Extended Producer Responsibility for Packaging

Nia Griffith Excerpts

Wednesday 3rd May 2023 Westminster Hall

[Mr Virendra Sharma (in the Chair)]

I will call Dame Nia Griffith to move the motion and then the Minister to respond. There will not be an opportunity for the Member in charge to wind up, as is the convention for 30-minute debates.

[Dame Nia Griffith (Llanelli) (Lab)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered extended producer responsibility for packaging.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Sharma. I share with many, including the Minister, I am sure, a huge concern about the amount of plastic and packaging waste that is never collected or recycled and that ends up in landfill, in our seas or in incinerators, thus polluting our land, sea and air. We are all aware of the hierarchy of waste—reduce, reuse, recycle—and the challenges that it poses. It is vital that we tackle waste and increase recycling, including through legislation and the extended producer responsibility guidance, but the scheme must be well designed so that it incentivises appropriate behaviours. I have every sympathy with the Minister: that is not an easy task.

I can understand, too, if there is some criticism of, or perhaps cynicism about, the concerns voiced by industry, because of course industry is bound to be concerned by any new tax imposed on it. However, there is general support in industry for the “producer pays” principle. Industry wants a system that is fair, and I share its serious concerns about some of the unintended consequences of the scheme. The Food and Drink Federation says the industry has significant concerns that the proposed system will fail to achieve improvements in recycling rates, and is calling on the Department to be more ambitious in its proposals by adopting international best practice from the most successful schemes around the world.

Before addressing more general points, let me share my concerns about how the current proposals will affect Wiltshire Farm Foods, which provides ready-made meals in plastic trays that are covered with a thin polythene film. It delivers those meals to householders who can then put them in their freezers and heat them up when they need them. Customers receive regular deliveries from Wiltshire Farm Foods to their doorsteps. The company saw that as an opportunity for its delivery staff to collect the used trays when they arrive with a fresh delivery. For good measure, it also reuses the cardboard boxes that the trays are carried in.

Wiltshire Farm Foods’ customer base is made up predominantly of a generation who are used to washing and putting out the milk bottles on the doorstep. Their conscientious washing and storing of the used trays enables the company to make the collections. The company does not used a cardboard sleeve, although one is commonly found on similar products. The necessary information is put on the plastic film, which is the only thing left for the customer to dispose of. Wiltshire Farm Foods leaves behind 97% less packaging by weight than other ready meal brands because the customers return the trays.

In late 2021, the company went one step further. It made a significant investment in a world-leading packaging recycling initiative in its factory in Durham. Through its award-winning “boomerang” project, it now takes the used plastic CPET—crystalline polyethylene terephthalate —meal trays and genuinely recycles them by making them into new trays. The composition of the new trays is up to 85% recycled tray material. That should be recognised as a significant achievement because it is much more challenging to recycle plastics than metal and glass, which can be recycled through the use of well-established technologies.

In establishing the facility in Durham, Wiltshire Farm Foods has also onshored the process. It both keeps jobs here and reduces plastic miles. It is genuine closed-loop recycling and an exemplar approach to the recycling and reuse of packaging. It puts the company ahead of the legislation. Can we find a way to refine the proposed legislation to recognise that? We must give credit where credit is due.

[Robin Millar (Aberconwy) (Con)]

My constituent, Laura Fielding, is a community councillor in Llanfairfechan, and is behind the excellent plastic-free Llanfairfechan scheme. She highlighted my duty, as a consumer, in respect of wrapping and packaging after the point of consumption. Does the hon. Member agree that the same applies to manufacturers and producers? Their responsibility for packaging lies beyond the point of sale, and even beyond the point of use, and extends to its disposal and the consideration of what that means for the packaging afterwards.

[Dame Nia Griffith]

Absolutely. As I understand it, that is the aim of the extended producer responsibility legislation: it will ensure that producers have to take a real interest in that process. However, it must be done in partnership with the industry and in a way that the industry feels part of. The scheme must have buy-in, because it can work only with industry co-operation. We must ensure that it operates fairly and that those who invest extra money to improve their processes get some benefit from doing so.

Last month, in response to a written parliamentary question about whether the charges to be introduced by the extended producer responsibility for packaging will apply only to packaging that enters the consumer waste system, the Minister replied:

“Charges for the management of this waste will apply to all primary and shipment packaging except where producers can evidence that their packaging has been emptied and discarded by a business.”

