Unsustainable Packaging

Debate between Graham Stringer and Daniel Zeichner

Monday 24th June 2019 Westminster Hall

[Daniel Zeichner]

True to form, my hon. Friend raises the more profound points of the debate. Those are exactly the trade-offs that must be considered in depth and detail, and I will come on to some of them in a moment. He makes a powerful point that sometimes, the more obvious routes to doing the right thing might not have quite the consequences that one understood them to be liable to have.

I suppose the argument I am making is to encourage the zeal of the public to embark on this path, and the conclusion I will draw at the end is that they must be given help to ensure that they are indeed achieving the good outcomes that they are intending to achieve. This is a subject littered with potentially difficult trade-offs, and I am sure both Front-Bench speakers will refer those in the debate.

I will complete my tour of some of the great initiatives—

[Graham Stringer (Blackley and Broughton) (Lab)]

rose—

[Daniel Zeichner]

Or perhaps others might help me in that.

--- Later in debate ---

[Graham Stringer]

I am stimulated to get to my feet by my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield Central (Paul Blomfield), who is associated with the University of Sheffield, as I was some time ago, through the Sheffield students’ union. One of the things I learned at the university was that if we cannot measure it, or we do not measure it, we are unlikely to make progress with it.

Does my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Daniel Zeichner) agree that some of the Government’s statistics are extremely dodgy in this area, particularly on recycling? When waste is exported, we assume that it is recycled, but that is unaudited. The best way to deal with these things is, first, to deal with them domestically and, secondly, as my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield Central says, to reuse things rather than recycling them—glass bottles rather than plastic being an obvious example.

[Daniel Zeichner]

Once again, my hon. Friend introduces the gravity that I would expect of him, and he makes serious points. I am sure others will refer to the need to reduce, reuse and recycle in the correct sequence. The measurement issue is important. I am trying to adopt a non-partisan tone in today’s debate, because I suspect we are all trying to get to the same place, but he makes a very fair point about the need to ensure that the statistics on which we make decisions are reliable, and an even more important point that we cannot just export our waste and pretend that that is not having an impact somewhere else.

My final resting-point on my tour of great Cambridge places is Cambridge’s Daily Bread Co-operative, which is launching its zero-waste scheme this week. My point is that wherever we turn, we find people wanting to bring forward new and welcome initiatives. That brings me to the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee; I am standing opposite its Chair, the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Neil Parish), and I am grateful to him for being in the Chamber this afternoon. The Committee is in the midst of an inquiry on food and drink packaging, which has allowed me the delight of reading through both its proceedings and its evidence.

I suspect the hon. Gentleman will want to comment on some of that, but the experts consulted by the Committee tell us that while changes can be made, we must temper our enthusiasm with realism, because there is probably no easy answer or quick fix to the problem. Packaging plays an important role in keeping food fresh, safe and affordable, so although moving away from pre-packaged foods in shops, restaurants and cafes is probably possible, the question becomes more difficult and complicated when we consider freight and production.

Despite that, it definitely seems possible to me significantly to reduce the amount that we use here in the UK, but it would be simplistic to assume that we could just transfer that way of producing and transporting food all over the world, when in some places the same level of technology is not yet readily available.

It is important to remember where the most environmental damage is done. In evidence to the EFRA Committee inquiry, Peter Maddox, from WRAP UK, explained that

“when you look at a piece of meat, a nice eight ounce beefsteak in a package with a film on top…the carbon impact of the steak is over 100 times bigger than the carbon impact of the packaging. That packaging is providing extremely innovative barrier properties, which enables that meat to last a lot longer. If you did not have it in that pack, that meat might last three days. If you have it in a really good sealable pack, it will last 10 days. You start then thinking about what consumers want, reducing food waste and the fundamental economic value of that piece of meat. You need to think about it in terms of the whole product.”

Having read through the evidence, that message comes through loud and clear. The whole product and the whole life-cycle analysis are key. We must recognise that as we continue our efforts to reduce non-recyclable packaging. There is so much we can do, but it is realistic to admit that we cannot eradicate its use completely overnight.

