Plastic Food and Drink Packaging

Matt Rodda Excerpts

Thursday 24th October 2019 Westminster Hall

[Sandy Martin (Ipswich) (Lab)]

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

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

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

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

[Matt Rodda (Reading East) (Lab)]

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

[Sandy Martin]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Wildlife Crime

Matt Rodda Excerpts

Wednesday 20th March 2019 Westminster Hall

[Christian Matheson]

Not only do I agree with the hon. Gentleman, but I suspect—I cannot point to any evidence with me right now—that there is an element of organised crime behind some of that hare coursing. That would be damaging to farmers and rural communities, which perhaps have not been exposed to that level of organised crime in the past.

The NFU highlights the lack of resources for tackling wildlife crime, but crucially it has identified how the law can be toughened by extending criminal behaviour orders across a wider area than just the county in which the offence took place and by amending the Game Act 1831 to give police and magistrates the powers to seize dogs and reclaim associated kennelling costs from offenders.

Nowhere is the need for tougher laws more apparent than in the case of foxhunting. Local monitors have witnessed at least six foxes being killed by hunts in my own county of Cheshire this season. There were at least 10 additional reports of foxes being chased in the county and multiple reports of badger setts being blocked in the vicinity of hunts in Cheshire. Over the Christmas period, I and hon. Friends from the county were contacted by many constituents who shared horrific images and videos of foxes being slaughtered in hunts. It was those images and reports that led my hon. Friends and me to seek this debate in the House.

Laws were introduced for Scotland in 2002, and then for England and Wales in 2005 under the Hunting Act 2004, which was passed by the Labour Government and banned the use of dogs to hunt foxes and wild mammals in England and Wales. Although those were welcome and hard-fought pieces of legislation, over- whelming evidence suggests that they are regularly being ignored or exploited by hunts. The Hunting Act bans the hunting of wild mammals—notably foxes, deer, hares and mink—with dogs in England and Wales. However, the Act does not cover the use of dogs in the process of flushing out a wild animal, nor does it affect trail hunting, where hounds are trained to follow an artificial scent. The Government’s lack of political inclination to enforce or strengthen the laws lies at the heart of the issue.

[Matt Rodda (Reading East) (Lab)]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for securing this debate and for his comments about the support of the NFU in trying to deal with some of these appalling crimes. Does he agree that part of the challenge faced by many local police services across the country is the effect of austerity? Several hundred officer posts have been cut from Thames Valley police, which covers my area, in the past nine years due to austerity. That has had a serious and damaging effect on a number of aspects of police activity.

[Christian Matheson]

I accept that, and the particular consequence is that issues such as wildlife crime, which often requires specifically trained officers, are the first to fall by the wayside. If my hon. Friend will forgive me, I will refer to that later.

The Prime Minister has openly declared her support for foxhunting, and the Conservative manifesto committed to granting a free vote on the issue, although I welcome the Government confirming that they would not bring forward such a vote during this Session of Parliament. The Hunting Act continues to be abused across the board. There is a sense of a lack of political will from Ministers, which means the issue is constantly swept under the carpet. Responsibility is put on the shoulders of crumbling police forces, which are struggling, as my hon. Friend said. They have had £2.7 billion of real-terms cuts in direct Government funding since 2010.

The League Against Cruel Sports has collated at least 282 reports of suspected illegal hunting activity across the UK since the beginning of the foxhunting season on 1 November 2018, and 42 separate reports of foxes being killed. That indicates the scale of continued illegal hunting, although it is clear, when we take into account unreported cases and hunts that are not monitored, that the figures represent merely the tip of the iceberg.

The Hunting Act clearly needs to be strengthened. The evidence of abuse is clear and the required adjustments are straightforward. Weaknesses within the law, as identified by the RSPB and the NFU, are preventing blatant law-breaking by registered hunts from being effectively tackled. All that is needed is for the Government to have the will to act.

Fundamentally, the Hunting Act has no teeth. The deterrence value of penalties under the Hunting Act is significantly lacking. Only fines are available. Ministry of Justice data shows that the average fine for offences under the Hunting Act over the past 10 years was a measly £267, which is a price many hunters are willing to risk. It is certainly one they can afford. Custodial sentences need to be introduced to bring the law at least into line with penalties for other crimes against wild animals, such as badger baiting.

