Agriculture: Animal Feed

Lord Knight of Weymouth Excerpts

Tuesday 6th December 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord Knight of Weymouth]

My Lords, I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Jenkin, on instigating this short debate and on the way she introduced it. She made a powerful case for change and asked valid questions on, for example, what is being done to encourage supermarkets to divert more food waste for animal feed. I also agree that more research is needed on feeding catering waste to animals. The noble Lord, Lord Greaves, supported her and wanted more to be done to reduce food waste in the first place, although I felt that he advocated a little more caution. The noble Baroness, Lady Byford, then went much further down the caution spectrum in harmony with the National Farmers’ Union. Finally, the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, gave an equally well informed speech inspired by the work of Tristram Stuart. Her contribution was particularly important in articulating some of the environmental arguments.

For my part, it is clear that this is a very sensitive issue; sensitive for consumers and producers alike. At one level, it could be thought that this is quite simple and a win-win-win for producers, consumers and the environment that has been turned into a lose-lose-lose for all three by dint of risk-averse stable-door regulation—and, indeed, the argument is tempting. Each year, as we have heard and according to the Farmers Guardian, some 16 million tonnes of food is wasted in this country at a cost of £22 billion. That is truly shocking and the Government need to explain how they hope to reduce it.

A couple of weeks ago I was talking to a friend who lives with a somewhat obsessive son in his early 20s who is now a “freetarian”. He will only eat free food. I gather that a couple of times a week he goes out in the small hours in his van and sees what he can find in the skips at the back of supermarkets. His family and their friends now rarely buy food. They already have the Christmas turkey in the freezer and some whole cheeses, while the rugby club has a good supply of out-of-date beer. Some supermarkets are apparently much better than others. I gather that Marks & Spencer very rarely throws away anything that is edible. It is not for me to comment on the safety or legality of this practice, but it demonstrates that a lot of food is thrown away and, in this case, is being used for human consumption with no ill effect that I am aware of.

The argument goes that if all this food is being thrown away, why not feed it to animals under a regulatory regime that protects human and animal health? Would not that be better for the environment than putting it into landfill? We have heard those arguments articulated very well this evening. Indeed, as the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, particularly made clear, the environment would also win because the feed would displace costly imports, especially of soya. I read an article in the May edition of Farmers Weekly by the much quoted Tristram Stuart in which he stated that,

“the EU imports 40 million tonnes of soya a year. Producing that soya comes at a huge environmental cost. If we made use of waste food for animal feed, we could substantially reduce pig farmers’ costs of production as well as having a significant environmental impact”.

This is exacerbated by the shortage in availability of GM-free animal feed protein, which causes prices to rocket while imported products are allowed in, despite having been fed GM diets. Perhaps in passing the Minister could answer the questions put by the noble Baroness, Lady Byford, on essentially whether there are plans to level the playing field for producers. Or, perhaps, given what I saw today on the BBC website around the difficulty of banning the import of illegally produced eggs from battery hens, it might be in Defra’s “too difficult” drawer. I am sure that the Minister will enlighten us.

On the face of it, waste food that is being thrown away could be fed to livestock that currently are being fed expensive, environmentally damaging food. It looks like a win-win-win, for producers, environmentalists and consumers. This is reinforced by other academics. I saw a paper this evening by Elferink, Nonhebel and Moll—I think they are Dutch—in 2007, which concluded that,

“the use of current food residue keeps the environmental impact of livestock foods relatively low”.

However, as the National Farmers’ Union points out, it is not as simple as that. As we have heard, the practice of feeding waste food from home kitchens and catering establishments was banned following the 2001 foot and mouth outbreak. With the devastation caused by that outbreak, I think it is right to be cautious.

It is also the case that over a million tonnes of co- and by-products from food manufacturing are already used by the pig industry, and that was detailed in the speech by the noble Baroness, Lady Byford. As she said, all products have to be Feed Materials Assurance Scheme-assured, and the use of waste products as animal feed is fine as long as it is properly audited. The risk of going further is that the risks of cross-contamination with meat products increase and we have another animal health disaster.

If a viable scheme were possible, with supermarkets that separated food waste so that only suitable waste went to livestock, would the retailer risk the reputational damage if anything went wrong? What if one of their staff accidentally sorted the waste wrongly? If hobbyist pig farmers—I know this was in the NFU briefing—saw that supermarket food waste was being fed to animals, would they go back to feeding their animals anything and regarding pigs as a natural dustbin? That would be a disastrous outcome. We, therefore, need to proceed with care. That is why, in the end, I am more at the Byford end of the caution spectrum.

