Pet Travel Scheme

Caroline Spelman Excerpts

Thursday 30th June 2011 Written Statements

[The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Mrs Caroline Spelman)]

Today I am announcing changes to the rules on the movement of pet dogs, cats and ferrets into the UK under the pet travel scheme. These changes will make it cheaper and easier for people to travel with their pets while putting in place proportionate controls to prevent rabies incursion and enabling the UK to maintain its rabies-free status.

The pet travel scheme is the system of controls in place to reduce the risk of rabies and certain parasites from entering the UK via the importation of domestic pet animals.

Before pets can enter the UK under the pet travel scheme they must meet certain animal health requirements, such as being vaccinated against rabies, which are laid down in European Union (EU) law (EC Regulation 998/2003). The EU regulation applies to all pet dogs, cats and ferrets moving between member states and from non-EU countries into the EU and sets out standard entry conditions. The regulation currently provides two temporary derogations to the UK to apply more stringent controls on rabies, ticks and tapeworm. These derogations expire on 31 December 2011.

Having considered all the options very carefully, I have decided, in agreement with ministerial colleagues in the devolved Administrations, that from 1 January 2012 the UK will harmonise its controls on rabies with the EU-wide pet movement system. This is in line with the positions of Ireland, Sweden and Malta who will also be harmonising their rabies controls from this date.

The key differences between the current pet travel scheme rules and how they will change from the 1 January 2012 are:

Pets travelling from other EU member states and “listed” third countries (countries which the EU considers do not present a higher risk of rabies incursion compared to movements within the EU, for example USA, Australia and Japan) will no longer need to be blood tested after they have been vaccinated against rabies.

Pets travelling from other EU member states and listed third countries will only have to wait 21 days following their rabies vaccination before they can enter the UK, rather than waiting 6 months as they do now.

Pets travelling from “unlisted” third countries (countries which have not applied or been accepted for listed status because of less robust veterinary or administrative systems or higher rabies incidence, such as China, India and South Africa) will no longer be required to undergo six months’ compulsory quarantine and will be able to enter the UK if they meet certain requirements These include being microchipped and having been vaccinated against rabies and passed a blood test. They will not be allowed to enter the UK for at least four months after the date of the vaccination.

Pet owners who need to travel to the UK at short notice will continue to have the option of voluntarily placing their pet in UK quarantine, where it will be required to undergo the necessary health treatments, such as being vaccinated and blood tested if required, before being released.

The European Commission has given a strong indication that it will shortly come forward with proposals that would enable the UK and other tapeworm-free countries to retain tapeworm controls with a treatment window of one to five days. There will be no mandatory tick treatment before pets enter the UK.

Rabies

The proposed changes to the controls on rabies are proportionate to the disease risks involved and are scientifically justified. Since the UK pet travel scheme was introduced in 2000, the likelihood of a human case of rabies in Europe has substantially reduced as a result of an effective and ongoing programme to reduce the disease in the domestic and wild animal populations of EU member states, together with improvements in the accessibility to rabies vaccination and post-exposure treatment. There has been not one reported case of rabies in the EU associated with the legal movement of pets under the EU pet movement system since it was introduced in 2004, with many hundreds of thousands of pet movements having taken place during that time.

This reduction in the level of rabies across the EU is reflected in the findings of a quantitative risk assessment undertaken for Defra by the Animal Health and Veterinary Laboratories Agency. Their report, which has been peer reviewed, concluded that the risk of a rabies case in the UK will remain very low when we harmonise with the EU pet movement rules, with a chance of, on average, one case in 211 years. The risk of an outbreak leading to a human fatality in the UK would be much lower. This report has been published on the Defra website today.

In addition to the robust scientific case for harmonisation, these revised pet movement rules will deliver substantial benefits to UK pet owners, particularly those people with assistance dogs, making it easier and more affordable for the people who presently travel from the UK and back with their pets (on average 100,000) each year and will open opportunities for many more to travel abroad with their pets. It will also reduce the time dogs need to spend cooped up in kennels. The annual benefits of reduced controls to pet owners resident in the UK are estimated to be £7 million. These changes will also provide UK citizens the same level of free movement with their pet animals which other EU citizens are allowed.

We will continue to ensure that the UK maintains a robust level of protection against rabies, given the seriousness of the disease. We have robust plans in place to deal with rabies should it be detected. As part of our ongoing disease preparedness work we keep the rabies control strategy under constant review, and will be consulting with stakeholder organisations later this year to ensure our plans remain appropriate and proportionate. When the rules change on 1 January 2012 we will be looking to ensure that every pet arriving in the UK will continue to be checked to ensure that it meets the EU requirements, regardless of which country it comes from, and we expect the private quarantine sector to retain a vital role in dealing with non-compliant animals. Stringent penalties remain in place for those that breach the law by smuggling animals into the country or by knowingly using false or misleading information/documentation.

Tapeworm

The UK is currently free of the tapeworm Echinococcus multilocularis and there is a strong scientific case for keeping controls in place to prevent its incursion into the UK. The European Commission has given a strong indication that it will shortly come forward with proposals that would enable the UK and other tapeworm-free countries to retain tapeworm controls with a treatment window of one to five days.

