Badger Cull

Anne Main Excerpts

Wednesday 11th December 2013 Westminster Hall

[Mrs Anne Main (St Albans) (Con)]

I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Derby North (Chris Williamson) for securing the debate; he managed to achieve what an early-day motion signed by about 170 Members from across the House could not. I want to ask the Minister today why the matter has not been brought back before the House. Several other Members who seem to be in favour of the cull have said, “This is only a trial. It is only a pilot.” Yes, it is. It is what the House voted for. I abstained from the vote because I had not had badger incidents in my constituency, and I knew that there was a great strength of feeling about farmers.

I have had my eyes opened since then—I have moved from being neutral to being opposed. I thank my constituent, Mr Cotton, who brought to my attention the dodginess of some of the science that was being referred to, but I will not explore that now, because we do not have the time. Why is the issue not coming back before the House? I am sure that many hon. Members at the time lent their support to the Bill out of sympathy and a real feeling that something needed to be done, but only if it was science-based, and only if it was a trial. This has all the makings of something that will roll on, regardless of the outcomes of these particular trials. I am very concerned that it seems we can move from controlled shooting, which is what the pilots were supposed to be looking at, to caging, which would be achieved if we were going to be using vaccines, and yet we do not say, “Hang on a sec, let’s stop what we are doing. Bring it back before the House and see if the House would rather explore those options.”

Some people have said today that shooting a fox is not particularly different from shooting a badger. Well, one is a protected species and the other is vermin, but also, as I have been reliably informed by people who are very knowledgeable about such things, a badger has a particularly strong head structure. It is very difficult to shoot a badger. It has to be shot in a particular way—potentially down its side or under its arms—and that makes the controlled shooting of badgers difficult. I do not know why it is being said one minute that the pilots are a success, and the next minute, that we are going to evaluate them.

The Secretary of State seems to judge them as a success. I had a letter from him today, which I asked for in October. He said that he believes that there has been a success:

“The extension…has therefore been successful in meeting its aim in preparing the ground.”

Success keeps being referred to. That does not speak to me of an open mind. It sounds to me like a Minister who may consider just rolling it out.

Bring the issue back before the House. It is what Members want. They have made their views clear, and I think the public will understand the concerns of people such as myself, who have moved from neutral to negative. I am sure that if the matter came back before the House now, there would be a very different vote unless the proposals were very different. Please will the Minister listen to the views of Members and the public? It is not all about hugging cuddly creatures; it is all about deciding whether a protected animal should be treated in this way or in another way that may deliver the same result that we all want, which is protecting farmers but ensuring that we are dealing with the problem in the most humane way possible.

Badger Cull

Anne Main Excerpts

Wednesday 5th June 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mary Creagh]

I agree with my hon. Friend. There is nothing more dangerous than an idea if it is the only idea you have.

This so-called science-led cull has been disowned by the scientists who faced down animal rights protesters to bring us the randomised badger culling trial and a world-class scientific result. The cull will cost more than doing nothing. If it works at all, its effect will be marginal. It carries a real risk of making TB worse in both cattle and badgers. The original Independent Scientific Group said:

“Concentrating solely on the badger dimension in what is clearly a multidimensional and dynamic system of disease spread would be to fail to learn the lessons of previous experience .”

[Mrs Anne Main (St Albans) (Con)]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Mary Creagh]

No, I will not. I am about to end my speech.

Any solution will require us to work closely with farmers. It will need to be technically, environmentally, socially and economically acceptable, and it will require the consent of taxpayers. Complex problems require complex solutions, and this cull is not the solution.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Paterson]

The hon. Gentleman is right to mention the potentially very serious impact on the agri-food industry if we do not get a grip on this disease. We are determined to work on this policy, and to learn the lessons from the experience of the neighbouring state of the Republic of Ireland and other countries.

The task of managing bovine TB and bringing it under control is difficult and complex, but that is no excuse for further inaction. This Government are committed to using all the tools at our disposal and continuing to develop new ones, because we need a comprehensive package of measures to tackle the disease. International experience clearly shows that controlling wildlife species that harbour the disease and can pass it on to cattle must be part of that package.

