EU: Counting the Cost of Food Waste (EUC Report)

Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer Excerpts

Thursday 6th November 2014 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer (LD)]

My Lords, many noble Lords have spoken about all the rational reasons why it is important not to waste food. Certainly, food security is not a given: we are in a very frail food chain.

As other noble Lords have mentioned, when we waste food we are wasting energy, which is an especially important consideration at a time of climate change. But we are also wasting water when we waste food. In fact, enough water is used in the irrigation of food grown globally that is wasted—that is, water irrigating just wasted food—for the domestic needs of 9 billion people. I got that figure from the wonderful Tristram Stuart, and I find it really shocking.

Furthermore, when we waste food we are wasting land. Here in the UK good quality agricultural land is pretty limited. Some people do not think we even have enough to spare some to allow the small percentage that it would take of extra hedgerows, grass strips and small copses to turn our farmland from somewhere that is failing wildlife at the moment into somewhere that is rich in biodiversity. I thoroughly agreed with the noble Lord, Lord Cameron of Dillington, when he said that it is in fact the nutrition per hectare that is important. That is an interesting shift in thinking, which has started in the last two or three years.

Finally, when we waste food we also are wasting money. Those are all very sound reasons not to waste food.

I believe that this report hits such a spot because food is such a cultural thing. If we think of the word “company”—as in “I enjoy your company”—it comes from “cum pane” and means literally “with bread”, as in “I am breaking bread with you”. As I am sure the noble Baroness, Lady Jenkin of Kennington, will appreciate, with her big dinner tonight, when you invite good friends round, you invite them for a meal; you do not invite them round just to sit on a chair. Therefore, the importance of the issue reaches beyond the actual numbers; it is a very cultural thing that we are wasting food and a comment on society. That is why I am very pleased that this excellent, measured and hard-hitting report from Sub-Committee D has already contributed so much to the essential movement to limit and eradicate food waste. The press coverage that it got when it came out is a credit to my noble friend the chairman and to the quality of the report.

The conclusions and recommendations struck me as very sound, and I shall just mention a few. As the committee says in its report, I was horrified by how little effort or emphasis the Commission has put into this subject so far. The report spells that out very clearly. But equally, here in the UK, I was saddened, as paragraph 159 demonstrated, by how little has happened over the past 10 or 15 years with regard to domestic food waste reduction. Of course, I appreciate how difficult that is. The reason why I have taken that timescale is that I stood down as a councillor in 2005, and in the nine years since then little seems to have changed.

I was interested in the reply—this was in the briefing pack for this debate from the Library—to a Commons Question on 23 June this year, which shows the breakdown of separate food waste by local authority. It is really patchy; some are performing pretty well, but the performance of some is absolutely abysmal. In Lambeth, where I am a council tax payer, they managed to recycle only a few hundred tonnes, and even that has halved over the three-year period. Yet some small rural districts are managing to recycle thousands of tonnes. When my noble friend the Minister replies, can he say why he thinks that there is such an uneven rate of success among local authorities? I know, and I agree, that normally Governments should be hands-off with local authorities, but this seems a particular case where encouragement and guidance really does not seem to have achieved much.

I am glad that the report’s final conclusion is that a voluntary approach is sound for now but that in five years’ time, if nothing has changed, it might need to be followed up by legislation. That was certainly underlined by my experience earlier in the week when I visited Brussels. My visit was the culmination of a report from the Industry and Parliament Trust, the Food Ethics Council and Warwick University, called The Long and the Short of It, which is about sustainable food supply chains. Among other things, we too found, as this committee’s report mentions in paragraph 212, that the DGs need to improve their co-ordination enormously. We were pleased to hear that at least the new Commission, even though it has been in place only for a short time, has already set up two horizontal working groups between environment and agriculture. Perhaps we can look forward to some more.

We also concluded that much of the investment, focus and drive for more sustainable food chains come largely from the private sector, and that it is the public sector that needs to catch up. However, for the debate today we received a briefing from the BRC that was helpful but struck me as slightly complacent. I would not like to think that the private sector was beginning to coast just because the public sector has a lot of catching up to do.

