Sarah Champion MP: speeches

Speeches

• 14 May 2025 · Animal Welfare (Import of Dogs, Cats and Ferrets) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I think this is the first time I have served under your guidance, Sir Jeremy; it is a pleasure to do so. I am deeply grateful to the hon. Member for Winchester for using his private Member’s Bill to shepherd this vital legislation through the House and for inviting me to be part of the Committee. The Bill is deeply welcomed. I have campaigned on animal smuggling for a decade, and those hon. Members around me have been campaigning on it for just as long. It generous of him to let us see the Bill through what is hopefully the final phase. My constituents often write to me expressing their concern about this vile, exploitative practice and urging legislators to take meaningful action. They are frustrated by how many animals experience unnecessary suffering, which so often could be stopped with a stroke of a pen in this place. But let me be clear: these measures should have been acted on years ago. I urge the Committee to use this momentum to push for the strongest protections possible and support the Bill. The puppy smuggling trade is worth billions in the UK. The Naturewatch Foundation found that an estimated 80% of dogs and puppies in the UK still come from unknown sources, including unlicensed breeders, illegal puppy farms and puppy smuggling operations. There are huge welfare concerns for puppies being transported long distances at such a young age having been taken from their mothers too soon, which hampers their development and often leads to illnesses and lifelong conditions. There is a human risk, too, with imported dogs leading to serious biosecurity concerns. I did not know, but in 2022 we had the first case of Brucella canis transferring from an imported dog to an owner. It is no wonder that the public overwhelmingly support the Bill’s actions, with 83% backing stronger rules to stop puppy smuggling. Cats face similar mistreatment. Cats Protection’s 2023 report highlighted that an estimated 50,000 cats acquired in the 12 months preceding the survey came from an overseas source. It is unclear whether they received health and welfare checks or what conditions they were subjected to during travel. Without proper regulation, cats likely arrived in the UK in an extremely poor state of health, carrying infectious diseases that they would inevitably pass on to other cats. I therefore strongly support clause 1(3) and (4), which increase the minimum age for importing puppies and kittens from 15 weeks to six months. They also introduce new measures to prevent the import of mutilated animals. For years, puppies and kittens have been imported into the UK, completely legally, with painful mutilations, including docked tails, cropped ears or having been declawed or debarked. Continued importation normalises these practices and makes it near impossible to enforce a ban in the UK. The abhorrent declawing procedure, is, I am sorry to say, the equivalent of amputating a human fingertip to the first knuckle. The 2024 PDSA “Animal Wellbeing” report stated, alarmingly: “4% of cat owners who acquired their pet from abroad told us they did so because they wanted them to be declawed”. That equates to 15,000 cats whose owners want them to be mutilated. To end such an appalling practice once and for all, I urge the Committee to maintain the strength of the Bill’s core provisions. In so doing, we will answer the public’s long-standing call for reform, protect our beloved dogs, cats and ferrets from ill treatment, and entrench the UK’s leadership on animal welfare. Finally, if you will indulge me, Sir Jeremy, while I appreciate that the Bill looks at a very specific area of animal imports, I want to take the opportunity to reflect the strong feelings of the animal welfare and conservation sector about the decline in cross-border movements of zoo animals between the UK and the EU. Those movements are often part of essential conservation breeding programmes, and I share the hopes of the sector that, as the Government address dog, cat and ferret imports, they will soon address cross-border animal movements for zoos and aquariums. I fully support the Bill. I wish it well with its progress, and I hope that it has the Committee’s support.

• 14 May 2025 · Glass Packaging: Extended Producer Responsibility · Hansard source

  More

  I decided not to intervene on the Minister because we have had this argument a lot and she still does not seem to be hearing a whole room of MPs bringing examples to her. She talked about all producers paying their fair share. I agree, and the glass sector agrees, but that is not happening because only glass is paying. The freeloaders the Minister talks about are currently plastic and aluminium. I am really supportive of all the other examples of packaging—absolutely, let us have all of them—but at the moment the Minister has a stark choice. She mentions the jobs that will be created; she does not mention those that will be lost. It is those jobs, and the likelihood of our losing the glass industry, that I urge her to focus on. She should pause the scheme, listen to and act on the concerns, and bring the whole scheme into force in October 2027, when the other two key materials will be in place. That is the only fair, just and, dare I say it, Labour way of doing this. At the moment the good guys are being punished, and people in our constituencies are going to lose their jobs. Question put and agreed to . Resolved , That this House has considered the impact of extended producer responsibility for packaging on glass packaging producers.