[Mrs Main]

I have written to the Secretary of State on this matter. I asked about the impact of a cull in the context of the whole package of measures. I received a reply from one of his ministerial colleagues, which referred to the fall in badger TB rates in New Zealand, saying that was

“a result of rigorous biosecurity, strict cattle movement controls and proactive wildlife management.”

I have asked for clarification, however. How much of that success was attributed to the cull? The other two steps taken may well have contributed significantly. I hope the Secretary of State will expand on such details for the benefit of those of us who are torn over this matter.

[Mr Paterson]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for her question, in which she raises one of the most pertinent points: there is no single solution. Removing wildlife alone is not the solution. There has to be parallel, and equally rigorous, work on cattle. There must be a mixture of both measures. That is the lesson to be learned from the countries I have recently visited, as I was just about to go on to explain.

In recent months, I have been to Australia, New Zealand and the Republic of Ireland, and when I was in Opposition I went to the United States of America. All those countries have made great progress in dealing with very similar problems to ours by dealing with the wildlife reservoir and bearing down on the disease in cattle.

In Australia, a national eradication programme spanning almost three decades enabled official freedom from bovine TB—an infection rate of less than 0.2% under OIE rules—be achieved in 1997. Its comprehensive package of measures to tackle the disease in domestic cattle and wildlife included rigorous culling of feral water buffalo. Australia’s achievement is even more impressive when one considers the difficulty of the terrain and the size of the area over which such an extensive programme of testing and culling took place.

After my visit to Australia, I went to New Zealand. Its comprehensive and successful package of measures to eradicate the disease has focused on the primary wildlife reservoir of brush-tailed possums. As a result of its efforts, New Zealand is on the verge of achieving BTB-free status. The number of infected cattle and deer herds has reduced from more than 1,700 in the mid-1990s to just 66 in 2012.

The Republic of Ireland, too, has a comprehensive eradication programme, which includes the targeted culling of badgers in areas where the disease is attributed to wildlife. From massive problems in the 1960s—160,000 cattle were slaughtered in 1962 alone—the Irish authorities have turned things around to the extent that the number of reactor cattle has reduced to just 18,000 in 2012, a fall of 10,000 in the last 10 years. On their own figures, herd incidence has fallen to just 4.26%—a statistic we would dearly love to have here.

Flood and Water Management

Anne Main Excerpts

Thursday 8th September 2011 Westminster Hall

[Anne Marie Morris (Newton Abbot) (Con)]

I add my voice to the voices of others who have commended the work of my hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Miss McIntosh) and her Select Committee. The Committee’s report is an excellent piece of work and it is thoroughly welcome.

As a Member who represents a constituency in the south-west, it will come as no surprise to people that I wish to speak today about water charging. The water charges in the south-west are the highest in the country, with an average bill of £517. I am afraid that that figure is rather higher than the one given in the Select Committee’s report, which puts the figure for the south-west at £490. At £517, the average bill in the south-west is 43% above the national average for water charges. Although I understand the points made by the hon. Member for Llanelli (Nia Griffith) on the challenges that she faces in Wales—I absolutely empathise with her—the south-west has 30% of the country’s coastline and 3% of the population, so the burden that we bear is exceptionally great.

Unfortunately, in addition we also have a large amount of sewage pipework inherited at privatisation without the adequate funding to get it into the state that is required. The problem was inevitably exacerbated by the bathing water directives, which were not foreseen and which have created all sorts of challenges for us in the south-west. The problem in the south-west is very significant.

Possible solutions have been considered by a number of different bodies. I commend the Walker report, which came out with a number of very good options. Equally, Ofwat came up with some good options. I will not go into the details of those, because they are well rehearsed in the Select Committee report. I am pleased to say that DEFRA has consulted on a solution. Of the four areas that were looked at, information on three of them was included in the DEFRA consultation. With the interests of the people of the south-west at heart, I will comment only on those options, which I hope will inform the Minister in his thinking when he comes to draft the water Bill, which I, like others, am keen to see sooner rather than later.

