Draft Water Industry Designated Codes (Appeals to the Competition and Markets Authority) Regulations 2017 Draft Water Supply Licence and Sewerage Licence (Modification of Standard Conditions) Order 2017 Draft Water Act 2014 (Consequential Amendments etc.) Order 2017

Mary Glindon Excerpts

Wednesday 8th March 2017 General Committees

[Mary Glindon (North Tyneside) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Nuttall. I thank the Minister for presenting the statutory instruments. I will highlight the issues that Opposition Members consider important.

The draft water industry designated codes regulations set up a right of appeal to the Competition and Markets Authority against a decision by the water services regulation authority to revise or not revise a code designated for the purposes of section 207A(2) of the Water Industry Act 1991.

The draft water supply licence and sewerage licence order relates to the 1991 Act, as amended by the Water Act 2014, allowing the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs to determine standard conditions in water supply and sewerage licences. The order specifies relevant percentages in relation to the condition that specified percentages of licence holders do not object to such modification. Modifications cannot proceed without reference to the Competition and Markets Authority if objections are made by 20% or more of relevant licence holders. The order specifies how licence holders are weighted in order to measure market share.

The draft Water Act 2014 order relates to the 1991 Act, as amended by the 2014 Act, which makes changes to the water supply licensing regime and introduces a new sewerage licensing regime in the areas of sewerage undertakers wholly or mainly in England. The order makes amendments to primary legislation in consequence of those changes and of the Water Act 2003, and also makes modifications to secondary legislation.

The Labour party broadly welcomes these measures and does not intend to divide the Committee on them.

Farriers (Registration) Bill (First sitting)

Mary Glindon Excerpts

Committee Debate: House of Commons
Tuesday 7th March 2017 Public Bill Committees

[Byron Davies (Gower) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Gray. I am delighted to be able to present the Bill, to which I have some attachment, as my father started life as a farrier before the second world war. When he came back from the war, things had changed and he followed another career, but I am delighted to have this opportunity to introduce the Bill.

The purpose of the Bill is to protect and maintain the public interest and protect the welfare of equines by modernising the governance, structure and operation of the Farriers Registration Council and its statutory committees. That will enable the council to overcome practical difficulties caused by out-of-date legislation, reduce the risk of legal challenge and modernise the council’s structure and operations in line with the Government’s better regulation principles and the practices of other regulators.

Clause 1 introduces the schedule, which amends the Farriers (Registration) Act 1975 and makes changes to the constitution of the Farriers Registration Council and its committees: the investigating committee and the disciplinary committee. The schedule has three parts, which replace the respective sections in the original Act dealing with the constitution of the council, the constitution of the investigating committee, and the constitution of the disciplinary committee. I will summarise the key points of those parts and highlight the changes that the Bill makes.

Part 1 of the schedule deals with the constitution of the council. The Bill retains the existing number of members—16—but makes some changes to their make-up. It removes the distinction between employed and self-employed farriers, as virtually all farriers are self-employed these days, so the distinction is out of date and no longer representative or valid. Four practising farriers will be elected, and two farriers will be appointed by the British Farriers and Blacksmiths Association. Three members will still be appointed by the Worshipful Company of Farriers, but there will be a new requirement that at least one must be a practising farrier. That means that the minimum number of farriers on the council will be seven, and there may be as many as nine if the worshipful company chooses to appoint more than one farrier. The remainder of the council will be made up of two veterinary surgeons and five lay representatives appointed by various interested bodies, such as the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals and the British Horseracing Authority. The worshipful company will no longer appoint the chairman, who will be elected by the council from its members.

The Bill also tightens some of the provisions for serving on the council. It introduces a fixed four-year term of office for all members and stipulates that a member may serve on the council only twice. It introduces fitness-to-serve conditions. Members may be removed from office if they fail to comply with those conditions.

Turning to the changes in the constitution of the investigating and disciplinary committees set out in parts 2 and 3 of the schedule, part 2 deals with the investigating committee, which carries out preliminary investigations of cases or complaints against farriers that could amount to professional misconduct. If the investigating committee deems that to be so, the case is sent to the disciplinary committee, which determines whether the charges are proven. It can, where appropriate, apply sanctions—in the most serious cases, up to and including the removal of someone from the register of farriers. That would mean that that person would no longer legally be able to practise farriery.

The function of those committees is vital to the regulation of the farriery profession, and the Bill seeks to make changes to modernise the law and ensure that they are fit and proper for regulation in the 21st century. In particular, the Bill seeks to impose a full separation of powers, as I shall now explain. As the law stands, the investigating committee and the disciplinary committee are made up of members of the council. That does not fulfil the principle of separation of powers and the removal of possible bias and impartiality. The body that sets the standards for the profession is also responsible for investigation and adjudication on possible breaches of those standards.

As such, decisions of the investigating committee or the disciplinary committee may be subject to legal challenge by those whose cases are determined on the basis that they did not have the right to a fair trial. Equally, members of the public may view the lack of impartiality as farriers looking after their own. Consequently, it is vital that changes are made to bring the law up to date. The Bill proposes that members of the investigating and disciplinary committees are not members of the council; nor may they be an officer or servant of the council—that is, paid staff of the Farriers Registration Council.

The provision will be retained that a person on the disciplinary committee cannot sit on a case if they served time on the investigation committee in respect of the same case. That will ensure that full separation of powers is met and that the investigation and disciplinary committees meet the requirements of a modern regulator.

To summarise the remainder of the Bill: the investigating committee will consist of six people appointed by the council, of whom at least two must be registered by the council. The chair will be appointed by the council, and the quorum for a meeting will be three, at least one of whom must be a registered person. As with the council itself, the Bill would introduce a fitness-to-serve provision and powers to remove those who do not comply.