• 14 May 2025 · Glass Packaging: Extended Producer Responsibility · Hansard source

  More

  My hon. Friend makes a sound point, which I will reinforce. Let me go through some—I emphasise “some”—of the organisations that have been in touch with me about this issue. They include Vinarchy, one of the world’s largest wine companies; the Society of Independent Brewers and Associates; the Campaign for Real Ale, CAMRA; the British Beer and Pub Association; the Wine and Spirit Trade Association; UKHospitality; the Foodservice Packaging Association; the Metal Packaging Manufacturers Association; the Scotch Whisky Association; the Irish Whiskey Association; the English Whisky Guild; the Brewing, Food and Beverage Industry Suppliers’ Association; the National Association of Cider Makers; and WineGB. All these organisations have spoken out against EPR and their criticisms of the approach being taken by the Government have been surprisingly—indeed, strikingly—similar. Minister, they cannot all be wrong. Other assessments of EPR plans have been similarly damning. The Office for Budget Responsibility has concluded that EPR is a tax. It will not improve recycling rates and it will damage businesses. The Bank of England and the British Retail Consortium have recently stated that the impact of this policy on businesses will be similar to that of the increased national insurance costs. As my hon. Friend the Member for St Austell and Newquay (Noah Law) said, all this is coming at a time of rising economic uncertainty, which is the result of the Trump tariffs. Pubs face an estimated £8 million hike in their costs, which will equate to an extra £2,000 per year for a large pub.

• 14 May 2025 · Glass Packaging: Extended Producer Responsibility · Hansard source

  More

  I have not heard that or seen any evidence of that. All I can say is that in Wales, 95% of the glass is kerbside-collected and recycled. I do not know where my hon. Friend’s stats come from. If she would like to share them with me and the industry, I would like to have a look. Glass produced in Turkey is not currently covered by emissions trading, so the CO 2 emitted is not captured by matching penalties. In addition, Turkish glass manufacturers have built factories in organised industrial zones and benefit from Government support in the form of lower water, natural gas or telecommunications costs, as well as a lower taxation scheme. The lower cost base, supported by the Turkish Government in the form of state aid, is assisting Turkey in targeting export prices at rates that are lower than UK factory costs. However, it is the baseline fees set for glass under the extended producer responsibility that are set to be the hammer-blow. And the hammer administering that blow is being wielded by a Labour Government, which I find hugely disappointing.

• 14 May 2025 · Glass Packaging: Extended Producer Responsibility · Hansard source

  More

  I am sorry, no. In public, and in response to correspondence, DEFRA stated that there is no, or not enough, evidence of material-switching. That is simply not true. The industry, our businesses, and the sectors affected have supplied that evidence. It makes me wonder whether there is any threshold of evidence that would result in a rethink of the scheme. DEFRA has highlighted the modulation of future EPR fees to address those expansive concerns, but let us be honest, even at the earliest point that such modulation would be introduced, huge and likely terminal damage will already have been done to glass manufacturers. It is not clear under the current guidelines whether glass will receive a reduction in fees, and it could even receive a fee increase in the future. Fees are currently charged retrospectively so, given the lack of confirmed information on the level of fees that glass will face, the costs are essentially unrecoverable. How can businesses be expected to operate under this profound uncertainty about their current and future costs? For DEFRA, “reuse” often represents a magic bullet that will address all concerns, if only the industry would get onboard. The glass sector is keen to be part of the development of reuse and glass is the perfect material for it, but we must accept that large-scale national reuse systems are at least a decade away because there is currently no reuse infrastructure. Furthermore, not all products are suitable for reuse. Glass manufacturers can already supply reusable bottles, but a reuse scheme is much more than that. It would require significant buy-in across the whole supply chain. The Minister also needs to recognise that not all glass bottles are for drinks. Beatson Clark, in my constituency, manufactures medicine bottles. Reuse is a laudable goal and one that the glass industry is keen to collaborate with the Government to achieve, but it is being repeatedly deployed as grounds to ignore the industry’s concerns about EPR. Reuse and EPR are two separate issues, and the conflation seems a deliberate muddying of the debate. The short-term impact of EPR could destroy the UK glass industry long before plans for reuse are even on the drawing board. DEFRA has stated that the recycling reforms will add at least 21,000 new jobs and £10 billion to the UK economy, and stimulate the growth on which the Government are rightly focused. Yet it is unclear how those new jobs will be created. They are unlikely to be the kind of wealth-generating jobs that we currently have in the glass sector—jobs that are based in our manufacturing heartland, which really needs that work. Even if the Minister’s prediction were true, why risk existing jobs? Why not take the time to get EPR right and have both? This is not scaremongering. The glass packaging industry is being driven into a crisis directly of the Government’s own making. UK glass manufacturers are already reporting that demand is down by 20%—although the EPR policy has been in place for only a month—and that low-cost imports have increased to help to absorb EPR costs. On paper, I get that the Government are ostensibly seeking to encourage recycling, while recovering the cost to the public purse of its delivery. That is the right objective, but their approach will achieve the exact opposite. It will encourage switching to less recyclable materials; add costs to businesses such as pubs and breweries already struggling under inflationary and other cost pressures; and increase prices for consumers. If the concerns of industry are not addressed today, the Government also risk destroying our domestic capacity, leaving us reliant on highly polluting foreign imports. I have raised these issues with the Minister time and again, as have other hon. Members, British Glass and individual businesses. I cannot therefore understand the reticence to engage with these very real problems. The origins of EPR lie with the previous Administration, but by continuing this flawed and ultimately self-defeating approach, a Labour Government risk destroying a great British industry. Does the Minister really want to be responsible for killing off our most recyclable packaging producer?

