Cycling

Debate between Mark Pawsey and Kate Green

Monday 2nd September 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mark Pawsey]

The debate has already achieved part of its objective, Madam Deputy Speaker. We have a new cyclist on our Benches. However, if we are fully to realise the objectives set out in the motion, people such as me must be encouraged to ride their bikes more.

The inspiration that led me to use my bicycle more came during the recess. A couple of weeks ago, on a Thursday, I read an article in The Times by Dame Kelly Holmes, encouraging Members of Parliament to ride our bikes before participating in the debate. I had intended to drive the six miles or so from my home to the constituency office, but that day I decided to cycle. I should add that the weather was very good during August, and that the sunshine made my decision a great deal easier.

I have a number of observations to make following that experience. Travelling down Dunchurch road in Rugby in a cycle lane, I noticed that other cyclists were still on the road. I asked myself why those guys were still on the road when I was going down the cycle lane, which is half on the footpath. Then I realised that there were “Give way” lines on the side roads, and that I was having to give way to the cars that were coming out of them. Had I been on the road, I would not have had that problem. The other cyclists were making much faster progress than I was. Perhaps the Minister will explain why cars coming out of a side road have priority over the cyclists on a cycle way.

[Kate Green (Stretford and Urmston) (Lab)]

Could local authorities perhaps be given more discretion to depart from national guidance and come up with imaginative solutions that will work in their own areas?

[Mark Pawsey]

I should certainly like cyclists to be given more encouragement to use cycleways when they are provided.

I encountered another problem on that occasion. I had some constituency duties to fulfil. It was a warm day, and it occurred to me that I ought to carry an extra shirt, so I put one in a rucksack which I carried on my back. I still arrived soaked in sweat, not looking much like a Member of Parliament. I tweeted about the experience and received some useful advice on Twitter, namely that I should put some panniers on my bike so that I need not stick a rucksack on my back which would make my back wet. I now know that if I am to use my bike regularly, I shall need to invest in some panniers.

I also found that, in many instances, the cycleway was in pretty poor condition, with very unclear markings. It had probably been constructed three or four years earlier. Local authorities need to invest in ensuring that the markings on cycleways are clear. On more than one occasion, overgrown trees rendered the cycleway useless and forced me out on to the road.

One or two Members have mentioned vehicles parked in cycleways. Again on more than one occasion, I was forced on to the road by an illegally parked car or van. I agree with what has been said about the need for flexibility on the part of car users who are currently causing difficulties for cyclists.

I took my life in my hands on a slip road on a dual carriageway. There was fast traffic to my right, and as I progressed along to the slip road, to my left, coming up on the inside. Fortunately it was a quiet day, but I should hate to be on that road in different circumstances. Provision should be made for cyclists on slip roads off dual carriageways. I also felt very uncomfortable on roundabouts, which I know have caused concern to the all-party group. I hope that the debate will result in better designed road schemes that make allowances for cyclists.

Packaging Industry

Debate between Mark Pawsey and Kate Green

Tuesday 5th July 2011 Westminster Hall

[Mark Pawsey]

I shall come on to the pressures that the industry has faced, and some of the actions that we may ask our Business Minister to take on behalf of that business and others.

[Kate Green (Stretford and Urmston) (Lab)]

I am very pleased that the hon. Gentleman has secured the debate. Nampak Plastics in my constituency would welcome his comments about the need to support UK industry, and the need for home-grown businesses to thrive. However, it would point out that those things also have to do with the raw materials being home-grown. It is concerned that the waste products that can be turned into recycled packaging material cannot be processed in the UK because of an insufficiency of suitable waste recycling plants. Does the hon. Gentleman share my wish for the whole product chain to become, as far as possible, a home-grown industry, with British industries supported throughout?