The constitution of the disciplinary committee, set out in part 3 of the schedule, follows similar lines. The principal difference from the investigating committee is that the disciplinary committee will consist of nine members appointed by the council, at least three of whom must be registered persons. The quorum for a meeting will be five members, at least one of whom must be registered. Otherwise, the same rules apply as for the investigating committee: the chair will be designated by the council, and a fitness-to-serve provision introduced, with powers to remove those who cannot comply.

Clause 2 inserts new section 17A into the Farriers (Registration) Act 1975 and gives powers to the Secretary of State to make regulations to amend or replace those parts of the measure that deal with the constitution of the council, the investigating committee and the disciplinary committee. In short, the clause would allow future amendment of the legislation to be made by secondary legislation, should that become necessary.

The clause also recognises the devolved nature of the legislation and would require that, if any future legislative change is made, the Secretary of State must gain the consent of Scottish and Welsh Ministers. The Secretary of State must also consult the FRC and any other relevant parties. Legislative changes will be by statutory instrument and subject to the negative procedure.

Clause 3 provides for the Bill to extend to England and Wales and Scotland, and states that the main body of the Act will come into force when introduced by statutory instrument at a date determined by the Secretary of State.

[Mary Glindon (North Tyneside) (Lab)]

It is an honour to speak under your chairmanship, Mr Gray. It is more than three years since the coalition Government carried out the consultation on reforming the governance structure and operation of the Farriers Registration Council. Unfortunately, they were not able to allocate time in the previous Parliament for a draft Bill to reform the Farriers (Registration) Act 1975.

I, therefore, congratulate the hon. Member for Gower on taking up the draft Bill. It was wonderful to hear—and he must be proud to be able to speak on this—about something that his father was involved in during his early life. He spoke in depth about the Bill’s clauses, so I will be brief, the Committee will be pleased to hear. The Bill will modernise the Government’s structure and operation of the FRC and its statutory committees to protect and maintain the public interest.

Under the Farriers (Registration) Act 1975, the FRC not only has a responsibility to maintain, regulate and approve membership of the register, but it has a responsibility for the preliminary investigation of disciplinary cases through its investigating committee, and it determines cases through its disciplinary committee. The arrangements are out of date and are not in line with the regulation of other professions. In the Bill, members of both the investigating committee and the disciplinary committee will not be members of the FRC, which will result in an acceptable separation of powers. There will also be a fitness-to-serve requirement for all members, similar to that in other regulatory bodies. There are also defined terms of office, and the chair will no longer be appointed but will be elected by members of the council.

The Bill will reduce the risk of legal challenge, and bring the regulation of the farrier profession into line with the regulation of other professions. It will introduce a new flexibility, and will allow future changes to the FRC to be made by the Secretary of State under secondary legislation, thus allowing the FRC and its committees to be kept up to date and fit for purpose. We support the Bill, as it introduces a greater level of fairness and transparency to the FRC and its committees that will underpin its progress as a modern and professional regulator for its members, and for those who rely on the industry well into the future.

[Huw Merriman (Bexhill and Battle) (Con)]

I, too, shall be brief. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Gower on bringing forward this private Member’s Bill. As a result of an interaction I had with a constituent of mine who is a farrier, I seem to have got to know more farriers in the country along the way. Perhaps this is a good example of how democracy works: we are here to serve our constituents, and I promised that if I could not get him the answer he needed, I would apply to get on the Bill Committee. Here I am today as a result.

My constituent, Mr Jeffrey Newnham, has concerns about the composition of the Farriers Registration Council, particularly the requirement that the worshipful company provide three members. It appears that the Government have also looked at this issue. The changes are welcome, and should be welcomed by my constituent. By ensuring that one of the three members from the worshipful company must be a farrier, the number of farriers on the council is increased. The Government seem to recognise that there should be greater representation of farriers within the worshipful company.

It may seem strange to some hon. Members, but it is not a requirement for the Worshipful Company of Farriers to actually provide farriers to the council. As a result, farriers feel that they are under-represented among the 16 members. They want 50% of the council to be farriers, rather than the seven out of 16 that will be the case under the Government’s change, which at least raises it from six. Farriers themselves feel that they are under-represented.

The point I would make to my hon. Friend the Member for Gower, and perhaps to the Minister, is that there seems to be a lack of harmony between the farrier industry and its own worshipful company. Knowing some of these companies, I would say that its rules can at times be outmoded and its constitution might not necessarily reflect the industry that it was originally set up to serve. There may need to be a bringing together of farriers and their own worshipful company. I recognise that it is not the Government’s job to intervene so closely, but where farriers have real concerns about a lack of representation on their own council, I would like the Government to take steps to bring the sides together in the event that the Government are unwilling to put the make-up up to 50%.

Oral Answers to Questions

Mary Glindon Excerpts

Thursday 2nd March 2017 Commons Chamber

[Andrea Leadsom]

I agree with my hon. Friend. The three crop rule is exactly the sort of measure we should change once we have left the EU. Of course, we want farmers to manage sustainable rotations, to optimise yields and to protect soil, but we can do that without forcing them to grow a specific number of crops on a specific acreage of land.

[Mary Glindon (North Tyneside) (Lab)]

The National Farmers Union warned last week that the Government’s lack of clarity risked stifling the farming industry. This week, it was reported that the price of agricultural land fell by 7% in the past year due to the uncertainty of Brexit. The absence of any Government planning is plunging farming into a grave state. When will the Government give clarity and a long-term commitment to the farming industry on access to the single market, access to a seasonal workforce and a new long-term agricultural policy?

