Glass Packaging: Extended Producer Responsibility

Wendy Chamberlain Excerpts

Wednesday 14th May 2025 Westminster Hall

[Sarah Dyke (Glastonbury and Somerton) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Mr Stringer, and to speak on behalf of the Liberal Democrats on this important issue. I congratulate the hon. Member for Rotherham (Sarah Champion) on securing the debate.

It is right that the Government are taking action to make manufacturing and packaging more sustainable. Recycling is essential for protecting natural resources and reducing the environmental impact of waste, but given that only 9% of plastic ever produced has been recycled, it has never been more urgent to make packaging more sustainable. The introduction of EPR can help us to achieve that, but it is important that it does not come at the cost of business viability.

The Liberal Democrats have real concerns that the EPR scheme, as it stands, will put the financial stability of small and medium-sized businesses at risk. Further uncertainty and instability for these businesses must be avoided, especially as they navigate the aftermath of the previous Conservative Government’s economic mismanagement and try to find a way through the challenges being put on them by the current Government.

Representatives from the pub, beer and cider sectors have told me that they are really concerned about the impact that EPR will have on their businesses. The drinks sector in Glastonbury and Somerton supports 101 pubs and over 1,200 local jobs, and contributes £29 million to the local economy. Profit margins for many of these businesses are paper thin, and they will have no choice but to pass on the additional costs they incur to their customers.

That is backed up by DEFRA’s impact assessment, which confirms that 85% of the costs will be passed on to consumers. Research from the British Beer and Pub Association has found that EPR could add £154 million a year to the cost of beer bottles, negatively impacting many traditional beer and cider-producing businesses that use glass bottles. The Society of Independent Brewers and Associates has noted that the implementation of EPR in its current form will likely have a significant impact on small independent breweries, pubs and consumers.

[Wendy Chamberlain (North East Fife) (LD)]

I should declare an interest, as chair of the Scotch whisky all-party parliamentary group.

My hon. Friend mentions independent brewers. Independent distilleries in North East Fife and elsewhere in Scotland face a real challenge, because they often do not produce separate bottles for hospitality and for other consumers. Does she agree that the Government need to look at that in their consultation, because those businesses will end up being taken into EPR through both household waste and hospitality?

[Sarah Dyke]

My hon. Friend makes a really good point. Those are, indeed, the unintended consequences we will see if the scheme is rolled out in its current form.

I am really worried about how this will impact the independent pubs in my constituency such as the Etsome Arms in Somerton, which prides itself on celebrating brilliant local brewers. This comes at a time when the UK has lost a hundred small breweries in the past year alone, with many more facing costs that they cannot absorb by themselves.

Glastonbury and Somerton is home to breweries such as Glastonbury Ales and Fine Tuned Brewery, near Somerton, as well as distilleries such as the Spirit of Glastonbury gin company. I visited Fine Tuned Brewery earlier this year to hear about some of the challenges that small breweries face, and the people who run the brewery explained their concerns about the impact that EPR will have on their business. They feel like they have been left in the dark due to poor communication from DEFRA.

It is clear that the knock-on costs of EPR will have an impact on these businesses. In fact, many in the industry are concerned that beer and cider producers might be incentivised to switch to less costly packaging such as aluminium or plastic. Those materials are more difficult to recycle than glass, so there is a risk that the scheme will achieve the opposite of its intentions. This potential backward shift in material usage may be only two years away, when the deposit return scheme comes into force.

In addition—and this concern has been echoed by many Members today—I have spoken to people in the industry who say it is clear that producers may end up paying twice for hospitality and business waste packaging under the current guidelines: once for existing waste collection and then again through EPR. I hope the Minister will comment on this uncertainty and provide businesses with the clarity they need.

On Sunday, people across my wonderful county celebrated Somerset Day and the important traditions of the region. One such deep-seated tradition is cider making. It is an economically significant and indispensable part of Somerset’s cultural fabric. Glastonbury and Somerton is home to fantastic producers such as Dowding’s in Wincanton, King Brain in Little Weston, Burrow Hill in Kingsbury Episcopi, Tricky Cider in Low Ham, Harry’s Cider in Long Sutton, Hecks Cider in Street and Bere Cider in Bere, near Aller, to name just a few.