[Mark Pawsey]

The hon. Lady makes a good point: we need the industry to go from start to finish, recycling a product and bringing it back. There have been difficulties about planning consents, and the Minister may be able to comment on changes in the planning system that will enable some of the new processes and facilities to come online.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mark Pawsey]

I want to address that point a bit later. My hon. Friend is right. All we end up doing is moving more product around rather than manufacturing it in the place where it would be most sensible to do so. In that movement, we generate additional carbon dioxide.

On business investment plans, one of the key things that business needs to do is estimate future costs of raw materials and energy, of which energy is often the most significant. There is already an account of the Business Secretary having had his ears burned by industry leaders about energy costs. If other countries do not follow our lead, the concern is that packaging manufacturers might move away from their UK bases. A number of people involved in the industry have said that a large proportion of UK plants producing packaging are now owned by companies that are based overseas and that if energy prices or regulation in the UK become excessive, there is no reason why those overseas-based multinationals would continue to keep those businesses in the UK.

Let me touch now on the standards under which imported products are manufactured. Manufacturers based in the UK, particularly those involved in producing packaging for food, incur costs by ensuring that they are compliant with all relevant food safety and hygiene legislation, but that is not the case for competitors based outside the EU, which puts UK-based manufacturers at an economic disadvantage. If such packaging is supplied without the recognised accreditation concerning EU food safety and hygiene, the concern is that there could be health risks to consumers.

Another strand of my argument relates to packaging products being seen as an obstacle to a greener environment and a greener economy. The Prime Minster has pledged to make this the greenest Government ever. One of the ways in which the Government aim to achieve that is by reducing the amount of packaging used and encouraging even more recycling. The industry accepts that its product is highly visible; we see it around us all the time. None the less, its environmental impact is much less than many would presume. Less than 3% of land-filled waste is packaging waste, despite the fact that 18% of household waste comes from packaging. It is accepted that packaging is visible because of litter. By definition litter is waste that happens to be in the wrong place. It is created by individuals through thoughtless or antisocial behaviour. The industry has a responsibility regarding litter, but it argues that litter should be addressed by education, investment in street cleaning and law enforcement.

The problem is that packaging attracts media attention. I would present Jeremy Paxman as a witness. Only the other day, he spoke on Radio 5 Live as chair of the Clean Up Britain campaign and railed against manufacturers of packaging. The industry argues that the attention that it receives is disproportionate and that packaging should be seen not as a problem but rather as a resource-efficiency solution. Given all the media attention, the packaging industry feels that it has become an easy target for those who wish to present their green credentials.

The emphasis on packaging and the environment has been recognised in the waste policy review, which was recently published by the Government. That review outlines the Government’s determination to move towards a zero-waste economy by relying more on voluntary approaches to cutting waste, increasing recycling and resource productivity, and improving the overall quality of recyclates.

Broadly, the industry is pleased that the review acknowledged the valuable role that packaging plays and that, in most cases, the carbon footprint of packaging is absolutely dwarfed by that of the products that it protects. However, there is a view within the industry that the review continues to pander to public misperceptions about packaging, as it draws attention to surveys that show that consumers believe packaging remains a big environmental question. The industry is disappointed that the review does not attempt to challenge some of those misconceptions.

The industry believes that, to challenge such misconceptions about waste, customers need to understand that good food packaging reduces food waste, which in turn saves people money through lower grocery bills and reduces the amount of unused food that is sent to landfill or composting. The review refers at some length to the need for packaging to be improved further, but it focuses on toy packaging. Unfortunately, toy packaging makes up only 0.36% of packaging in the UK and it is mostly used for imported goods, over which we have no control in the UK. In addition, the review pays a lot of attention to waste prevention, with the announcement of new initiatives and funding, and it also has a stated aim of reducing food waste. Some organisations have praised the review for making commitments to work with businesses to help them to reduce wastage, rather than carrying on the old practice of handing out penalties to companies that fail to comply with legislation.

Broadly, the industry believes that it can work with the Government on the waste policy review. Dick Searle, chief executive of the Packaging Federation, has said:

“It looks like there’s nothing unexpected in here and it’s all reasonably logical. I’m sure the industry will appreciate the light touch approach. I’m very pleased to see the reference to packaging being ‘dwarfed’ by product in terms of carbon footprint. Overall, it looks like government has been listening.”