[Andrea Leadsom]

The Prime Minister has made it clear that our ambition is to have an all-encompassing free trade agreement with the European Union and to retain free and fair access to the European single market. As we have already discussed, we are looking closely at the need for a workforce now and in the future, and we are looking carefully at what more we can do around the world to make a huge success of leaving the European Union.

--- Later in debate ---

[Andrea Leadsom]

We are determined to hold this terrible disease at bay for the sake of our entire poultry sector, and our robust actions so far have included an amended avian influenza prevention zone from 28 February, which covers all of England and requires mandatory biosecurity for all keepers and the compulsory housing or netting of poultry and captive birds in defined higher-risk areas. That is very important for the entire sector.

[Mary Glindon (North Tyneside) (Lab)]

Further to what the Secretary of State just said, she must be aware that English poultry producers are concerned about the prospect of losing free-range status because of the postcode lottery of the bird flu restriction system. The British Free Range Egg Producers Association is particularly concerned about the inconsistent approach. What more can she say to assure egg producers throughout the UK that the right measures are being taken to sort out this whole sad issue?

[Andrea Leadsom]

Colleagues will be aware that there was a full housing order until 28 February. With extensive scientific advice, we have gleaned that those places where wild fowl congregate are high-risk areas. That has been extensively peer reviewed on the basis of scientific evidence, which is why we have published a paper to outline the rationale. This has absolutely not just come out of our own heads; in no way whatsoever are we doing anything other than protecting this vital sector.

Kew Gardens (Leases) Bill

Mary Glindon Excerpts

Committee Debate: House of Commons
Wednesday 22nd February 2017 Public Bill Committees

[Mr Liddell-Grainger]

Mr Turner, I am sorry. I stand castigated. You are absolutely right.

We are trying to get the lease so that Kew can start the planning within the world heritage status. We are not going down any avenues or roads that come to a dead end at any time. I have worked with Kew for some time and I know that Lord Gardiner will keep us well informed of Kew’s future aspirations and hopes, because obviously it is a jewel in the British crown.

[Mary Glindon (North Tyneside) (Lab)]

It is an honour to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Turner. I congratulate the hon. Member for Bridgwater and West Somerset and Lord Gardiner on introducing this important Bill.

As a member of the Energy and Climate Change Committee in the previous Parliament, I was privileged to visit Kew with Committee colleagues and see at first hand the marvellous work being done there at all levels. The world-class research carried out at the Royal Botanic Gardens is something we should all be very proud of. Kew rightly deserved being awarded UNESCO world heritage site status in 2003, which gave due recognition to the important mix of science, education, public amenity and architectural heritage represented at the site.

However, such a facility has significant maintenance costs as well as the cost of funding important research. The world-class scientific research carried out at Kew should be protected by the Government and should receive proper funding and recognition. In his evidence to the Science and Technology Committee, John Wood, a senior research associate at the Department of Plant Sciences at the University of Oxford, said:

“Kew cannot and should not compete for short-term grant money with a view to producing high impact academic publications. Instead it should provide taxonomic services of the highest international quality to catalogue the world’s plant diversity and support other areas of biodiversity and ecological research.”

The Government’s £130 million funding package for Kew Gardens, announced in 2016, was therefore very welcome. I am pleased that the Secretary of State recognised the need for more money to enable Kew to maintain its estate and to support its world-class science base. However, this does not address one of the complications surrounding the way in which the Royal Botanic Gardens are funded. The gardens are Crown land and are covered by the Crown Lands Act 1702. As has already been said, that 18th century legislation limits leases on buildings on Crown land to 31 years.

The hon. Member for Bridgwater and West Somerset said that this is a little Bill. We support this little Bill, because it would modernise those restraints and instead allow leases of up to 150 years. We believe that would make properties on the Kew Gardens estate more commercially attractive, generating income that can help support its world-class scientific research and help maintain its historic buildings. My researcher gave me an estimate that in the first 10 years of the new arrangements Kew could bring in £40 million in capital receipts. I am not sure that has been verified after what was said earlier, but I would agree with Jill McLaughlin, director of corporate services at the Royal Botanic Gardens, that the Bill would bring Kew into line with modern-day lease arrangements and enable it to generate much-needed income and be more financially self-sufficient.

Domestic Ivory Market

Mary Glindon Excerpts

Monday 6th February 2017 Westminster Hall

[Mary Glindon (North Tyneside) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship in this important debate, Mrs Main. I thank the members of the public who signed the petition and the Petitions Committee for securing this debate. Our thanks must also go to all the organisations, some of which have been mentioned, that are supporting this cause and working to protect elephants and other wildlife in this country and across the world. The hon. Member for Thornbury and Yate (Luke Hall), on behalf of the Petitions Committee, made a very clear case for why the Government need to support the ban set out in the petition. I thank him for that. I commend those who have taken part in the debate, especially my hon. Friends the Members for Bassetlaw (John Mann), for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Justin Madders) and for York Central (Rachael Maskell). They all made an excellent case for ensuring the survival of elephants and, most importantly, why the weight of responsibility is on us here and now.

Throughout the debate, we have heard from hon. Members how the UK, and indeed the EU, must match the action to stop the terrible ivory trade that the US, France, Hong Kong and recently China, the largest global market of all, have taken. The evidence of support for immediate similar action in the UK is clear from the number of people supporting this petition and from opinion polls showing that 85% of the British public want an ivory trade ban.

The main motivation for the UK Government should be the slaughter of elephants by poachers who feed these markets. The Government must recognise that an overwhelming majority of African countries actively campaign to close down ivory markets everywhere. The Government should listen to the African nations who share their lands with the elephant herds and not to the voices of the antique traders, the big game hunters or those who still sit on stored ivory as bullion.