It is important to practise what you preach, and here in the House of Lords we are vigorously pursing the reduction path. Other noble Lords have mentioned the importance of the hierarchy. There is currently a food waste audit under way that is to report by Christmas. Our catering manager believes, correctly, that you need to know where the various elements of waste are arising, whether in preparation, uneaten portions or food offered but not chosen, before you can go for further reduction. The audit will give our catering department the tools to make us among the most sustainable restaurant categories with regard to waste. Currently, our food waste, which used to go for incineration, goes to an AD plant. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, that it is better for it to go to AD than nothing but that it is better for it not to be wasted in the first place.

Natural Capital Committee

Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer Excerpts

Thursday 24th October 2013 Grand Committee

Asked by

[Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what changes they will make in resource allocation in the light of the assessments of the Natural Capital Committee.

[Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer (LD)]

My Lords, the Natural Capital Committee is clearly a bit like a bus. There has been no mention of it in either House for ages, and then suddenly this week two debates come along at once. I am delighted about that. We are privileged in this House to have the Defra Minister responsible for it, my noble friend Lord De Mauley, to respond to us.

Although the Natural Capital Committee deals with many Defra matters, it was commissioned by the Treasury and reports to the Economic Affairs Committee of the Cabinet, which is chaired by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. The NCC’s job is to advise the Government on the state of English natural capital. The establishment of the NCC is one of the rather quiet but very significant things that the coalition has done. It is part of a package. In 2011, the Government also introduced the natural environment White Paper The Natural Choice and the UK national ecosystem assessment which shockingly found that one-third of the UK’s ecosystem services was declining severely. If the UK’s ecosystems were protected and enhanced, they could add at least an extra £30 billion annually to the UK economy. By contrast, neglect and loss of ecosystem services can cost us as much as £20 billion a year.

The Government made these moves as part of a plan. Previously, successive Governments and the public have really thought about natural capital only in response to a crisis, some sort of wake-up call, whether floods, droughts or food prices. The coalition Government were certainly reminded early on of just how much the public value natural capital when they announced their plan to sell off UK forests. The coalition Government learnt that the public value natural capital, even if they do not consider all parts of it.

I was moved to bring this debate as a result of a conference on soils. Soils are perhaps the most vivid illustration of our natural capital. The development of soil takes between 500 years and perhaps 10,000 years. Even a centimetre of topsoil takes at least 200 years to develop. Soil is the basis of our food production, but it is much more than that. It is important for carbon storage, water absorption and water filtering, and is crucial as the first layer in the food chain. How have we treated this virtually irreplaceable resource? We have allowed it to be eroded, polluted, washed away and built over. People may own the land, but the timescale that soil takes to form puts it into the category of a real commons for the nation—or natural capital.

Let us take another part of our natural capital that has been the subject of debate in our Chamber recently: bees. Pollinators are—to mix my metaphor—perhaps the canary in the coal mine. We do not know why bee colonies have collapsed; there seem to be several possible contributory factors. Only recently have people begun to appreciate that, beyond the luxury of honey, the pollinator services of bees and their many pollinating relatives are critical to food production. The collapse of bee populations is mirrored by those of frogs and other amphibians. Could it be that the use of substances such as neonicotinoids is having a much wider effect, or is it the cocktail of pesticides that needs further examination? It has always seemed bizarre to me that a product is tested alone when in reality a cocktail is being used out there.

That brings me to the first question for my noble friend. The NCC rightly sees developing a research agenda on natural capital as a priority. The research agenda on the constituents of natural capital is badly in need of some major help and overhaul. I have seen plenty of evidence which suggests that attempts to ensure the future health of our natural capital might be undermined unless research priorities are better aligned to overall needs and move away from the quick buck producing areas. The determinants of innovation and factors that influence research choices, such as science policies, public-private partnerships and the career paths available, all combine to favour technological regimes that tend to suit very focused, reductionist approaches rather than the holistic ecological approach that is needed to address ecosystems and the sort of complex interactions that we get between, for example, soil and water. Can my noble friend confirm that the Government will ensure a move to a more appropriate balance of research?

I have referred to a few other elements of natural capital such as water, minerals, stone, gravel and energy sources, whether oil or gas. They are all part of the natural capital that is fundamental to our manmade economy and society. We could not have a manmade economy if it was not underpinned by all those elements. Our failure to adequately protect our natural capital could well be a fatal step towards an economy that diminishes severely over time.