• 14 May 2025 · Glass Packaging: Extended Producer Responsibility · Hansard source

  More

  Not at the moment. In the meantime, our Government are driving packaging customers decisively and permanently away from glass. If, for example, a brand sells 1 million half-litre bottles, the EPR fees for glass would be £72,000. If, on the other hand, the brand decides to put its product into plastic or aluminium, it will pay no EPR fees whatsoever. Officials and Ministers have argued that materials that are part of a deposit return scheme will be subject to set-up costs, and it is on those grounds that they are granted exemption from EPR fees for close to two and a half years. Yet those set-up costs are still unknown publicly and therefore cannot be, and have not been, considered by brands and retailers when making their packaging choices. The truth is that brands and retailers can avoid the imminent threat of additional costs from EPR by switching away from glass packaging to not pay EPR fees on their beverage products. Once those producers have decided to switch packaging materials, they must invest in new filling technology, and that makes it highly unlikely that they will ever switch back to glass. This is not a hypothetical problem. The glass industry is already seeing evidence of material-switching to less recyclable packaging. I know that DEFRA has been sent a great deal of evidence of material-switching but, let us be honest, this policy choice does not seem based on evidence but on some unfathomable ideology.

• 14 May 2025 · Glass Packaging: Extended Producer Responsibility · Hansard source

  More

  I completely agree with my hon. Friend: the Government need to pause, and I will go on to argue why they need to do that. One of the problems is that packaging producers are unable to exclude these products from their EPR liability. There is no way out for pubs and hospitality businesses other than to pay. The Wine and Spirit Trade Association has said: “Defra’s new rules do not work, and the vast majority of bottles sold in hospitality will pay EPR fees, completely unfairly. Defra are aware of their mistake but have admitted the issue would not be prioritised.” Why? For brewers, the cost of glass beer bottle packaging is estimated to be more than £150 million per year. These additional costs will ultimately be passed on to the consumers. The Government themselves estimate that 85% of EPR costs will fall on the end user. With the public already facing stubbornly high costs of living and inflationary pressure, I cannot comprehend why the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs is proceeding with a policy that its own analysis suggests may not meaningfully improve recycling rates. I urge the Minister to change course and step away from this madness. Let us look in detail at this flawed scheme. The exact methodology for calculating EPR has still not been fully shared, even though it came into effect last month. The process to date has been far from transparent. Based on current illustrative fees, glass is liable for around 30% of EPR costs, while only representing around 5% of in-scope material by volume. That is because fees are calculated by weight, not volume. Glass, as a relatively heavy material, suffers unfairly because of that, yet volume is the limiting factor when collecting and processing waste, not weight. British Glass has raised several areas that it believes are incorrect in the methodology for calculating the base fees, but it has received no certainty from DEFRA that these will be reflected in the final fees. I am aware that other packaging trade associations have serious concerns about the methodology used to create the base fees. The fee for glass currently stands at £240 per tonne, which equates to around 10p per glass bottle—significantly higher than under similar schemes in Europe. Germany is often cited, including by DEFRA, as having a good example of a successful EPR scheme. In Germany, the fee stands at £24, or €28, per tonne of glass. I appreciate that collection methods are different in Europe so the comparison is not exact, but are we seriously expected to believe it costs 10 times as much to collect and process glass in the UK as it does in Germany? The policy makes even less sense when we consider that brands and retailers do not buy packaging by weight, but by unit. That is why it is essential to have an EPR fee that takes into account unit numbers. Recyclable glass can be 20 times heavier than less recyclable packaging, resulting in vastly disproportionate EPR fees on glass. When I raised these issues previously, the Minister acknowledged that the per-unit impact on glass is higher than for other materials, yet the Government have failed to address that, calling into question their repeated claim that the policy is material-neutral. That is simply not true. Glass is being penalised. The implementation of EPR leaves glass at the mercy of its competitors. Glass beverage containers have been subject to EPR fees since the start of April 2025. Competing materials such as aluminium and plastic will face no policy fees until the introduction of the DRS in, at the earliest, October 2027.