Ticks

Tick controls will no longer apply when the rules change on 1 January 2012. Although ticks which are capable of transmitting the disease Mediterranean Spotted Fever might enter the UK via pet movements, they could also enter the UK via other routes (for example on people or vehicles). Even then, the likelihood of ticks establishing in the UK is negligible. Our evidence base for maintaining tick controls is less robust than for tapeworm and we would have difficulty putting forward a case to show tick controls are fully effective, scientifically justified and proportionate to the risk of disease incursion. We will continue to work with vets to encourage pet owners travelling abroad to treat their pets against ticks, as they do at present, as part of good pet ownership practice. Pet owners are advised to talk to their vets about the appropriate course of action for their animals when planning a trip abroad.

There are a number of practical issues that still need to be worked through and Defra will be engaging with key stakeholders, including the quarantine and carrier industries, over the coming months. Members of the public who intend to travel abroad with their pet from 1 January 2012 should consult the Defra website for advice on the procedures to follow in the first instance, contact the Pets helpline or speak to their vet.

Agriculture and Fisheries Council (28 June)

Caroline Spelman Excerpts

Tuesday 28th June 2011 Written Statements

[The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Mrs Caroline Spelman)]

The Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for Newbury (Richard Benyon) who is responsible for the natural environment and fisheries will be representing the United Kingdom at the Agriculture and Fisheries Council in Luxembourg on 28 June.

There is one fisheries and one agriculture item on the agenda. Discussions will take place on the following:

Communication from the Commission concerning a consultation on fishing opportunities—The annual report setting out the scientific background and principles that the Commission will use to formulate their annual proposals for fishing opportunities to be agreed later in the year.

Follow-up to the Extraordinary Council on 7 June 2011 on the E. coli outbreak—Information from the Commission on proposals it has put in place to provide aid to affected growers.

There are currently five items under any other business

Unrestricted fishing of mackerel by Iceland and Faroe Islands—A request from the Irish delegation for EU action to bring Iceland and Faroe Islands back inside the multilateral management of the fishery.

Conference on the future of the common fisheries policy—A report from the Dutch delegation on the recent high-level conference held in Noordwijk, Netherlands.

European funding for the fisheries sector post-2013—Joint declaration by Bulgaria, Czech Republic, Estonia, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, and Romania, on the budget and objectives of the successor to the European fisheries fund.

Future of the food aid for deprived persons scheme—A request from the Hungarian and Italian delegations for the Commission to present proposals to amend the current deprived persons programme.

NGO conference on trade, development and sustainability in the European animal sector—A report from the presidency on the conference of officials and NGOs that took place in the ministerial meeting at the informal Agriculture Council in Debrecen (26-28 May 2011).

Meeting of G20 Agriculture Ministers

Caroline Spelman Excerpts

Tuesday 28th June 2011 Written Statements

[The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Mrs Caroline Spelman)]

The House will be aware that on 22 and 23 June, France as presidency of the G20, convened the first ever meeting at G20 level of Agriculture Ministers, to consider an action plan on food price volatility and agriculture.

The action plan which we agreed recognises that market fundamentals—supply and demand—are the key causes of price volatility in wheat, corn, maize and soya and that both increasing production sustainably and reducing shocks to supply such as those caused when policymakers respond to poor quality information are the means to ensure a healthier relationship of supply to rising demand.

We emphasised the need to trade openly and remove distorting measures, and that export bans in particular should not impede calls for humanitarian aid.

We are taking steps to improve market information and transparency, by establishing an agricultural market information system (AMIS) in order to encourage major players on the agri-food markets to share data, to enhance existing information systems, to promote greater shared understanding of food price developments, and further policy dialogue and co-operation. G20 countries committed to disclose reliable, quality, accurate and timely data for this initiative.

We also agreed to establish a senior officials’ group to act as a “Rapid Response Forum”, to share views and plans for immediate actions in order to prevent or mitigate world food price crises. Taken together with the improvement in market information which we anticipate that AMIS will bring, this improved co-ordination should reduce the extent to which G20 members are themselves the source of avoidable supply shocks in future, as happens for example when panic buying takes place or export restrictions are imposed.

G20 Ministers committed themselves to implementing a broad scope of actions to boost agricultural growth, including a strengthening of agricultural research and innovation. In particular, we launched an international research initiative for wheat improvement to co-ordinate our efforts on this major crop for food security.

We recognised the need for further analysis of the relationships between biofuels production and food availability and price volatility, as well as potential policy responses.

Finally, we welcomed and endorsed the importance of the work of the G20’s development working group—on risk management and the potential use of pre-deployed emergency food stocks—and that of G20 Finance Ministers on financial regulation.

Environment Council (21 June 2011)

Caroline Spelman Excerpts

Thursday 16th June 2011 Written Statements

[The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Mrs Caroline Spelman)]

My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change and I will represent the UK at the Environment Council in Luxembourg on 21 June.

At this Council, Ministers will take note of progress reports relating to the proposal for a directive on control of major accident hazards involving dangerous substances (“Seveso III”) and to the proposal for a regulation regarding the possibility for member states to restrict or prohibit the cultivation of GMOs in their territory.