Cider makers are fully supportive of a circular economy, but many are worried about how EPR might make their businesses unviable. Many cider producers operate on thin profit margins, as I have said, and some may struggle to remain viable if they are laden with these additional costs. The National Association of Cider Makers has expressed frustration that the introduction of EPR does not align with the introduction of the DRS in two years’ time. While the full costs of EPR will not be confirmed until June, the hammer blow is already being felt. Businesses have been experiencing disruption since its introduction last month, making it very difficult for them to plan effectively.

Combined with other costs, EPR is squeezing profitability and threatening employment. Given the economic importance of cider makers, whether through the people they employ or the cider apple-growing farms they partner with, it is a massive concern to many in Somerset that these additional costs could seriously damage the industry.

When I held a very well-attended cider blossom season tasting event in Parliament earlier this year, a cider maker told me that cider is often seen as synonymous with Britain, and that British cider’s terroir is something that no other country can replicate. Cider making is a unique industry, so the costs of EPR must be proportionate and producers must be supported as they move towards a circular economy, rather than being forced out of business.

The Liberal Democrats know how important it is that businesses are given the notice, support and time they need to plan and adjust. The lack of clear information on the final fees and the timing of the start of producer liability creates challenges for business planning. I hope the Minister can give some clarity on that matter today.

The Liberal Democrats believe it is crucial that businesses are supported in this transition, especially when they have already been hit by higher employer national insurance contributions and higher business rates, as has been outlined by my colleagues today. We have concerns not only about how EPR’s implementation might affect small businesses but about how the scheme will be regulated.

The Environment Agency is already severely underfunded and struggles to fulfil its regulatory obligations on water quality. Consequently, we are cautious about EPR and want to ensure that it comes with appropriate support and additional funding for the Environment Agency to meet this additional responsibility.

Likewise, given that EPR changes the way local authorities will be required to manage household recycling, we believe that the role of local authorities in the scheme must be properly supported—they are constantly being asked to do more and more with less and less.

The Liberal Democrats recognise the importance of making packaging more sustainable, which is why we have long been committed to introducing a deposit return scheme for food and drink bottles and containers. It is also why we want to see the complete elimination of non-recyclable, single-use plastics within three years, and why we want to end plastic waste exports by 2030. However, we are also clear that those ambitions must be achieved by working collaboratively with industry to ensure that small drinks businesses are not left behind or struggle to remain viable. If we do not deal with this issue, then less recyclable and less circular materials, or cheaper imported glass with a larger carbon footprint, will become a more viable option for businesses in a sector in which the margins are already very tight.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mary Creagh]

I will give time at the end but I want to make some progress.

The annual growth rate of circular industries is 3%, more than double the UK’s overall growth rate of 1.2%. Extended producer responsibility for packaging—pEPR—moves recycling costs from taxpayers to packaging producers. Think about it: not everybody drinks and not everybody shops online, but we are all paying for the costs of collection. We have had a great tour of drinking places, hostelries and amazing producers, but at the moment everybody in the country is paying for that, through council tax and general taxation. These reforms are creating systematic change, and that is hard.

Simpler recycling in England will make recycling easier and consistent. People will be able to recycle the same materials, including glass, whether they are at home, work or school, which will create a step change in the quality and quantity of recyclate streams. That is enabled by pEPR, which will pay for the new costs associated with the change, as my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing Southall (Deirdre Costigan) mentioned.

We are also introducing deposit return schemes in England, Northern Ireland and Scotland that add refundable deposits to single-use plastic, steel and aluminium containers. I discussed this with my colleague in Northern Ireland last week at the British-Irish Council environment ministerial meeting at Kew Gardens. We had a two-hour debate about how we would co-operate on the circular economy, in particular looking at the challenges of Guernsey, Jersey and the Isle of Man—island economies with no real reprocessing facilities—and what we can all learn from each other.

[Wendy Chamberlain]

Will the Minister give way?

[Mary Creagh]

I am going to make some headway.