The Government would do well to take notice of Botswana, the largest elephant range state. It is home to 130,000 elephants, almost a third of the total African elephant population. Botswana is a Commonwealth country, a parliamentary democracy and a long-standing friend of our country. Last year, it changed its policy and is now committed to 100% protection of its elephants, which have proved to be a sure asset for the tourist trade there. Botswana’s Environment Minister, Tshekedi Khama, spoke passionately at last year’s CITES conference in favour of appendix 1 status for elephants within his country’s borders, but he was ignored by the EU and the UK Government, who used their block vote to veto it. I have been told that many UK attendees at that conference felt a true sense of shame at this outcome.

Mr Khama and his brother, the President, remain absolutely committed to conservation and to Botswana’s role as a safe haven for migrating elephants under threat in neighbouring countries. Sadly, our Government have shown little commitment to supporting these efforts. Consultation documents, which are overdue and address only a fraction of the ivory trading problem, are certainly not seen as the way forward by Botswana.

Tanzania has also changed its policy on the ivory trade, freezing its stockpile, and trying to address the serious poaching threat that has decimated its elephants in recent years. Last month, the former President, Benjamin Mkapa, called on all nations to ban trade in elephant ivory. He said:

“We need to work together to stop this, our fellows must ban the importation and uses of elephant tusks, this means there will be no market for tusks and nobody will kill elephants.”

His words are clear, and our response as a friendly country should be to close our own ivory markets, not fiddle at the margins with one category of post-1947 modern ivory.

In East Africa, we already have the inspiring example set by Kenya. For many years, that country has led African calls to ban the ivory trade, anticipating the appalling escalation of poaching. Last year, its President publicly destroyed his country’s ivory stockpile of more than 100 tonnes with huge pyres in the Nairobi national park. The action was endorsed by both France and the US, but not by the UK. That is another broken promise by the Government, who advocated the destruction of ivory stockpiles in their 2010 manifesto.

Kenya went on to press successfully for additional international action to protect elephants at the International Union for Conservation of Nature and CITES conferences in September and October 2016. Although CITES appendix 1 status was blocked by the UK and other EU countries, those conferences passed resolutions calling for the closure of domestic ivory markets throughout the world. The resolutions are clear. They do not exempt antiques, but make a link between the existence of markets and the illegal killing of and trade in elephants. Again, the UK’s role is weak and ambiguous. We must remember that the EU is the single biggest exporter of ivory and ivory products according to the CITES trade database. There was a dramatic increase in the number of both raw and worked ivory items exported from the EU in the last two years for which data are available.

At the IUCN conference, many EU countries, including France, Italy and Spain, voted to support the unequivocal call to close domestic markets. Some others abstained but, shamefully, the record shows that the UK abstained by proxy. We sent a postal vote to abstain on the fate of elephants being poached at the rate of four every hour. The sound of the UK dragging its feet in this debate may resonate around the world, as well as in this Chamber.

Only last week, Patrick Omondi, the Kenyan CITES chief and chairman of the African Elephant Coalition of 29 African countries said:

“The CITES recommendation to close domestic ivory markets was a breakthrough. But it will be meaningless if countries ignore it. The EU and its Member States have an opportunity to realign themselves with France, which recently issued strict regulations, and work with China to implement the CITES recommendation. One thing is certain: business as usual is not an option if we want to save elephants for future generations.”

I call on the Minister again, as I did in the debate in December 2016, to step up to the plate and to keep her party’s promise to ban ivory trading altogether in the UK. As my hon. Friend the Member for York Central said in that debate, Labour would support the legal steps needed to implement the ban. We must act before it is too late for the elephants. I urge the Minister to act now, to forget exemptions, to support the petition and to heed the appeal of the 29 member countries of the AEC to both the UK and the whole of the EU to permanently ban all external and domestic ivory trade.

With the European Commission due to issue new guidance on the ivory trade within and exports from the EU, following its CITES management authority’s meeting tomorrow, will the Minister take the opportunity to press for new regulations in Brussels? How can we afford to see these intelligent, beautiful giants of the Earth disappear because our generation failed to save them from extinction?

Leaving the EU: Animal Welfare Standards in Farming

Mary Glindon Excerpts

Tuesday 24th January 2017 Westminster Hall

[Mary Glindon (North Tyneside) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hollobone. I congratulate the right hon. Member for Chipping Barnet (Mrs Villiers) on securing the debate; she showed her real concern and passion through the knowledge she imparted to us today. The hon. Members for East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow (Dr Cameron), for North Herefordshire (Bill Wiggin), for Southend West (Sir David Amess), for St Albans (Mrs Main) and for South Thanet (Craig Mackinlay) all showed their real concerns about animal welfare and also imparted a lot of knowledge to us.

On this side of the Chamber, we want to see the legal standards set by the EU protected and enhanced even further post-Brexit. We owe a debt of gratitude to all those involved in farming and its associated industries for all they do to maintain high animal welfare standards across the UK. In 2013, the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs reported that the UK was leading the way on animal welfare standards, banning the use of barren battery cages for egg-laying hens, veal cages for calves and sow stalls for pigs, all long before the EU outlawed them. British farmers have led by example, with 88,000 farmers part of red tractor assurance.

Although the Government have said that existing EU laws will be incorporated into domestic law through the great repeal Bill, the Secretary of State has indicated that there will be an opportunity for the Government to scrap the EU regulations that they do not like. The problem is that the Government could be drawn into a race to the bottom on animal welfare standards when negotiating trade deals with countries outside the EU that have much lower standards than ours. I hope that the Minister will be able to guarantee that the welfare of farm animals will not be used as a bargaining chip in any future trade negotiations.