One of the problems is that efforts to protect our natural capital have too often been made on the basis of the intrinsic or aesthetic value of, say, woodlands, uplands, clean streams or bird populations. I accept that we may succeed in better protection if we explicitly demonstrate the value that society places on our natural assets, thereby protecting and maybe even enhancing them for future generations. The Natural Capital Committee is part of that effort. The first annual report of the NCC earlier this year contained a number of important recommendations, and I wonder if my noble friend would be able to comment on one of them. The NCC stated that,

“the Government’s efforts to reform the Common Agricultural Policy be intensified, with a long-term view to phasing out Pillar one support and moving subsides towards Pillar two and the provision of public goods”,

and thereby,

“securing as much flexibility as possible in how funding can be allocated for the period 2014-2020”.

If my noble friend could tell us how that work is going, I would be grateful. Will he also encourage the NCC to consider who should be the innovators of these approaches? Clearly, there will need to be some pilot areas; the national parks are one obvious example, but what about the Crown Estate? It is also responsible to the Treasury, and there it is with swathes of our natural capital under its management. Surely it should be a cradle of innovation.

I have a few comments to make on the NCC itself. It held a useful open event at the Royal Society and its first annual report is quite readable. However, the minutes of the NCC are dry to the point of desiccation. This is important because it needs to be outward facing if it is to succeed in integrating the thinking that is being developed into the mainstream and make it the discussion of the day in boardrooms. It will also need to develop some work with institutions such as Cranfield because it is disappointing to read that the Committee concluded,

“that it is not currently possible to identify with any certainty precisely which natural capital assets are being used unsustainably, especially given the available data and knowledge about limits and thresholds”.

That seems to be under-ambitious, although the Committee does go on to say that the rate at which natural assets are being consumed is “unprecedented”.

In conclusion, I must say that there are plenty of cynics out there who think that the NCC is just a way to suggest that the Government are after some green credentials. Whether that is the case or not will be proven in whether policies start to shift in decision-making across all departments, and by the Treasury itself in the way it allocates resources. We need some startling, if welcome, decisions and some much more radical policies.

The next debate, which my noble friend is also going to answer, is on the Thames Tideway Tunnel. That is a good example of what I am talking about. Faced with the same sort of problem as London, the city of Philadelphia chose a radically different solution, avoided many costs, enhanced its environment amazingly and brought solutions down to a neighbourhood scale. The NCC is perhaps looking at such worldwide examples of practice that could help its deliberations, and I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, may go into the Philadelphia example. The NCC is subject to review in 2014, and I certainly hope there will be no question but that it should continue. We really need its work.

Pesticides: Bees

Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer Excerpts

Wednesday 13th March 2013 Lords Chamber

[Lord De Mauley]

That was suggested to me this morning and I pointed out that it might not be something the Government would want to call it. The noble Lord makes several very interesting points, most of which I have forgotten in the hilarity. I thank him for his points.

[Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer]

My Lords, does the Minister agree that neonicotinoids are applied as a seed dressing and are therefore in the soil? One of the questions the Government need to look at under the precautionary principle is how long they last in the soil as they are lethal not only to bees but to many of the invertebrates that live in that soil.

[Lord De Mauley]

Yes, my Lords, and indeed persistence in soil is one of the tests that is considered.

Horsemeat and Food Fraud

Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer Excerpts

Monday 11th February 2013 Lords Chamber

[Lord De Mauley]

My Lords, I can assure the noble Lord that the Government take these issues extremely seriously. The FSA has certainly not dropped its guard. As my noble friend Lord Forsyth, said, it has been doing an extremely good job in very difficult circumstances and the Government are supporting it in that. As I explained earlier, the nature of sampling is risk based and focused on protecting consumers. Staff reductions have not affected the level of testing carried out on meat. Meat produced in UK approved slaughterhouses is inspected by official veterinarians and meat inspectors working under their direction. They also ensure that meat hygiene regulations are complied with in abattoirs and meat establishments.

[Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer]

My Lords, does the Minister agree with me that the length of the food chain is part of the problem? For example, in one lasagne you can get four or five sorts of meat from different sources, even if they all comprise beef. There are all sorts of things that people could mistrust, such as salami made from donkey. Labelling is absolutely crucial. If I may say so, checking as much as we can is only ever going to be a case of shutting the door after the horse has bolted.

[Lord De Mauley]

My Lords, I have a lot of sympathy with much of what my noble friend said. She is right: our supply chains are complicated nowadays but that is how the market has developed and we have to work with that. She is also right that labelling is absolutely key. We must ensure that it is accurate.