• 14 May 2025 · Glass Packaging: Extended Producer Responsibility · Hansard source

  More

  I beg to move, That this House has considered the impact of extended producer responsibility for packaging on glass packaging producers. It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Stringer. In the UK, the glass manufacturing sector supports more than 120,000 jobs, adding £2.2 billion to the economy each year. I am immensely proud to have Beatson Clark in my constituency, which has been manufacturing glass in Rotherham for more than 270 years. It is a key local employer, and the only remaining independent UK-owned glass container manufacturer. It is also the only company in the UK that still produces amber pharmaceutical glass. After adding in the supply chain, more than 2,000 people are dependent on Beatson Clark for their livelihood. As we move to a fully circular economy, glass is the perfect packaging material. It is infinitely recyclable, does not lose quality over time and does not release harmful microplastics into products, including the human body or the environment at large. It is easily and widely recyclable, with no degradation as part of the recycling process. Bottle banks were first introduced in the UK in the 1970s. Glass that was collected then is most likely still in circulation today. Glass manufacture is energy-intensive, but with electric and hybrid furnaces and readily available technology there is no reason why glass cannot be a net zero product in the not too distant future, especially with Government support with infrastructure and electricity costs, as per the Climate Change Committee’s recommendations. Yet, because of the Government’s dogged decision to press ahead with extended producer responsibility, initiated by the previous Administration, we instead face the decimation of our domestic glass industry. Job losses and the closure of sites are literally just around the corner. That is not the industry overreacting. British Glass has already received warnings from more than one beer and cider manufacturer that there is no future for glass in this country due to the EPR policy. EPR follows hot on the heels of a challenging few years for UK glass manufacturing. The energy crisis, increased costs and a reduction in trade tariffs from 6% to 0% since leaving the EU have made cheaper imported glass so much more attractive.

• 22 Apr 2025 · British Steel · Hansard source

  More

  Madam Deputy Speaker, you know that I am a proud steel MP, so it has pained me to watch my business wither on the vine under the last Government. I am incredibly grateful to the Minister for acting so decisively to save British Steel, but in the steel strategy, can she commit to look at the underlying problems affecting Liberty Steel, a speciality green steel producer, including high energy prices, business rates and other countries, particularly China, dumping their dirty, inefficient steel in our market?

• 25 Mar 2025 · Great British Energy Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I rise to speak to my amendment (a) to Lords amendment 2, which I hope might act as a bridge between our two Houses. Although I welcome this Bill, from the moment it started its journey through Parliament I have been issuing a warning. Without proper safeguards in place, our transition to net zero will be carried through on the backs of those in slavery. Renewable energy is vital for our transition to a low-carbon economy, but we know that human rights abuses are inherent in our green technology. There is evidence of child labour in cobalt mining in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, and of labour exploitation in nickel processing in Indonesia. Forced labour is committed at scale in Xinjiang in China, with the abuse of Uyghurs in steel production—a material that makes up nearly 80% of our wind turbines—and, of course, there is well-documented abuse in the production of solar panels. On Report, I was hugely grateful for the Energy Secretary’s commitment to me: “We have been clear that no company in the UK should have forced labour in its supply chain, and we will be working with colleagues across Government to tackle the issue of the Uyghur forced labour in supply chains” —[ Official Report , 29 October 2024; Vol. 755, c. 775.] But too often we have accepted warm words at the Dispatch Box that have failed to materialise. The Bill is a serious piece of legislation, not least as the Government have committed to capitalising GB Energy with over £8.3 billion. If companies want to benefit from taxpayers’ money, they must be able to prove that their supply chains are free of forced labour. I have tabled amendment (a) to that effect, as it would place the burden of proof on businesses. Cross-Government working is the only way to end the stagnation in our response to modern slavery. Once slavery is found, we must take action, including by placing rogue companies on the Procurement Act’s debarment list to ban them from winning other public contracts. The public deserve a guarantee that their money will not be used to fund human rights abuses. To quote a Business and Trade Minister, “no company should have abuses in their supply chains”, so I admire Ministers’ resolve to give genuine commitments to root out slavery in their areas of responsibility. When it comes to GBE, my amendment offers a simple, cost-effective method to achieve that. I am glad that the Minister agrees, but for clarity, let me repeat what I believe he has committed to and push him a little further. Primarily, will the Minister confirm that there will be clarity within GB Energy’s strategic objectives and framework document that designated companies must not use forced labour in any part of their supply chains, and that that needs to be mapped down to raw materials? I am glad that there will be a cross-ministerial working group to work across Departments to tackle slavery in supply chains—that is exactly what needs to happen—and a commitment to leverage the Procurement Act’s debarment list where there is evidence of bidders or suppliers with unethical supply chains. Let us remember that the Act includes discretionary grounds that do not require a conviction. Of course, all of that requires a designated leader within GBE to take accountability. Finally, I have one more ask: will the Minister prioritise buying British to boost our economy and avoid the risk of reliance on slave-made renewables from international sources? Of course, the issue of modern slavery is bigger than renewables, but we must start somewhere. With a clear path and strong commitments, GB Energy can lead from the front and stop the UK becoming a dumping ground for slave-made goods. Based on the Minister’s word, and having sought those clarifications, I will not press my amendment. I hope it also satisfies the other place that the Minister has listened and acted to stamp out modern slavery in GB Energy’s future procurement, and I thank the Minister for that.