The presidency will also seek the adoption of Council conclusions on the protection of water resources and integrated sustainable water management in the European Union and beyond, a road map for moving to a competitive low-carbon economy in 2050 and the EU biodiversity strategy to 2020.

The lunch discussion will be on climate change and the status of international negotiations.

The following topics will be covered under “any other business”:

Information from the Commission on aviation/emissions trading scheme implementation;

Information from the Commission on the Conference on the Implementation of the EU Environmental Law (Brussels, 15 June 2011);

Information from the Commission on CSD 19 conclusions and possible way forward to Rio+20;

Information from Romanian delegation on the meeting of Environmental Ministers from the Black Sea Economic Co-operation countries (Bucharest, 31 May 2011) ;

Information from the Dutch delegation on the risks associated with nanomaterials;

Information from the French delegation on the management of cormorants;

Information from the Lithuanian delegation on nuclear installations planned in the EU neighbourhood (Kaliningrad region and Belarus);

Information from the Austrian delegation on new challenges in the light of the Fukushima accident—reflections of countries without nuclear power (Vienna, 25 May 2011);

Information from the Swedish delegation on global, regional and bilateral action on short-lived climate forcers;

Information from the Danish delegation on the use of industrial gas credits under the effort sharing decision;

Information from the presidency and Commission on the outcome of the first meeting of the Open-Ended Ad Hoc Intergovernmental Committee for the Nagoya Protocol on Access to Genetic Resources and the Fair and Equitable Sharing of Benefits Arising from their Utilization (Montreal, 5- 10 June 2011);

Information from the Slovak delegation on the third meeting of the Conference of the Parties to the Framework Convention on the Protection and Sustainable Development of the Carpathians (Bratislava, May 25-27, 2011) ; and

Presentation by the Polish delegation on the work programme of the incoming presidency.

Waste Review

Caroline Spelman Excerpts

Tuesday 14th June 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Jamie Reed (Copeland) (Lab)]

(Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State if she will make a statement on the waste review in England.

[The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Mrs Caroline Spelman)]

Apropos of the written ministerial statement listed on today’s Order Paper, I have laid in the Library copies of the waste review, to which we received 1,800 responses.

The Government’s waste review has looked at all aspects of waste policy and delivery in England. We want to make it easier for people to do the right thing and recycle more, so today’s review is good news for householders, businesses, councils and industry.

We will make it easier for people to recycle, and we will tackle measures introduced by the previous Government that encouraged councils specifically to cut the scope of collections. We will remove the criminal sanctions applying to householders, so that households are not menaced for simple mistakes. We also propose to introduce a “harm to local amenity” test to tackle “neighbours from hell”, ensuring that enforcement is targeted at those who deliberately and persistently break the law.

The review is good for business. We are abolishing landfill allowance trading schemes, because they create a perverse incentive for local authorities not to collect waste from business. We are giving them certainty about landfill tax; the escalator will move annually by £8 to a floor of £80 by 2015. We are announcing a voluntary agreement so that small and medium-sized enterprises can better access recycling services. We are providing business with a clear signal that energy from waste will be a key technology in the future.

Today’s review is good for the environment. We will start consulting on restricting wood waste from landfill and go on to review the feasibility of bans on metal, textiles and biodegradable waste. We shall also consult on increased recycling targets, to 2017, for packaging waste.

The review changes the way we look at waste by unlocking the economic opportunities for transforming waste into resource. We have set out a clear direction for cutting landfill, preventing waste and increasing recycling.

[Mr Reed]

That is barely credible, and it is no wonder that DEFRA is rapidly being seen as the equivalent of the mad woman in the attic. As usual, today’s announcement was spun to the media before it was laid before Parliament. Among the spin was yet another broken promise, this time on weekly bin collections. The Secretaries of State for both DEFRA and Communities and Local Government spent their time in opposition promising the public that weekly bin collections would be introduced, but today we discover that this is not the case. Before the election the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government said, to much acclaim from his own party:

“It’s a basic right”—

I emphasise the words “a basic right”—

“for every English man and woman to be able to put the remnants of their chicken tikka masala in their bin without having to wait a fortnight for it to be collected.”

Perhaps the Secretary of State can explain why the Government’s position has changed. Is she happy that the waste review contains no recycling targets at all for England, and that the UK’s recycling commitments under the European Union’s waste framework directive will therefore be met on the backs of recycling targets in Wales, Northern Ireland and Scotland? Is that right?

Will the right hon. Lady also tell us why she chose, on becoming Secretary of State, to abandon the Labour Government’s consultation on stopping wood going to landfill, only to waste a year and today reintroduce it? Instead of taking the chance to boost recycling, reduce waste and create jobs, the Government have abandoned Labour’s target of moving to a zero waste Britain. Under the previous Government recycling increased from 10% to 40%, but there is still more to do.

Today’s announcement fails to establish a framework for the green growth that the country needs and through which thousands of green jobs could be created. The waste review is a huge missed opportunity that looks set to do little for our environment or our economy. The Secretary of State should explain why it took so long and looks set to deliver so little.

[Mrs Spelman]

First, I wish to make it clear that the written ministerial statement was available to Members before I spoke to the Chartered Institution of Wastes Management. Of course the Government will work with all parties to increase recycling rates, but the recycling target is a European one of reducing waste by 50% by 2020. I am confident that we are on target. This is a devolved matter for the other nations.

