Unsustainable Packaging

Debate between Bill Grant and Jim Cunningham

Monday 24th June 2019 Westminster Hall

[Bill Grant (Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir George. I thank the hon. Member for Cambridge (Daniel Zeichner) and the Petitions Committee for securing this important debate.

By 2050, some 34 billion tons of plastic will have been manufactured globally. The waste might be shipped around the world and will blight many countries—many of which do not contribute to the waste, but host it. That is a wicked thing that some countries impose on others. It seems inexplicable that we have come to produce and rely on a material that is potentially detrimental to our future—but indeed we have. This material is allegedly cheaper to produce new than by recycling existing products. If it is subjected to fire, it will, in most circumstances, give off a potentially deadly cocktail of toxic gases, and if it is discarded in watercourses, it will continue to pollute our oceans. Neither of those outcomes is welcome.

The UK Government have confirmed that their strategy, as part of their new 25-year plan to improve the environment, aims to eliminate avoidable plastic waste—a worthy aspiration. Having spoken previously in debates on this subject, I am well aware of bans on microbeads, straws, stirrers and cotton buds, together with plastic bag charges and refill facilities for plastic bottles. I commend Scottish Water for its promotion of such facilities throughout towns in Scotland. Eventually, these measures will all have positive impacts on the environment.

Those actions alone are not enough and we need to do much more, but from that beginning I understand that the UK Government are consulting on proposals to incentivise producers and retailers to take responsibility for the environmental impacts of the packaging that they choose to use. Added to that, the Government have committed more than £60 million in funding for global research and to assist Commonwealth countries in preventing plastic from entering the oceans.

A constituent of mine recently highlighted to my office staff the fact that receptacles have been placed on Turnberry beach in South Ayrshire, into which the public can place plastic waste washed up on the shoreline. That is a good local initiative. I also commend the local rotary clubs in Ayrshire for their effective annual beach cleans. I am sure that that goes on all over the United Kingdom, and I commend the work of rotary clubs throughout the UK and Ireland. These beach cleans remove tonnes of potentially polluting plastic each year. Although I am not always there, I am happy to join them, when I can, on a Saturday morning.

I understand that another of the Government’s aims is to work with retailers to explore the introduction of plastic-free supermarket aisles. Of course, as has been mentioned in previous debates, other more traditional forms of packaging—such as glass bottles—might have a similar cost to the environment in their production and transport, even if disposal and recycling can be easier. As glass is heavier than plastic, transporting it carries a higher carbon footprint. As with all things, we need to strike a balance.

I want to commend a local initiative, whereby reusable glass milk bottles have been introduced by the Kerr family of South Corton farm near Ayr. Their customers secure glass bottles, which they take to the farm to get fresh milk for themselves straight from that wonderful dairy farm. They get the freshest milk and reduce the use of plastic bottles, which are so commonly used for the conveyance of milk.

In the meantime, I note in the media that Asda, like Waitrose, plans to make its packaging 100% recyclable by 2025, and is encouraging local primary school children, including those in Girvan in my constituency, to take part in a series of interactive activities to learn about plastic use and recycling.

The dangers of plastics are clearly being recognised by the younger generation. Pupils at Belmont Academy in Ayr have recently taken part in the “Full Cycle 2019” connected world challenge at Dumfries House in Cumnock. I am pleased to report that they received a pupils’ choice award—well done to them and their teachers.

[Mr Jim Cunningham (Coventry South) (Lab)]

The hon. Gentleman mentions that people are moving towards the use of milk bottles as opposed to plastic containers. There was an interesting article a couple of weeks ago—in fact, it was on television in the midlands—which showed that more and more people are going back to their local milkman, because they use bottles rather than plastic containers. Does he agree that that is a good thing?

[Bill Grant]

Yes, exactly; that is a good thing. Many if not all in this Chamber will remember the wee phrase on milk bottles: “Rinse and return”.

[Mr Cunningham]

I used to deliver them.

[Bill Grant]

Yes, it is a good step forward. It is a small step, but a step in the right direction.

The pupils’ choice award was won by the pupils for their innovative project on plastic pollution, and I commend them for their efforts. Let us hope that the politics of plastic proceeds with the same enthusiasm.

We must not fail our future generations. As has been mentioned, this might be one occasion when we should turn the clock back to the days of our parents and grandparents. They managed daily tasks, and to sustain themselves and their families, without the same reliance on plastic. The fish-and-chips wrapping of that era has been mentioned, and we all remember the days when fish and chips seemed to taste that wee bit better in yesterday’s newspaper.

Finally, will the Minister provide an update on the consultation that closed last month, and can he confirm that the introduction of a new plastic packaging tax in April 2022 is still on target? A quarter of a million signatories to the petition cannot be wrong, and they have to be listened to.

Fireworks

Debate between Bill Grant and Jim Cunningham

Monday 29th January 2018 Westminster Hall

[Bill Grant (Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock) (Con)]

Thank you, Mr Walker; it is a pleasure to serve under your stewardship. I apologise to my colleague the hon. Member for Poplar and Limehouse (Jim Fitzpatrick), whom I know well, and I thank the hon. Member for Clwyd South (Susan Elan Jones) for introducing the debate.