• 5 Mar 2025 · Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office · Hansard source

  More

  My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The work that the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office has done to protect the most vulnerable—I am thinking particularly of children, people with disabilities and people in marginalised communities—is exemplary, but I cannot stand here and say that we will be able to continue funding that. I just do not think it is technically possible. Research commissioned by More in Common has found that 55% of the British public support the UK giving both humanitarian and military aid to Ukraine, and that more than half believe that aid spending is worthwhile if it helps to boost the UK economy and protect national security. Even with a reduced aid budget, much better decisions can and must be taken going forwards. In recent years, a scandalously large amount of ODA has been diverted primarily to the Home Office to support asylum seekers and refugees in the UK. In 2023, this took up 28% of the entire aid budget, costing £4.2 billion. It is welcome that the proportion of the ODA budget spent domestically is set to decrease very slightly this year, but unless these costs are reduced significantly in the next two years, the UK is set to spend nearly half its remaining ODA budget on domestic refugee costs by 2027. That cannot be right. Of course, these people need supporting, but that should not come out of the ODA budget. I urge the Government to cap the amount of ODA that the Home Office can draw on for in-country refugee costs; if they do not, there is simply no incentive for the Home Office to address its spending. The Home Office is, of course, not the only Department raiding aid. The Departments for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, for Education and for Science, Innovation and Technology all regularly draw down ODA and do not, in some cases, deliver as well or as transparently as the FCDO. Will the Minister comment on taking these programmes back into the FCDO, or asking the Departments to reimburse at least part of the finance that they draw down from ODA? The supplementary estimates saw a boost in the FCDO’s allocation of headline ODA spending for this financial year. However, a large proportion of this increase—almost £500 million—was sent to British International Investment in what appeared to be a last-minute panic to ensure that the Government fulfilled their commitment to spending 0.5% of national income on aid. Do not get me wrong: BII does excellent work investing debt and equity in businesses in the developing world for the long term to facilitate beneficial and developmental economic growth. However, it is not set up to take immediate and short-term investment decisions, and should not be expected to do so. Debate is also ongoing over giving BII the ability to borrow against its investments; in the fiscal circumstances, I urge the Minister to look at that closely. There are a number of issues on which the Government could consider changing policy and legislation, including debt relief, illicit finance and special drawing rights. That could have significant impact on the lives of the poorest in the world, at no expense to the British taxpayer. Could the Minister also comment on potential multipliers of aid? I am thinking specifically about philanthropic match funding and UK Aid Match, which could be used more readily. This year’s estimates enable the FCDO to continue to employ world-leading experts in development aid. In a rapidly changing world in which we face huge challenges, maintaining this expertise is not a luxury but a necessity if the UK is to achieve global progress and safeguard our collective future. Despite the damage done to its budgets, the FCDO must prioritise protecting its skilled staff, who offer so much to low and middle-income countries when deployed effectively. My Committee and I were with FCDO staff in Scotland when these cuts were announced last week. Staff were understandably devastated, with this announcement adding considerably to the uncertainty they have faced over the past five years. The best way to retain our staff, and indeed our international reputation, is with clarity about the forthcoming spending cuts. Will there be a defined step down or a cliff edge to funding in 2027? A commitment today that the budget will be 0.4%—or more—in ’26-27 would be hugely reassuring, as would confirmation that there will be no additional cuts in the spending review for this financial year. I urge that an equality impact and risk management assessment be done, and presented to the House, before the Government make their tough decisions on what to cut and what to save. In the 2021 round of cuts, we saw funding for women and girls cut by 66% from its peak in 2017. Let us never do that again. From 2023, the UK was the 10th largest spender of aid as a proportion of its gross national income. A cut to 0.3% will leave us in 25th place. That is simply unacceptable for a nation with such a proud history in helping those most in need and a Government who are rightly placing themselves as a leader on the international stage. I wish to finish with the powerful words of a speech delivered in this Chamber on 13 July 2021, when the Conservative Government’s decision to reduce aid spending from 0.7% to 0.5% was confirmed. The House was told: “Cutting aid will increase costs and have a big impact on our economy. Development aid—we all know this—reduces conflict, disease and people fleeing from their homes. It is a false economy to pretend that this is some sort of cut that does not have consequences.” The speaker continued: “Our overseas aid budget goes beyond that moral obligation: it also helps build a more stable world and keeps us safer in the UK…This cut will also reduce UK influence just when it is needed most, and of course it risks leaving a vacuum that other countries—China and Russia, for example—will fill.” —[ Official Report , 13 July 2021; Vol. 699, c. 177-178.] That speaker was the then Leader of the Opposition putting forward an inarguable case against the folly of making massive aid cuts. His words are as true now as they were then. May I urge the Minister and the Government to listen to the words of the then Leader of the Opposition, the now Prime Minister, and reconsider this?

