardly a new development—which has been partially successful in dealing with cattle, with a 60% to 70% success rate. That is the stage we have reached.

We have to get international validation of the test to differentiate infected from vaccinated animals—the so-called DIVA test. That is quite difficult to substantiate because we must demonstrate that the vaccine is efficacious, which we cannot do in this country because vaccinating cattle here is illegal. Only after that is done can we discuss with the European Commission a joint application to the European Food Safety Authority for an opinion on cattle vaccination. We then need to secure the agreement of member states to remove the vaccination ban. Only then can the Commission remove the ban and will the Veterinary Medicines Directorate be able to grant marketing authorisation, which enables the vaccine to be manufactured and deployed.

If anyone thinks that will be done in a week or so, they are sadly deluded. I would like to have a vaccine that had been shown to be efficacious and that we could use legally in this country, but we do not have such a vaccine—[Interruption.] The hon. Member for Glasgow South (Mr Harris) says that the cull will not start until June. The vaccine will take years, not months.

[Zac Goldsmith (Richmond Park) (Con)]

A reduction of between 60% and 70% sounds pretty good when compared with the 12% to 16% reduction that a cull would yield. The problems the Minister identifies are largely bureaucratic. Surely the Government could take a more robust approach with the European Union and just get on with it.

Plastic Bags

Debate between Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park and David Heath

Wednesday 17th October 2012 Westminster Hall

[Mr Heath]

Of course I appreciate that, which is why I made the point in my opening remarks about the balance between the economy and the environment. We can secure a successful synthesis of the two.

[Zac Goldsmith]

I want to add to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Rugby (Mark Pawsey). Of the bags used in this country, 90% are manufactured in Asia, not the UK.

[Mr Heath]

This is a very instructive debate. Members have come armed with a huge number of statistics that they are happy to trade across the Floor, which is all to the benefit of the debate.

We all have the opportunity to change our behaviour to ensure that fewer bags end up in landfill or as litter. Notwithstanding the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Rugby (Mark Pawsey), reducing the number of bags that we use would be a step towards more responsible living that also encourages people to think about the resources that we use. Aside from the potential ecological problems such bags cause when disposed of irresponsibly, it is incredibly wasteful to produce billions of them each year to be discarded after a single use. We continue to encourage the reuse of bags wherever possible.

All bags have an environmental impact, irrespective of their composition. Reusing them as many times as possible and disposing of them appropriately when they cannot be used any more minimises that impact.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Heath]

They are not, and I will return to that in a moment.

There are those who are clear about their obligations and will use reusable bags whenever they have the opportunity. There are some who it will always be difficult to reach, because they simply do not want to hear the message. Then there are what I call the “guilty middle”; they will use reusable bags, and want to do so, whenever they can, but they sometimes turn up—as, I confess, I occasionally do—at a supermarket and find that they have forgotten the bag that they intended to take and have to take a plastic bag. The sort of measure that my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond Park proposes might affect that large, guilty group in the middle, who want to do the right thing and feel guilty when they do not.

We have had lots of figures already, so I will add a few more. In 2011, around 8 billion thin-gauge plastic carrier bags—single-use carrier bags—were issued in the UK. If you include reusable bags, such as bags-for-life, the total figure is about 8.4 billion bags issued in the UK. Obviously, that is a very large number.

We have made some progress in recent years. The first voluntary agreement with retailers between 2006 and 2008, which has been mentioned, reduced the overall environmental impact of carrier bags by about 40%. Signatories to the agreement encouraged the reuse of carrier bags, increased their recycled content and reduced their weight, among other measures. A second agreement with supermarkets between 2006 and 2009 focused on reducing the number of bags distributed, and achieved a total reduction of 48% against the 2006 baseline. That is progress. We should not forget that.

Supermarkets and shoppers pulled together to reduce the number of carrier bags they were using. Despite some evidence of a reversal in the trend, the latest figures, for 2011, show an overall decline in bag usage of 32% compared with 2006. I hear what my hon. Friend the Member for Rugby said about the contribution that carrier bags make to landfill. He is right that they are not a large part of the total waste stream, but it is not possible to argue that plastic bags, particularly when they litter our towns and countryside, are not an unwanted eyesore. They represent 72,000 tonnes of waste entering the waste stream.

Aside from the impact that carrier bags have on wildlife, marine environments and our countryside and coast, no one travelling around our countryside wishes to see carrier bags in the trees or floating down the lanes. It is all avoidable if we, the public and retailers do the right thing by reducing the use of single-use bags. We all have a part to play.