The obscene levels of food waste need to be tackled. I ask the Minister what his Government's proposals are to tackle it. Is this something the grocers’ adjudicator could also report on? Are there going to be incentives for others uses of food waste? We have heard a little about anaerobic digestion, and had some enthusiasm from one or two of the supermarket chains about it. Could that be encouraged by Defra and DECC? As others have said, what can be done in relation to biofuels? Are there more industries that have food waste as a by-product that could dispose of their food by feeding it to livestock?

I end by repeating some of the questions raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Jenkin, around research. Is the department funding research into sterilization of some food to make this possible? As we have heard tonight, there are conflicting claims about the scientific evidence that proved the feeding of waste food to pigs links to foot and mouth or swine fever. Is the Minister confident of the scientific link? If not, is the chief vet ensuring the research is being done?

This is not straightforward. It is right to take a precautionary approach, however tempting it is to go for the win-win-win. The Government need to take a lead, and reassure producers and consumers that they will be led by the science. We need to be reassured that the Minister then has the budget to ensure the science is being done.

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

My Lords, I would like to thank my noble friend Lady Jenkin of Kennington for bringing this topical debate to the House. It has been a very interesting debate—not quite a love-in but, none the less, we seem to have all agreed on a number of elements in this issue.

Perhaps I can help the debate by updating the House on the current position. Defra is funding a review of the available evidence on the benefits and risks of using food waste in animal feed, which lies at the heart of the debate we have had this evening. This is a desk study, being conducted by FERA, and it is due to report in May 2012. Six months from now we should have further information on the science, as the noble Lord, Lord Knight, rightly asked about. The study will review the existing evidence base to examine the risks to human and animal health, the social and environmental sustainability and the economics of using food waste in animal feed.

Preventing food waste is better, environmentally, than any other treatment and can offer benefits for businesses and households. I am grateful to my noble friend Lady Miller of Chilthorne Domer for making it clear that WRAP has been working really hard on this front and indeed reducing waste, by consent, through the Courtauld agreement, with Courtauld commitment 2 about to come in. However, some food waste will always arise. The waste review states that such waste should be kept out of landfill and treated in the most sustainable way.

Anaerobic digestion and composting enable treatment of food waste as a valuable resource. Anaerobic digestion provides renewable energy and a valuable source of biofertilisers. I share with my noble friends my thanks to my noble friend Lady Jenkin for the opportunity to read the book by Tristram Stuart, which has been much quoted this evening. I am not sure that, on the information currently available, I can accept his thesis as it stands, but our research should inform us on this subject, and I am sure noble Lords would want that to be the case. It is certainly a very welcome contribution to this debate. We can say that all of us this evening share a common agenda to reduce food waste.

I know that evidence has been presented to show that feeding food waste to pigs may be better in some cases than the recovery of its energy in an AD plant. I hope the Defra-funded study currently under way will clarify the evidence that exists on the issue. Meanwhile, I am anxious to encourage the charitable distribution of potential retail food waste. My noble friends also introduced me to FareShare and FoodCycle, organisations that are receiving considerable and increasing support up and down the food chain. This is an excellent way of reducing food waste as well as, at the same time, providing much-needed support to families and individuals with low disposable incomes.

There are some very real animal health concerns, however, about feeding food waste to animals. Under EU legislation, both ruminant and non-ruminant farm animals may not be fed catering waste, sometimes known as swill, as it may be a vector for serious animal diseases. This is waste food from kitchens or catering outlets. Feeding this waste to livestock was banned in the UK and the rest of the EU following the outbreak of foot and mouth disease in 2001, which has been referred to several times. The ban stayed in place following a recent revision of the EU animal by-products regulations because it was recognised that disease risks—evident then—still remain.

No one wishes to see another situation like the foot and mouth outbreak of 2001, so a degree of caution is prudent. The Government are keeping their position on feeding catering waste under review, and further examination of the scientific evidence base is important to ensure that our policy is founded on strong evidence. However, even if we were convinced that swill feeding could be reintroduced safely, a relaxation of the ban would probably require scientific support from the European Food Safety Authority. Given the need for this and—we must not forget nowadays—the EU co-decision process, we are likely to be several years away from the prospect of any changes to the ban on feeding catering waste to livestock. It has been very interesting to hear from my noble friend Lady Jenkin about the way in which this matter has been dealt with in Japan, and Europe has the opportunity of studying that further.