DRSs cut litter, boost recycling rates to more than 90% and create high-quality materials that industry can reuse. Since it launched in 2024, the Republic of Ireland’s DRS has seen over 1 billion containers returned and a near 50% reduction in drinks container litter. Last week, I met Timmy Dooley, the Minister of State for Environment, Climate and Communications in the Republic of Ireland, who he said he had been sceptical of the DRS but now has the zeal of a convert.

This challenge is changing the way in which retailers and producers think about eco-design. Walkers is starting to use paper-based packaging for crisp multipacks, and many supermarkets are now using paper rather than plastic trays for fresh food. Our vision is to become world leaders in circular design, technology and industry.

These reforms were started by Michael Gove, late of this parish, back in 2018—seven years ago. I remember successive Secretaries of State for DEFRA coming to the Environmental Audit Committee, when I was Chair, and promising these reforms and deposit return schemes. There has been extensive engagement and consultation with business on pEPR, including public consultations in 2019 and 2021. Businesses have had a clear indication, and the scheme has already been delayed twice.

My officials run monthly packaging engagement forums, which regularly draw more than 1,000 attendees, to provide updates and test policy development with stakeholders. I have met British Glass several times to hear its concerns. I met Heineken last September. I met British Glass in October 2024, and then in January at a glass reuse roundtable hosted by the British Beer and Pub Association at the Budweiser Brewing Group. On 11 February, the Minister of State, Department for Energy Security and Net Zero, my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon West (Sarah Jones), joined me to discuss the glass sector. We have engaged on this issue.

The glass sector lobbied extensively to be excluded from the deposit return scheme. We respected that position, and kept that approach during the final passage of the DRS and pEPR legislation. Legislation on pEPR was supported on both sides of the House, but sadly the DRS was not. My officials have talked with businesses that make and use glass packaging, and we have listened to feedback to ensure that the fees are set fairly. I am very aware of the issues that the glass sector has raised about dual-use items—items that can be disposed of in either business or household waste streams. It has been difficult to find an answer that works for everyone, and because of the issues raised in the debate, I have asked my officials to consult with industry immediately to find the fairest solution.

There has been a lot of talk about small businesses. Many international pEPR schemes offer no exemption for small business. We responded to UK small business concerns by putting in place some of the most generous exemptions of any scheme globally. The exemptions mean that businesses with a turnover of below £2 million, or that place less than 50 tonnes of packaging on the market, are not obliged to pay fees. Those exemptions apply to approximately 70% of UK businesses supplying packaging in the UK. There are quarterly payment options to help with cash flow for larger businesses, and we will watch the de minimis thresholds carefully. If we raised the thresholds, that would put costs on to the remaining businesses, because local authority collection costs would remain the same.

The pEPR fees for glass are lower than those for aluminium and plastic. Because glass packaging is heavier, it costs more to handle per unit than some other materials. We have worked closely with industry and local authorities to make sure that the costs used to set producer fees accurately reflect the on-the-ground waste management operation costs that every taxpayer currently has to pay. Weight is a driving factor in waste management and it is the most common basis used to determine costs for public and private sector collection; that is why it is central to our approach. But the scheme relies on all producers paying their fair share. As my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing Southall said, there was a range, but there was unhappiness with that, so in December we introduced a set point of £240 per tonne. The fewer free riders there are in the system—

Rural Communities: Government Support

Wendy Chamberlain Excerpts

Wednesday 12th March 2025 Westminster Hall

[Wendy Chamberlain (North East Fife) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dr Murrison. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for South Devon (Caroline Voaden) on securing this important debate.

My constituency is very easy to point out on a map, mainly because it is on the coast but also because it is big, and it is big because it is rural. We might have relatively large populations in places like Leven and St Andrews, but only 4% of my constituency is built up. It is more rural than people think.

In the short time I have today, I will highlight the importance of connections for rural communities. First, the poor phone signal creates energy problems, because the old-style meters on which most people still rely cannot speak to the system. How can we help people to better manage their energy if they cannot use the systems that are provided?

Poor phone signal also means a reliance on landlines, and Storm Éowyn has taught us all in recent weeks that being without power for days will create challenges as we move to digital by design. In fact, digital by design is particularly unsuitable for rural constituencies. I am sure we have all been to farmers markets and other such locations and seen people waving cash card machines around to try to pick up a signal.