It is a bit rich, coming from the Opposition, who had 13 years to get to grips with landfill. They could, if they had so wanted, have got on and banned wood, materials, textiles and metals. I fear that the Opposition are still in denial about the dreadful economic legacy that they left to the Government.

Finally, the hon. Gentleman asks about green growth. I have just spoken to the Chartered Institution of Wastes Management and shared with them the fact that we estimate that there will be a growth of 3% or 4% per annum in green jobs through the waste industry because of the positive framework that we are setting out to help people do what they want to do—the right thing: waste less and recycle more.

[Miss Anne McIntosh (Thirsk and Malton) (Con)]

I welcome the statement that the Secretary of State laid before the House today. May I share with her the fact that the district council serving my part of north Yorkshire will be well on its way to meeting the target that she has set. There will obviously be some perverse implications from abolishing LATS—landfill allowance trading schemes—because rural communities have done very well out of that.

I welcome the fact that anaerobic digestion is to be increased. It deals primarily with waste food. What are the implications for other energy from waste facilities in the next few years?

[Mrs Spelman]

I thank the Chairman of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee for her warm welcome for the Government’s waste review and her recognition that LATS fulfilled a role whose impact the landfill tax has largely overtaken in helping us reduce the amount that goes to landfill.

At the same time as publishing the waste review, I have published the Government’s anaerobic digestion strategy. We see the future for anaerobic digestion as very important. The Select Committee Chairman makes an important point. It is not just food waste that can be used as a feedstock for anaerobic digestion, and we must be careful that food crops are not caught as feedstock for anaerobic digestion. We should be using waste.

[Joan Ruddock (Lewisham, Deptford) (Lab)]

I suspect that the Communities Secretary eats rather more chicken tikka masala than the right hon. Lady. Does she agree that the chicken tikka masala remains would be much better put into a food collection than into a black sack? Will she make some progress on further recycling? What does she think of the Friends of the Earth target, which I very much support, of halving black sack waste by 2020?

[Mrs Spelman]

I have to feed teenagers who are rather partial to chicken tikka masala, and there is very little left at the end of the day. The Government will be working with local councils to increase the frequency and quality of rubbish collections and make it easier to recycle, to tackle measures that encourage councils specifically to cut the scope of collections and to support them where they wish to provide a weekly collection for smelly waste.

[Andrew George (St Ives) (LD)]

I welcome the publication of the review today. Does my right hon. Friend agree that if we are to address the challenge of the regularity of waste collection, we need particularly to look at pages 58 onwards of the report in relation to the management of food waste? What will the Government be doing to reassure people that we will meet ambitious targets to reduce food waste going into the chain?

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I ask colleagues to ask short questions. There is a lot of interest and there is little time.

[Mrs Spelman]

I thank my hon. Friend for a question that obviously shows that he has read the review. He will know that it contains the startling fact that we waste £12 billion-worth of food a year, which we can ill afford to do. We need to work with all involved in food production and packaging to try to minimise the amount of food waste.

[Mr Ben Bradshaw (Exeter) (Lab)]

Why is the right hon. Lady sparing the blushes of the Communities Secretary? Was it not always nonsense for a Government to pay lip service to localism but then to try to force local authorities to reintroduce weekly collections? Will she confirm that most of the local authorities that have alternate weekly collections are Conservative-controlled, and that there is a strong correlation between high recycling rates and alternate weekly collections?

[Mrs Spelman]

It is important to encourage councils to respond to what local people want and need. That is the very essence of localism. Therefore, we will proceed with a new commitment from councils to redouble their efforts to listen and respond to the wishes of their residents on refuse collection.

[Mr John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con)]

Does the Secretary of State agree that it is unacceptable to have rotting food waste hanging around for up to two weeks in bins, and will she tell councils that she hopes that they will have at least weekly collections so that we do not have the danger and risk of that situation?

[Mrs Spelman]

I said in response to an earlier question from the right hon. Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Joan Ruddock) that we believe that it is important to support local authorities that want to provide a weekly collection of the smelly part of the waste, and DEFRA will make available £10 million to assist them in that.

[Chris Leslie (Nottingham East) (Lab/Co-op)]

The Secretary of State is obviously quite adept at U-turns, but why is she so selfishly hanging on to this U-turn when she could have let the Communities Secretary make his very own U-turn today?

[Mrs Spelman]

I remind the hon. Gentleman that we are a coalition Government, a Government of two parties, and he might like to read the coalition agreement commitment that said the Government will

“work towards a ‘zero waste’ economy, encourage councils to pay people to recycle, and work to reduce littering.”

There will also be measures to promote a huge increase in energy from waste through anaerobic digestion as set out in our review today.

[Sir Paul Beresford (Mole Valley) (Con)]

I thank my right hon. Friend for her statement and for her flexibility, in contrast to my right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (Mr Redwood). My local authority works with the private sector and provides a two-weekly service, but a weekly food waste service. The key factor has been the flexibility of a good contract with the private sector. Does she agree that those local authorities that have been dogmatic about not using competitive tendering should think again?

