Oral Answers to Questions

Alan Whitehead Excerpts

Thursday 13th February 2014 Commons Chamber

[Dan Rogerson]

My hon. Friend has already invited me to visit Bradford on Avon. I am happy to do that and to discuss with the local authority any concerns it has about the current situation.

[Dr Alan Whitehead (Southampton, Test) (Lab)]

In the light of the Department’s withdrawal of the funding for the EU programme on bee decline, how will the Department provide an evidenced response at the end of the two-year ban on neonicotinoids as pesticides?

[George Eustice]

We have a number of work streams looking at this issue, including one by the Food and Environment Research Agency, but I repeat that this Government take very seriously protecting habitats for bees and promoting pollinators. That is why it is a key part of our common agricultural policy aims.

Pollinators and Pesticides

Alan Whitehead Excerpts

Thursday 6th June 2013 Commons Chamber

[Dr Alan Whitehead (Southampton, Test) (Lab)]

It is true to say that very little of what is discussed in this Chamber is beyond dispute. Indeed, only on Tuesday, a scientific hypothesis that has been shown to be supported by 97% of scientists writing about it in a review of 12,000 papers—namely, anthropogenic global warming—was nevertheless merrily being debated by hon. Members as though that near certainty did not exist. Questions concerning what is happening to bees and pollinators, what the causes are and what role pesticides may or may not play in the problems that we have heard this afternoon are occurring with bee populations are far less certain than that. It is thus potentially a matter for a great deal of dispute.

I want to reflect on the related problem that we as legislators have in addressing those issues and deciding how best to take action on them. The Select Committee’s work on this issue was an exemplar of how to go about that when the members themselves are not experts. Interestingly, however, as we have heard, the Environmental Audit Committee has rather more experts on it than one might think in respect of those who hold a certificate in apiculture. Also, several members are active or former farmers who have a great deal of knowledge and information about how these things work in general. The Committee did not go about its business in any kind of sensationalist manner. It operated carefully, quietly and at some length, seeking a large range of thoughts, opinions and experts in order to shed some light on what is a very knotty problem.

The problem was well summed up in a book published recently by the Canadian author, Douglas Coupland. He posited as a starting point of his novel that bees had been declared extinct. Then, across America, five people were found who had been stung by bees, and they were all arrested and immediately investigated by scientists on the basis of that apparently counter-scientific fact relating to the continuous existence of bees. Douglas Coupland was, I think, a little unscientific in setting out a world in which there were no bees, without taking account of the large number of other pollinators that exist alongside bees.

We know from the evidence produced before the Select Committee that the problem is not just about honey bees; in fact it is not just about bees as it is about all the pollinators that operate in our environment in such a fundamentally important and basic way to ensure that our ecosystem continues in a recognisable way. If the sort of declines that the Committee heard about are to continue at the same rate over the same sort of period, not just several bumble bee species but large numbers of bumble bees will be extinct.

The Committee was told that 600 solitary bees can pollinate as well as two hives containing 30,000 honey bees, so it is not just about honey bees. As our Committee Chairman mentioned, they are a sentinel species, but it is nevertheless the case that hoverflies, butterflies and all sorts of other pollinators are in steep decline. We were told that 66% of larger moth species in the countryside are declining, as are most of the bumble bees—we were told that six species had declined by at least 80% in recent years. As we have heard, hoverflies are declining, and 71% of butterfly species are declining at an alarming rate. We do not have data on the vast majority of the other pollinators, and we have to take some of those sentinel species as indicators for those other species, but we certainly do know that something is beginning to go seriously wrong with the species that pollinate our crops, flowers and food.

So I do not think the Committee had a choice in the conclusions it might reasonably draw from the material presented to it, given that, as legislators, we have to make choices when we are not necessarily complete experts in a subject. We are responsible for what happens and we have to take the best shot we can in terms of getting the best evidence available to inform our judgments. The evidence that came before the Committee demonstrated clearly a strong relationship, not only where neonicotinoids were used, but, for example, where crops were routinely dusted. Farmers cannot purchase oilseed rape seeds in this country that have not been dusted. Whether or not they think there is a problem with their crops, they simply have to plant those crops, which have, systemic within them, the effect of the neonicotinoid with which they have been dusted.

The Committee heard about the various studies done by Henry, Whitehorn and Gill, which demonstrated a strong causal link between neonicotinoids and an effect on bees in a laboratory. We also heard about the continued difficulty in conducting adequate field trials. One person who contributed to our evidence suggested that getting scientific certainty from field trials would cost about £20 million and take 10 years, if that is what one wanted to do. So we cannot deal in absolute scientific certainty on these things and, in terms of decision making, nor should we. The conclusions that the Committee reached on what should be done about neonicotinoids are absolutely right, given what we, as legislators, are charged with doing. I continue to be a little dismayed about the extent to which it appears that this is not quite the route the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs is taking in its representations on pesticides, pollinators and bees.