However, we must not lose our ambition. The Royal Society of Chemistry, based in Cambridge, highlighted in evidence to the inquiry that, although bio-derived and biodegradable plastics will play a role in addressing the challenges caused by conventional plastic waste, they should not be used to legitimise a throwaway culture; they are not necessarily more environmentally benign than conventional plastics; and their impact as a replacement for conventional plastics must be considered on a life-cycle basis. This suggests that despite technological advancement, cultural awareness and change are still crucial. The UK cannot absolve itself of responsibility for mass corporate and personal behaviour change just because technology is advancing.

At the roundtable in Cambridge last week, Seigo Robinson and others were concerned that reducing non-recyclable plastic packaging was not necessarily compatible with the drive to reduce carbon dioxide emissions. For example, it was said that “carting around loads of refillable jam jars” would use “loads of CO₂”; we may not have been precise or measurable on this occasion, but hon. Members will get the point. Alternatives to plastic packaging, such as paper, steel, wood and glass, could sadly have far worse carbon footprints. People said that plastic pollution of the oceans and carbon emissions needed to go hand in hand, and argued that recycling ought to be a last resort; people should look at using reusable containers for many years before thinking about the need for recycling.

Continuing my spirit of generosity towards the Government—I have no idea why I am in this generous mood, but I am—

Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee, Environmental Audit Committee, Health and Social Care Committee and Transport Committee

Debate between Graham Stringer and Daniel Zeichner

Thursday 22nd March 2018 Westminster Hall

[Graham Stringer (in the Chair)]

Order. We are running out of time; there are two minutes left, if I am to stick strictly to the 20-minute limit. I ask hon. Members to be brief.

[Daniel Zeichner (Cambridge) (Lab)]

I will be brief, Mr Stringer. May I add electric bicycles to the list of electric vehicles? They offer a huge opportunity to make a quick transformation.

Bus Services Bill [Lords]

Debate between Graham Stringer and Daniel Zeichner

3rd reading: House of Commons & Report stage: House of Commons
Monday 27th March 2017 Commons Chamber

[Graham Stringer]

The hon. Gentleman makes a fair point, and I will come on to it. He is right to be concerned about that, but I want to develop the logic of the argument that I am making as to why these are not sensible amendments. In large parts of the country, where most bus passengers are, we do not have competition. The basis of the Transport Act 1985 was that there would be on-the-road competition and that would provide good services, and if bus companies lost out because of on-the-road competition, they lost out as in any other capitalist-competitive market situation. That has not happened, however; we have moved to monopoly.

Incidentally, when the 1985 Act was implemented in 1986 no compensation was paid to those bus companies—of which there were a number—running on regulated routes. Mayne in east Manchester, for instance, had run for many years in that area; when it had to compete, it did not get compensation.

We are now moving—through principled objectives, in a different way—to a competitive system, in those areas that choose that, because there will be choices for Norfolk, Greater Manchester and other areas at some stage. As with rail franchising, in a competitive situation, when a company loses out, it loses its business, even if it has invested in it previously. In fact, one of the difficulties with franchising is that we end up with investment up front and a lack of investment at the end; that is just the nature of franchising.

On the point made by the hon. Member for Newark (Robert Jenrick) about medium-sized bus companies, that can of course be taken into account in the way that franchises are set up, by local choice. Areas can set them up in as many different ways as they wish, so medium-sized companies could be given the right to tender for routes that fit the size of the company if that was what the franchising authority wanted to do.

That brings me to a point I made in Committee, and which was rejected. Rather than the amendments we have here, I would have preferred the Bill to say that the regulations should not be overly burdensome and that they should reflect local conditions. If they were reflecting local conditions, they could take into account those small and medium-sized companies. There is a large point here, however, and, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Leigh said, the large companies would be more pleased than the small bus companies if these amendments were passed.

There is not a single quality contract in this country, and that is because when they were brought in under the Transport Act 2000, it contained a clause that is very similar to measures here, saying that they are the only practical way of delivering a better bus service. That is an incredibly high hurdle to jump, which is why there are no such contracts. Quality partnerships were referred to; I asked the Minister in Committee how many of them there were in the country, and, after a little help from the officials, we discovered that there were 10. So even quality partnerships are not abundant on the ground in this country. We do not need overly burdensome regulations. We want to make this work because it will improve the service for passengers, be more competitive and lead to better services.