I have a background of some 31 years in the Strathclyde fire and rescue service. Way back in 1974—44 years ago —bonfire night was inevitably busier than any other night of the year, and that remains the case. It is indeed important to “Remember, remember, the fifth of November”, because it stretches the resources of all emergency services, not just the fire and rescue service. Colleagues in the ambulance service treat people injured by flying embers or by fireworks, and regrettably, police officers often have to accompany other emergency services workers to ensure their safety from attacks.

We must bear in mind that the greatest costs are the human costs—the costs of burns that may scar or disfigure someone for life, of loss of sight and, as we heard, of the triggering of PTSD, which often happens to members of the armed forces who have served this country well. Albeit that fireworks often provide a colourful spectacle at small private displays and large public events, many humans and animals find them very distressing, particularly given their noise, even if they do not inflict physical injury.

As a member of a pet-owning and pet-loving family, I am acutely aware of the stress that fireworks cause many domestic pets. There are products on the market—CDs and garments with pressure pads, for example—that claim to afford pets relief and desensitise them, but it is impossible to assist livestock in fields. The light and noise from fireworks may spook sheep and cause them to crowd in the corners of fields and risk suffocation, and cattle may bolt from their field and become distressed, or worse. We heard horrific figures about the deaths of horses resulting from the irresponsible use of fireworks, and we must never forget assistance dogs, such as guide dogs, hearing dogs and companion dogs, which may be unnecessarily distracted from their important duties.

Of course, many domestic pets are simply unnecessarily petrified by the noise of fireworks, which is often not simply a bang but a screech or a whine. Their hearing is distinctly different from ours. Given the more frequent use of fireworks, we inflict that experience on man’s best friend more than just one day a year. Those pets, who are much loved, including by many in the Chamber, are simply inconsolable.

I appreciate that quieter fireworks are available on the market, but, according to a recent report commissioned by the City of Edinburgh Council, they lack the propellants that give the height and burst of colour for those viewing at a distance. In other words, they are second-rate fireworks and not particularly acceptable.

There is a raft of UK-wide and Scottish-specific categorisations and legislative controls for fireworks, including on their production, storage, sale and use, ranging from the Explosives Act 1875—slightly before my time—to the Fireworks (Scotland) Regulations 2004 and, more recently, the Pyrotechnic Articles (Safety) Regulations 2010. However, the question, which has been asked before, is whether they are fully understood by those enforcing them, such as trading standards and the police, and by the public, who indiscriminately activate them.

[Mr Jim Cunningham (Coventry South) (Lab)]

I certainly would not comment on what happens in Scotland, but in England one of the big problems, as mentioned earlier, is policing. In the west midlands we have a particular shortage of police and a shortage of trading standards officers, and that—I am trying not to be too political—is because of local government cuts. Over the past 26 years I have listened to debates about fireworks like nobody’s business, but nothing positive happens. This time round we should have a commission to take a good look at it.

[Bill Grant]

The hon. Gentleman is partly correct. We should have a good look at this issue and get the statistics. I do not know whether there is an association with cuts, because when we were in the land of plenty I do not think the laws were well understood or policed. I do not link cuts to the tragedies that occur.

In my view, such categorisations and controls alone are not sufficient. It is important to minimise potential physical injuries and psychological distress further to both humans and animals.

I will take a wee look at statistics. The website of the Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents tells us that in 2014-15—this an unbelievable figure—4,506 people visited accident and emergency departments in England having suffered a firework injury. On that one night, 114 were admitted to hospital, of whom 44 were under 18 years of age. That includes 11 admissions involving children under five. For the benefit of fun and gratification from fireworks, should we be doing that to our children? Should we have that risk, or should we mitigate it? I think we should mitigate it.

In Scotland in 2017, 5 November resulted in 330 bonfire incidents, and on 11 occasions crews faced missiles and fireworks not for entertainment but fired towards them. They needed police assistance each time. Is that ignition of fireworks necessary on a bonfire night for the gratification of the public? In addition, 800 calls were received during that night.

I fully acknowledge that the Government have highlighted themselves and through other agencies the dangers of fireworks and taken steps to promote safety advice and guidance. However, even one life-changing incident is one too many. For that reason, and because of the distress, injury and deaths caused to animals we heard about earlier, I advocate a ban on the sale of fireworks to individual members of the public. I believe firmly that the sale of fireworks should be restricted to professionals with health and safety training and qualifications who have permission to undertake an organised display for specific commemorative events at pre-arranged dates and times. Fireworks should not be used just at someone’s whim, whenever they want to frighten the life out of a neighbour’s cats and dogs, or when someone in a remote cottage wants to frighten the life out of nearby horses or farm animals.

Some may be fearful about potential job losses in the United Kingdom from such a ban. However, as I understand it few people are employed here in the manufacture of fireworks—no more than double figures —as most fireworks are imported. As an inadvertent consequence of banning the sale of fireworks, we might reduce our trade deficit with some of the countries from whom we import them.

I am not an advocate of state intervention. However, look at the success of seatbelt and crash helmet legislation and the long-term success of the smoking ban. Let us not ban organised events but end the retail sale of fireworks, and make that a success, too. As colleagues have said, we need to gather evidence from all corners of the United Kingdom, and I think the evidence will show that such a ban would be good for our children and future generations. On that night, I am sure they do not know what they are celebrating.