[Mrs Spelman]

I agree with my hon. Friend that waste services are a matter for local authorities and that they should develop fit-for-purpose local solutions. However, the Government believe that better procurement and joint working can improve the efficiency of collections while improving the front-line service for the public in an affordable and practical manner.

[Paul Farrelly (Newcastle-under-Lyme) (Lab)]

Five years ago the Conservatives in Newcastle-under-Lyme made exactly the same promise on weekly collections and then promptly broke it. They then spent £2.5 million with their Liberal Democrat friends on a complicated recycling scheme with 10 different bins, boxes and bags, which has turned Newcastle into a curiosity. They now cannot afford to reinstate weekly collections—

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I call the Secretary of State.

[Mrs Spelman]

The most important message is that the Government are trying to make it easier for people to do the right thing. Whether they are at home dealing with household refuse, at work or on the go, we need to make it easier for them to waste less and recycle more.

[Ian Swales (Redcar) (LD)]

Does the Secretary of State accept that developing technologies can turn waste into biofuels and chemicals? Will she encourage such plans and support those currently being put forward by INEOS at Seal Sands on Teesside?

[Mrs Spelman]

I am not aware of the specific technology being developed by INEOS, but I would be delighted to learn more about it. It is important that we embrace all new technology. I have today mentioned anaerobic digestion, for which I have set out a strategy, but new technologies are coming on stream all the time to turn waste into resources and we should explore them all.

[John Woodcock (Barrow and Furness) (Lab/Co-op)]

It is all very well hiding behind the language of local choice, but the Government promised that they would bring back weekly bin collections across the country. Will the Secretary of State apologise to families who have been led up the garden path by what she said?

[Mrs Spelman]

I have made it clear that the coalition consists of two parties that struck an agreement, including on provisions relating to waste, which we are fulfilling today. I have set that out very clearly.

[Justin Tomlinson (North Swindon) (Con)]

In stark contrast to the strong-arm tactics of the previous Government, in what ways has the Secretary of State encouraged incentives to drive up recycling rates?

[Mrs Spelman]

Absolutely. This is such an important point. The previous Government, with their punitive approach, lost public confidence by punishing a little old lady for making the genuine mistake of putting the wrong waste in a recycling container. They lost the plot. Today, we are restoring a proportionate response to the penalties that should apply and are going after the real waste criminals.

[Mr Kevan Jones (North Durham) (Lab)]

I am sorry that the right hon. Lady is acting as a human shield for the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government—I have heard that no Liberal Democrat is available to do the job. One of the key issues at local level that encourages cleaner communities is the proper containerisation of waste, particularly trade and household waste. Will she confirm that the fines that councils can impose on businesses will be retained, and what does she suggest to a council—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I am grateful.

[Mrs Spelman]

There were perverse incentives in the regime in place under the previous Government. As I have mentioned, LATS actually deterred the collection and recycling of business waste, so their abolition, which was a coalition agreement commitment, will re-incentivise councils to collect and recycle more business waste. We want to help to make it easier for small and medium-sized enterprises, in particular, to benefit.

[Dr Thérèse Coffey (Suffolk Coastal) (Con)]

In contrast to Cumbria’s recycling rate of 37%, Suffolk’s is more than 60%, no doubt helped by regular weekly food waste collections. We are also giving planning permission for anaerobic digestion. Will the Secretary of State work with me to ensure that the Department of Energy and Climate Change gets through those issues so that more such facilities are available across the country?

[Mrs Spelman]

It is right to applaud householders and the way they have actively become involved in trying to increase recycling rates. That is what people want to do, and the Government’s job is to make it easier for them, including through food waste collections if that is what local people want. I have already said that we will support authorities that do that and I will work with DECC to make that easier.

[Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab)]

If the cuts mean that councils cannot collect rubbish once a week, what chance is there for the NHS or other services?

[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.

[Mr Andrew Love (Edmonton) (Lab/Co-op)]

I have the largest incinerator in the country in my constituency, and it reaches the end of its useful life in 2014. The replacement anaerobic digestion plant was cancelled because private finance initiative credits were withdrawn. What reassurance can you give to my constituents that your strategy will lead to the ending of incineration in my constituency?

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I have no strategy on this matter, but the Secretary of State might.

[Mrs Spelman]

I have made it clear that energy from waste has its place in turning waste into resources. I have also made it crystal clear today that the Government are committed to helping local authorities that want to use anaerobic digestion, and we will make funds available to achieve that.

[Harriett Baldwin (West Worcestershire) (Con)]

Will the Secretary of State congratulate Malvern Hills district council and Wychavon district council? The former kept weekly bin collections, the latter moved to two-weekly bin collections, and both were recently soundly re-elected as Conservative councils for a further four-year term.

[Mrs Spelman]

That demonstrates that good local authorities that respond to the wishes and needs of their residents and supply refuse collection services of good quality and sufficient frequency receive their reward through the ballot box and are returned to office.

[Tom Blenkinsop (Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland) (Lab)]

In the Secretary of State’s opinion, does the Prime Minister require a weekly bin collection to dump rubbish policies such as the NHS reforms?

[Mrs Spelman]

I do not think that that is a proper question about the waste review. The Prime Minister enjoys a very good refuse collection service in his Oxfordshire constituency.