We are not discussing them now, but there are huge guidance notes associated with this Bill, which I think tend to be overly prescriptive. I prefer to rely on the good sense of local councillors; they will make some good decisions and some bad decisions, but there are many bus companies with vested interests who are opposed to this, and if local authorities behave in an unreasonable way, they have the right to apply the Wednesbury principle and go for judicial review.

Rather than having lots of prescriptions, and putting ever more hurdles in the way of locally elected people making decisions, we should rely on their good sense. Sometimes they will get it wrong, as sometimes national politicians in Governments and Cabinets get things wrong, but we can rely on them and the common law, which will ensure that if bus companies feel that they are being unfairly treated and that transport authorities are behaving in an unreasonable way, they can take that to court.

So I hope the Minister will reject these amendments. We have held in the balance throughout our discussions the question of what is central and what is going to help local authorities, transport authorities and elected mayors to make these decisions, and these amendments do not help move us towards having a better local transport system.

[Daniel Zeichner]

There is a wide range of amendments in this group, many of which we support, but some we do not.

I genuinely hope that the Minister will consider new clause 4 on bus safety, despite his comments in Committee. More disappointment has been expressed to me on that aspect of our Committee discussions than on any other, partly because the comments of the Minister in the other place had been encouraging, but also because I cannot believe that there is any disagreement on the value of improving bus safety, and this is widely seen as an effective and cost-effective way of achieving that goal.

I think the Minister suggested in Committee that he might be minded to insert some guidance to encourage bus operators to sign up, but the evidence on voluntarism is clear: to my knowledge, no bus operator outside the London franchises is signed up to any independent, confidential incident reporting system. We have an opportunity now to end that situation. As my hon. Friend the Member for Gateshead (Ian Mearns) said, such a system is not expensive. It works in the railway industry, and I have not heard a strong case made against it. It seems to work well and I urge the Minister to grasp the opportunity.

Amendments 14, 16 to 23 and 15 appear to us to be unnecessary and to go against the spirit and devolutionary nature of the Bill. The assessment process laid out in the Bill and the extensive guidance—168 pages—available for it are extremely thorough and tough, and do not need to be added to. Amendment 24 undermines the assessment made by the Government of the issues relating to compensation and sufficient time to enable operators to plan. Provisions already in the Bill fully satisfy all value-for-money considerations. We are pleased that the Minister confirmed on Second Reading and in Committee that the aim of the process is not to put barriers in the way of authorities proceeding to franchising. We fear that the amendment threatens the very heart of the Bill. Amendment 25 also seems to be unnecessary, as additional appropriate independence, rigour and structure for the audit process will be ensured by the Government, to which I think the Minister is about to speak. Amendments 26 and 27 also seem at odds with the devolutionary nature of the Bill, because it should be for elected authorities to make the decisions, based on their local judgments.

We strongly support amendments 6, 7, 10, 11 and 13, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Gateshead. The arguments were well made in Committee, and perhaps even more strongly today. In any transfers workers should be properly protected, and we have the opportunity to ensure that. I fear that the Government will choose not to take the opportunity, but I urge them to do so.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lilian Greenwood]

rose—

[Daniel Zeichner]

I will give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Blackley and Broughton (Graham Stringer) first.

[Graham Stringer]

Two have come at once! Does my hon. Friend agree that, aside from the reasons given by the Competition Commission, municipal bus companies can provide a benchmark? In a rational debate, we should be able to get from the Government a reason why, when municipal bus companies have performed in an excellent way, they are not allowed to compete. Does he agree that that reason was not forthcoming in Committee?

[Daniel Zeichner]

I very much agree with my hon. Friend. The point about keeping the market honest is important. When I was first elected as a local councillor, the housing officer told me that one of the roles of an in-house operation was to keep the market honest. That is an important role.

Bus Services Bill [ Lords ] (Third sitting)

Debate between Graham Stringer and Daniel Zeichner

Thursday 16th March 2017 Public Bill Committees

[Daniel Zeichner]

I am slightly disappointed by the Minister’s response, although obviously not entirely surprised. For bus passengers in areas where bus services are being withdrawn, the question whether the funding is coming from the Department for Transport or through local authorities from other Departments is a touch immaterial—the bus has gone. We have seen the figures for this right across the country. Across whole swathes of the country, buses have gone because the funding to support them is not there. From the passengers’ point of view, that is all that matters. I am therefore disappointed that the Minister does not think that funding is worth addressing.