The lack of cash and banking services is a huge issue for many constituencies. Those services are poor, and my constituency has only eight bank branches—that sounds great, but six of them are in St Andrews. If not for the Nationwide building society, we would have no access to cash or face-to-face banking services in my constituency. ATMs are difficult to get to because public transport is hard to access. I understand public transport is devolved in Scotland, but we are in a doom loop of bus services not being used because they do not run at convenient times for people to get to work or services, which end up being cut because people are not using them.

Finally, burgh towns are really important. Cupar is my burgh town, but it is the hub at the centre of a wheel, and that is how communities come together. We need to ensure that we support such areas so that we deliver the services people need. We need to remember that rural areas are different from urban areas.

Support for the Scotch Whisky Industry

Wendy Chamberlain Excerpts

Wednesday 12th February 2025 Westminster Hall

[Graham Leadbitter]

Absolutely. As I have mentioned, 43 bottles of whisky are exported every second—that will be 75,000 bottles of whisky by the time we have finished this debate. That is a phenomenal export contribution not just to Scotland’s economy, but to the wider UK economy at the moment. I welcome the efforts made by the UK Government in the area of trade; the question is whether more can be done, and whether those efforts can be made more quickly.

[Wendy Chamberlain (North East Fife) (LD)]

It is right to give credit to the UK Government for some of the work happening on exports. However, does the hon. Member agree that the changes that the previous Government made to spirits duty, which this Government have refused to change, mean that the Treasury is losing out on money by not treating alcohol as alcohol across the different categories?

[Graham Leadbitter]

Absolutely. That is another point that I will expand on in a bit more detail shortly.

We must continue to strengthen our trade relationships. While this debate is rightly focused on UK actions, it will not have bypassed hon. Members that there has been significant media comment on tariff actions taken by the US Administration in recent weeks, and on what potential future actions may be taken. Combined with global headwinds affecting the wider luxury brands market, it has unsurprisingly generated comment and speculation, both from within the sector and elsewhere. Maintaining a watchful eye and accentuating the positives of the existing trade relationships remain vital.

On excise duty, the current tax regime is unsustainable. Scotch whisky and other spirits have faced a 14% increase in excise duty in just 18 months. Over the past 18 months the Treasury has lost £255 million, or £500,000 per day, in spirits revenue—a far cry from the £600 million that the Office for Budget Responsibility forecast that the increase in spirits duty would raise. That Treasury loss from lower sales was projected by the industry to increase as the Chancellor’s recent decisions start to bite.

If we want to examine the impact higher taxes have had on the retailers and the producers themselves, we need look no closer than right here. Last year a freedom of information request revealed that in the first 10 months of 2024, a year after the Conservatives hiked whisky tax, sales of whisky in Parliament’s gift shops plummeted, with average monthly sales of 5 cl bottles down 36% and 70 cl bottles down 16% by the end of October. That means that, when Labour MPs approved the Chancellor’s plans to further increase taxes on whisky products, they did not even need to leave the building to pass a shop adversely affected by the tax.

--- Later in debate ---

[Daniel Zeichner]

I will come to the Budget measures in a moment, but first I endorse my hon. Friend’s point about the number of jobs the industry supports—41,000 in Scotland and a further 25,000 across the rest of the UK, many in rural areas.

Collectively, whisky distilleries are now Scotland’s most visited tourist attraction, bringing in thousands of domestic and international tourists every year, largely to rural areas, and creating many opportunities for employment. Whisky is also a hugely important trade good. In 2023, the equivalent of 53 bottles of Scotch every second were sold overseas. That is important to delivering growth at home, which is why we are committed to supporting the Scotch whisky industry to export its fine products to overseas markets. We do that by leveraging free trade agreements and removing barriers to market access across the world. We are currently working on no fewer than 29 markets.

[Wendy Chamberlain]

It is important that we recognise, particularly when we look at the US, that exporting Scotch is not the only challenge. The Scotch whisky industry needs ex-bourbon casks to produce the whisky we all know and love. Does the Minister agree that the Government need to ensure that conversations with the US Administration take place? Otherwise, our supply will be impacted.