The first suggestion related to social tariffs. Whatever else we do, we certainly need to get a social tariff in place that works properly. The current tariff, WaterSure, is a good start, but unfortunately it does not protect some of the most vulnerable people in our society. Come what may, it needs to be reviewed. The suggestion that the social tariff be transferred to a central pot rather than continue to come out of the individual water companies’ pots is a good one. If that happened, I would want the water companies to take a sensible approach locally, to do what is right to meet the particular and peculiar needs in their own part of the world.

The second option considered was rebalancing who pays for what within the south-west itself. Given the overall unfairness of the settlement at privatisation—I am sure that that unfairness was not intended and that it was just one of those unfortunate consequences—rebalancing within the south-west itself is not something that any south-west MP would view with any comfort. Paying south-west Peter by robbing south-west Paul is not the solution, I think. Other suggestions include rebalancing sewerage charges and the business community paying a higher share, but tourism is crucial for us, so any rebalancing of that nature would certainly be most unwelcome—I am sure that the Minister recognises how unwelcome it would be.

I was interested that the third option put forward by Anna Walker in her report was not in the DEFRA consultation; in fact, I was very pleased that it was not in the DEFRA consultation. That option was to cross-subsidise the south-west from water-charge payers in other water company areas. The Minister, in ruling out that option, said that it would be quite inappropriate to take money from an individual in Newcastle who was on benefits to provide a subsidy for a water-charge payer in the south-west who may well be a millionaire. I say gently to him that perhaps he does not fully understand that the average income in Devon is actually £2,964 lower than the national average. Contrary to what too many people believe, the south-west is not a countryside of cream teas and beautiful cows, in which we all sit eating our strawberries and cream. The area is very rural, but we have a number of very deprived areas and the highest number of retirees and pensioners in the country. There is not a large number of millionaires sitting in the south-west, waiting to be bailed out by those in the north who are less well off.

The final option in the DEFRA consultation was one that I very warmly welcome. If I have one message for the Minister today, it is, “Yes, please, that is exactly what we want.” It is the suggestion that the Government put a £40 million subsidy behind South West Water bill-payers, which would effectively knock £50 off each bill-payer’s bill in the region. That would not only be welcome but, in the current circumstances and given the history, it would be the right and fair thing to do, because even though, if that subsidy were given, people paying water rates in the south-west would still have the highest water rates in the country, they would at least be less badly done by than they are now.

We need to look carefully therefore at what we do. It would be nice to see a “Benyon report” suggesting that the Bill include the adoption of the £40 million subsidy but, as the hon. Member for Llanelli pointed out, there is an ongoing challenge for those of us whose constituencies have long coastlines, and that is a challenge for the Government. If I might be so bold, given that two more directives on water quality will come from Brussels sooner rather than later, we should consider the matter urgently, rather than wait for the water Bill after the forthcoming one.

The Government have bravely already looked at the relationship between the taxpayer and the private sector in other areas. They have considered renegotiating some of the private finance initiative contracts that were biased against the taxpayer because the risk had not been properly assessed at the time they were entered into. Likewise, they have looked at the relationship between the taxpayer and the banks. Now might be an opportune moment to look at the relationship between the taxpayer and the water companies. I am sure that there would be all sorts of legal challenges and hurdles to overcome, but that does not mean that it should not be done. For water authorities that face particular challenges as a result of the water quality directive—for example, where the percentage increase would be very difficult for the local community to bear, a cap on above-inflation rises allowed by those companies might be considered in the annual review. That is something for the Minister to think about.