In response to a different question from the hon. Member for Bath (Wera Hobhouse) regarding how the revised scheme would apply to closed-loop recycling schemes, the Minister replied:

“Packaging that is already commonly collected from households will not be eligible for this offset as this would reduce the efficiency of household collections”.

That is a major problem for a company like Wiltshire Farm Foods. We are effectively equating what it does with plastic trays with plastic waste that enters the waste system.

I am concerned about that statement because, unfortunately, what we know about recyclable waste items that should be collected by local authorities and recycled is not at all encouraging. First, there are all the packaging items that do not go into household recycling boxes or bags but are strewn about the place as litter or put into a non-recyclable street bin. That is hardly a surprise, given that the Environmental Audit Committee report on plastic bottles found that only about half of local authorities provide differentiated street litter bins in order to separate recyclables from black-bag rubbish. Secondly, a householder might wrongly put that packaging into their black-bag rubbish, or in the correct household recycling bag but with unwashed items that drip food content into the bag, so that the whole bag of recyclables is condemned by the local authority and put in with the black-bag rubbish.

Even if recyclable packaging items get into the recycling bag or box correctly, what happens then? We have myriad different regimes run by different local authorities, with varying end destinations for their recyclables. Some 47% of recyclables are sent abroad. What data do we have about the products that they are made into? Too little, it would seem. Too often, we have seen pictures of packaging on foreign shores that can be traced back to the UK, smouldering on the hillside in open landfill or clogging up waterways, as documented by the BBC, Greenpeace and Interpol, and highlighted by the National Audit Office, which reported, putting it mildly, that there is

“a particular risk that some of the material exported overseas is not fully recycled.”

What do we know about the rest? We know that glass is 100% recyclable and can be remelted endlessly without ever reducing its quality, so we would hope the glass collected is fully recycled and made into new items. Plastic packaging, however, is another matter. How much of what local authorities collect as recyclable is actually made into new products? What data does the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs have, not just on what is collected and handed on by local authorities, but on what actually happens to it, the efficiencies of the processes that it undergoes, the end products that are produced, and the value for money and for energy use that are achieved through the schemes?

Official estimates show the UK’s plastic packaging waste recycling rate at 47% in 2020 and 44% in 2021. Those estimates have been questioned by various organisations, including the National Audit Office, which expressed concerns about undetected fraud, as well as the concern that I mentioned about what goes abroad. Anyway, the amount would appear to be less than 50%.

We now face a situation in which a company such as Wiltshire Farm Foods has invested in a closed-loop system, collecting plastic trays and using the whole plastic tray to manufacture new ones, yet it will be taxed as if its trays just went into the waste system where, as we have seen, potentially only 50% of the trays would be recycled. The Minister has repeated that in a letter to the company—the problem that the trays will be equated with household waste and cannot be considered as any form of exception or betterment, because technically they could have gone into householders’ recycling waste bags or boxes.

The packaging may be commonly collected from households but, as I have explained, its final destination will vary according to the regimes in place in individual local authorities, and it has a less than 50% chance of being recycled, whereas 100% of the trays collected by Wiltshire Farm Foods will be taken back to Durham and manufactured into new trays. The problem is that firms get no credit for trying to maximise the collection and recycling of their packaging. That is a massive disincentive to make any such investment, whereas they could help to improve our plastic packaging recycling rates, as well as the efficiency and quality of that recycling; otherwise, there is no reason for them to do so.

I do not pretend for one moment that to devise an extended producer responsibility scheme is easy. Such schemes will be dependent on co-operation from industry if they are to work effectively, and it is vital that there is proper consultation and a response to the concerns raised. I understand there is a plan for a blanket introduction of the scheme and then to deal with exceptions or modulated issues, as they are described, afterwards in 2025. Of course, that will penalise the firms that have already started.

Many in the food and drink industry support trying to improve the levels of recycling and understand the importance of the recyclability of packaging and the urge to reduce the use of plastic packaging altogether. In view of the concerns raised by the industry, will the Minister consider pausing the introduction of the EPR scheme and use the time to work productively with manufacturers on their concerns and, in particular, to derive and refine a fair payments regime? Will the EPR rates vary according to the costs of managing different materials, depending on how easily they can be recycled and the final market price they can attract? Will the Minister consider having reduced EPR rates for firms that have invested or are investing in innovative recycling methods? As I have mentioned, the scheme begins in 2024, but the modulated fees whereby the more recyclable a material is, the less the producer pays will not be introduced until 2025. Will the Minister consider introducing the modulated fees at the same time as the main scheme?