[Vernon Coaker (Gedling) (Lab)]

If the Secretary of State wants to meet her waste targets and tackle recycling, why has the availability of feed-in tariffs been reduced?

[Mrs Spelman]

That is more accurately a question for DECC, and I suggest that the hon. Gentleman addresses his question to a Minister from that Department.

Waste Review

Caroline Spelman Excerpts

Tuesday 14th June 2011 Written Statements

[The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Mrs Caroline Spelman)]

I am today publishing the findings of the Government’s review of waste policies in England 2011.

The review has looked at all aspects of waste policy and delivery in England to ensure that we are taking the necessary steps towards creating a “zero-waste” economy, where resources are fully valued, and nothing of value gets thrown away. I am grateful to all those who took their time to respond to our call for evidence, or with whom we have discussed ideas.

Ensuring that we manage our material resources and waste as sustainably as possible is central to protection of our natural environment and a range of related priorities including material security, energy policy, climate change, and creation of a green economy.

The waste review includes a range of commitments designed to move waste more quickly up the waste hierarchy, away from disposal in landfill, with waste prevention a priority, followed by reuse, recycling and recovery.

The review concludes that preventing waste wherever possible can deliver the best environmental and economic outcomes. The Government will work with business sectors and the waste and material resources industry to develop voluntary approaches to cutting waste and increase recycling. We will also consult on banning wood waste from landfill and assess whether further bans may be appropriate in the future.

In order to improve the service to householders and businesses we will:

Encourage councils to sign a new recycling and waste services commitment, setting out the principles they will follow in delivering local waste services;

Protect civil liberties by decriminalising trivial household bin offences, while ensuring that stronger powers exist to tackle those responsible for fly-tipping and serious waste crime;

Support initiatives which reward and recognise people who do the right thing to reduce, reuse and recycle their waste;

Support councils and the waste industry in improving the collection of waste from smaller businesses;

Reduce the burden of regulation and enforcement on legitimate business, but target those who persistently break the law.

Alongside the waste review, I am also publishing an anaerobic digestion strategy. The coalition Government are committed to being the “Greenest Government ever” and achieving that will in part mean substantially increasing energy from waste through anaerobic digestion (AD).

This offers a local, environmentally sound option for waste management which helps us divert waste from landfill, reduce greenhouse gas emissions and produce renewable energy which could be used to power our homes and vehicles. Farmers and gardeners can also benefit from the fertiliser produced, returning valuable nutrients to the land.

There are many different technologies available that can process waste and each may have a role to play, given the variety of waste arising and local situations. AD is the technology on which we are focusing in the strategy and action plan but we are also looking at how other technologies can also contribute to providing renewable gas. We do recognise that there are significant barriers that must first be overcome. During the past six months, we have been working closely with industry to identify the key barriers to uptake and to agree an ambitious programme of work to help overcome them.

This strategy and action plan are the result of this work. Each action has a named lead organisation and all have committed to drive the work forward. Changes cannot be delivered overnight, and the action plan may well need to be modified by experience, but this plan is the first and key step to enabling a thriving AD industry to grow in England over the next few years, delivering new green jobs as well as new green energy.

The waste review and anaerobic digestion strategy are both available at www.defra.gov.uk/environment/waste/ and in the Libraries of both Houses.

Dry Weather Conditions

Caroline Spelman Excerpts

Friday 10th June 2011 Written Statements

[The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Mrs Caroline Spelman)]

The House will be aware that the current dry spell has created one of the driest springs on record. Indeed it has been the driest spring across England and Wales since 1990 and the driest spring on record in south-east and central southern England. Today, the Environment Agency has announced a move to drought status for Lincolnshire, Cambridgeshire, parts of Bedfordshire and Northamptonshire and western Norfolk, triggered by river and ground water levels, and risk to the environment and to farmers. Most of the south-east (except an area covering central and northern London) is at risk of drought.

Some reservoir levels are below normal for the time of year and ground water levels are in decline as we expect at this time of year. But it is our rivers that are seeing the greatest impact. The majority of rivers across south-west, central and eastern England have below average river flows with some experiencing exceptionally low flows.

These low flows are impacting on farmers that rely on spray irrigation during dry spells in the growing season to water their crops. Water for spraying is abstracted from our rivers under licence and conditions attached to those licences have meant that some farmers have had to stop taking water for irrigation. In addition, a small number of notices have been issued to prevent abstraction for irrigation to protect the Romney Marsh site of special scientific interest.

I have been monitoring developments closely and held a drought summit last month with the farmers, water companies and environmental groups, to hear first hand the impacts on different sectors and to agree actions that could be taken. The Environment Agency will report back later this month on the situation and potential impacts on water supplies, farmers and the environment. Natural England is also meeting conservation groups on 14 June and will report back to me on actions to reduce the impact on wildlife. A further meeting is taking place today with representatives of farming, water and energy companies and environmental groups to consider actions that can be taken in the short-term to make their water go further and to look at actions to build resilience in the future. I shall convene a further drought summit later this month to review progress and consider what further actions we may need to take.