As I mentioned, catering waste is the waste food from kitchens and catering outlets. There are different rules for surplus food that originates from manufacturers and retailers and is no longer intended for human consumption. As the noble Lord, Lord Knight, pointed out, such food can be fed to livestock if it comes from premises with appropriate separation procedures to prevent any contact with animal by-products such as meat and fish. This includes bakery waste that does not contain meat or fish and surplus fruit and vegetables. Some of the larger supermarkets are already working to increase the supply of surplus bakery products to animal feed, and Defra has been working with them to ensure this can be done safely.

My noble friend Lord Greaves challenged me on the whole issue of domestic food waste and sought to extend the debate a little further outside its immediate confines by raising the issue of bin collections. All I can say to him is that I am not in a position to make the announcement, as a decision on that rests with the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government. I know that he will shortly make an announcement on what he proposes on this issue.

Then there is the whole issue of processed animal protein, which cannot be made from catering waste but can be made from foodstuffs no longer intended for human consumption from manufacturers and retailers, such as meat or bones, as well as abattoir by-products including blood and feathers. The European Commission is proposing to lift the ban on feeding processed animal proteins from non-ruminants to other omnivorous or carnivorous non-ruminants. The ban on cannibalism —that is, an animal eating a like animal, not something more dramatic, I have to say—would be retained.

[Lord Knight of Weymouth]

Although that is banned, too.

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

Yes. My noble friend Lady Byford rightly emphasised the need for caution and referred to the NFU position on the issue, which was similarly cautious. I remind noble Lords that we need to take consumers with us on these issues. We know how difficult that can be to ensure that consumers are totally reassured on issues of this nature.

Water Supply (Amendment to the Threshold Requirement) Regulations 2011

Lord Knight of Weymouth Excerpts

Tuesday 22nd November 2011 Grand Committee

[Baroness Parminter]

I think it is right that the Government are accepting the recommendations of the Cave report, but it is very disappointing that the impact assessment makes it clear that no guaranteed or quantifiable environmental benefits in terms of reducing water use will result from there regulations. It is all about “could” and “might be”; nothing is guaranteed and there are no quantifiables in that.

The impact assessment also makes it quite clear that, without further reforms to the water supply licensing regime, the uptake on supply switching is going to be very limited. The Minister pointed out that there is a market of 26,000, but the assessment makes it clear that, without further reform, the potential is just two or three companies per annum. It strikes me that this statutory instrument on its own is pretty unimpressive and I wonder why it has been brought forward before the White Paper, given that the White Paper is going to be coming forward fairly shortly. I am sure that some form of further legislative reform will take place following that. I should like to know why these regulations—and the cost of bringing them to this House and into the market—has been brought forward on their own, given its limited potential.

[Lord Knight of Weymouth]

My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for setting out so clearly what the statutory instrument does and to the noble Baroness for making some useful comments, with which I agree, about the impact assessment. This is a perfectly harmless statutory instrument, so I am very content with it. Like the noble Baroness, I am not sure that it is going to have a massive impact but, given that the Cave review recommended that this should happen, that the Cave review did a good job and that we look forward to the Government’s comments in the White Paper, I am certainly happy to give this statutory instrument my blessing.

I would not want to burden anybody with having to work out any more impacts but, especially given that this is a Defra statutory instrument, the rural impact would be particularly interesting. It would be interesting to know whether any thought has been given to including rural impacts in general. When I was reading through the impact assessment, I thought that it might make a difference in some urban areas because in urban areas the market is more likely to be active. In the rural parts, however, if it makes any difference at all or if there is enough of a market operating, I shall be quite surprised. If the Minister has any comments on that, I shall be delighted, but this is a pretty straightforward statutory instrument. We welcome competition in the water industry; we hope that it benefits consumers and that the department and the regulator will make sure that that happens. I am happy to give it a positive nod.

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

I thank noble Lords for their contributions. I am particularly grateful to my noble friend Lady Parminter for pointing out that she felt that the environmental potential of changes in the market had not been properly stated in the impact assessment. Impact assessments are of course designed to report on measurable impacts. One of the difficulties in this case is that we cannot predict the impact of a reform of this nature. I can say that since non-household competition was introduced in Scotland in April 2008, more than 45,000 customers have renegotiated the terms of their supply, enjoying the range of benefits that come from a competitive market.

One element to which I tried to draw the Grand Committee’s attention was that among the services that can be offered to companies in this category is advice on reducing water consumption. It is not very easy to quantify and you cannot rely on it in an impact assessment. However, I should have thought that it would be one of the strongest reasons why some companies would look to change supplier. The reason will probably not be price. In some ways it is more difficult to compete on price in water than it is in almost any other area. However, there could well be competition on service. Water efficiency is a big gain from a freer market.