[Graham Stringer]

Did my hon. Friend notice, as I did, that when the Minister was relaying his experience of working in the private sector, he said that head office was rarely there to help? This is precisely the justification he has given for the mountains of regulations imposed centrally on transport authorities—he has said on a number of occasions in this Committee that the Department is there to help. When it comes to writing out a strategy, he will not do it, but when it comes to interfering in the detail, he will. Does he recognise that that is a huge contradiction?

[Daniel Zeichner]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I am sure that those who are carrying the 168 pages of guidance around under their arms will notice that head office is indeed there to offer a little assistance on occasion. We are returning to the theme running through the debate of the relationship between the centre and localities.

To return to the points about funding, just yesterday we saw newspapers in Stockton talking about the three women who describe themselves as “the three busketeers”. They have found that their bus route has been axed and it costs them £6 to get a taxi to go and buy a pint of milk. That is the reality on the ground that people face, so funding is crucial, which is why we think the new clause is important.

The debate about opportunities for young people will no doubt be rehearsed over the next two or three years, and it will be a political decision in the end. I will not press the Minister on this, because I am sure he does not have the figures on the number of people benefiting from the 16 to 19 bursary, but I get no sense from my FE college and others that that has been a successful of way of addressing that problem. The Opposition will come forward with what I hope will be a much more attractive offer to young people at the next general election. On that basis, I will press the motion to a vote.

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.

Bus Services Bill [ Lords ] (Second sitting)

Debate between Graham Stringer and Daniel Zeichner

Committee Debate: 2nd sitting : House of Commons
Tuesday 14th March 2017 Public Bill Committees

[Graham Stringer]

I thank the Minister for his reply. I will withdraw amendments 34 and 35. I take what he says about amendment 34, although I think it really would enhance the Bill.

I will press amendment 36 to a vote. It would not add to the guidance but prescribe that “the Secretary of State should not go here”. The context of this debate is that bus companies are hostile to these proposals. It is likely that bus companies will end up in court—Nexus has recent experience of that under existing legislation—and it would be helpful to say that the guidance should not be over-burdensome. It would also be helpful—the Minister did not really reply to this point—to say that where schemes have been tried and failed, or bus companies have refused to try them, they will not be reconsidered in some future scheme. I take the Minister’s reassurance that the final decision will be made by the Mayor or the authority. In the light of that, I will press amendment 36, but I beg to ask leave to withdraw amendment 34.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

[Daniel Zeichner]

I beg to move amendment 21, in clause 4, page 16, line 30, at end insert—

‘(3A) An award of any new franchise or contract shall not be made on the basis of labour costs estimated by the potential franchisee or contractor assuming labour costs for new employees at less than the labour cost of workers who are covered by TUPE protections in accordance with section 123X transferring to the new franchisee or contractor.”

This amendment would ensure that any new franchise or contract will not be awarded on the basis of estimated labour costs being lower for new employees than the labour cost of workers covered by TUPE protections.

--- Later in debate ---

[Graham Stringer]

I will be brief, as my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham South has covered most of the points I wish to make. A reading of proposed sub-sections (1) and (2) shows that new clause 1 is not only disproportionate but authoritarian and ideological. The provision states:

“A relevant authority may not, in exercise of any of its powers, form a company for the purpose of providing a local service.”

That is extraordinary. It goes on to state:

“Subsection (1) applies whether the relevant authority is acting alone or with any other person.”

The assumption behind the proposal is that, in some way, the private sector market is working perfectly and competition is leading to a provision of services everywhere. That is simply not the case. The measure is tying the hands of local authorities that think that they can make a business case to provide a municipal bus company, either on their own or with a private sector partner. That is simply an ideological act. I can see the case that the Minister made, and I would concede that a franchising authority should not be able to award a contract to a bus company that it owns. However transparent the process, that would look strange to anybody outside. I accept that, but there are parts of the country—the shires, for example, and Hartlepool is often mentioned—where bus services are poor and many remote communities do not get a service. Why should the local authorities not get together and provide a municipal bus company where the private sector is failing?

An argument is often used in these cases. If the system we had in this country—and we hope this is the first step in moving away from it—worked so well and provided services efficiently, effectively and economically to people who needed them, why has nobody copied it? Can the Minister show us anywhere in Europe that has said, “Wow! What a wonderful deregulated system you have. We will immediately copy it and we will get rid of all our publicly owned bus companies and invite the private sector in to have a free-for-all. We think that will be a better way to do it.”? I cannot think of anywhere in Europe but perhaps the Minister knows better than I do; that is possible.