• 4 Feb 2025 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  The Government procurement budget is around £300 billion. Can the Minister please tell us what percentage of his allocation will go to British businesses? Will he confirm that where we have to import, no modern slavery will be imported into this country?

• 21 Jan 2025 · Environmental Protection · Hansard source

  More

  I rise happier than when I sat down. I thank the Minister for clarifying that. The sector has legitimate concerns that the DRS will lead to poor environmental outcomes, with less recycled glass going back for remelt, as it will likely be crushed in the process, thus rendering it unsuitable for its purpose. The DRS could also cause storage and safety issues for both consumers and retailers, especially smaller shops. The Republic of Ireland did not include glass in its scheme. It is important to point out that the DRS is not a reuse scheme; it is a collection scheme. Many people reminisce about the UK’s old deposit scheme, but that was a deposit refill scheme, which is completely different from the proposed DRS. Wales has achieved a 90% glass collection rate from kerbside collections without the need for DRS, and is ranked second in the world for recycling. Following the Welsh Government’s recent announcement that they will withdraw from the four-nations DRS and re-examine its scope, it seems to me and many others that the scheme will be ineffective across the UK. Will the Minister tell us what consideration has been given to the Welsh blueprint for collection, which would be the simplest way to improve recycling rates? Given that local authorities receive money from the extended producer responsibility, it is a shame that the Government are not encouraging them to use it to improve collection quality. The glass sector supports the principle behind the extended producer responsibility, but it sees the excessively high EPR fees on glass packaging as punishment for speaking out. The arrangement in Germany is often cited, including by DEFRA, as a good example of an EPR scheme, yet its glass fee is more than 10 times lower than the UK’s, at €28 per tonne. According to the indicative figures recently announced by DEFRA, the fee will be £240 per tonne in the UK. In my discussions with the Minister last Monday, she confirmed that the final EPR figures were unlikely to be finalised until June. How is a business meant to budget on that basis? I urge her to take a serious look at the indicative figures to see if they can be reduced dramatically; otherwise, we will lose the most recyclable sector. Currently, per unit, glass is facing significantly higher fees than less recyclable, less circular materials. That goes against everything that other Government policies are trying to achieve, and I ask the Minister if they are really confident that the EPR policy and other waste policies will lead to more recyclable packaging in the UK. Further, the delay to the DRS means that there is a two-and-a-half-year period when glass beverage containers will be paying EPR fees while competing beverage containers will not, due to being in the DRS. Put bluntly, this Government are driving businesses towards less recyclable packaging such as plastic in those two and a half years. It was never intended that EPR would be in place before the DRS, and this leaves glass at a huge competitive disadvantage in the beverage market, which makes up 80% of the glass market. Given the history and the uncertainty that still exists around the DRS, it is vital that all materials pay EPR fees until the DRS is fully functional, to create a level playing field for all beverage packaging. There is a backstop for 2028, but can I ask the Minister to clarify whether the backstop fees will be backdated to April this year when EPR launches?

• 21 Jan 2025 · Environmental Protection · Hansard source

  More

  I am very proud that Beatson Clark manufactures glass right in the heart of my constituency and has done so for 270 years; it employs 200 people directly and a further 2,000 in the supply chain. Glass can be recycled almost infinitely. Currently, almost 74% of glass is recycled, and 80% of that comes from kerbside collections. I recently met representatives of Beaston Clark and British Glass, and they all expressed grave concerns about the impact of this Government’s current policies on the glass sector. DEFRA’s latest figures show that the number of glass containers placed on the market in 2024 was 23% lower than earlier estimates. With increased pressure from imported glass, the outlook for UK manufacturers is indeed grim. UK glass manufacturers are already under severe pressure. The failure to introduce tariffs on imported glass, predominantly from Turkey, has left the industry facing punishing competition from overseas producers, who have significantly lower energy costs and no carbon charges. Although the move towards a circular economy as part of environmental improvements is laudable, it will ultimately be futile if the outcome is dependent on foreign imports, with no environmental impact mitigations in place. Can the Minister confirm whether imported glass will face the same EPR, and who will be liable to pay it?

• 12 Dec 2024 · Business of the House · Hansard source

  More

  Labour committed in our manifesto to phasing out animal testing—a goal that is not only widely supported by the public, but critical to advancing scientific innovation. However, that achievement requires cross-departmental work. Will the Leader of the House allow time to debate that issue so that Parliament can explore how to turn that commitment into concrete action, and will she join me in hoping for a cruelty-free Christmas?