The noble Lord is absolutely right to say that we need a White Paper and that this is only a beginning. I cannot pretend that it is only the beginning of a reshaping of the water market in the UK along the lines of the review that Professor Cave produced. However, we are right to introduce this statutory instrument at this stage. I hope that we will learn from the way that the market improves through this statutory instrument things that we can then include in the legislation that will follow the White Paper.

It is difficult to quantify the impact on rural areas. The impact assessment does not have a special chapter just because it comes from Defra. We might consider that. It is something of which the noble Lord, Lord Knight, might try to persuade us. If the process allowed us to flag up our own special interests, it would be very good to do so. There are one or two large consumers of water in rural areas who might well benefit from this proposal. There could then be an assessment of the impact on rural areas and rural businesses; I should like to think so.

I thank my noble friends. I think we have pointed out areas that we will probably debate in greater detail and with, I have little doubt, somewhat more vigour when we come to consider other aspects. Meanwhile, I commend these regulations to the Committee.

Food: Prices

Lord Knight of Weymouth Excerpts

Monday 14th November 2011 Lords Chamber

Asked By

[Lord Knight of Weymouth]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what measures are being taken to assist families in the United Kingdom to cope with increasing food prices.

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

My Lords, the impact of rising food prices is of concern to the Government. While it is not the Government’s role to control food prices, we understand the need to monitor the impact of price increases on households. I hope it reassures the noble Lord that the Government provide a nutritional safety net to extremely low-income families through the Healthy Start scheme, which offers vouchers for essential foods. As the noble Lord will know, we also take into account food prices when benefits rise annually with consumer price inflation.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Knight of Weymouth]

My Lords, according to the latest statistics from the OECD, UK food consumers face the second highest increase in food prices of anywhere in Europe—ironically, after Hungary. What are the Government going to do about it? Why are British food consumers so hard-hit relative to others in Europe? This is an urgent problem for family budgets—what is the Government’s response?

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

My Lords, the House will know that food supplies and volatility in food price markets have been a feature of the past 12 months. We cannot doubt that in this country we have the most efficient food supply chain in Europe. Our supermarkets are extremely price-competitive, as anyone here who has shopped in other countries will realise. I think that the noble Lord was talking about increases rather than absolutes, but I am talking in absolute terms. Of course we are concerned. I think that the secret lies in increasing food production and producing a great deal more self-sufficiently in this country—a policy that was abandoned by the last Government but which this Government are determined to take up.

Environment: Cockle Beds

Lord Knight of Weymouth Excerpts

Thursday 10th November 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

As my noble friend will know, the situation is that North Western IFCA took the decision, in the light of the safety requirements, to protect lives. The Morecambe fishery is closed; the Ribble estuary fishery has just been reopened; and the price of cockles, at £700 a tonne, has encouraged a lot of people who do not have permits to go cockling. However, IFCA recognises the effect that the by-law will have on legitimate fishermen and is urgently looking into possible management measures that it could introduce to ensure a safe fishery and to operate it as soon as possible. The Government support IFCA in this endeavour.

[Lord Knight of Weymouth]

My Lords, we are grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, for raising this important issue. The House remembers the Morecambe Bay tragedy, which involved cockle picking. In the aftermath of that, the Gangmasters Licensing Authority was established, which has since made great progress in rooting out modern-day slavery and supporting a competitive industry. Can the Minister therefore reassure the House that the Government remain committed to a properly resourced Gangmasters Licensing Authority that will not be merged into a larger enforcement body?

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

We are indeed entirely supportive of the Gangmasters Licensing Authority, which plays a very important role in preventing the exploitation of workers. In this instance, the authority has not been particularly involved—there is no evidence of gangs working the fishery—but I am pleased to give the noble Lord the assurance he seeks.

Defra: Research and Development

Lord Knight of Weymouth Excerpts

Thursday 20th October 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

It is certainly not my intention to make policy in a vacuum. All policy decisions in Defra on the science front are based on evidence. That, indeed, is a principle which we apply to decision-making in general. I would like to reassure my noble friend on that point.

[Lord Knight of Weymouth]

My Lords, given the Minister’s personal commitment and expertise in this area, I want to be helpful to him in pressing him on the issue. The Secretary of State Caroline Spelman signed up to the G20 communiqué on food security in Paris last June, which calls on countries to invest more in innovation in food science. On the one hand it appears that her department has plans to encourage more research and development, but at the same time she is cutting the overall research and development budget by 27 per cent. Why does Defra sign up to international commitments calling on action from other Governments which it has no intention of meeting in this country? Why is it saying one thing and doing another?