Crime: Wildlife Crime

Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer Excerpts

Thursday 31st January 2013 Lords Chamber

Asked by

[Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what progress they have made in tackling wildlife crime.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Lord De Mauley)]

My Lords, the Government are committed to the fight against wildlife crime. We have made real progress in recent years, including providing funding for the National Wildlife Crime Unit and introducing civil sanction powers for Natural England to deal with certain illegal activities. Internationally, among other things, we have helped fund Interpol projects, building enforcement capacity to conserve tigers, elephants and rhinos in the countries where they live in the wild.

[Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer]

I thank my noble friend for his Answer. I am sure he is therefore aware of the comments of the CITES Secretary-General, John Scanlon, about the huge increase in poaching of wildlife, especially in Africa, which he feels is going to help fund the insurgencies there. Domestically, in Britain, does my noble friend agree that poaching birds’ eggs, for example, is stealing our children’s inheritance as much as stealing the Crown jewels? What guidance will he give to the new police commissioners to make sure that they realise the seriousness of wildlife crime?

[Lord De Mauley]

My Lords, first, I am aware that John Scanlon recognises the increasing involvement of organised crime in illegal wildlife trade. He has welcomed the UN Security Council’s call for an investigation into the alleged involvement of the Lord’s Resistance Army in the poaching of African elephants and the smuggling of ivory. Police and crime commissioners will hold their chief constables to account for the totality of their policing, which includes the chief constable working in collaboration with other police forces and agencies to address national issues that impact on their communities. As I have said, we believe that there is often a link between organised wildlife crime and other organised crimes, such as drugs and arms trafficking. We therefore expect the police to take wildlife crime seriously where it is a priority for their communities; co-operation with the NWCU will be key to this.

EUC Report: EU Freshwater Policy

Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer Excerpts

Wednesday 5th December 2012 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer]

My Lords, I was a member of Sub-Committee D for two terms and very much enjoyed my time on it. During the first term we looked at the water framework directive and its introduction; during the second term we did a quick follow-up inquiry. So I am particularly grateful to have the opportunity today to listen to the introduction by the noble Lord, Lord Carter of Coles. I am also grateful to other members of the committee who will contribute today, and for the opportunity to make a few brief points myself.

This debate on water issues should be the first of many that we will have. As the noble Lord, Lord Carter, said, the recent floods and the drought that we had earlier in the year are an indication of how severe things are likely to get with the more extreme weather that climate change is predicted to bring. Even before that, water policy has been seen as more and more crucial over the past 20 years. I believe that it was President Gorbachev who founded Water for Life and Peace because he saw it as one of the areas that would give rise to conflict in the 21st century. There is no doubt that we cannot afford to be complacent in any way about water from any point of view of security, whether actual security or food security, and so on.

Today I will limit myself to talking about priority substances, governance in terms of the water framework directive, and measurement of successful quality improvement of water bodies. First, I will talk about the priority substances explained on pages 13 and 14 of the report. A great many were listed by the water framework directive the first time around. There was an indicative list of main pollutants, of which some of the most worrying were those that possessed carcinogenic or mutagenic properties, or properties that can affect the reproductive and hormonal functions of creatures, including ourselves, of course. Then there are the persistent hydrocarbons and bio-accumulable organic toxic substances, which are all worrying, and that list is now to be added to.

The fact is that since we talked about this the first time, I do not think that we have got anywhere near tackling the substances on the current list. They have been placed in the “too difficult” box, or are too expensive to tackle. As the noble Lord, Lord Carter of Coles, has said, the estimate at the moment is that they will cost £27 billion to clean up. However, we have known for more than a decade, for example, that the endocrine disruptors are affecting the ability of dog whelks to breed. Before anyone thinks, “Well, who cares about dog whelks?”, the same effect is likely to spread to fish. Then there is the news today, which is very topical given this debate, of the much lower sperm counts in France. Maybe we are busy wiping ourselves out as a species, through our water. In any case, it is a form of pollution that must be tackled as a priority.

Paragraph 48 of the report suggests that we need “more knowledge” before tackling existing and new pharmaceuticals. However, given the science that we are already beginning to see and examples such as those I have just mentioned, we cannot afford to wait for another decade before we take action. Effluent-containing substances, such as endocrine disruptors and other things that could affect the ability of the whole gamut of animals to breed, will require waste water treatment when such things are flushed. As long as we persist in flushing such drugs out of our body, down the lavatory and into the rivers, we are going to have a very dangerous problem.