[Daniel Zeichner]

I am grateful to the hon. Lady. We are well aware of the importance of those casks to the industry and their value.

As well as working with Governments overseas to increase market access, we work closely with the industry at home to catalyse its ability to reach export potential. We offer a wide range of support for businesses that want to start exporting or to expand into new markets, as well as a compelling programme of trade shows and events to support Scotch whisky exporters to access new markets, build buyer connections and increase marketing in target countries. We also have a network of international trade advisers offering one-to-one support across England, and teams with embedded sector expertise in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. Overseas, we have a network of trade advisers and international market teams supporting agriculture and food and drink businesses in more than 100 markets, supplemented by a network of 15 highly skilled agricultural attachés focusing on removing trade barriers in key markets. We are aware of the challenges faced by Scotch whisky in international markets and we work closely alongside their representatives.

Officials across Government are working on trade deals and breaking down export barriers to ensure that Scotch whisky is traded on a fair playing field and has opportunities to grow in new and expanding markets. An important part of that work is securing geographical indication status in major export markets, to add to Scotch whisky’s domestic protection. The status is a special form of protection that defends the iconic product from imitation and counterfeiting. Last August, the Government were pleased to announce our role in securing this form of protection in Brazil, a country which is in the top five global growth markets for alcohol, and is worth almost £900 million in Scottish exports.

In the Budget a firm commitment was made to support spirits producers by, among other measures, investing up to £5 million in the spirit drinks verification scheme, which will reduce the fees paid by businesses for verification of their use of the Scotch whisky geographical indication, and go towards upgrading the overall verification scheme the Government provide. The specifics on how the funding will be used to improve the service will soon be announced by His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs.

Fishing Industry

Wendy Chamberlain Excerpts

Thursday 28th November 2024 Westminster Hall

[Mr Carmichael]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Many of the scientists who have contributed to the ICES data over the years will say exactly the same thing. They want to see the stability of the multi-annual approach that would allow the economic efforts and the conservation efforts to be managed together. That makes perfect sense.

At present, there is a real problem—albeit not a new one—in relation to data-deficient stocks. It has very real consequences that feed through to the whole process, due to the policy of proposing automatic precautionary quota cuts of at least 25% for stocks for which full scientific advice is unavailable. In the current round, for example, ling and lemon sole are not massively significant species, but they are an important and valuable part of the catch for the fishermen in the whitefish fleet in my constituency, and they face recurring quota cuts based on the fact that they are data deficient. If we do that year after year, we will have a quota that does not match the reality of the fish in the sea.

As a consequence, smaller species in a mixed fishery become a choke species, so it is a two-strand problem. First, there is not a proper quota for fish that could be caught and could be an economic benefit to the industry. Secondly, they can sometimes act as a choke species. Because there is a low quota for them, once they are caught other fish in a mixed fishery will not be able to be caught and landed either.

The opportunities that come with getting this right have been highlighted by the northern shelf monkish—a stock that was, following an ICES review, recently granted full analytical assessment and is no longer classed as data deficient. It will be a valuable species for the catching sector, no longer to be subject to precautionary quota cuts. However, the most significant point of all is that, based on scientific advice and full analytical assessment, for the first time, the recommendation now is for a quota increase of some 211%. That is where the operation of the various principles of ICES can be counterproductive, and it leads us to a situation in which we do not have the best outcome because there is a mismatch between what is in the quota and what is in the sea.

The fault, I am afraid, often lies in our own hands because it all comes back to how we fund and operate fisheries science within this country. In Scotland over recent years, our fisheries science laboratories have been salami-sliced away to the point of virtual extinction. There has been a chronic lack of investment in fisheries science. Something that was previously blue chip and widely respected across Europe has, I am afraid, been diminished to such a point that, in recent evidence to the Scottish Parliament, Dr Robin Cook, a fisheries scientist from the University of Strathclyde, said:

“It is of real concern that we no longer have a marine institute in Scotland with the capacity to deliver for the future. The directorate is dependent only on what it learned 10 years ago.”

If we do not put data in and do not gather the data for ourselves, I am afraid that we cannot really complain that what we get out at the other end is not fit for purpose.