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

I think the noble Lord is making the mistake of taking a particular aspect of Defra’s activity and not realising that, strategically, the Government have a great focus on the whole need to raise the game. We will need to double world food production by 2050. We shall be able to do that only with science as an ally. The thrust across government, and the whole thrust of the Taylor review, was about leveraging the Government’s investment as a whole in this area. We will be spending £1 billion on R&D in the Living with Environmental Change Partnership and £440 million on global food security.

Incidental Flooding and Coastal Erosion (England) Order 2011

Lord Knight of Weymouth Excerpts

Monday 17th October 2011 Grand Committee

[Lord Teverson]

My Lords, I congratulate the Minister on his appointment. I know that that has been done on the Floor of the House by the various Benches, but I wanted to add my personal congratulations. It was an excellent appointment. I am sure that the good work that the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, has done will continue.

The Explanatory Memorandum refers to the Pitt review. Given that this is a short session, it would be useful to hear just of couple of headlines on how the Government view the Pitt review and whether they foresee any primary legislation coming forward in that area in due course.

The order makes a lot of sense, because it is clear that certain flooding is good for the environment. If flooding was prevented, there would be environmental and ecological degradation. Given that Sections 38 and 39 of the Flood and Water Management Act 2010 can be implemented only in relation to the powers of compensation, access and compulsory purchase, is the Minister satisfied that the right balance has been struck between there being a heavy responsibility on the authorities to undertake this work and the power of the landowner?

[Lord Knight of Weymouth]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Holbeach, for the clarity with which he set out the order. That was most helpful given that it is very difficult to get any clarity from reading it. That is why we have an Explanatory Memorandum—I thank the Minister’s officials for the clarity with which that has been set out. I also congratulate the Government on listening to the concerns expressed by the National Farmers Union and the Country Landowners Association in bringing forward the order, which I certainly support.

Like the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, I was interested in paragraph 7.6, on consolidation, in the Explanatory Memorandum. I would be interested in any news on when that consolidation of the Act might happen in response to the Pitt review.

I tried to work out the taxpayer liability from the impact assessment. I understand that a notional 100 hectares is being discussed in the Explanatory Memorandum because it is difficult to predict how much land will be affected by erosion. Am I right in calculating that 100 hectares—the equivalent of one square kilometre—would generate a cost of £2,000 per annum, or have I misread the way the sums work? With that question, I am very happy for the order to go forward.

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

I thank noble Lords for their comments. I thank in particular the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, for his pleasant greetings. He asked how the legislation related to the Pitt review. He and I were both around when the Act on which the statutory instrument is based went through this House. He will know that it was a foreshortened Bill; the water provisions were relatively limited within it. The Government, however, have made it quite clear that there will be a water White Paper shortly—it is likely to be published within the next six months. We will bring forward a Bill, probably within this Parliament, to legislate in the whole area of water and water management. It is important not just for issues raised by Pitt but also for the consumer interest in water.

The noble Lord, Lord Knight, asked me about the cost of the provision. I can assure him that his estimate of £2,500 per annum is about right. He also asked whether the whole business of consolidation might be considered. The Government are still committed to this, but he will know how difficult it is to get legislative time. However, this is something the Government will seek to do, if at all possible, within this Parliament.

The noble Lord, Lord Teverson, asked me if the balance was about right. He would expect me to say, and I do, that I think the balance is about right. This is a question of a balance of differing interests, and the statutory instrument has got it about right. It does contain the necessary provisions to protect the interests of those who would be affected, and the minimum required to allow local authorities, internal drainage boards and the Environment Agency to use, where appropriate, the powers provided by Sections 38 and 39 of the Water Management Act.

I hope that I have managed to cover all the points raised. I am particularly happy to present this order. I beg to move.

Rural Payments Agency

Lord Knight of Weymouth Excerpts

Wednesday 12th October 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

I would like to think that I can reassure my noble friend that of course we shall bring first-class thinking to the challenge of this issue. This is not the listed topical Question, but it has certainly turned out to be topical because the Commission published its proposals for the reform of the CAP this morning. We are certainly going to be very much engaged in the negotiations and discussions that will take place around these proposals. Our priority will be to ensure that reform encourages competitive and sustainable EU agriculture through a system that is simple and transparent for both farmers and the RPA to operate.

[Lord Knight of Weymouth]

My Lords, I welcome the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, to his much deserved ministerial appointment. In this House, we knew him to be a flexible listening Whip, and we look forward to more of the same in his ministerial guise. I also want to record our thanks and congratulations to the noble Lord, Lord Henley, as he moves on to the Home Office.