The report does not mention—at least I did not spot it—nano-substances. This is another very worrying development. The development of nanosilver is under way as an effective way of cleaning clothes in a virtually water-free way, but will those substances end up in our waste water, too? I think that the report is right to mention the worries, but it does not put over urgently enough the need to deal with them.

As the report says, governance is a key issue; linking communities back into their rivers and catchment is the way to affect behaviour change in our use of water and valuing of ecosystems. Some very good work has been done by the Wildlife Trust, for example, giving examples of how our water use can lower river levels until they cease to be viable ecosystems.

In paragraph 200, however, the report is plainly wrong, when it says that,

“novel governance approaches are despite, rather than because of, EU policy”.

Actually, it was quite the opposite. The original water framework directive really encouraged public involvement under Article 14, which was quite a long article—I shall not read it all out now. It was basically about public information and consultation and it said:

“Member States shall encourage the active involvement of all interested parties in the implementation of this Directive”.

It went on to specify a number of ways in which that would happen. Here in the UK, the attempt the first time round was, with a few notable exceptions, pretty poor.

I should declare an interest at this moment, because my husband was chairman of the Wessex Regional Flood Defence Committee and chaired one of the pilot catchment areas. We had debates on record in this Chamber; the noble Baroness, Lady Young of Old Scone, took part in them when she was at the Environment Agency. The agency was at that time unwilling to involve the public as much as the spirit of the water framework directive encouraged. Water companies were caught up in issues such as pricing and what comes out of the tap rather than whole-cycle costings. So at the time we wasted the opportunity for the public to be involved, and it is not because Europe got it wrong but because we did not interpret the water framework directive correctly.

There is also a problem of size. The designated size of the river basins means that the public will never relate to those, and I accept that the Government do not expect them to. Catchment areas or even subsets of those are what communities relate to. The smaller the geographical unit, the more likely you are to get real public involvement.

The recommendation in paragraph 201 is right in saying that one key is local authority energy and engagement with the water framework directive, and it goes on to suggest that some sort of duty could be put on water companies and local authorities to co-operate with each other. That is a constructive and helpful suggestion, because we need to kick-start that co-operation to get a far more engaged basis for this sort of work. The best results to date of catchment management plans have been exactly as a result of this approach, where local authorities have really got stuck in with their water companies and changed the way in which many things happen.

Finally, on measurement of water body status, I am very pleased that the report concentrates on the fact that status categories are too blunt. Paragraph 180 talks about “mapping of ecosystem services” informing choices of,

“technological solutions to be applied”,

moving away from the,

“‘one size fits all’ approach”.

The evidence from the Westcountry Rivers Trust is that,

“water quality objectives at present are only quasi-ecological”,

and are based on,

“point source pollution but not diffuse acute pollution”.

The trust mentions,

“biotic indices for macro-invertebrates”.

The point is that the initial water framework directive was a first attempt, and most member states had, and still have, big problems, as the noble Lord pointed out, with measuring water body quality in an outcome-related fashion. Nevertheless, refining measurements should be an absolutely key priority for us in the UK for this next phase, which ties in with governance.

I expect that your Lordships remember how the public imagination was caught by fish returning to the Thames as a sign that it was getting much cleaner. Fishermen and birdwatchers, who observe the top of the river food chain, have a good idea of the health of the river. Of course, the absence of creatures at the top of the chain might be due to other causes, as was the case with otters. However, the presence of creatures at the top of the food chain in numbers that you might expect, whether they are kingfishers, cormorants, otters, water voles, salmon or trout, means that things are likely to be healthy at the bottom of the chain, too. The Environment Agency’s website has a map you can interrogate on local river quality—and that is a very good start. It shows chemical quality and nutrient quality, but biological quality usually seems to be left blank. Is that because the mapping has not been done, which is what the report hints at?

I congratulate the committee again on a very helpful report, which will push us in the right direction.

Trees: British Ash Tree

Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer Excerpts

Monday 5th November 2012 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer]

My Lords, I congratulate the noble Earl on securing this debate. He and other noble Lords who have spoken have brought a lot of expertise to bear on this issue, so I shall just stick to a couple of points. First, this is not just a European issue; it is a global issue. I can go back as far as June 1987 to the New York Times headline that says “Unstoppable disease killing New York ash trees”. It goes on to say:

“Scientists first noticed it in the 1930s and believe that ‘ash dieback’ has progressively spread throughout the northeastern states and parts of eastern Canada”.