There are other arguments in favour, not of telling local authorities they must do it, but of allowing them to do it where there is a need. It would do one other thing: it would provide a benchmark for how bus companies should and could operate, as Directly Operated Railways provided a useful benchmark for the rest of the rail system.

The Minister has praised municipal bus companies. Can he explain why, if something is working so well, we should not replicate it? We probably invent too many different ways of delivering service in this country. When things work, why do we not simply replicate them where there is a need? In debates over the years on franchising, I have argued the case for quality contracts or franchising, and Government Members have said there are excellent bus services in Brighton, Oxford and Norwich, and round the country there are. There are places where the bus service works. There seem to be two factors that make those bus services good while those of us who live in Manchester, Newcastle, Hartlepool and South Yorkshire have seen a dramatic decline in bus services. Those areas are usually historic cities where there has been a restriction on cars, often, but not always, allied with a municipal bus company, so that there has been control and a very good service provided. Will the Government, like any sensible one, allow things that work to happen again?

[Daniel Zeichner]

It is a pleasure to follow both my hon. Friends, who have made their points very well. The new clause proposal has become the cause célèbre of the Bill, doubtless dropped in to wind up people across the country. To that extent it has been successful. We have had thousands of emails from people who are concerned about it. We have seen many representations from councils. We have had exciting photo opportunities outside the Department for Transport. I am sorry Ministers did not feel about able to join them—they would have been very welcome.

The proposal is a sop to those who cannot abide success in the public sector, to those who cannot get over the fact that, year after year, the municipals demonstrate that they can combine efficiency, good value and top-quality service and regularly walk away with all of the awards. As has been said, the proposal flies in the face of the evidence. It is a mean-spirited proposal that prohibits county and district councils in England, combined and integrated authorities in England, and passenger transport executives in England, from setting up companies to provide local services. In short, it is a ban on new municipal bus companies.

We have made it absolutely clear that we completely disagree with this punitive measure, which also contradicts the Government’s supposed commitment to localism. We have already heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham South about the fantastic reputation and performance of one of those municipals. We could speak about others, but the point has been well made. Sadly, the Government now plan to take this option for local authorities off the table, despite the fact that in a number of areas they have proved that they are successful.

--- Later in debate ---

[Daniel Zeichner]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. That point goes to the crux of whether the legislation will work in practice. We will not press the amendment to a Division, but I hope the Minister takes careful note of what has been said and ensures that, as authorities consider introducing schemes, they feel reassured that they will be able to do so and not face the risks we have described. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 4, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.



Clause 5

Power to obtain information about local services

[Graham Stringer]

I beg to move amendment 33, in clause 5, page 33, line 8, at end insert—

‘(1A) The franchising authority may require the operator to provide information about services run by the operator under existing franchises or in non-franchised markets outside the franchising authority’s area.”

This amendment would ensure that all operator data about operational performance in markets outside the franchising authority’s area is available to them for the purpose of developing a franchising scheme.

--- Later in debate ---

[Graham Stringer]

I may return to amendment 33 on Report, along with a number of other items. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

[Daniel Zeichner]

I am reassured by the Minister’s comments on amendment 37, about pensions. That is helpful and clarifies the situation.

I am less reassured on the other two amendments. It is not my experience that authorities have this information. A lot of this information is held by the operators. They are running their businesses and quite clearly need it to run their day-to-day operations. Potential franchising authorities do not necessarily have that information. As I suggested earlier, my visit to my local traffic commissioner confirmed what I already rather suspected—that the responsibilities of traffic commissioners are not matched by the resources at their disposal. I am certainly led to understand that the old system whereby people used to be sent out to check on reliability and so on are long gone. I will not press the amendments any further, but I am not convinced on that point.

Finally, I think the Minister is being a touch naive to think that all the major operators will necessarily want to co-operate in that way. Having a fixed timeframe is absolutely right, possibly with an exemption for smaller operators. We should not be under any illusions: some of these processes will not be as smooth and amicable as we would all wish.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 5 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 6 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedule 2

Further amendments: franchising schemes