I shall turn very briefly to flooding. The Minister knows very well that it is a subject that is also close to my heart. I have to thank him for what he has done to ensure that I have flood defences in Shaldon and hopefully—subject to planning consent—in Teignmouth. Flood prevention is critical, and I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton for the careful and thorough analysis she set out at the beginning of the debate. She hit the nail absolutely on the head. If, as evidence seems to bear out, for every £1 we spend now we effectively save £8 in the future, flood prevention must be a key priority, and I am glad that it was presented as such in the national infrastructure plan.

I share some of the views that other hon. Members have expressed about the best solution. In planning policy, although the report makes it clear that it would be inappropriate to ban building on floodplains, developers have done very well from building on such land without having to contribute to the windfall, so there is an argument for reviewing the planning rules and regulations with a view to possible limits on building on flood plain. In insurance, which is the second key issue in the flooding debate, the renegotiation of the statement of principle that will lapse in 2013 needs to involve all parties, and not be seen as a matter for just the Government and the insurance industry. Developers and other beneficiaries of changes ought to play their part.

Those are the key points that I wanted to make today, and I am grateful for the opportunity to debate this crucial matter.

[Mrs Anne Main (in the Chair)]

Before I call the next speaker, I remind everyone that the winding up speeches start at five minutes to 5. I call Priti Patel.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Reed]

I would love to debate this issue with the hon. Gentleman morning, noon and night.

[Mrs Anne Main (in the Chair)]

Order. I hope that the hon. Gentleman does not, because it has nothing to do with what we are discussing.

[Mr Reed]

I am grateful for your guidance, Mrs Main. I fear that I would have strayed for some considerable length.

The report highlights a series of concerns surrounding the reduction in funding available for flood defences. It states that

“to maintain the current level of protection in the face of increasing flood risks requires increased investment and the significant CSR cuts will increase concerns that funding on flood defences remains inadequate.”

It goes on to say that

“it is by no means certain that any shortfall in public funding can yet be made up by private contributions. Ministers must spell out how the Government’s aim of focussing public funding on those communities at greatest risk who are least able to protect themselves will be achieved in practice.”

I agree wholeheartedly with the Committee. It now behoves the Government to end this ambiguity, because it is damaging and has dragged on for far too long.

I also urge the Government to understand the detailed effects of their policy as matters stand. The NFU has made a compelling argument in that regard. It notes, with typical tenacity:

“The reality is that regions containing a significant conurbation of housing and business development i.e. a city will create a distortion in the allocation of national flood risk funding. This means that many rural areas...will be likely to suffer a steep decline in flood risk investment as a result of this distorting effect of policy. We believe rural areas within regions will therefore have difficulty in obtaining national funding for new flood risk management schemes.”

The NFU is entirely right and I thank it for the attention it has given the issues and for representing the interests of its members and, more broadly, the more rural elements of our country in a typically forthright and effective manner.

Do the Government accept the analysis that their funding criteria for flood management distort funding away from flood defence schemes in rural areas? If the Minister does not accept that analysis, what is the basis for his contrary view?

The Government maintain that reduced flood defence spending can still safeguard 145,000 properties over the duration of this Parliament. Inevitably, that will mean a greater concentration of available moneys in more densely populated areas in order to achieve greater, and arguably quicker, economies of scale. For less densely populated areas, this represents a gathering storm—less flood defence investment, with potentially more expensive or difficult to obtain insurance cover and greatly inflated excess payments—which could lead to entire communities becoming blighted. I am sure that hon. Members on both sides of the House are aware of that problem.

What specific discussions have the Government held with the insurance industry regarding the effects on the costs and availability of flood insurance in rural areas as a result of this policy change? Have the Government undertaken any assessment of how these policy changes will affect land and property values in rural areas? If so, has the logical modelling been done with regard to how such a policy change will affect not only businesses in these areas, but the cost to their public services?

With regard to the farming industry, surely modelling work has been undertaken on the impacts of different flood management models in rural areas and the consequences of that for agricultural land and food security. Surely the necessary work with regard to these issues has been done. If not, will the Minister explain why? If the work has been done and the answer is yes, will he undertake to make this work available to the public and to colleagues? If the work has not been undertaken, I fear that the Government’s approach to these issues cannot be described as holistic and will inevitably invite failure.