So it has gradually been circling the globe. Of course, we do not know exactly when it got to Europe, but we know that it is spreading here. We are not sure how it is borne, whether as noble Lords have said it is blown or carried by birds or imported in saplings. The fact is that the global movement of people and animals, as my noble friend Lady Parminter graphically put it, has created something that is really out of control. That does not mean to say that we should not try to do something about it—but in the long term we need to look to the seed banks. The noble Earl mentioned that in his introduction. I would like to agree with him very strongly on that, because there will no doubt be ash trees that are resistant and there will no doubt be the opportunity to breed from them. That is the long-term programme that we need to pursue, not just for ash trees but for oak trees and pine trees and all our woodland. We need to collect the seed from those resistant trees and breed trees for the future.

With other noble Lords, I join in looking forward to a revival of the Forestry Commission’s research programme, which was rather cut back over recent years. This should be a major part of what we do, together with the seed banks at Kew and the Natural History Museum, with all the expertise that sits in those two places. If there is one thing that we know, it is that native trees over centuries and millennia built up resistance to local pests, diseases and fungal infections. With the global movement, completely different ones, to which they have no natural resistance, have entered the country. That is what we need to deal with. In the long term, it can be dealt with only by developing these resistant strains. So while I welcome the suggestions that other noble Lords have made about controlling the disease if we can in the short term, we must look to the long term.

Water: National Grid

Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer Excerpts

Wednesday 28th March 2012 Lords Chamber

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

No, I cannot accept the noble Lord’s premise. The Government owe it to all consumers to make sure that the water is of the highest standards and there can be no derogation from that obligation. The noble Lord is quite right that infrastructure costs money, but the water companies can be incentivised to provide just that.

[Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer]

My Lords, what importance do the Government give to some of the work being undertaken at, for example, the University of Leeds on the development of water-free washing machines and at other institutions on water-free lavatories? Is not the effort on finding ways of using much less water worthy of a great deal of investment?

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

My noble friend makes a very good point, indicating that water efficiency is one of the key strategies which it is in all our interests to pursue, particularly at this time when drought threatens a good deal of the country. That and water capture and storage are strategies which individuals and businesses can undertake for themselves.

Water Industry (Financial Assistance) Bill

Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer Excerpts

Tuesday 27th March 2012 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer]

My Lords, this is a slightly confusing situation when a money Bill has to be presented by a Defra Minister. I hope that that device, if I may call it that, or the process that this is going through, will not be one that our Government have to resort to very often. I do not want to detain the House at all. I want to give up the time that I would have used to my noble friend Lord Taylor of Goss Moor, who has worked on this issue for many years. Simply, I would say that having lived in the south-west myself for so many years, I am extremely happy to see this coming forward. I am also looking forward very much to hearing the contribution of the noble Earl, Lord Selborne, who worked so hard on this issue with the commission that he chaired.

I have one question. Presumably the infrastructure that was mentioned as being eligible for grant, loan or guarantee is hard rather than soft engineering or very different solutions such as fitting all houses with waterless lavatories, if that were an option in future. I would be grateful if the Minister would comment on that.

Food: Waste

Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer Excerpts

Tuesday 20th March 2012 Lords Chamber

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

The noble Lord is right: anaerobic digestion is a very good process for converting food waste. I was trying to emphasise that the most important aspect of food waste is to eliminate it at source, if you can. However, where food waste arises, AD is a very effective method. Indeed, we have an AD strategy plan, which includes a £10 million loan fund to set up new capacity. WRAP offered the first loan of £800,000 to a Wiltshire-based company, Malaby Biogas, in January 2012. Other actions to promote innovation in the AD sector, particularly on a small scale, are very much part of our strategy.

[Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer]

My Lords, for those of us lucky enough to have gardens or allotments, the incentive to compost is obviously much greater, but what incentive does the Minister offer to households without either of those to separate out their food waste?

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

This is part and parcel of the CLG process of looking for weekly collections. In partnership with local authorities, we in Defra hope to encourage food waste as a separate waste stream. Certainly that has been our policy, and many of the local authorities that are putting in bids to the CLG are doing so on the basis of a separate food waste collection.