Some retailers are taking positive action, with initiatives such as voluntary charging, rewarding shoppers for reusing bags by awarding loyalty points, offering front-of-store recycling and increasing the amount of recycled content in the bags. Although recycling is further down the waste hierarchy, after prevention and reuse, it is still important to improve recycling rates for carrier bags, because it also helps to reduce the overall environmental impact and makes use of a valuable resource. I am pleased to see that the number of shops offering front-of-store recycling facilities for bags has increased, but I would like more to do so. I hope that more retailers, particularly the big ones, will be prepared to take up that challenge.

[Zac Goldsmith]

A number of stores, including WH Smith, Marks and Spencer, Ikea and Lidl, have already introduced charges for carrier bags. Is there evidence from their initiatives to suggest that there are any perverse or unwanted outcomes from such a charge?

[Mr Heath]

I am not aware of any, but a lot of work is being done to look at all the evidence because we want to get the policy right and to make a really effective contribution. I will come back to the Government’s position in a moment, but may I just say that that is part of the evidence-gathering process in which we are engaged?

Let me go back to the point about how we behave. On average, shoppers take three to four new bags every time they go out shopping, and most of them have a large store of bags at home, often under the kitchen sink, which they could take with them and reuse. We need not only to reuse bags, but to reduce the number of new bags that we take and to use bags that have a longer life. All those things put together are the actions of a responsible citizen. None the less, I recognise that we are all fallible. I would hate to be accused of being a hypocrite on these matters, because I know that someone will spot me taking a bag in Sainsbury’s in Frome next week and say, “You said that we shouldn’t be doing that.” I will have to say, “Yes, and you are right; I shouldn’t be doing this and I wish that I had remembered to bring a bag from home.”

Let me address the specific points that have been raised. A question that was asked by my hon. Friend and echoed by the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas) was about the Government’s reaction to the first year of bag charges in Wales. The results so far look positive. I hope that when we have looked at the full year’s results we will see that they are very positive indeed. We are certainly monitoring the results. When we are clear that we have robust data, we can then base any decisions on them.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Heath]

I will not give a firm answer to that, because we want to look at the data, but I hope that we will be able to make an early evaluation of the data. Once we are clear that we have a full-year set of data and we are convinced that the effect is beneficial, we can make a firm decision, and I do expect that to be sooner rather than later. Obviously, that falls short of the sort of commitment on timing that the hon. Lady wants.

My hon. Friend the Member for Richmond Park asked about the small levers that can be used. He is right. This provision is one lever among many that we can take. If we find that it is efficacious to go forward on the basis of a proposal—it will be based on the evidence that the hon. Lady has asked for and that we are committed to securing—similar to what exists in Wales, we will use it as a lever to long-term change. There are other things that can be done as well. We would never want to rely on one mechanism and eliminate all others.

[Zac Goldsmith]

If, after studying the Welsh experiment, the effect is deemed to have produced a net good, both in terms of a reduction and the other considerations that have been mentioned today, is that the bar that we need to cross for our Government to pursue the same course of action? In other words, how much does this Government’s decision depend on the results in Wales?

[Mr Heath]

It is one area of data on which we can base intelligent decisions. We do not only want to see whether there is a direct correlation between the activity there and the number of single-use bags that have been used. For example, has the initiative simply prevented people from using single-use bags and led them to buy a bag for life every time they go to a supermarket? If that was the consequence, that would be a worse outcome, despite the fact that the statistics on single-use bags would be beneficial. I am suggesting not that that will be the outcome, but that it is a slightly more complex picture, and we are genuine in wanting to examine the outcomes before we come to a policy decision. Such a decision will have an impact on the consumer, on retailers and, as my hon. Friend the Member for Rugby has said, on manufacturers, so we must get it right. We want to achieve a beneficial outcome for the use of scarce resources and for the environment. That is our intention as a Department and that is the basis on which we will finally reach a conclusion.

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond Park for securing this debate and every Member for their contributions. I hope that I have responded to the points that have been made in a reasonable way. I will pass on my hon. Friend’s comments to my colleague, Lord de Mauley, for his consideration. I am sure that my hon. Friend’s early-day motion will continue to attract signatures. We will take into account all the factors involved before reaching a final decision, which I hope we will be in a position to make once we have all the information at our disposal.