We need, as has been said, a broad and lasting consensus on the policy measures necessary to achieve a fair insurance system whereby flood insurance is available to everybody at affordable rates. If as a country we fail to meet the serious challenges presented by the changing flood insurance landscape, that will result in profound social effects. Governments, of whichever colour, cannot outsource their accountability in this area. It is not fair and it does not bode well for effective, lasting policy if it is left purely to the insurance industry. With one in six homes and businesses in England and Wales at significant risk of flooding, this is without doubt one of the biggest social and economic policy challenges facing the country.

Effective policy implementation will require the substantial buy-in of major stakeholders in this policy field—not just the insurance industry, but the water industry—whose co-operation is pivotal in identifying and implementing effective policy solutions. The companies involved in our water industry could also be pivotal in helping us to address significant parts of the flood policy challenge. I have spoken with the industry and it is clear that there is huge and, in many ways, unrealised potential locked within it that is both prepared and able to help us improve flood management policy. What work has the Minister’s Department done in that regard, and has any work been done on incentivising soft or natural water and flood management schemes to be undertaken by water companies, as opposed to hard, engineered schemes?

Does the Minister believe that that approach would be aided or hindered by further disaggregation of the water industry and by increased competition? We are all aware of the benefits of competition, but we must also be alive to the potential disbenefits of increased competition. Clearly, asset maintenance and investment in new assets in the water industry are a critical part of the economic base of that industry. It is also vital in relation to the practicalities of flood and water management. Does the Minister share my concern that the disruption of the market in the UK could disincentivise investments such as these and thus hinder more effective flood and water management schemes?

The Government cannot and must not believe that they can extricate themselves from this policy area. Paradoxically, the cut in flood defence spending may yet necessitate more involvement, more investment and more legislation from Government, in the shape of the Bellwin scheme and other schemes, and more rather than less involvement and expenditure in the future.

I am sure that we are all aware—perhaps members of the EFRA Committee are more aware of this than others—that the water industry is undergoing a period of marked uncertainty as it continues to deal with a badly structured privatisation, regulatory uncertainty, an increased call for its involvement in social policy, global economic uncertainty, and what I think we can broadly agree is increased customer dissatisfaction. The industry is one of the most strategically sensitive in the UK and any significant policy changes, irrespective of the benefits, are likely to incur some cost to the taxpayer either directly or indirectly through contributions to the Exchequer, or directly through utility bills.

Let us be under no illusion that water management legislation is difficult. We all accept that and understand that effective water management legislation requires a thriving water industry. The water industry now faces three areas of challenge, which are perhaps best understood in three separate chunks: the consumer, the environment and impending regulatory change.

First, on the consumer, customers increasingly demand lower bills or more stable charges and, in addition, expect increased investments from utility companies in flood prevention and water management. The existence of water poverty is real and must be addressed through social tariffs or other means. Secondly, on the environment, effective water management cannot just be about consumers and shareholders. It must be about environmental protection, which, as we are all aware, is not cost-free. I urge the Government to respond in detail to the concerns raised by WWF, particularly those in relation to water abstraction. Thirdly, on regulation of the water industry, Ofwat, as colleagues have touched upon, faces major changes. The industry is a major tax contributor, a wealth creator and a significant employer, yet the consequences of the privatisation as it has been structured—which increase environmental responsibilities and the role of the industry in other social policy areas, such as flood defence, water poverty alleviation and other potential environmental remediation—are potentially massive.

The Committee Chairman is absolutely right to suggest that the industry is facing its biggest challenge for decades—there is no doubt about that. Let us make it clear that these drivers offer scope for major policy contradictions as, although they are discrete, each specific area impacts upon the other. So a credible policy must have the buy-in and involvement of the water industry at a very high level. There is a willingness from the industry to do that. Like all major industries, the water industry seeks as far as is practicable, a core political consensus from us in this room and from us in this Parliament, so that it can plan long-term investments with certainty. Additionally, the industry recognises and seemingly accepts the inescapable social and environmental obligations that are upon it.