The Rural Payments Agency has had its ups and downs over the past few years, but it performs a crucial role in getting payments from the common agricultural policy to farmers. Your Lordships have just heard that the EU Commission announced reform to the CAP this morning. Like the NFU and the CLA, we on this side are disappointed that these proposals from the Commission are a missed opportunity. The rhetoric of radical reform has turned into a tired compromise, letting down both UK farmers and our natural environment. Given that consensus, what promises can the Minister make to farmers, and to others concerned about the natural environment, that the Government will use what influence they can muster from the margins of Europe to improve this reform as it goes through the Council of Ministers?

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

I thank the noble Lord for his kind words. I am afraid that, as a departmental Minister, the room for flexibility is perhaps not as great as it was, but I shall do my best. We have been building alliances within the European community on CAP reform. I think many other countries will be just as disappointed as we are with what appears to be a very retrograde and regressive proposal from the Commission at this stage. Our job is to negotiate, as the noble Lord rightly said, to try to build alliances and to place not just the farmer or the countryside but even the consumer interest at the fore. That is certainly our position. That is what we intend to do, and I hope we have the support of the whole House in achieving that.

Proposed National Policy Statement for Hazardous Waste

Lord Knight of Weymouth Excerpts

Wednesday 12th October 2011 Grand Committee

[Lord Knight of Weymouth]

My Lords, I broadly welcome this draft national policy statement. Perhaps across your Lordships’ House there is a certain degree of consent by absence, judging by the attendance in the Committee today, although it may be that the planning wonks in the House are distracted by the business in the main Chamber, which will certainly be in the planning arena. I very much welcome the scrutiny that this statement is receiving from the Select Committee in the other place. I mostly enjoyed using the wonderful facilities of Parliament TV to watch the evidence that the Minister gave yesterday to that committee.

I welcome the four principles set out in Part 2 of the draft statement in terms of the principles in forming government policy on hazardous waste: to protect human health and the environment; the implementation of the waste hierarchy; proximity and self-sufficiency; and then climate change. I welcomed what the Minister said to the Select Committee, and this almost seemed to be a fifth principle, that the statement should be as unambiguous as possible so that those seeking to operate within this consent regime can do so with a degree of certainty and flexibility.

Those are all things that I welcome but the nature of debate in this Committee and in your Lordships’ House means that we tend to focus on the things that we disagree about more than on what we agree about. I have, on the latest count, five issues to raise that I hope will be addressed in the final policy statement when it is published by Defra, and that does not include my assumption that the current reference to the IPC will be replaced by the Secretary of State, assuming that the Localism Bill that is being debated in the Chamber achieves Royal Assent, in which case the Secretary of State will take on the powers that the Infrastructure Planning Committee currently uses.

The first of those issues is around the consent regime itself. I know that there are one or two voices saying that in—I would anticipate—virtually every case where an application is made under this regime there will also be an application for a permit from the Environment Agency, particularly in respect of the pollution effects of hazardous waste processing. One or two of those voices have raised the question of whether it is worth there being a single consent regime for the sake of simplicity for the applicant—and for the understanding of the public.

It is worth exploring that further. If my understanding of this is correct, the consent regime that we are discussing in the context of this policy statement is around land use planning, with all the various criteria that the Minister set out in his opening statement. However, a lot of the public concern would inevitably be about pollution as a result of hazardous waste processing taking place in their backyard—to use the vernacular. I do not know that members of the public would be that patient with explanations along the lines of, “This is an issue that should be raised in respect of the Environment Agency”, and “That is an issue that should be raised in respect of the hazardous waste consent regime under the Planning Act”. I should be grateful for any comments from the Minister on whether some negotiation can be had with the Environment Agency, the MMO and any other part of the consent regime so that we could have a single consent regime.

The second issue follows on from that. Assuming that the Minister and his officials have thought about this—which is a fair assumption to make—and resist the temptation to agree with me and go for a single regime, and we then have a split regime, my concern is that we make sure that the timing and the sequencing of that regime work well for applicants. The Minister expressed concern about unnecessary delays in processing applications in the regimes that we have been using, which I agree need to be streamlined. In that case, how will he make sure that the sequencing and timing mean that things go through smoothly, as applicants potentially need to get consents from the Environment Agency and the Marine Management Organisation, as well as any other consents that I have not clocked? That sequencing is very important to streamline the process.