I now turn to the trade and co-operation agreement review. At the point of leaving the European Union, expectations among the fisheries industries were very high, especially in the catching sector. It was the most obvious industry to expect a win from our departure from the European Union, and it was certainly promised one. It really takes something to do worse than the common fisheries policy, but somehow or other we found ourselves with a deal that the Scottish Fishermen’s Federation described at the time as

“the worst of both worlds”.

Provisions for review are built into the trade and co-operation agreement. We are in the transitional arrangements at the moment; the review will take effect over the course of next year and into 2026. From the discussions that I have had, I know that the EU sees that as a priority, and I would like to hear from the Minister that the Government see it in those terms as well.

The core issues at play are obvious: we are looking at quota numbers, specific stock allocations and, of course, access. It will take political will from this Government to win back the ground lost by Boris Johnson, but fishing communities expect positive change to be delivered. The fishing industry has a great story to tell; it is rooted in the island and coastal communities that define our country. The new Government have the chance to be part of that story and to close the sorry chapter of missed opportunities.

[Wendy Chamberlain (North East Fife) (LD)]

My right hon. Friend talks about stories; I think that is one of our challenges in attracting new people into the industry, which is one of the reasons why we are facing the visa issues. The Scottish Fisheries Museum in Anstruther in my constituency is doing a lot of promotion work, but it needs support, including educational support. Does my right hon. Friend agree?

[Mr Carmichael]

I absolutely do, and this is one of the reasons why it is so difficult for fishing boats in coastal communities to recruit a crew. For decades, teachers, careers advisers and probably even parents have been telling people, “Don’t bother going into fishing. It’s a dying industry; it’s got no future for you.” When you look at the history of the last couple of decades, you can kind of understand why people say that. I believe that they are wrong, but it is going to take a long time to turn that around.

In the meantime, in order for there to be an industry there for the next generation to be recruited into, I am afraid that we need to take measures now to maintain it. In the short to medium term, that requires a more sensible approach to be taken by UK Visas and Immigration in the Home Office. It also requires the industry itself to step up to the plate and to say, “We understand that the answer to this, in the medium to longer term, lies within our own hands. Here is what we propose to do to make it a more attractive industry for the future.”

Draft Producer Responsibility Obligations (Packaging and Packaging Waste) Regulations 2024

Wendy Chamberlain Excerpts

Wednesday 27th November 2024 General Committees

[Wendy Chamberlain (North East Fife) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Pritchard. Along with my Liberal Democrat colleagues, I welcome these regulations. They are a distinct step in the right direction for recycling packaging, and I am glad to see that they will be UK-wide. There are a lot of things that are rightly decided in Scotland, but I know that producers, certainly those in my own constituency, want to be able to sell their products in Scotland and the rest of the UK without worrying about multiple sets of legislation and different reporting requirements. Indeed, we know that from the difficulties that Scotland’s individual deposit return scheme ran into.

We have all sorts of fantastic producers in North East Fife. Kettle Produce provides pre-cut packaged vegetables, which can be found on the shelves of many supermarkets, and the boxes and packages for Quaker Oats porridge come from just outside of Cupar.

It is not always easy to navigate the needs and interests of different parts of the UK, and I hope that these regulations are the result of positive engagement between the Governments of the four nations that will benefit all our constituencies. I welcome the fact that these regulations provide clarity to businesses. In the run-up to this Committee, I spoke to a producer who told me that they have to comply with two sets of rules and report on two datasets. I am sure we all appreciate how complex and time-consuming that is, so that producer and others will benefit from the certainty provided by having only one scheme in place.

I have a couple of questions for the Minister. First, the regulations place the onus on producers to assess the recyclability of their packaging. What support and guidance will there be for this, and what checks will be in place to ensure that the process is well regulated? Will that require more funding, and have the Government planned for that? Can the Minister confirm that the system administrator will be properly funded and confirm how it will be managed on a cross-border basis? I think we would all welcome any steps to remove the costs of handling recycling from our local authorities, but I would not want to see that offset by poor administration. These regulations are vital steps in the right direction, which I and my constituents welcome as we move towards a greener and less wasteful future.