Our task is to identify those areas of synergy that will bring together consumer benefit, social and environmental improvement, and economic stability. That should inform our policy approach and I hope it is writ large throughout the White Paper when it appears. There are many more matters raised by the report in need of discussion, but they cannot all be mentioned today. The issues have had a significant airing and have largely been brought to the Minister’s attention in a detailed way. I trust that he will answer the questions that have been raised not only by me but by colleagues. If not, I trust that he will give us some detailed written answers as soon as possible.

Waste Review

Anne Main Excerpts

Tuesday 14th June 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mrs Spelman]

I am not the Secretary of State for Health, but I think that the hon. Gentleman, just like everyone in his party, is still in a complete state of denial about the mess in which it left the nation’s finances.

[Mrs Anne Main (St Albans) (Con)]

I welcome the fact that small businesses can now have their collected waste count towards recycling targets. Will my right hon. Friend therefore lobby her friends in DECC in the hope of introducing a renewables obligation certificate for recycled cooking oil that could be used as a biofuel?

[Mrs Spelman]

I will of course discuss that possibility with DECC. The DCLG, DECC and the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills work together very closely, and that is helpful in drawing together this review.

Incinerators (Hertfordshire)

Anne Main Excerpts

Wednesday 16th February 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mrs Anne Main (St Albans) (Con)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Hertsmere (Mr Clappison) on introducing this important debate at this late hour. As he observed, the site in question is in my constituency, but it is on the edge and much of the traffic and other impacts will affect his constituency.

My poor old constituency is in the same corner of the county that only recently was under threat from a rail freight interchange. One of the arguments against that was the fact that lorries access the Harper lane site, the very part of the county that the county council said at the time was particularly heavily congested and unsuitable for having more traffic. That was a really strong argument. The half a lane of road available in the area is now one of the main rat runs to escape problems on the M25 and M1.

I visited the site in question about 18 months ago, or it might have been two years now—time is flying. I was aware then of an aspiration to have an incinerator on the site. It is already a gravel working site and there is recycling there. It is heavily utilised, and access for lorries is compromised. At that time, we were aware that there was concern, particularly because of the previous Government’s landfill directives, about the great pressure on Hertfordshire to deal with its waste through a new incinerator.

What concerns me, like my hon. Friend, is the lack of transparency in the process. Whispers and rumours abound that we must not upset a Minister in another corner of Hertfordshire, or that some deal has been stitched up. If we are to give the lie to local people’s worries, we need a transparent process that they can buy into and have a degree of faith in.

My hon. Friend mentioned a particularly important aquifer. The whole of Hertfordshire is characterised by chalk streams, aquifers with a potentially very big drain on them because of the sheer number of people living near them, and low rainfall. On top of that, not so long ago there was a big disaster at Buncefield, which has severely compromised another of our aquifers. That watercourse is still undergoing monitoring for the long-term impacts of PFOS—perfluorooctane sulfonate—as a result of the Buncefield disaster. We in Hertfordshire are extremely concerned that the environmental impact of anything else that goes on in our environmentally sensitive area must be taken into account.

Plenty of people in St Albans, and I know in my hon. Friend’s constituency as well, say that the particulates coming from lorries travelling in and out of the Harper lane site, the potential compromising of an aquifer and the concern about pollution from lorries queuing through Park Street village and into Radlett will compromise an already congested area and add to the health concerns that residents already have. Those concerns were profoundly expressed when both of us were fighting the rail freight interchange.

We should ensure that the public do not have any hint that there is a stitched-up deal done behind closed doors. They should not have to have any worries about whether a different site has greater potential value to a council as housing development land, and whether the council will therefore sacrifice what it sees as a scrubby bit of green belt somewhere else.