How much analysis has the Department done of schemes in operation in other countries? Belgium, Germany and the Canadian province of Ontario are often cited as interesting examples. Does the Minister plan to look further at schemes elsewhere? A number of countries have much greater industry involvement in the running of their schemes, whereas in the proposed UK scheme almost all the necessary tasks to run the scheme will be carried out by the Government. Will the Minister consider greater private sector and industry-body involvement in the schemes? Will she explain how EPR funds will be ringfenced to ensure they are used to improve our recycling infrastructure? Will she take into account the impact of all packaging reforms on producers, and weigh up whether they will have the desired impact without creating an undue burden on them?

On that note, I shall draw my remarks to a close. I thank Wiltshire Farm Foods for showing me its trays and how it recycles them—I was not quite as keen on the minus 20° freezer room that it showed me. I implore the Minister to take that example very seriously, because it has ramifications across the industry for incentivising—or disincentivising—firms so that they do the right thing.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Rebecca Pow)]

It is a pleasure to have you in the Chair, Mr Sharma; I know this subject is of great interest to you, as is litter, which the House just had an Adjournment debate on. It all comes into the sphere we are dealing with. I thank the hon. Member for Llanelli (Dame Nia Griffith) for bringing this debate on extended producer responsibility to Westminster Hall. I am pleased to have the opportunity to outline our schemes in more detail. She asked a great raft of questions, so if I do not cover all the answers, we will write to her on some of the outstanding issues, although I know some of issues have been dealt with in answers to parliamentary questions.

The hon. Lady and I share some agreement about the need for the schemes we are introducing and the fact that they are complex. The schemes will definitely take us in the right direction on reducing our waste. We agree on the shared goal, which is to implement a successful UK-wide scheme that serves to improve recycling and the availability of recycled materials for reuse, to drive down pollution, and to ensure that the cost of packaging waste no longer relies so heavily on the public purse. After four years of extensive engagement across the packaging sectors, the policy framework to introduce an extended producer responsibility scheme for packaging across the United Kingdom was outlined in the Government response published in March 2022. Work is continuing to make progress in preparation for its implementation.

Although affected businesses have consistently expressed their support for high-level extended producer responsibility objectives and outcomes, some concerns have been raised about costs, implementation and timelines. I am well aware of that, as other colleagues in this Chamber have raised some of these matters with me. I reassure the hon. Member for Llanelli and others that my Department remains committed to continued intense engagement with affected businesses to ensure that we deliver our UK extended producer responsibility scheme in a way that delivers on the shared goals to transform a linear economic model of “take, make, use, throw away” to a circular economy. Our aim is for legislation to be in place in time to start the EPR in 2024-25, as the hon. Lady mentioned.

Before I go further, I will outline how we got to this point and the rationale for the delivery of the EPR programme. In December 2018, the Government published the resources and waste strategy, which set out how we will preserve our stock of material resources by minimising waste, promoting resource efficiency and moving towards the circular economy. Three significant commitments in the strategy form the collection and packaging reforms programme. Those are the extended producer responsibility scheme for packaging—the EPR—which we are discussing; the deposit return scheme for drinks containers, known as the DRS; and the consistency in recycling collection scheme, known simply as consistency. That is the consistency of collection at the doorstep by local authorities.

The idea is that they dovetail together. They will help us to deliver our goals on protecting the climate, driving green growth and driving down unnecessary waste—all goals set out by this Government and the devolved Administrations in their policy documents. As a result of our reforms, particularly in relation to the EPR, we expect the figure for recycling rigid plastics—excluding drinks bottles in the DRS—to reach 48% by 2025, broadly comparable with what Wiltshire Farm Foods are doing at the moment. By 2030, we expect that to rise significantly to about 62%. That is the direction in which we aim to drive all packaging producers.