We are working closely with farmers, growers and their organisations as they monitor the situation. Wherever possible, the Environment Agency is working with farmers to encourage voluntary restrictions on water use before imposing formal restrictions on spray irrigation. More widely, the agency has worked with water companies and water users to develop plans that minimise the risk of short-term restrictions on water use.

For those areas that have moved to drought status, the Environment Agency is working with water companies to remind people and businesses to use water wisely. Natural England has issued guidance to farmers and is ensuring that appropriate environmental stewardship derogations are made available to farmers in agri-environmental scheme agreements as a result of drought-related conditions.

Most water companies are reporting that they have sufficient reserves and do not predict the need for restrictions on use. Just one, Severn Trent, has informed its customers that restrictions may become necessary should the dry weather continue. Water companies have statutory drought plans that set out how they will manage the impacts of a drought. These plans include early triggers to bring all available water sources into supply before restrictions are imposed on the public water supply. Should there be a need to conserve water for the public supply then water companies may impose temporary restrictions on certain non-essential uses of water to help reduce the likelihood of more stringent demand restrictions that impact on customers and businesses.

Householders can get good advice on how to make best use of water from their water supplier, and from Waterwise (www.waterwise.org.uk). Water companies are increasing their engagement in this respect.

The “Natural Environment” White Paper, published on 7 June, announced our intention to reform the water abstraction management regime to provide clearer signals to drive investment decisions to meet water needs and protect ecosystems. The “Water” White Paper, due to be published in December, will provide further details.

I will continue to monitor the situation and will keep the House updated if there is any material change in the situation.

E. coli

Caroline Spelman Excerpts

Friday 10th June 2011 Written Statements

[The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Mrs Caroline Spelman)]

The Secretary of State for Health informed the House on 7 June of how the Government are taking all possible measures to monitor the serious E. coli 0104 outbreak that is centred in Germany and to assess and deal with any associated risks should any arise for consumers in the UK. I will not repeat what he has said in relation to the background of the outbreak.

It is deeply regrettable that this outbreak has resulted in the loss of life. It has also had a disruptive economic impact on growers and others within the supply chain for fruit and vegetables across the EU, including our domestic industry.

At retail level, prices for domestically produced salad—lettuce, tomatoes, cucumbers, sweet peppers and courgettes—have remained relatively stable, although demand has declined, with the result that more produce is being sent to the wholesale market, which is experiencing movement in prices. I welcome the support for UK producers shown by the big retailers who have in some cases increased their offering of UK salad produce, in response to consumer demand for our home crops.

One impact of the decision by the Russian Federation to impose a ban on EU fruit and vegetable produce is that surplus produce has been directed to alternative EU markets, including our own. The consequence has been to depress values in the wholesale market, with volumes down, although here again, I understand that prices for English produce are faring better than those for imported produce. But the situation continues to develop and the latest indications from our trade organisations are that the market has deteriorated.

The impacts of the overall situation are being felt across the EU and because of this, the Agriculture and Fisheries Council on 7 June discussed the need for exceptional measures to address the market situation and to provide financial support for growers affected. Proposals were discussed by Ministers at Council level and considered by officials at the EU Fruit and Vegetables Management Committee but no package has yet been agreed for implementation. Discussions will continue on 14 June.

The proposals build upon existing measures that are available within the fruit and vegetable aspects of the common agricultural policy via its Single Common Market Organisation (sCMO) of agricultural markets. No brand new measures are proposed. The total budget proposed would be €210 million, which would come from the existing European Agriculture Guarantee Fund (Common Agricultural Policy) budget to cover tomatoes, cucumbers, lettuce and also peppers and courgettes. No additional funding is proposed. The proposals cover the extension and relation of the rules covering market withdrawals. In the main this means that produce will go for destruction, because the perishable nature of fresh produce means that intervention is not a viable option. Compensation would be paid only in respect of the withdrawal of produce and it would not extend to compensation for loss of earnings nor to pay for the difference between current and normal expected market value. Details of the proposal are as follows:

Separate maximum compensation rates at €/100kg would be established for tomatoes, lettuce, cucumbers, peppers and courgettes, to represent about 50% of the usual average June price for such produce.

The measures would be open to all member states to implement.

The allocated funding would be available on a first-come first-served basis—there are currently no plans for an allocation per member state.

In general withdrawals of produce must be made via Producer Organisations (POs) recognised under the sCMO. There is already such provision through POs’ existing funding programmes but the proposed new funding will be additional. However, under amended proposals, the Commission are considering an alternative route via the Paying Agency direct, which would be helpful for growers who are not members of a PO.

The proposal is for a temporary measure, to apply retrospectively from 26 May to 30 June, or when the budget is exhausted—whichever is sooner.

At a later stage, the Commission will consider whether a promotional campaign for fruit and vegetables could also be considered, to support the restoration of consumer confidence in the market.

The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs will continue to maintain close contact with the Food Standards Agency and with industry organisations and is discussing with the Rural Payments Agency and other Government Departments how to implement the proposed measures.