• 3 Dec 2024 · UK Supply Chains: Uyghur Forced Labour · Hansard source

  More

  (Urgent Question) : To ask the Secretary of State for Business and Trade if he will make a statement on the links between the UK’s supermarket supply chains and Uyghur forced labour.

• 28 Nov 2024 · Business of the House · Hansard source

  More

  If anyone wants evidence of what a Labour Government can do, they need look no further than the mineworkers’ pension scheme. Within weeks of coming into office, the scheme got £1.5 billion returned, which has made a huge difference to nearly 1,000 of my constituents. Yet the British coal staff superannuation scheme, which is subject to similar arrangements, has not seen such a return of funds. Could we have a debate in Government time to get to the bottom of this crucial issue?

• 29 Oct 2024 · Great British Energy Bill · Hansard source

  More

  My hon. Friend pre-empts me. This will work only if we do it across the whole of Government and in all sectors, and I want my Government to be leading the way on that. We have a hugely important role to play internationally, as well as in our own industries. The UK’s failure to keep pace with our partners has resulted in the global supply chain splitting. Slave-made renewable products are being redirected to countries with weaker regulations, such as the UK. As the other place’s Modern Slavery Act 2015 Committee recently recognised, without forced labour import bans, the UK risks becoming a dumping ground for tainted products. Current legislation, such as the Modern Slavery Act 2015 and the Procurement Act 2023, cannot meet the scale of the problem, especially while human rights due diligence remains optional for companies. I appreciate that the Department is looking into these issues through the solar taskforce’s upcoming solar road map, which I really welcome. However, the solar taskforce, made up mostly of industry voices, needs to have civil society and trade unions on the team for its work to be truly credible. That is especially the case given my concerns about Solar Energy UK’s solar stewardship initiative, or SSI, as I am doubtful that an industry-led solution can meet the scale of the challenges I have outlined today. A just transition is not only about international workers’ rights; it is also about securing UK jobs and industry. Our energy strategy must prioritise green jobs and wealth creation here, and avoid fuelling growth in economies known for cutting corners. Following my discussions with the industry and unions, it is clear that the UK’s inadequate response to these issues is creating a competitive disadvantage for businesses here and an uneven playing field internationally. If GB Energy allows exposure to state-imposed forced labour, it creates a distinct risk for investors and businesses here in the UK. The arguments I have laid out today have the support of unions, businesses and human rights advocates alike. They echo the sentiments of our Prime Minister, Foreign Secretary, Business Secretary and Energy Secretary. For too many years, tackling modern slavery has received a siloed, disjointed response from Government. We now have an opportunity to change that and to embrace cross-departmental, collaborative working. Renewable energy has a key role to play in our transformation to a low-carbon economy, but without placing human rights at its centre, our green transition will come at a grave cost. This Bill is aptly named the Great British Energy Bill. It simply cannot live up to its name if it depends on modern slavery to achieve its aims.

• 29 Oct 2024 · Great British Energy Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I welcome the Bill, which brings us one step closer to establishing this much-needed, publicly owned energy company. To quote the Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero, my right hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster North (Ed Miliband), at the UN General Assembly, this is a Government who are “willing to tell the truth” and “show international leadership” when it comes to climate change. In that spirit, I would like to bring to the attention of the House the importance of upholding human rights and the principles of a just transition in our renewable energy supply chains. I am heartened by the determination of our Front Bench to see human rights protected across our energy transition. When questioned on forced labour in the solar industry, the Secretary of State for Business and Trade, my right hon. Friend the Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (Jonathan Reynolds), stated that he “would expect and demand there to be no modern slavery in any part of the supply chain” —[ Official Report , 5 September 2024; Vol. 753, c. 418.] In a similar vein, the Minister for Development, my right hon. Friend the Member for Oxford East (Anneliese Dodds), recently spoke about “galvanising just energy transition partnerships, to making sure that everyone feels the benefits of green innovation”. While GB Energy must ensure that everyone benefits from green innovation, it must also guarantee that no one suffers from it. However, I have grave concerns that if we charge ahead with our net zero transition without safeguards in place, we will knowingly be doing that on the backs of those in slavery. Let me outline why. Wind turbines, solar panels, electric vehicles and battery storage all require large quantities of critical minerals. There is conclusive evidence of human rights abuses associated with critical minerals. The abuse is most severe and systemic in the Xinjiang Uyghur autonomous region of China, where the Chinese Government are systematically persecuting millions of Uyghur, Turkic and Muslim majority peoples on the basis of their religion and ethnicity. It is well documented that the lower tiers of our solar supply chains are concentrated there, and have a sinister dependency on state-imposed Uyghur forced-labour programmes. Those programmes have bolstered China’s global market share, which exceeds 80% across the whole solar PV supply chain. I raise these concerns not to undermine our business relationship with China, but because through the purchasing power of GB Energy, we can protect human rights around the world.