The overall objective of the EPR scheme is to encourage businesses to consider how much packaging they use, and to design and use packaging that is much easier to recycle, and to encourage the use of reusables, refillables and so forth. We have committed to setting ambitious new packaging waste recycling targets for producers. The EPR measures will be key to achieving the targets. We propose minimum recycling target rates from 2024-30 for each of the six packaging materials: plastic, wood, aluminium, steel, paper and card, and glass. We will introduce targets for fibre-based composite packaging in 2026.

EPR will allow businesses to make their own arrangements to collect and recycle their packaging, where local authorities are not required to collect those packaging items for recycling. EPR will incentivise producers to recycle packaging that is reused multiple times, such as milk bottles, and to offset the packaging that they recycle against their obligated disposal costs. However, EPR will not allow for offsetting of packaging where it is collected by more than 75% of local authorities, except where it is part of a reuse system. That is primarily because we will take steps, through our consistency measures, to place requirements on local authorities to collect, for recycling, at least the common set of materials that I outlined.

If we incentivise producers to collect their own packaging, which we are also requiring local authorities to collect, that will reduce the efficiency of kerbside collections overall and therefore increase costs for producers. It will undermine that system, which will be a cornerstone of the whole triage.

[Dame Nia Griffith]

What plans does the Minister have to sort out where the recyclable rubbish ends up? One of the big concerns is that not every local authority takes it to a place where it is 100% reused.

[Rebecca Pow]

That is a really important part of the circle and of our engagement. It is a question of ensuring that we have industry capable of taking all that material. We are working together in a pipeline, because clearly the system will not work unless that is all joined up.

To go back to my previous point, if producers all start to do their own thing and the kerbside collection is undermined, that will increase costs for the producers that are going through that system, because it will mean that the costs are spread over a lower tonnage of packaging waste collected. If we look across industry as a whole, we see that that would not be in the interests of the development of our circular economy ethos. We will publish the Government response to the consistency in collections consultation shortly. That will give more clarity to the whole issue very soon.

Through payment of disposal costs, businesses will pay for the collection and management of their packaging from households. We want to increase kerbside recycling through consistency and the EPR measures, and to do so in a way that optimises efficient and high-performing services. When the payments are calculated, that will be based on the efficient services of local authorities. We do not want that to be based on a less efficient authority, so we will follow the best models and expect local authorities to do that. We have complete agreement on that with business. I think that that particular point was raised.

Cockling: Dee Estuary

Nia Griffith Excerpts

Tuesday 19th July 2016 Commons Chamber

[Margaret Greenwood]

My right hon. Friend makes a good point: this issue affects fishermen on both sides of the estuary.

I remind the Minister of his own words in relation to farming. He said that

“farming has always been a risky business because of the weather and price volatility. Farmers want to earn their profit from the market but they need a helping hand when things go wrong.”

Are the River Dee cocklers any different? Figures provided to my constituents show that costs for managing the fishery have escalated since 2012 and staff time attributed to the cockle fishery has gone up. I ask the Minister to get the breakdown of what staff time is being allocated, for example, for administration and the cost of bailiffs. I also ask the Minister to look into why, when the fishery was closed for the majority of last season, figures obtained by my constituents show that £87,000 was allocated for staff time? Who is doing what, and why is the Environment Agency not providing any scrutiny of this figure?

Last year I asked the Minister how much revenue had been raised from licence fees for cockling in the River Dee estuary in each year since 2010 and the figures showed a big leap from 2012-13. In 2010 £51,584 was raised, in 2011 it was £52,576, in 2012 it was £52,576, and then in 2013 it increased to £68,900, and remained this figure in 2014. Will the Minister clarify whether this increase was due to a rise in the number of people using the fishery or to an increase in license fee? I would also like to know whether it is the intention of the fishery to become “self-sustaining” at any point as this could be achieved only either by massively increasing the licence fee, which would merely drive people out of business, or by increasing the number of licences, which, again, would drive people out of business and cause considerable environment problems. The lack of financial transparency must be addressed. My constituents have repeatedly asked Natural Resources Wales questions about its spending and charges, but they feel that it has failed to answer them adequately. Apparently, NRW has indicated that a financial manager would address those points, but that has not been forthcoming so I therefore put these questions to the Minister.

According to my constituents, the fishery’s financial records are not adequate and contain numerous omissions and expenses that do not seem credible to my constituents, such as £20,000 running costs for an amphibious vehicle that was supposedly used only for cockle survey work, which would have amounted to just a few days each year. What work was that vehicle carrying out?