[Bill Wiggin]

I am most grateful to the hon. Lady for giving way. I have similar concerns about what happens if, as the hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Dr Monaghan) suggested, the powers are devolved. How can the hon. Lady see devolved Parliaments and Assemblies not using the powers as a bargaining chip to influence international deals that we may be trying to achieve for the benefit of the whole of the UK?

[Mary Glindon]

Upholding our standards must be paramount and we must stick firm. I hope that the Government do not try to water down any standards unilaterally.

When the Secretary of State addressed the Oxford farmers conference, she announced regulations that she would like to scrap, including the three-crop rule. If the public are to have confidence in any of the Government’s promises on animal welfare, we must be told what objective criteria the Secretary of State is using when she makes such announcements. I hope the Minister can tell us what the criteria are.

The desire for a ban on live animal exports has already been mentioned. I hope that we will get a full explanation from the Minister on what he hopes will happen on that, because it is so important.

A big area of concern is how inspection regimes and enforcement will be upheld after EU regulations no longer apply. Currently, we have a shortage of the suitably qualified veterinary staff who are needed to ensure that standards are being complied with. That shortage may be exacerbated by new restrictions on freedom of movement. What are the Government doing now about that skills shortage?

Our membership of the EU has been valuable to scientific and veterinary communities; it has provided cross-border access to research laboratories in other EU countries and the sharing of best practice on issues such as disease management. Those links have provided an important means of upholding high animal welfare standards. Will the Minister set out how those issues will be addressed in the negotiations and how he will ensure that those important links can be sustained after we leave the EU?

Does the Minister further acknowledge the need for certainty over future border controls? Will he commit to working closely with veterinary experts, as well as farmers, to ensure that that is addressed in the negotiations?

There is also a need for the Government to develop a new system of farming support to replace the common agricultural policy after 2020, which is an opportunity for the Government to design a system that actively provides incentives for farmers to deliver the highest possible animal welfare standards. Will the Minister say what is being considered?

Finally, will the Minister give a reassurance that DEFRA’s upcoming Green Paper on food and farming will have a strong emphasis on upholding and strengthening animal welfare? Farming is vital to our economy and the Government must give it safe passage through the Brexit deal.

[Mr Philip Hollobone (in the Chair)]

If the Minister concludes his remarks no later than 5.46 pm, that will allow the Member in charge to sum up.

Non-recyclable and Non-compostable Packaging

Mary Glindon Excerpts

Monday 23rd January 2017 Westminster Hall

[Mary Glindon (North Tyneside) (Lab)]

It is an honour to serve under your chairmanship today, Mr Bone. There may not have been many contributions to the debate, but they have all been relevant and informative. I thank the Petitions Committee for putting the debate forward and the hon. Member for Northampton South (David Mackintosh) for his opening remarks, including his stark comments about the future of the oceans and what our not tackling the issue will mean to future generations. We must agree that my hon. Friend the Member for Huddersfield (Mr Sheerman) is passionate and knowledgeable about every issue on which he speaks. It was good to hear his interventions challenging some of people’s conceptions about recycling. It is good to follow the hon. Member for Rugby (Mark Pawsey), who chairs the all-party group for the packaging manufacturing industry, of which I am a member. He gave us the other side of the coin, and was very positive about why we have packaging.

The petition calls for a ban on the use of all non-recyclable and non-compostable packaging, but the Government, as shown by their response, clearly do not share that view and argue that it is ultimately for businesses to decide what packaging materials to use. My party takes a different view from the Government’s. We realise that the problem is complex, but believe that the Government could make more direct interventions. When the last Labour Government were in power, recycling rates quadrupled. It is worrying that the latest figures show that, across the UK, household recycling rates fell from 44.9% in 2014 to 44.3% in 2015.

As waste policy is a devolved issue, perhaps the Government could look for lessons from the Labour Administration in Wales, which is the only part of the UK to have met the EU’s 50% recycling target. In 2010, the Welsh Government committed to the principles of a circular economy in their “Towards zero waste” strategy. Since then, recycling rates in Wales have increased dramatically from 44% to almost 56%.

Regulations introduced in 2007 by the Labour Government placed a legal obligation on UK businesses to increase the amount of packaging waste that is recycled and reduce the amount that goes to landfill, but last year those regulations were substantially watered down, as the Government claimed that there was a need to reduce regulatory burdens on producer businesses. The Producer Responsibility Obligations (Packaging Waste) Regulations 2007 and the Packaging (Essential Requirements) Regulations 2003 have been important in ensuring that where businesses make or use packaging, a proportion of it can be recycled and the amount of packaging is not excessive for keeping products safe, hygienic and acceptable to the customer—something that the hon. Member for Rugby spoke about eloquently.

The regulations apply whether items are packaged in the UK or abroad, but there are plenty of examples, particularly in this age of online shopping, where it is clear that they are not adhered to. I am not a great one for shopping online, but in my limited experience of doing so, as well as shopping in stores, I have noticed how much excessive packaging there seems to be, which leads me to agree with Dr Colin Church of the Chartered Institution of Wastes Management, who, in recent comments on the fall in recycling figures, pointed out that perhaps the packaging recovery note compliance scheme is in need of revision.

Experts and organisations agree that the biggest problem discouraging the public from recycling is uncertainty and confusion about what can and cannot be recycled. Indeed, perhaps that is one of the reasons for the popularity of the petition, even if the public do not think its ultimate aim can be achieved. That confusion has already been discussed in the debate. I hope that different local authorities’ inconsistent approaches to what can be recycled will be addressed to some degree through the work done by WRAP, recyclers, waste management companies and local authorities on developing national recycling guidelines. Those were published last autumn. However, as with the plastics industry recycling action plan, which was launched in 2015 with the aim of co-ordinating action across the supply chain to improve recycling rates, it relies on a voluntary approach. It is not clear whether those initiatives will deliver the necessary improvements within the timescales required under the regulations. WRAP will keep the guidelines under review, but it would be helpful if the Minister commented on the progress of those initiatives.