The third issue, which is not unrelated to how those various regimes in the consent process might work, is localism, which I know was raised with the Minister by some of his honourable friends on the EFRA Select Committee in the other place yesterday. I understand, and support, there being a national regime for large and significant infrastructure. There is a strong case for taking some of these strategically important and difficult decisions at a national level, because there are times when it is very difficult for a local planning authority to be able to deal with them in a way that retains the objectivity that one needs when one is making quasi-judicial decisions of this kind. However, I would again be interested in hearing on the record the Minister’s view on how this interacts with the localism being debated in the main Chamber at the moment. I have my own doubts about how well the new localism and planning regimes being debated elsewhere will work in practice, and whether members of local planning authorities under those regimes will be able to resist the nimby tendencies that are often quite powerful at the ballot box. I am perfectly comfortable with the approach that Defra is taking, but I just want to hear from the Minister how he reconciles that with the approach to planning being taken by CLG.

The Minister will not be surprised that my other two issues are around definition and thresholds. My understanding is that the definition of hazardous waste—and the statement is clear about it—is that set out in Regulation 5 of Hazardous Waste (England and Wales) Regulations 2005. Those are derived from the European Union’s definitions of hazardous waste. Do the Government have to be constrained by the European Union definition? I understand that the Government have to deliver on items that the EU defines in the directive because it is a directive. But if the Minister wanted to add some additional items to the list for his regime in the UK, could he do so? Then it may be possible, in respect of the questions around lithium or emerging technology that he was asked yesterday, to anticipate some future needs in terms of hazardous waste regulation and, by including some of those items that the EU have not got to yet on the list, provide some encouragement for them to move up the waste hierarchy, to which I know the Minister attaches a considerable importance.

Finally, on thresholds, particularly given the fifth principle that I have attributed to the Minister of being as unambiguous as possible, I should like some clarity from him around the flexibility that there appeared to be from the evidence session yesterday. It is clear that there are two thresholds—one of 30,000 for most hazardous waste and one of 100,000 for hazardous building material going into landfill. As he said in his opening statement, that applies with new build and with those facilities increasing capacity. What was then said was that the Planning Act 2008 gives provision for amounts less than that to be considered under the national policy statement process if the Minister thinks that that is appropriate. Those listening, or those who read the final statement when it is agreed, need more clarity so that they understand when the Minister is likely to use the flexibility that he has so that it is predictable and, in his words to the Committee, “unambiguous”. If I can get some reasonable responses either now or in the final statement, I would be extremely happy with some very good work from his department and his officials.

[Lord Addington]

My Lords, I come in as the stand-in for those whom the noble Lord, Lord Knight, describes as planning wonks or geeks, not that I would describe any of my friends like that—not if they were within striking distance, anyway. Looking through this draft proposal, I found myself thinking, “How could you possibly object to it in principle?” The “Summary of Government Policy in Part 2” lists protecting human health and the environment, the implementation of the waste hierarchy, the proximity of self-sufficiency and climate change. All of these things seem to be like motherhood and apple pie. The noble Lord, Lord Knight, once again beat me to the draw—he is clearly better versed on this subject than I am. But one of the questions raised will be the nimby tendency which runs through this. There is always an excellent reason for doing oneself a good turn at the ballot box. If someone wants a facility moved one mile down the road or at least out of sight, nimbyism will be there. A clarification of the process and some sort of national strategy is undoubtedly required. Unless we gain a good description of why this should happen now and guidance on how all the various factors pull together, it is going to create an unnecessary degree of resistance. It is always going to be the case that you inconvenience somebody when you do something positive. That is just a principle that runs through everything.

We should state clearly and categorically that we are going to have to accept that occasionally certain people will be inconvenienced, although hopefully as little as possible, if we are to do things like dealing with our own waste, not transporting it across the world. Indeed, let us take transport somewhere whose regulations are not as good as ours, pull it into the ecosystem and put some more carbon into the atmosphere by transporting it in the first place—hey, there’s a great long-term strategy. If we are dealing with it ourselves, it is a good idea to have a coherent strategy. Greater clarification on how that all pulls together would be helpful. All of us who are involved in any form of national politics will have to come back and defend this. Today, when we have not had camaraderie of spirit throughout the processes of the House, it would be good to have that now and to hear how we are going to achieve this.

Landfill (Maximum Landfill Amount) Regulations 2011

Lord Knight of Weymouth Excerpts

Wednesday 7th September 2011 Grand Committee

[Lord Henley]

My Lords, the purpose of the instrument is to set new maximum amounts of biodegradable municipal waste that can be sent to landfill. They apply to England, Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland and, obviously, the United Kingdom as a whole. The new amounts replace the maximum amounts set out in the previous set of regulations, the Landfill (Scheme Year and Maximum Landfill Amount) Regulations 2004, with which noble Lords will no doubt be familiar.