• 5 Sept 2024 · Great British Energy Bill · Hansard source

  More

  Thank you Madam Deputy Speaker, and may I congratulate you on being in the Chair? It is pleasing to me and a benefit to the House to have three strong women in that position. I also congratulate the hon. Member for Eastleigh (Liz Jarvis), who used her personal experience to speak of her pleasure and pride in her constituency. Her personal, lived experiences will make her a much stronger MP in this House; I welcome her to her place. Rotherham is a hub of innovative green energy research and production, which is integral to the UK’s energy transition. Our Advanced Manufacturing Research Centre—AMRC—boasts expertise in nuclear, fusion, hydrogen and the construction of offshore wind turbine blades. That creates good, skilled jobs for Rotherham and contributes more than £55 million to the South Yorkshire economy every year. The AMRC is also home to the UK’s first sustainable aviation fuel facility, and therefore I welcome the SAF Bill which is coming soon. Rotherham’s renewable production does not stop there. Our fusion technology facility works with industry and science, to pioneer fusion energy as a major source of low-carbon electricity. Templeborough power station, a biomass plant, sustainably converts waste wood into energy. It uses recycled sawdust, wood chippings and scrap that would go into landfill, and is used in my constituency by Esken Renewables to fuel the power station. In doing so it saves 150,000 tonnes of carbon dioxide every year. The research and innovation taking place every day in Rotherham gives it a unique role to play in this Government’s ambitious energy plans, and there is an open invitation to the Secretary of State and Ministers to visit the opportunities in my constituency. I ask the Minister to include community energy as one of the specific objectives in clause 3 of the Bill. An inquiry by the Environmental Audit Committee outlined the enormous contribution that community energy schemes can bring, while reducing dependency on international energy imports. I express my gratitude to Ministers for not pursuing the legal challenge on the closure of the Rosebank oilfield. When the Conservatives were in power they granted new oil and gas licences to sites such as Rosebank, but over a third of licences granted overlapped with marine protected areas and failed to consider the impact on biodiversity and marine health. MPAs are intended to protect rare, threatened and important species from damage caused by human activities. Instead, innumerable careless decisions by the last Government led to 215 spills over the previous 12 years, resulting in 308 tonnes of oil being spilled and a devastating biodiversity decline in the very areas we should be protecting the most. Like many in the Chamber I believe that solar energy has a key role to play in our transition to a low-carbon economy. However, I am concerned that without incorporating human rights mechanisms in the Bill, the transition will not be clean or just. It is well documented that solar photovoltaic supply chains have a sinister dependency on forced labour programmes in the Xinjiang autonomous region of China, where the Chinese Government are systematically persecuting millions of Uyghur, Turkic and Muslim- majority people on the basis of their religion and ethnicity. The People’s Republic of China’s global market share across the solar PV supply chain exceeds 80%. The Uyghur region has become the dominant global sourcing location for critical inputs for the solar industry. An estimated 35% of global polysilicon—used in almost all solar panels worldwide—is produced in Xinjiang. China’s rapid success in the industry has been achieved with low-cost, subsidised, dirty coal, completely undermining the green credentials it boasts. As early as 2021, the US enacted the Uyghur Forced Labour Prevention Act, which placed a ban on the importation of products from the Uyghur region, including shipments of solar panels with connections to Xinjiang. The legislation has been highly effective, with the market responding with new, ethical supply chains. Canada, the EU and Mexico have followed suit with similar regulations, but we have fallen behind. I urge the Minister to address that failing, now that evidence has emerged of global supply chains bifurcating, with tainted solar goods being redirected to countries with weaker regulation, such as the UK. Our nation has become a dumping ground for dodgy solar. With this Bill, it is vital that we make a U-turn on the mistakes of our predecessors. I welcomed the Secretary of State for Business and Trade saying this morning that he expects and demands “no modern slavery in any part” of our solar supply chain. He expressed a willingness to extend legislation to help tackle the problem. We must raise standards with this Bill by committing to the production and supply of clean energy that is free from slavery and state-imposed forced labour at any stage of the supply chain, and I will be tabling amendments to that effect. In tandem, we must seriously consider implementing an import ban. Like the US prevention Act, it would need to ban renewable energy products made in whole or in part with state-imposed Uyghur forced labour. I hope the Minister will meet me to discuss that further.

• 5 Sept 2024 · UK Steel Manufacturing · Hansard source

  More

  It is a real pleasure to see you in the Chair, Madam Deputy Speaker. I thank the hon. Member for Brigg and Immingham (Martin Vickers) for securing this important urgent question. Rotherham has a proud history of steelmaking, but I have been fighting against Governments for the last 12 years for it to have a proud future. Will the Minister commit to addressing the underlying issues, to making sure all Government procurement goes to British steel- makers, and to addressing the punitive business rates and high energy costs that are hampering our development?