Perhaps we might consider that response from an industry to Government plans as a refreshing one.

[Kate Green]

I am listening with care to the hon. Gentleman and agree with much of his analysis. Does he agree that the Government have an opportunity to galvanise a cross-sectoral approach to the issue—for example, by looking at a product from beginning to end and considering packaging within that context? In the milk industry, the packaging used is responsible for only 7% of the industry’s carbon footprint and joint work by the industry and the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs has enabled the entire product chain to be analysed. Does he endorse that approach to looking at environmental concerns?

[Mark Pawsey]

Absolutely. Cross-cutting and working together through voluntary agreement is entirely the way forward. That is the main thrust of the waste policy review, and I am delighted that the Minister has said with regard to the review:

“This Responsibility Deal with the waste management industry is most welcome. It is a good example of the way alternatives to regulation can work to achieve better waste management and recycling services for SMEs”—

small and medium-sized enterprises—

“and encourage better sorting of recyclable material to help the recycling industry.”

Voluntary arrangements are certainly the way forward and they are arrangements that industry that will respond to. Perhaps the carrot will always work better than the stick.

It is not possible to talk about the regulation of business without making some reference to Europe. European legislation and regulation are already in place under the European packaging directive, which requires the packaging industry to meet strict requirements to prevent the use of excessive packaging. Since that directive came into place, the amount of packaging waste recovered and recycled in the UK increased from 3.3 million tonnes in 1998 to more than 7.1 million tonnes by 2009.

On recycling, my experience as local councillor before coming to Parliament led me to conclude, first, that most people are pretty sympathetic to recycling and see activity by their local authority to improve recycling rates as a good thing and, secondly, that individuals are prepared to put time and effort into sorting out waste streams, so it is important for the industry to make it as easy as possible for people to identify the materials used in the manufacture of each product. For example, most Members present will know that plastic is not just plastic; there are many varieties, some of which are recyclable and some of which are not.

How local authorities go about waste collection and recycling leads to a concern that the industry has about localism, which of course is a key objective of the Government. Localism is appropriate in many sectors, but occasionally it has a downside. The packaging industry takes very seriously what happens to its products at the end of their life and, consequently, regularly engages with the authorities that are responsible for the collection and disposal of waste. Of course, for consumer goods, those authorities are local authorities.

The Food and Drink Federation has referred to the difficulty for the packaging industry of responding to the localist agenda given that there are 398 local authorities, each with a different approach and different priorities with respect to waste planning and disposal, including whether it is right to recycle or incinerate. The industry believes that the lack of uniformity across local councils makes life difficult for it in establishing contact and liaising with local councils. It also believes that it might be helpful if the Government suggested some form of unifying strategy and that, in addition, such a strategy might be of benefit with regard to dealing with litter. I recognise the conflict between that objective of the packaging industry and the broader objective of the Government to enable local people to have the right to decide, through their elected representatives, the best way forward in their area.

Given the problems that I have referred to—problems that fall into three categories—how is the packaging industry responding to the challenges that I have outlined? First, regarding its image, the industry recognises the need to convey the benefits of the products that it produces and to put forward examples of positive development and innovation. It is very clear that modern packaging solutions have enabled a huge change in the way that we shop and go about purchasing our goods, but the industry recognises that it needs to do more work to convey its message more effectively and to get across the benefits of packaging. For example, eliminating packaging from fresh produce would lead to massive food waste. The Cucumber Growers Association has conducted tests that show that unwrapped cucumbers are unsalable after three days, whereas just 1.5 grams of plastic packaging can keep the same product fresh for as long as 14 days. The industry recognises that it needs to get that type of message across.