Although 80% of a product’s environmental impact is determined by decisions made at the design stage, there is little incentive for businesses to take environmental issues into account at that stage. That must change and a number of proactive steps could be taken to encourage businesses to make more efficient use of resources in designing new products. For example, to help make eco-friendly products more appealing, the Government could set variable rates of VAT based on recycled content.

Much more action is surely needed if the Government and EU target to increase the rate of plastic packaging recycling to 57% by the end of 2017 is to be considered realistic. As has been mentioned, a new global action plan announced by the Ellen MacArthur Foundation was launched at the World Economic Forum last week. It has been endorsed by industry leaders and aims to increase the global reusing and recycling of plastic packaging from 14% today to 70%. That and other initiatives are a welcome step forward. Given the involvement of companies such as Coca-Cola, Unilever, Mars and the People’s Postcode Lottery, I sincerely hope that the work done under the global plan will have a great influence in the UK.

The impact of Brexit on much of the work of the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs is still not clear. The most immediate questions relate to the EU’s circular economy package, which will include updates to key directives on waste disposal and packaging. Some of the details of those changes are still to be negotiated, and once finalised, will need to be implemented at national level. While the Government have said that existing EU law will be carried over by the great repeal Bill, it is not clear what will happen to EU laws that have been passed but not yet implemented in UK law at the time of our leaving. Will the Minister give a specific answer on whether the circular economy package will be implemented before we leave the EU? Will she tell us how we will enforce those laws outside the current EU framework? Will she also say what additional plans the Government have beyond the circular economy package to bring the UK closer to those ambitious recycling targets?

Embracing the circular economy is something we should all agree on. We need to see more action from Ministers if they are genuine about recycling across the UK and if they take seriously the views of the people of the UK, as expressed in the petition.

Oral Answers to Questions

Mary Glindon Excerpts

Thursday 19th January 2017 Commons Chamber

[Dr Coffey]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The low-emission vehicle industry is a competitive advantage for this country, which is why the Government are backing it through the Office for Low Emission Vehicles and the many millions of pounds that have been spent on improving the charging infrastructure up and down this country.

[Mary Glindon (North Tyneside) (Lab)]

Many happy returns, Mr Speaker, to both you and Rev. Rose.

The Government have lost the confidence of this House on air quality. More than 50,000 people are dying prematurely each year because of air pollution, and many more are suffering associated health conditions. With no guarantee from either the Prime Minister or the Secretary of State that last December’s strict EU laws will be introduced post-Brexit, how can the country trust the Government to ensure cleaner air in future?

[Dr Coffey]

The hon. Lady refers to a lack of trust in this Government. I think that that is the pot calling the kettle black. It was the Labour Government who introduced fiscal incentives for people to switch to diesel cars, and it was the Labour Government who signed up to these guidelines. Air quality is better now than it was under a Labour Government. That is an uncontrovertible fact.

Greyhound Welfare

Mary Glindon Excerpts

Thursday 15th December 2016 Westminster Hall

[Mary Glindon (North Tyneside) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Rosindell, and to hear of your particular interest in this serious subject.

I congratulate the Chair of the EFRA Committee, the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Neil Parish), and all members of the Committee on their excellent and, I think we all agree, thorough report. I thank them for the detailed work they undertook to produce it, and for the time they spent visiting racetracks in London and Doncaster. The report sets out the concerns not just of the Committee but of animal charities, veterinary professionals and others who gave evidence that helped the Committee to reach its conclusions and make recommendations to the Government. I share the frustration of Members who have spoken today and the Committee. I am concerned that the Department’s response to date has not been more robust.

The sport of greyhound racing has declined in recent years. It has been enjoyed in this country for more than 90 years, and I hope it will continue to be part of our sporting life for many years to come, but only if the welfare of the animals that make the sport such a pleasure is a paramount concern for all those responsible for looking after their wellbeing.

The EFRA Committee’s report focused on the welfare of the 15,000 active racing greyhounds and the effectiveness of the existing regulatory framework. It looked at the broader welfare situation, and made a number of practical and achievable recommendations, to which DEFRA must give more detailed consideration in its review of the 2010 regulations.

The EFRA Committee report acknowledges that the 2010 regulations have led to some improvements, but it is concerning that the report also states that it is possible to make only a subjective judgment about the effectiveness of the regulations because of the lack of data on key welfare indicators. That was highlighted by my hon. Friend the Member for Redcar (Anna Turley) and others, including the hon. Member for East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow (Dr Cameron). The Committee is right to ask that the regulations be amended to require the publication of essential welfare data relating to injury, euthanasia and rehoming numbers. As vets have stated, epidemiological analysis could improve greyhound welfare, so that has to be taken into account. Rehoming charities have said that the publication of data would allow them to make forecasts and plan their business, and owners and trainers believe it would reduce some of the criticism of the sport.

It is the aspects of the sport that the regulations do not cover that have proved to be of particular concern, as highlighted my hon. Friend the Member for Poplar and Limehouse (Jim Fitzpatrick), the Chair of the Select Committee and others. As has been said so many times this afternoon, the fact that trainers’ kennels, where racing dogs spend 95% of their time, are not covered is of concern to all stakeholders. It is generally felt that kennels should be included in the UKAS inspection scheme. I hope the Minister will comment on that. There is also the fact that kennelling arrangements differ between the two systems that have been described today.