The EU landfill directive sets challenging targets for diverting waste from landfill. That is in line with its overall objective of reducing the negative effects of landfilling on the environment, including reducing the production of methane gas from landfills. This fits with the Government's view, as stated in the recently published waste review, that landfill should be the last resort for biodegradable waste.

The new targets and the definition of municipal waste set out in the directive were transposed into UK legislation by the Waste and Emissions Trading Act 2003—the WET Act. The Act also set up the landfill allowance schemes to deliver this reduction. At the time, the schemes and the definition of municipal waste applied only to waste collected by local authorities. However, discussions with the European Commission have led us to agree that the UK's existing approach was too narrowly focused. Our environmental objectives would be far better addressed by a broader interpretation. The United Kingdom has changed its interpretation of municipal waste so that more commercial waste collected by the private sector is subject to the diversion targets.

The revised targets reflected in the instrument have been agreed by the European Commission and the devolved Administrations. The reclassification of municipal waste and the revised targets are not expected significantly to change the amount of waste dealt with by local authorities and the private sector respectively. Furthermore, it is not necessary to introduce new measures to meet the new targets. Continued increases to the level of landfill tax and other policies to encourage the prevention, recycling and recovery of waste are sufficient. In fact, as announced in the waste review, the targets will be met while removing a burden on local authorities, as England's Landfill Allowance Trading Scheme will be ended after the 2012-13 scheme year. I commend the draft regulations to the Grand Committee.

[Lord Knight of Weymouth]

My Lords, these regulations are straightforward and well explained in the Explanatory Notes. Clearly, we need to do this. I am happy with the timetable, it all seems very sensible and if we do not do it, there will be infraction proceedings against us anyway. The Explanatory Note states at paragraph 8.1 says that consultation on the regulations did not ask for views on the interpretation or revised target, but on the policies needed to meet the targets. I do not wish to delay the Committee for very long, so my limited comments will be on the policy rather than on the new interpretation or revised targets, because those are straightforward.

Before I get into detail, could the Minister let us know what proportion of waste going to landfill is food waste? There is a question on the Order Paper tomorrow where these issues are pertinent to food waste fed to chickens and in pig swill.

As for policy, I know from the Minister’s comments during the Question in the main Chamber today that he is not a fan of targets. I understand that philosophical view. None of us is a great enthusiast for imposing targets on people, but if we are not going to use recycling targets to minimise the amount of waste going into landfill, I would be grateful if the Minister could set out what leverage he is going to use to ensure that it happens. I have heard, for example, stories about local authorities who, faced with funding constraints, are having to close recycling centres. What leverage is he going to have over local authorities to ensure that they meet their obligations so that England can play its part?

As he knows, because this was pointed out earlier in the main Chamber, other devolved Administrations are retaining targets and indeed setting more ambitious targets than those set out in the regulations. It would be interesting to know whether Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland overshoot their targets—which should be applauded—England could get away with undershooting, given that these are UK-wide regulations? Could it benefit from the more aggressive stance of the devolved Administrations?

I turn to my final question, and I apologise that I am not completely clear in my research on this. It has been suggested to me that it is possible to export material that would otherwise go to landfill without paying any kind of tax, despite a landfill tax being levied in this country. If that is the case, are any conversations going on between Defra and the Treasury to ensure that there is no incentive for local authorities to export their waste to avoid paying tax?

Environment: Litter and Waste

Lord Knight of Weymouth Excerpts

Wednesday 7th September 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord Henley]

My noble friend is quite right to draw to the House’s attention the problems of the vast variety of different plastics that we use—I cannot remember how many there are—and the problems of recycling them. I think that currently we recycle some 24 per cent of packaging. We would like to get that figure up. Obviously it might be easier to do that if we could reduce the number of different forms of plastic, but that would take quite a long time, a great many behavioural changes and changes by the producers. Certainly, as my noble friend suggests, it is something that we could look at.

[Lord Knight of Weymouth]

My Lords, the Government’s waste review set out the noble ambition of a zero-waste economy. I ask the Minister, what role do standards and targets have in achieving that? The previous Government legislated to take powers to tackle the profusion of plastic bags, and we have heard how such powers are being used by the Welsh Assembly Government. Wales also has a recycling target of 70 per cent. Is this Government’s lack of action connected to the abandoning of any recycling targets in England?

[Lord Henley]

I am not always convinced that targets are necessarily the right way to go forward. Targets can very often distort behaviour and distort priorities and how people deal with things. We made clear in our waste review that we want to make it easy for individuals and organisations to do the right thing, because a great many of them want to do just that. We will continue that process, and I hope that as a result we will head towards that zero-waste economy that we are looking for.