The second response of the industry to the challenges that it is facing is innovation. The industry has been designing products with waste prevention in mind for years. Improvements in packaging design and production techniques have resulted in huge reductions in material use, which have been referred to by hon. Friends. For example, a pint glass bottle is 65% lighter today than it was in 1940; a 330 ml steel drinks tin has been reduced in weight by 63% since 1950; a 1 litre plastic detergent bottle is 58% lighter than it was in 1970; and cardboard outer packs are typically 14% lighter than they were in 1970. Given all that improvement in efficiency and despite growth in the quantity of consumer products over the years, the quantity of packaging material has increased at a slower rate. Between 2006 and 2008, when the economy was growing, there was zero growth in grocery packaging.

Innovation has been about not just reducing the quantities used, but making greater use of recycled material. In March, The Mail on Sunday reported that Coca-Cola, one of Britain’s biggest users of plastic packaging, had agreed a 10-year £200 million deal with Britain’s biggest plastics recycling firm, ECO Plastics, to turn old bottles into new. It is hoped that the Lincoln plant will produce enough recycled plastic to achieve the company’s target of 25% of its packaging being made of such material. That will help the Government to achieve their objectives of reducing the volume of plastics sent to landfill sites and of stopping tonnes of material having to be sent to China, as happens at present. Such development and innovation not only benefit the environment, but go some way towards making the industry competitive. The challenge for the industry, however, is that innovation is often recognised and copied, making any competitive advantage short-lived.

I have spoken about the industry’s support for recycling. The Save a Cup scheme to collect used plastic and paper vending cups was established some years ago, and its range has now been extended to include cans and pods. In connection with the point made by the hon. Member for Upper Bann (David Simpson) about food safety, the scheme has an online shop where people can buy trays, bins and stationery items such as pencils and rulers that have been made from the recycled material.

Although development costs are high, the packaging industry—in particular, the food service packaging industry—has looked to embrace new materials such as polylactide—PLA—and recycled polyethylene terephthalate—rPET—along with coating developments, and encourages UK companies to participate in efforts to increase local manufacturing.

We have spoken about how litter is created by individuals rather than by companies, but most companies take part enthusiastically in litter-reduction schemes. Many industry participants attended the recent parliamentary launch of the “Love Where You Live” campaign, at which Keep Britain Tidy’s ambassador, Kirstie Allsopp, acknowledged the responsibility of end users of packaging:

“Being part of Love Where You Live is a chance for the big brands to become the heroes instead of the villains in the fight against litter. Those who mindlessly chuck their fast food or cigarette packet on the floor cost our country millions and destroy the places we call home.”

Individuals create the problem but industry can help, and is doing so. In its simplest form such help can include, as part of its design, reminders to dispose of packaging responsibly, and the new “Love Where You Live” logo will start to appear on large amounts of packaging. The industry already includes information on materials used in manufacture and on how and where to recycle.

I shall draw my remarks to a close with a shopping list for the Minister of things that the industry would like the Government to consider. The first is action to stop further erosion of the UK’s manufacturing base and to ensure that packaging manufacture is not exported outside of Europe to economies that can live with a more carbon-intensive environment. The industry is keen to see greater recognition of its contribution to the UK economy, as a major UK manufacturer with £11 billion of sales and 85,000 employees, and it is keen to see support for action on ensuring a level playing field with overseas competitors, particular regarding the cost, supply and taxation of energy. It also wants there to be an understanding that carbon impact is created only by responding to consumer demand for products and that pursuing a low-carbon economy by squeezing manufacturing without addressing that consumer demand might lead to substantial UK manufacturing job losses.

The industry would like to see an acknowledgement that unilateral action by the UK Government on carbon floor pricing might end up putting the UK packaging industry and its customers at a disadvantage compared with international competitors. It also wants recognition of the progress that it has made in supporting recycling and in decoupling packaging growth from growth in gross domestic product, and it wants greater recognition of packaging’s pivotal role in protecting products and providing safe and secure supply chains for a variety of products. The industry would like acceptance that the measurement of environmental impacts must be based on sound research and scientific fact rather than on the emotive language that we occasionally hear. Finally, there is the benefit that would accrue from a little national guidance on local waste and resource management strategies.