[Nia Griffith (Llanelli) (Lab)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that all accounts from NRW and the Environment Agency on the Dee estuary and other cockle beds should be fully published and readily available? People should not have to make freedom of information requests so that we can all see exactly what is going on.

[Margaret Greenwood]

My hon. Friend makes an important point on behalf of Welsh and English cocklers. My constituents have raised pertinent questions, and they have every right to ask them and to be provided with answers if they feel that questions have not yet been responded to, or avoided altogether. They also ask for the necessary support from the Environment Agency, which again they feel has not been forthcoming.

Oral Answers to Questions

Nia Griffith Excerpts

Thursday 7th July 2016 Commons Chamber

[Rory Stewart]

My hon. Friend has been an extraordinary champion for his constituency—indeed, he had a late Christmas day celebration a couple of days ago. I saw at first hand with him the devastation for businesses in Calder Valley, ranging from furniture shops to carpentry manufacturers. The problem on commercial insurance is, of course, that different businesses have different attitudes towards interruption payments and excesses. However, that is being addressed through the BIBA process and, most importantly, through the investment in flood defences.

[Nia Griffith (Llanelli) (Lab)]

I fully understand the 2009 cut-off date for Flood Re, of which developers and local authorities should have been fully aware, but what more can the Minister do to make it legally binding to inform purchasers that they will not be eligible for Flood Re? What about properties that are downhill of new developments that have subsequently become more at risk as a result of developments built since 2009?

[Rory Stewart]

Fundamentally, the answer to these issues is to ensure that we have good flood defences and that we build resilience in housing, but it is absolutely correct to say that we need to ensure that transparency is part of that. Somebody buying a house needs to know that it is at flood risk so that they can make an intelligent decision—ideally, it would be not to buy that house.

Oral Answers to Questions

Nia Griffith Excerpts

Thursday 10th September 2015 Commons Chamber

[Elizabeth Truss]

This is an absolute priority for the digital taskforce. We will get to 90% geographical coverage for voice and text by 2017, and we are currently consulting on taller mobile phone masts to enable better coverage for things such as 4G in rural areas as well.

[Nia Griffith (Llanelli) (Lab)]

The Minister will be well aware that the Labour Welsh Government have introduced regulation to improve conditions in dog breeding. Does he have any plans to introduce similar legislation in England to tackle some of the horrific conditions that back-street dog breeding gives rise to?

[George Eustice]

Yes, we have looked at this, because there was a misunderstanding on the part of some local authorities that a licence to breed dogs was not required provided that people were breeding fewer than five litters a year. We clarified that last year with local authorities because anyone in the business of breeding puppies requires a licence, but we continue to keep this under review.

Organophosphate Sheep Dip

Nia Griffith Excerpts

Wednesday 10th June 2015 Westminster Hall

[Jessica Morden]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that important intervention.

[Nia Griffith (Llanelli) (Lab)]

The shadow Secretary of State for Health, my right hon. Friend the Member for Leigh (Andy Burnham), has indeed called for an investigation into exactly what was known in the ’80s and ’90s before the use of such substances was finally discontinued, and into whether there was any form of cover-up, as the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) suggests.

[Jessica Morden]

I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. I will return to this at the end of my speech, but my constituent Stephen Forward found it incredibly difficult to get his medical records. Many others seem to be in the same situation as the constituent of the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), so the matter needs to be considered.

At the time of compulsory dipping, mild warnings were given on sheep dip packaging, but the Government and inspectors did not warn farmers about exposure to the solution or advise that any precautions or protective clothing be worn during the dipping of sheep. The sufferers of OP contamination believe that the Government should have provided explicit advice and rules on the safe use of OPs, including rules on proper protective clothing.

The crux of the debate, as has been said, is that while sheep dipping came to an end in 1992, the survivors’ groups and other campaigners suspect that the Government must have been aware of the risk earlier. In 1990-91 an inquiry was carried out by the Health and Safety Executive into sheep dipping on behalf of the Ministry. The full report was released to Ministers in 1991, but it was not made public until Tom Rigby put in a freedom of information request. As The Guardian reported in April, the FOI disclosure shows that Government officials did know of the dangerous health risks to farmers using this chemical, but they still did not end its compulsory use.