The independent tracks that come under local authority inspection do not have the same level of inspection as those that come within GBGB’s remit. It is particularly important to raise the issue of the responsibility that the Department is happy to place on local authorities, because this very morning the Government announced harsh cuts to local government funding, yet in their response to the Committee the Government encouraged the LAs to make full use of their investigatory powers under the Animal Welfare Act 2006. It is quite rich that we have had the announcement of harsh cuts today.

I agree with the EFRA Committee that the Department should consider encompassing the independent sector within the codes of practice being constructed with the Greyhound Board of Great Britain, in particular with regard to what alternative would be considered if self-regulation and transparency fail to improve welfare standards for racing dogs at tracks operated inside and outside the board’s system. Also, the Greyhound Forum has said that up to 3,700 dogs are unaccounted for each year. Statutory microchipping will go some way to highlight this issue, but compatibility between the GBGB and other pet databases is needed to accurately track the whole life of a racing greyhound.

Perhaps most important, as highlighted by the Chair of the Committee, is the area of finance, which needs to be addressed in legislation. The EFRA Committee welcomed the Government’s assurances that pressure has been brought to bear on the betting industry with regard to its voluntary contributions towards greyhound welfare. Are the Government sure, however, that the industry will respond to a call for greater welfare contributions to avoid the imposition of a statutory levy? This has been said time and time again this afternoon. A levy seems much more preferable to waiting for a further voluntary response from the betting industry. After all, the voluntary scheme has seen a fall of 50% in the past decade. I hope that the Minister will respond positively to the Committee’s call for a statutory levy—I am sorry to repeat that, but it is important to have one.

Overall, the Government appear to be paying lip service to the excellent recommendations made by the EFRA Committee. In the words of Paula Boyden, director of the Dogs Trust:

“The Government are not treating this issue with the severity it deserves—their proposed changes are minimal and lack the urgency needed to improve the industry. We have long campaigned and will continue to campaign tirelessly to ensure that these much needed changes to improve and regulate greyhound welfare are implemented.”

The evidence in the report gives the Government the opportunity to improve the welfare of racing greyhounds throughout their lives. I hope that the Minister will respond more fully today and will clarify for the Committee exactly when the outcomes of the review will be published.

Household Food Insecurity

Mary Glindon Excerpts

Tuesday 6th December 2016 Westminster Hall

[Mary Glindon (North Tyneside) (Lab)]

It is an honour to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Gapes. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Mrs Lewell-Buck) particularly on her perseverance in securing the debate, which she has sought for more than six months. It is unfortunate that she is not too well today, but no one can say that she has not made an excellent case. We need to thank her for all the work she has done herself and as part of the APPG on hunger, which has also done a lot of work. If the Government had accepted some of the recommendations of the APPG’s detailed report, “Feeding Britain”, produced under the chairmanship of my right hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead (Frank Field), there may have been a little less need for the debate. There were 72 recommendations in that report and now, two years on, it is perhaps an indictment of the Government that none of those recommendations has been heeded.

In raising this issue today, my hon. Friend has made the case for the Government to start measuring food insecurity across the whole of the UK. Her request was eloquently illustrated and reinforced in interventions from my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent North (Ruth Smeeth), my right hon. Friend the Member for Slough (Fiona Mactaggart), the hon. Members for South Down (Ms Ritchie), for Foyle (Mark Durkan) and for Upper Bann (David Simpson) and in the speech by the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), who pointed out how, in the face of adversity, communities have come together and worked with groups such as the Trussell Trust to help people, showing that, when the worst things happen to fellow human beings across the UK, it brings out the best in others.

I am glad to hear that the EFRA Committee is looking at food waste. Only last night, we had FareShare in Westminster. It is making a huge contribution by using 10,000 tonnes of the 270,000 tonnes a year of food waste and producing 65 million meals. That is wonderful, but, again, so much more could be done.

We need look only at Hansard to see that hunger and food insecurity have been raised time and again with various Departments. We also know that, in response to questions, Ministers have, time and again, found an excuse not to introduce any kind of measurement. The fact remains, as has already been said, that food insecurity has not been measured in this country since 2003. It is totally unacceptable that, in the UK—I will say this again; it has been said twice before—more than 8 million people lived in households reporting having insufficient food. That was back in 2014, and we know that that number must now be far larger. The statistics are nothing but shocking, and it is totally unacceptable that here, in the sixth largest economy in the world, in the 21st century, so many people are going hungry and, perhaps we should say, are starving.

I congratulate all the organisations that have been mentioned that are working hard to combat the effects of food insecurity. I agree with the Food Foundation that the Government must conduct research to find out more about why certain groups are affected and how food insecurity affects food choices and people’s health so that they can put in place policies that can start to tackle the problem laid out by my hon. Friend the Member for South Shields. As we have heard, the devolved Administrations are taking steps individually to measure food inequality, but each is using a different method. What is really needed is a standard measure for food insecurity across the whole of our nation.

It is nearly two years since the EFRA Committee, in its report, recommended that the Government

“collect objective and statistically robust data on the scale of household food insecurity”.

The coalition Government responded by saying that the issue was complex, and they did not agree that the living costs and food survey was suitable for collecting data on food insecurity.

As has been said, we know the use of food banks has ballooned to more than 1 million in the past year, but we cannot use the figures collected by the Trussell Trust on the use of food banks because they are not regarded as an appropriate measure. Recent data from Gallup World Poll indicated that, in 2014, 17 times more people lived in food insecure households than used a food bank.

The Government are signed up to the United Nations sustainable development goals, the second of which is:

“End hunger, achieve food security and improved nutrition and promote sustainable agriculture”.