Oral Answers to Questions

Wendy Chamberlain Excerpts

Thursday 14th November 2024 Commons Chamber

[Steve Reed]

My hon. Friend raises an important point. He is a strong campaigner in his constituency against the failings of the water company and the high levels of pollution resulting from the failures of the previous Government, so I know that he is backing the Water (Special Measures) Bill that is working its way through Parliament, and that he will support Sir Jon Cunliffe’s commission, as we seek to reset the sector by changing its regulation and governance so that it works better for consumers and the environment.

[Wendy Chamberlain (North East Fife) (LD)]

T2. The puffins and other native seabirds in my constituency on the Isle of May were very grateful for the ban on sand eel fishing and trawling, but that ban is now subject to legal challenge. Will the Secretary of State commit to fighting that legal challenge?

[The Minister for Food Security and Rural Affairs (Daniel Zeichner)]

The hon. Lady raises an important question. That is a delicate issue because it has been raised by the European Union, but we are absolutely determined to maintain our position.

Budget: Implications for Farming Communities

Wendy Chamberlain Excerpts

Monday 4th November 2024 Commons Chamber

[Daniel Zeichner]

I can absolutely give my hon. Friend that assurance. As I said earlier, throughout the last five years in opposition, I was a consistent supporter of the agricultural transition, and I am determined to ensure that it is successful.

[Wendy Chamberlain (North East Fife) (LD)]

I am conscious of the need to use temperate words, but one of my constituents said to me that the Government had left farmers the choice between selling now in a managed way and leaving their farms to their heirs, who would be at the mercy of HMRC and the banks. Either way, family farms would fall.

The Minister has talked extensively today about the challenges of wealthy individuals coming in to buy up farmland. Do the Government accept that this measure will potentially increase that problem, and, if it is a problem, what additional legislative steps will they take?

[Daniel Zeichner]

No, I do not. For the reasons that I outlined earlier, I think that it will act as a disincentive for people to do that.

Food Waste and Food Distribution

Wendy Chamberlain Excerpts

Tuesday 16th April 2024 Westminster Hall

[Jo Gideon (Stoke-on-Trent Central) (Con)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered food waste and food distribution.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Vaz. Let me begin by reflecting on our connection to food. We all have cherished memories of key moments in our lives, sharing food with family, friends and neighbours at birthdays, weddings and celebration dinners. Food is the thread that weaves together the fabric of our families, communities and society. It is a universal language spoken and understood by all, regardless of background and belief. It is a remedy for loneliness. In a world in which technology disconnects us, food has the power to bring us together. For thousands of years, in the oldest cities on our planet, people have lived their lives in courtyards, in squares, on street corners and in cafés, tea houses and local shops, and they have shopped, shared gossip and shared food.

Knowing how we value food, it is an outrage that 4.6 million tonnes of edible food goes to waste every year, which is enough to feed everyone in the country for almost two months. That is just edible food waste, including food waste at the farm gate. We throw away more than 11 million tonnes of food each year, which is valued at £20.8 billion. The overall land use associated with food wasted on UK farms alone amounts to almost the size of Wales.

[Wendy Chamberlain (North East Fife) (LD)]

The hon. Lady is setting out the parameters of the debate well. On the farm gate issue, a lot of the waste is driven by consumer choice and by products on the shelf not looking acceptable to supermarkets or people. Does she agree that we need to look at more innovative approaches, such as that of Growers Garden in Cupar in my constituency, which takes the 20% of wonky vegetables and makes them into crisps? It is also a much healthier option than potato crisps.

[Jo Gideon]

The hon. Lady is absolutely right. I will come on to wonky veg, which is a particular passion of mine.

Food Price Inflation and Food Banks

Wendy Chamberlain Excerpts

Wednesday 17th May 2023 Westminster Hall

[Wendy Chamberlain (North East Fife) (LD)]

I apologise to the Minister and the hon. Member for Cynon Valley (Beth Winter) for missing the first 30 seconds of the debate. The Minister talked about working on a cross-departmental basis. He knows that I have asked this question before. I am very pleased to see that the Government have not taken the Home Secretary’s approach to the seasonal agricultural workers scheme and the 45,000 visas. Will we get some security and certainty about the extension of that scheme over a longer period, so that farms can invest in the equipment they need to deliver different ways of picking our fruit and vegetables, and can train people?