The report set out concerns about the cumulative health impact of long-term and repeated exposure to organophosphates and criticised manufacturers for providing inadequate protective clothing and unclear instructions to farmers. It is also said that at some time in the 1980s Ministry inspectors were told not to go within 14 feet of sheep dip when supervising, which also needs investigating. It is important to remember that at the time, the then farming Minister demanded that local authorities clamp down on farmers who refused to use the chemical. It was another year, though, until sheep dipping was no longer required by law. As Stephen said:

“We were given no training or advice about how to use the chemicals, just told to get on with it and, if not, we would be prosecuted.”

Today, my constituent, Stephen, and the Sheep Dip Survivors Group would like from the Minister full disclosure of all the documentation on this issue from that time, so that the campaigners can examine it. Campaigners also want a full inquiry, independent of the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, the Committee on Toxicity of Chemicals in Food, Consumer Products and the Environment, and the Veterinary Medicines Directorate, that looks at this matter afresh, so they can see who in Government knew what, when, and why they might not have acted on that information.

--- Later in debate ---

[George Eustice]

All I can say is that the Committee on Toxicity has looked at the matter exhaustively. It has produced a detailed report reviewing dozens of studies, and has been unable to establish a link. Its conclusions are very clear. Over the past decade, the Government have commissioned £4 million of research into the issue. Many, many people—experts in their field—have looked into the issue and reviewed all the available evidence to reach their conclusions.

[Nia Griffith]

Will the Minister explain what account has been taken of what records are and are not available? If many of the records are not available, the sample may well have been skewed.

[George Eustice]

The 1991 report—it is important to recognise that that report was published at the time—was a survey of farmers who self-reported symptoms. We should bear two things in mind. First, it was not a scientific report; all the reports that the Committee on Toxicity has looked at are scientifically robust research projects. The other thing to note is that the focus of the 1991 report was whether farmers had the correct protective equipment to prevent acute poisoning. We must make a distinction between actual poisoning—organophosphates are poisonous substances that cause tetanus-like symptoms if acute poisoning takes place—and the separate issue of whether exposure to low levels of organophosphates that does not cause overt poisoning nevertheless contributes to long-term conditions. The conclusion of the report is that it does not. We must make that distinction. The report of 1990-91, which as I say was published at the time, was about the concerns about overt poisoning, not possible long-term conditions.

The sale and supply of OP sheep dips have been restricted to appropriately trained and certified users since 1995, reflecting concerns at the time about their toxicity. In addition, the Veterinary Medicines Regulations 2006 introduced a requirement for dipping to be supervised by a holder of a certificate of competence; that requirement remains in force.

Sheep scab is a severe disease with profound and sometimes fatal welfare implications for affected animals. There are currently still two sheep dips containing organophosphates that are authorised for use in the UK. There are other authorised veterinary medicines available to protect sheep against scab, but dips remain the most clinically effective treatments for the mite that causes it.

Dairy Industry

Nia Griffith Excerpts

Wednesday 5th November 2014 Westminster Hall

[Nia Griffith (Llanelli) (Lab)]

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that that is the very reason why we need the voluntary code to be strengthened—so that farmers cannot be shocked by sudden price drops by big purchasers? Will he ask the Minister to look again at the voluntary code and at making something much stronger?

[Simon Hart]

I thank the hon. Lady, who is a near neighbour. Yes, I will be making that point. The code and the adjudicator have been in place long enough now for some positive benefit to have been felt. The farming community has not yet convinced me, however, that the powers of the code and the adjudicator have been exercised as satisfactorily as they might have been.

Oral Answers to Questions

Nia Griffith Excerpts

Thursday 30th October 2014 Commons Chamber

[George Eustice]

I have met members of the poultry industry and the British Poultry Council to discuss their concerns. We managed to get a very successful free trade agreement with Canada. Sometimes it is possible to work through the sanitary and phytosanitary issues that the hon. Gentleman raises, as well as animal welfare issues, and to establish equivalent rather than identical measures. That is the spirit in which we should approach the negotiations.

[Nia Griffith (Llanelli) (Lab)]

I welcome the openness of a free trade agreement, but can the Minister tell us what steps he is taking to ensure that there are no mechanisms included in it—such as an investor-state dispute settlement—that would enable powerful vested interests to bully future Governments into dropping legislation that would improve food standards? We have already seen that happen with the disgraceful action of the Philip Morris tobacco company against the Australian Government.