Agriculture and Fisheries Council

Caroline Spelman Excerpts

Tuesday 7th June 2011 Written Statements

[The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Mrs Caroline Spelman)]

My noble Friend Lord Henley represented the United Kingdom at the Agriculture and Fisheries Council in Brussels on 17 May

The only item on the main agenda was the participation of the EU in negotiations on a legally binding agreement (LBA) on forests in Europe at the ministerial meeting in Oslo on 14-16 June. The presidency urged the Council to reach consensus on the two decisions required:

i) the Council decision on EU areas of competence; and

ii) the member state decision on areas of national competence.

The Commission wanted the two decisions treated as a package and agreed by consensus and the Council legal service’s opinion was that this mix of EU and MS competence required a consensus agreement. Most member states supported the LBA; the UK, Sweden and the Netherlands were opposed. The UK, while supporting the voluntary aspect of Forest Europe’s work, reiterated its objections on the basis that an LBA would involve both financial and policy costs. Sweden made a robust intervention which defended its national interests in the forest sector and rejected the LBA. However, there was general support for all decisions to be agreed by consensus and that further concessions might be required. The presidency referred the draft decisions back to Coreper for further consideration before the Oslo conference.

There were nine AoB points

Welfare of animals during transport—Sweden called on the Commission to consider reducing the maximum journey time for animals going to slaughter to eight hours. The Commission explained that its report, due to be published in September, would be to provide an overview of the implementation of the existing regulation. The Commission would then consider what actions were needed to address issues identified in that report. While a few other member states supported Sweden, the UK and others emphasised that existing EU legislation should be better enforced and that sound scientific evidence would be required to justify further legislation.

Animal Welfare in the Baltic Region—Lithuania explained that it had hosted a conference in to promote animal welfare in the Baltic region through the concept of responsible ownership. The Commission, a conference co-organiser, added that the conference had highlighted the importance of education and information campaigns to promote animal welfare standards.

Codex alimentarius negotiations—The presidency highlighted the importance of these discussions. The Commission urged member states to provide an adequate level of participation to ensure that the EU could maintain its leading role in setting international food standards.

G20 update—France updated the Council on the five pillar action plan it had drawn up, to tackle the volatility of agricultural commodity prices, for the June meeting of G20 Agriculture Ministers. The Commission would table specific proposals in reaction to the action plan which will be endorsed by the G20 Ministers in June. The importance of boosting the transparency of the agricultural commodity market and strengthening rules banning export restrictions was emphasised by the Commission.

Current drought situation and advance of direct payments —France, with the support from a number of member states called for an advance of 8% of direct payments and suckler cow premium to offset shortfalls in market receipts owing to recent droughts in northern Europe. The Commission observed that advances in direct payments were already permissible under the current rules and would work with France for a solution on suckler cow premium.

Conference on sustainable food consumption and production—The presidency introduced its report of the above conference, which had been based on the findings of the Standing Committee on Agricultural Research (SCAR). The presidency concluded that SCAR would adopt a declaration on research applications for agricultural sustainability in June, while the Commission noted that the future CAP would also need instruments to address challenges identified by the SCAR. To that end, it would be establishing an innovation partnership on agricultural research in due course.

Conclusions of the enlarged advisory group on pigmeat—The Commission reprised the conclusions, noting in particular that it would address the challenges faced by the pigmeat sector as part of the reform of the CAP. A large majority of member states intervened to lament the lack of immediate action. The presidency noted that delegations could continue to raise similar points at the informal Council on 30 May, when the question of sustainable animal husbandry would be discussed by Ministers.

Poland’s request for a 30% increase in intervention price for cereals—Poland justified this request on the basis of recent rises in input costs. The Commission rejected the call as cereals price were at record highs; intervention prices were being maintained at current levels during the CAP health check and it was important that intervention functioned as a genuine safety net for producers and not as a profitable alternative to market sales.

Sugar production quota—Poland, with the support of some member states, called for an increase in the sugar production quota for all beet producing countries to offset shortfalls and high sugar prices on the EU market. Germany, the UK and Portugal argued that balance needed to be maintained on the EU market between beet producers and cane refiners, in accordance with the 2006 sugar reforms. The Commission felt a longer-term view should be maintained, noting the structural changes that would occur.

Natural Environment White Paper (“The Natural Choice”)

Caroline Spelman Excerpts

Tuesday 7th June 2011 Written Statements

[The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Mrs Caroline Spelman)]

This is the first Environment White Paper in years and sets out how we will deliver the coalition’s commitment to protect the environment for future generations, make our economy more environmentally sustainable, and improve our quality of life and well-being.

It follows a consultation which elicited a huge public response of 15,000 submissions and I am extremely grateful to all those who took the time to respond and share their ideas.

The White Paper also responds to two major independent studies: the National Ecosystem Assessment and the Lawton report, “Making Space for Nature”.

The White Paper offers an ambitious vision for the next 50 years: to be the generation that leaves the natural environment in a better state than we found it. Key aims of the paper are:

to protect and improve our natural environment;

to grow a greener economy;

to capture the benefits which nature has for our well-being; and

to secure a healthy natural environment overseas.

The NEWP aims to better engage and connect local communities with their natural environments, making it easier for them to get involved in protecting and enhancing nature in their area.

Alongside the White Paper we have also published a more detailed response to the “Making Space for Nature” review, which is available on the DEFRA website.

A copy of the White Paper is available at: www.defra. gov.uk/environment/natural/whitepaper/