The Harper lane site is important, and it already delivers a lot to Hertfordshire through recycling and gravel extraction. It gives a lot, and it does not need to give any more. It is grossly unfair to expect one corner of the county, on the edge of my hon. Friend’s constituency and mine, to deliver so much more than others, without people having had any say about whether it is the best place to put an incinerator, if we are to have one at all.

I do not have a particular concern about incinerators per se. I used to have the waste portfolio when I was a district councillor, and I visited incinerator sites. They are very well run if they are well sited, but I do not believe that Harper lane is the site on which to put an incinerator. It is already a compromised site and a rat run, and it is heavily utilised by lorries. To have waste going into the area to be incinerated as well would be a blow too far and cause further concerns about aquifers.

I should like the Minister to address in his comments the potential for a delay in the scheme, should it come through, in the interests of localism and because of concerns about the environmental impact. Local people should not have to feel that it is another scheme being railroaded past them. They cheered when we had a change of Government, because they felt that it was the end of railroaded schemes. Now there is potential for a scheme that is seen to be a done deal.

Let us have transparency, localism and a fair say for the local community. Let us say that this is not the right site for a number of environmental reasons. We need to explore those reasons, not pay lip service to them in a dashed-through consultation, all in a bid to find a waste site to consume what will probably be waste from other areas, not just Hertfordshire. As my hon. Friend the Member for Hertsmere said, we do a pretty good job of recycling our waste in Hertfordshire. We do not need to import other people’s rubbish.

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

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Hertsmere (Mr Clappison) on securing a debate of such importance to his constituents. I also congratulate him and my hon. Friend the Member for St Albans (Mrs Main) on the passion with which they spoke. As I am sure they are aware, this subject would normally come under the remit of my noble Friend Lord Henley, but I have none the less been very interested in the issues raised in this evening’s debate. This Government have pledged to be the greenest ever. That is not an aspiration; it is an imperative. We have also pledged to devolve decision making as much as possible from the central to the local level. It is in the context of those two pledges that I welcome the chance to respond to this debate and the concerns that have been raised.

We need to rebuild our economy, and we need the new economy to be sustainable. It can be sustainable only if it is green, and a green economy is a zero-waste economy. That does not mean that there will be absolutely no waste—we are realistic—but it does mean that resources are fully valued, economically and environmentally. It also means that one person’s waste is another person’s resource. As my hon. Friend the Member for Hertsmere said, the Government are currently conducting a thorough review of our waste policy. We are due to report in the spring, so I shall not seek to pre-empt our findings today. Nevertheless, the recovery of energy from certain wastes has a role to play in moving us towards a zero-waste economy.

A green economy means generating renewable energy. We have tough targets for that, with 15% of energy required to be from renewable sources by 2020. We need an energy mix to meet our energy needs and the need to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Recovering energy from waste is part of that. Waste can be a renewable source of energy, offsetting the fossil fuels that would otherwise have been burned and reducing methane emissions from landfills. That offers a net climate change benefit. I have not forgotten that this debate is about incinerators, but it is important to emphasise that recovering energy from waste can be achieved by using many different technologies, of which incineration is only one. There is no silver bullet, but incineration is one of the many means available for meeting our renewable energy needs.

My hon. Friend has used this debate to raise his constituents’ concerns, just as my hon. Friend the Member for St Albans raised her constituents’ concerns so ably. The Watling incinerator group—a group of committed local people—is understandably worried about how incinerators might affect local air quality and the natural environment, and about the health of communities in the vicinity of the proposed incinerator. I must emphasise that all modern waste incinerators are subject to stringent pollution controls. Modern incinerators must comply with the waste incineration directive, which sets strict emission limits for pollutants. The Environment Agency will not grant the permits required for an incinerator to operate if a facility is not compliant with the directive.

[Mrs Main]

That is why I said I had not set my face against incinerators. I have visited some incinerator sites and I am aware of exactly what the Minister says. However, it is the location of the sites and the access to them, along with the lorries and the pollution that they generate, that also need to be taken into consideration.

[Richard Benyon]

I entirely accept the points that my hon. Friend raises, and I am of a similar mind.