Does the Minister agree that it is time for the Government to be proactive, and not only to contribute to the UN Food and Agriculture Organisation but to listen to the advice of the University of Oxford, the Food Foundation and Sustain, which all suggest, as my hon. Friend the Member for South Shields has said, that standard questions on food insecurity, as used in the UN FAO food insecurity experience scale, should be added to existing UK surveys such as the one suggested by the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee two years ago?

It has already been pointed out that the cost of adding those pertinent questions, which so far have been tried out only in a survey of 1,000 people, would be £50,000 to £75,000 a year. They would provide accurate nationwide data about how severe the problem of food insecurity is. The scale is used in other countries and has proved successful. As my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent North has said, if Brazil can do it, so can we. The consultation by the ONS on how to track the sustainable development goals, which was due to be launched at the end of November, has been put back indefinitely. What can the Minister do to bring it forward and to ensure that the consultation begins?

With the reduction in sterling since the referendum on the EU, the prices of products that we import from Europe such as fresh fruit, which is a basic and important ingredient of a healthy diet, will increase. I must reiterate that supermarket prices will increase by at least 5%. Can something be done to stop more pressure being put on the food purchasing power of those who are deemed to be just about managing, and those who are deemed not to be managing adequately, so that food insecurity will be made less, not more, likely for them?

We have already noted that people in food insecurity have poor health, and the NHS is at breaking point, unable to take the added strain that is put on it when people’s health is at risk simply because they are malnourished. How can we allow the blighting of the future of young people who go to school hungry and, because they are not fed, cannot learn properly? The only answer to those questions is that the Government must commit to the adoption of a routine method of measuring food insecurity in the UK, so that policy and resources can be targeted and we can reach the point at which no one in this country goes hungry.

[The Minister of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (George Eustice)]

I congratulate the hon. Member for South Shields (Mrs Lewell-Buck) on securing the debate. I know that as she outlined in her speech, she has been engaged with the issue for several years. Although I disagree with some of her analysis, we can all agree that the food banks in all our constituencies do fantastic work. I want to pay tribute in particular to the one in my constituency of Camborne and Redruth, which is run by a wonderful volunteer called Don Gardner and supported by many local churches. I have visited it regularly over the past few years. When I visited a few weeks ago it had support from National Citizen Service volunteers, who were giving some of their time as part of their project. Last year, because the charity is so valued, it was nominated by students at the local Camborne Science and International Academy as their charity of the year. I shall visit again in a few weeks as part of the preparations for Christmas, and I am sure that many hon. Members will be doing the same in their constituencies.

The food bank movement has grown in recent years, there is no doubt about that. However, we must recognise that there has always been charitable support and food aid on offer in this country, whether from the Salvation Army or other projects. Food banks were developed first in the United States, and the concept caught on in countries such as France and Germany. More recently, predominantly with the leadership of church groups, they have grown in the UK as well. We should recognise their value and contribution to civil society. Many food banks, including the one in my constituency, are beginning to move on from offering just crisis aid and food support to helping people with other problems—with housing, getting a job, or other problems and issues in their lives that contribute to their need to rely on food banks. Indeed, in my constituency other agencies are brought on board, to come to the food bank. My constituency caseworker will go to the Camborne food bank this afternoon. We have an agreement that our caseworker will attend once a month, or more often if there is a need, to help people to resolve other issues in their life, such as housing and benefits. The Government have also made it clear that job coaches from local jobcentres can go to food banks to help to support people in getting a job.

I want to talk about aspects of the analysis that the hon. Member for South Shields gave with which I disagree slightly, beginning with food prices, which I think are the nub of the debate. Food prices, and commodity prices generally, are predominantly governed by changes in weather events, energy prices and exchange rates. The truth is that the biggest spike in food prices in recent times took place in 2008, during the financial crisis. Prices continued to rise gradually until the beginning of 2014, but they have been falling ever since, for almost three years now. In fact, food prices are now down by more than 7% since that peak at the beginning of 2014. I accept that with sterling depreciating against the euro and other currencies recently, and because currencies and exchange rates are a major driver of food prices, that may change, but it is important to acknowledge how things have changed in the past three years, with food prices going down substantially.

The long-standing measure of household food security that we have is the annual living costs and food survey. We look in particular at the percentage of household income spent on food by the poorest 20% of families. The reality of that consistent measure of household food security and affordability, which we have had for many years, is that it has been remarkably stable in the past decade at about 16% to 16.5%. Indeed, at one point last year I think the percentage spent by that lowest-income 20% of households was lower than it was in 2008-09. So there is clear evidence that there is some stability, if we look specifically at household spending.

[Mary Glindon]

Is it true that people suffering food insecurity do not buy the best food that they could—the food they need to have a nutritious meal? Do they not often buy food that is calorie-laden, cheap and filling, as opposed to good-quality, nutritious food?

[George Eustice]

Given that food prices go up and down but household expenditure on food seems to remain remarkably consistent, it suggests, as the hon. Lady points out, that people change their choices and preferences. The hon. Member for South Shields made the point that people abandon fruit and veg because they regard it as too expensive. In my view, veg is actually relatively cheap at a supermarket or any other market. It tends to be other things—ready meals and meats, in particular—that are more expensive and add to the cost of food. Fruit and veg, which are the healthiest option of all, are still relatively cheap.

[Mary Glindon]

One of the reasons for that given by people who are in food insecurity is the relatively short life of some fruit and veg. Fruit and veg is perhaps beyond the tight budgets of those who cannot afford to buy fresh food every day.

[George Eustice]

I buy fresh fruit and veg, as I am sure do many other Members. Somebody made a point earlier about sell-by dates. The truth is that veg will actually last quite a long time if it is refrigerated, in my view. Of course, there is also frozen fruit and veg, which is also relatively cheap.