One of the main weaknesses is that the offence is a summary offence only, and an absolute offence. There is no offence, for example, of attempting to kill a fox with a hunt, and prosecutors would have to prove an intent to kill a fox. A hunt can therefore chase a fox across countryside with unmuzzled dogs following its scent. If the fox is killed unintentionally—whatever that might mean in this context—a conviction becomes difficult to obtain, as if chasing a fox with a pack of dogs does not indicate intent to kill it. Let us face it: the dogs do not know any better.

Even if there is video evidence showing the culprit with the dead fox, as happened in Cheshire, that is not sufficient to gain a prosecution, let alone a conviction. Cheshire police were criticised earlier this year when their press office put out a statement suggesting that we cannot believe everything we see on social media. Those press officers were right, but that does not mean we cannot believe anything we see on social media.

Another excuse is trail hunting, which allows for foxes to be accidentally killed by dogs on hunts. It is especially pernicious when the trail is laid using the urine of captive foxes. Why are the dogs not trained to follow a different scent? A gaping hole in the legislation allows hunts to claim that any chasing and killing were merely coincidental and accidental. For those who do not know, trail hunting involves people on foot or horseback following a scent along a pre-determined route with hounds or beagles. The concept of trail hunting is to effectively replicate a hunt without hurting a fox. It has been described by a judge in one case as a “cynical subterfuge”. In that case, the judge dismissed an appeal by two hunt employees who were part of the Harborough-based Fernie hunt and were convicted of breaching hunting laws. They were found guilty of hunting a live fox and digging into an active badger sett.

There is no system to record wildlife crimes in the UK and identify the size and scale of the activity. A recent Wildlife and Countryside Link report noted that 1,283 wildlife crime incidents were recorded by non-governmental organisations in 2017. Shockingly, only nine individuals and businesses were prosecuted.

Many wildlife crimes are not recordable or notifiable offences. That means that vital information about crimes that have been reported and investigated is not being collected by police forces across England and Wales. Valuable information about trends in crime and intelligence, which would lead to the allocation of resources, is therefore lost. Without proper information, the Government are also under less pressure to actually do something about such crimes.

The practice of stopping up foxholes and badger setts, and using terriers to chase foxes out of their dens, continues. That surely demonstrates intent. Badgers are killed in the process, too. One Cheshire hunt monitor told me of such activities this year:

“On one occasion this hunt season we checked a large badger sett, it was fine and very active. The next day we discovered the hunt was due in the area…we went to check the sett on the hunt day and it had quad bike tracks leading straight to it and to several other setts in the immediate area, all entrances were filled in, we could see spade marks and boot prints. The hunt rode straight up to the badger sett that day and stopped, they were clearly surprised to see us, we then had to unblock 41 sett entrances or the badgers would have suffocated. We went back over subsequent days to monitor activity and we used thermal imaging technology to check the badgers were still alive. This sett is constantly targeted.”

David Keane, the police and crime commissioner for Cheshire, undertook a review of the laws relating to hunting and of his force’s implementation of those laws. He, too, found that

“the current legislation in the way it is drafted presents challenges to investigators and prosecutors”,

and that it causes confusion to the public and others.

Issues have been raised with Mr Keane regarding how legislation could be amended to assist. Following his review, he has made three proposals. The first is that recklessness should be applicable, beyond the current requirement to prove intent—a requirement that is not mirrored in all areas of criminal law. The second is for the introduction of an authorised list of scents, excluding fox or other wild mammal urine, for use in trail hunting. Thirdly, he has spoken of the need for a clearer definition of the role of, or restriction associated with, terrier men: those who follow the hunt around and assist.

In the past week, ahead of the debate, I have received countless emails from concerned citizens, appalled at the continued killing of wild animals for pleasure and the seeming inability of the law to bring people to account. Clearly, the laws on foxhunting are being deliberately flouted, by people who either believe that they are above the law, or are not deterred by the threat of the sanctions available under it. I fail to understand how someone can get pleasure from killing animals, and can conclude only that such people are in some way disturbed.

At the very least, the law on hunting with dogs needs to be changed to include recklessness as an offence. We might look at limits on the number of dogs allowed, and there is support across the House for increasing to five years the penalty for convictions for animal cruelty. That might help to deal with the bagging of foxes and the issue of hounds being given fox cubs for training purposes.

If those solutions are not adopted, however, we might have to consider another: banning hunting with dogs altogether. Hunts have had their chance to demonstrate that they are responsible, but they are failing to take it, possibly deliberately. The police are struggling nationally with manpower, and wildlife crime falls well below other priorities. Police are not always trained in the finer points of the detail of wildlife protection laws. To make it easier, we need to give them the tools to do their job, and that means much tougher laws to protect our wildlife.