Studies have failed to establish any convincing link between emissions from incinerators and adverse effects on public health. In 2009, the Health Protection Agency reviewed the existing evidence on public health and incinerators. It concluded, on reviewing the existing evidence, that any effect on people’s health from incinerator emissions was likely to be so small as to be undetectable. It affirmed that adverse health effects from modern, well-regulated waste incinerators did not pose a significant threat to public health.

This debate is also about communities, and we need to meet the challenges at local level. My hon. Friends will be aware that I am unable to comment on the specifics of this particular application, as it is currently subject to a competitive tender process, and it would therefore be inappropriate for me to comment. What I can say is that vigorous debate within a community is healthy, and necessary in order to ensure that the right choices are made in each community.

In these debates, we need to be alive to the facts that all communities produce waste and that responsibility must be taken for dealing with it in a way that best balances the needs of the community and the environment. Our aim is to allow those who are best placed to make decisions to take them in a balanced and informed way, with as little red tape as possible. A reformed planning system will be underpinned by the Localism Bill. This will create a less bureaucratic, more decentralised and more collaborative process and will help to build the big society by radically transforming the relationships between central Government, local government, communities and individuals.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Hertsmere said, the Government are also undertaking a review of waste policy, which is looking at all aspects of policy development and delivery in England, including the possible role of energy from waste and related infrastructure needs. However, it has never been the intention that the review should prohibit any particular type of technology or take any decisions that would have a direct impact on individual projects. The waste review will report in May this year. Hertfordshire county council will have to decide how this timetable impacts on the progress of its own plans, but I do not believe that its actions in any way undermine the waste review.

To put us on the road to a zero-waste economy, we need to manage all our waste according to the waste hierarchy. The hierarchy involves an environmental order of preference for the outcomes of waste. After the preferable options of preventing, reusing and recycling waste, there is recovery and, finally, landfill—the least desirable environmental outcome. The order of the hierarchy can be changed for individual waste types, if it can be proved that that makes environmental sense over the life-cycle of a product. Generally, however, the hierarchy works, and that means keeping waste out of landfill whenever possible. Gone are the days when we do not worry about putting waste in holes in the ground. We know that biodegradable waste rots in landfill, giving off methane, which is a greenhouse gas more potent than carbon dioxide. My hon. Friend the Member for St Albans made some very good points about the impact on water in aquifers. That is fundamental to our concerns about landfill.

Following the logic of the waste hierarchy, it is reasonable to ask whether, if we are burning waste, we need not recycle it. Worse, might we be providing incentives specifically not to reduce, reuse or recycle before recovering energy from waste? Those are valid concerns that the Government’s waste review is setting out to address. But we know from other countries that recycling and energy from waste can co-exist. In the Netherlands, for example, recycling rates are around 65%, alongside 33% energy from waste. The picture is similar in Denmark and Sweden.

We are doing this not only because it makes sense but because it is the law. The waste hierarchy will shortly become UK law through the revised waste framework directive. We have legal targets to keep waste out of landfill, and the Climate Change Act 2008 rightly sets tough targets for every sector of the economy to contribute to the UK-wide carbon budgets. The waste sector is no exception. All those obligations will help our drive towards growing a zero-waste, green economy.

I hope that my hon. Friends the Members for Hertsmere and for St Albans will continue to make their case passionately on behalf of their constituents. They will find that they are able to engage in a process in which they will be listened to, and in which they will be part of the decision-making process. That is what this Government are about. We want them to be part of the process, rather than feeling that they are having these developments inflicted on them with no ability to say anything.

I congratulate my hon. Friends on the high quality of the debate and on the passion with which they have raised this issue. I hope that I have gone some way towards explaining why we are confident that incinerators do not pose a threat to public health, and why our policy on incinerators is part of, rather than in opposition to, our being the greenest Government ever. I hope I have been able to assure them that, as a Government, we are committed to giving power to communities such as those in their part of Hertfordshire.

Question put and agreed to.