[George Eustice]

I know that some people have expressed concern about the use of ISDS. Both the European Union and the United Kingdom are very conscious of that, and we do not intend to allow such agreements to undermine our ability to set our own welfare and regulatory standards when it comes to animal health.

Oral Answers to Questions

Nia Griffith Excerpts

Thursday 17th July 2014 Commons Chamber

[Elizabeth Truss]

I completely agree that British beef and lamb are fantastic products, as is British pork—as an East Anglian MP, I obviously do a lot to promote British pork. I understand that Tesco has entered into a two-year contract with 200 British lamb farmers to help supply British lamb, but I think that we can do more to encourage not only supermarkets to offer local, seasonal food, but people to consume it. That will help our environment and our economy.

[Nia Griffith (Llanelli) (Lab)]

T2. The Burry inlet in my constituency is once again experiencing mass cockle mortality. Last Thursday, in response to action taken by some of the cockle pickers in my constituency several years ago, the European Commission issued a reasoned opinion in which it named nine agglomerations that are failing to meet the waste water directive, including excessive spills from Gowerton and Llanelli into the Burry inlet, where there are sensitive waters. Although the Welsh Government will clearly be involved, it is the UK Government who are answerable to the European Commission. Will the Minister meet me to discuss this serious issue?

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Dan Rogerson)]

I will not seek to unpick the devolution settlement because, as the hon. Lady quite rightly says, this is a devolved matter. The Welsh Government and Natural Resources Wales will be playing a key role in enforcement and in looking for a way forward, as will Welsh Water, but if she would like to write to me with further details, I will be happy to look into her concerns.

Oral Answers to Questions

Nia Griffith Excerpts

Thursday 12th June 2014 Commons Chamber

[George Eustice]

I had the opportunity to meet my hon. Friend and my hon. Friend the Member for West Suffolk (Matthew Hancock), the Minister for Skills and Enterprise, with a delegation from the Thoroughbred Breeders’ Association. I understand the points they are making. Although those two diseases have a low impact and can be prevented through the application of the industry’s codes of practice, there could be some concerns about the impact on trade. That is why I have asked officials to look at the matter closely, to reassess the impacts on the trade, and to investigate alternative ways forward, such as burden sharing with the industry. I can assure my hon. Friend that we are looking at this closely and will take his views into account.

[Nia Griffith (Llanelli) (Lab)]

T4. More than 2 million households in England and Wales are spending more than 5% of their household income on water bills. Will the Secretary of State explain exactly what plans the Government have to give Ofwat more powers or to bring in measures that will require all water companies to tackle water bills for everybody, particularly for that 5% of households?

[Dan Rogerson]

I thank the hon. Lady for drawing my attention to what is happening with water bills. As companies are coming up to the price review period, bills will be levelling off or dropping. It is therefore vital that we have a strong regulator, so extra powers are needed. It is a strong message from Government that we are supporting it in its work as a good independent regulator, and that will lead to better deals for consumers.

Bovine TB

Nia Griffith Excerpts

Thursday 3rd April 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Paterson]

I was talking to farming representatives who had come over the border into my own patch last Friday, and I am aware that there is a bad case in Staffordshire involving goats. We need to look at this issue. We have made it clear that we are going to consult on bringing alpacas into the regime, and we should look at goats as well.

[Nia Griffith (Llanelli) (Lab)]

We fully agree on the range of measures needed, such as vaccination and pre-movement testing. However, given the failure of the culls to meet effective percentages, even after an extension, and given the risk of perturbation, which has not been addressed today, why will the Secretary of State not transfer the resources that are being wasted on a second round of culling into the vital research that needs to be done on finding the right kinds of testing and vaccination?

[Mr Paterson]

The hon. Lady might have misunderstood my earlier comments. The chief veterinary officer is absolutely clear that we have to carry on within the two pilots, because of perturbation. We have absolutely taken that on board. I am pleased that the hon. Lady is happy with our proposals to accelerate our diagnostic work, the work on DNA that we have talked about and the improvements to vaccinations, but she has to respect the fact that every other country that has a reservoir of TB in its wildlife has removed the diseased wildlife. She might regret that, but it is a fundamental part of those other countries’ success.