The industry recognises that there is a need for greater dialogue between itself and the Government, and I hope that this debate will form part of that. The industry argues that it is vibrant, successful and economically important, and that it makes products that safeguard the environment, conserve resources and enable modern living. It has worked hard to address many challenges and has developed into one of the most innovative industries of its type in the world. It believes that the fears about viability that we heard expressed in the all-party group for the packaging manufacturing industry might not be as serious as presented at the outset, but that it is important for the Government to recognise the challenges.

To sum up the importance of the sector, I can do no better than to quote Steve Kelsey, the founder of PI Global, a company that developed a lightweight bottle for Stella Artois and saved carbon dioxide production in manufacture and distribution:

“Packaging is the forgotten infrastructure that is as important as clean water, electricity and highways.”

Disadvantaged Children

Debate between Mark Pawsey and Kate Green

Thursday 20th January 2011 Commons Chamber

[Kate Green]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Mark Pawsey]

I will continue if I may.

We have heard about the importance of the father’s role in minimising the risk of poor outcomes. My hon. Friend the Member for Congleton (Fiona Bruce) reminded us about the absence of a male role model in the lives of many disadvantaged children. I want to offer support for the role of grandparents in the family unit, which often seems to be an all-or-nothing arrangement in that they are either ever-present or completely absent. The break-up of the family unit means that some grandparents no longer have a relationship with their own children and, as a consequence, have no relationship with their grandchildren. When neither the parents nor the grandparents have the time or skill to support the child, there is, of course, a role for the state to step in.

My experience as a father echoes that of other fathers here, which is that absolutely nothing prepares one for the burdens of parenthood and that one has no idea of the implications for one’s own life. For young mothers and fathers, who are often ill-prepared for parenthood, Sure Start centres have helped to provide the support they need. Having visited Sure Start in my constituency, I recognise its value and believe those important resources and facilities should be targeted in the areas of greatest need. I fully support the proposals to open Sure Start centres to the market so that private companies may bid to run them.

It is important to mention maternity and paternity provisions, because only this week the Deputy Prime Minister announced proposals to allow couples to share maternity leave. I am pleased that the rules will allow either parent to care for their child, but as a former business owner I must sound a note of caution. It is necessary to highlight the difficulties that exist between reconciling what is good from a child development perspective with the needs of people running small businesses in particular. The director general of the British Chambers of Commerce has asked valid questions about how employers are expected to plan and arrange cover with this increasingly flexible system.

The report by the hon. Member for Nottingham North (Mr Allen) highlights that it is crucial to recognise that the educational cycle begins at birth. A child’s development does not start from the day they enter primary school, and we should start counting development from birth. In the education system, children do not reach year 1 until they are five years old, and we have already heard from other hon. Members that five is often too late for children who are risk. I am pleased that the report of the right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr Field) also draws attention to this issue.

Only 20% of young people in the poorest households gain five or more A* to C grades at GCSE, compared with 75% of those from the richest families, so the pupil premium is crucial. If we want children from poorer families to get to university, we must ensure that the additional targeted resources will give them a head start. Providing money for each pupil from a deprived background means that head teachers will have more money to spend on those children.

The right hon. Gentleman’s report also refers to the importance of good teaching between the ages 14 to 16 in reducing the likelihood of children trying cannabis, playing truant or becoming a frequent smoker or drinker. In this context, I want to mention the benefits of selective education. At one time, that was seen as the best way of providing bright children from less well-off backgrounds with the best opportunities in life. My constituency of Rugby has an excellent system, and as both a product of that system and a parent of children who have gone through that system, I know many people who have benefited immensely from the excellent teaching and extra-curricular activities on offer at such schools.

I am pleased with the measures that the Government have already introduced, such as the refocusing of Sure Start and the pupil premium. I hope that the Government’s longer-term strategy to be announced in March will take into account not only the conclusions of the reports of the right hon. and hon. Gentlemen, but the valuable contributions to this debate.