[Mark Spencer]

I am grateful for the hon. Lady’s question. I hope she recognises that yesterday was a huge step forward in guaranteeing those 45,000 visas for next year. That allows farmers to plan for the future and organise next year’s staff rota. She also recognises the importance of innovation and investment in new tech. That is why the Government are investing millions of pounds in new technology and the development of agritech, including robotics and equipment to help farmers become more efficient. We will continue to work across Government and with industry to ensure that everyone has access to affordable food. I thank hon. Members for participating in the debate.

Question put and agreed to.

Oral Answers to Questions

Wendy Chamberlain Excerpts

Thursday 30th March 2023 Commons Chamber

[Jamie Stone (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD)]

8. What steps she is taking to support rural farmers.

[Wendy Chamberlain (North East Fife) (LD)]

11. What steps she is taking to support rural farmers.

[The Minister for Food, Farming and Fisheries (Mark Spencer)]

Agriculture is a devolved issue, and is the responsibility of the Scottish Government. Our farmers produce some of the best food in the world. In England, our environmental land management schemes are now open for them to access, and we will pay farmers to deliver positive environmental outcomes. We will also support the production of great British food, healthier soils and more pollinators.

[Mark Spencer]

I thank the hon. Member for his question. Obviously, I work closely with Mairi Gougeon in the Scottish Government. She will probably be disappointed to have been re-offered her job, despite its being offered to somebody else, but we will continue to have a positive working relationship there.

The hon. Member is right to highlight the fact that co-operation across the Union is best for UK agriculture and best for UK food production. I think systems for moving cattle between Scotland and England need to flow as quickly and as easily as possible, so that that marketplace works efficiently for farmers on both sides of the border.

[Wendy Chamberlain]

I recently visited the Quaker Oats site in my constituency, which works very hard with a number of local farmers who provide the site and, outwith North East Fife, works hard on LEAF—Linking Environment and Farming—accreditation, providing sustainability initiatives for local farmers, but they are frustrated. In his answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Jamie Stone), the Minister mentioned the importance of working across the UK and wider sustainability initiatives in the supply chain, such as the extended producer responsibility scheme, so will the Minister provide an update on that scheme and will he commit to re-engaging so that, on a UK basis, we can provide that support?

[Mark Spencer]

I thank the hon. Member for that question. Again, she highlights how important this is. I think farming is challenging enough, frankly, without our putting false barriers in place across the border between England and Scotland. We need to co-operate across the Union and make sure that farmers and food producers on both sides of the border have the opportunity to access the market without barriers.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Solicitor General]

The shadow Attorney General is not right about that. The fraud strategy will be published. In terms of delivery, she will be pleased to hear that last year the CPS prosecuted over 6,000 defendants where fraud and forgery was the principal offence, and the conviction rate was over 80%. This is a Government that have delivered and will continue to deliver in this area.

[Wendy Chamberlain (North East Fife) (LD)]

6. What steps she is taking to increase prosecution rates for (a) small boat gangs and (b) other people traffickers.

[The Attorney General (Victoria Prentis)]

Last week I met the Minister for Immigration to discuss how we can increase the prosecution rate further for those who engage in this dangerous offending. I am pleased to report that there has been a significant increase in all immigration prosecutions since the end of June last year, with the CPS bringing 260 prosecutions and so far securing 164 convictions.

[Wendy Chamberlain]

Increasing prosecution rates is an important way of tackling people trafficking, but another is ensuring safe and legal routes for people seeking asylum. The all-party parliamentary group on Afghan women and girls, which I co-chair, has written to the Government looking for support for those very vulnerable groups. Does the Attorney General accept that her assessment for the Government of the Illegal Migration Bill might be better if safe and legal routes were progressed at the same time?

[The Attorney General]

I thank the hon. Lady for her work on that important APPG; she will have heard my answer to the previous question. The Government need to use every tool available to us to stop these dangerous crossings. One of those tools is prosecution, which is going well. Another tool is working closely with the French Government, and it is important to note that the French have prevented 31,000 crossings this year, which is nearly 50% up on this time last year.