I welcome the notion that further, and, we hope, much less flawed, field trials will be carried out urgently, which can get further indicators to the fore. I also welcome the idea that we should try to ensure that integrated approaches are brought to the fore in the future management of pesticides. It has been implied—the Committee unanimously felt that this was not the case—that there are no alternatives to neonicotinoids if they are taken off the roster of usable pesticides for those plants. I hope that we can use different methods of pesticide management and ensure that the crops are well maintained, with advice and assistance from DEFRA, in a way that a number of people say is not possible to do.

We remain in a world in which there is an enormous amount that we do not know. I hope that DEFRA will monitor developments involving non-bee pollinators much more closely, will keep them well to the fore in the views that it expresses and the action that it decides to take, and will continue to look at the evidence that is being produced about elements that are thought to be having an impact on colony decline. I hope that its consideration will bring together such issues as varroa mite habitats, food availability, husbandry, and, indeed, climate change, in order to create a more complete picture of what is going on.

Let me emphasise again that we do not know the details of what is going on. We do not know what is the prime cause of decline. What we do know is that there is a decline, that it is very serious, and that we can do things about it. That is the essence of what the Committee is saying in the report. It does not seek to provide all the answers; it does not look for a silver bullet; but it does suggest that there is a strong case for taking action. I hope that DEFRA will take precisely the sort of action that we need, in order to ensure that our pollinators are healthier in the future and our ecosystem revives as a result.

Ash Dieback Disease

Alan Whitehead Excerpts

Monday 29th October 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Heath]

In this instance I can put my hon. Friend’s fears to rest because the EU has not impeded what we have sought to do in any way. Indeed, we have been working extremely closely with colleagues in other countries who, to date, have faced a much larger incidence of this disease than we have. We have been able to learn from their experiences and put those lessons into action in this country.

[Dr Alan Whitehead (Southampton, Test) (Lab)]

The Minister will understand that the felling of a large amount of timber may have an effect on the wood services industry and the price of timber. Will he issue advice—perhaps he has advice now—on the safe storage, curing and drying out of wood that has been felled, to ensure that the pathogen does not persist?

[Mr Heath]

We will certainly issue such guidance. The ban also deals with the movement of timber and timber waste products in this country. There is no evidence that the pathogen persists in felled trees and wood products but, nevertheless, we believe that an appropriately precautionary response would be to restrict movements in this country, and that is what we have done.

Oral Answers to Questions

Alan Whitehead Excerpts

Thursday 25th October 2012 Commons Chamber

[Richard Benyon]

Yes I do, and we are. The Health and Safety Executive’s chemical regulation directorate, along with the Advisory Committee on Pesticides and the European Food Safety Authority, have looked in detail at Stirling university’s research. They believe that it is interesting and adds to the debate, but that on balance the risks do not require a ban of neonicotinoids. However, in DEFRA we have commissioned further research, through the Food and Environment Research Agency, using expertise from Stirling university, which provided the original piece of research, because we want to make absolutely sure that we are getting this right.

[Dr Alan Whitehead (Southampton, Test) (Lab)]

The Minister will be aware that the Environmental Audit Committee is undertaking an inquiry into hive collapse, bees and pesticides. Will he undertake to ensure that his Department supports the inquiry to the best possible extent and also responds at the earliest possible date to its outcome?

[Richard Benyon]

I hope that in the reply I gave to my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Stephen Phillips) I showed the seriousness with which we are looking at this issue. We know that pollinators benefit our economy by around £450 million a year. That is a service that nature provides. We want to make absolutely sure that we are protecting that, and we will work with any organisation that is doing research of that kind.

Rio+20 Summit

Alan Whitehead Excerpts

Tuesday 28th February 2012 Commons Chamber

[Dr Alan Whitehead (Southampton, Test) (Lab)]

The Rio summit of 1992 represented what many people saw as a comprehensive programme of aspiration towards an international understanding of sustainability and a move towards a sustainable world economy. As the hon. Member for Beverley and Holderness (Mr Stuart) set out, a number of important things came out of Rio 1992, which I believe was signed up to in the end by 178 Governments. It was to a large extent informed by the unsurpassed definition of sustainability from Brundtland—that it is development

“that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs.”

That is the famous part, but the central definition refers to other things from Brundtland, such as

“the concept of needs, in particular the essential needs of the world’s poor, to which overriding priority should be given; and, the idea of limitations imposed by the state of technology and social organisation on the environment’s ability to meet present and future needs.”

If anything, it is that second element of sustainability that we have let slip by over the 20 years since Rio.

As hon. Members have mentioned, Rio led among other things to an outpouring of local enthusiasm in the form of Local Agenda 21. I was an enthusiastic Local Agenda 21-er at that time, but we were probably naive about implementation and subsequently about what sustainability actually meant.

I was recently invited to an interesting seminar on sustainable aviation. There, I wondered whether the concept of sustainability might have been pushed a little to the margins. As far as the approach to Rio+20 is concerned, it is important to get clear what we mean by sustainability and what we mean in respect of the needs and the limitations that go with the sustainability concept. We must then address those matters very seriously in the Rio+20 discussions.

Things have certainly not happened since the original Rio along the lines that those who participated and lauded what happened there would have expected. Although considerable progress has been made with the millennium goals that were set at the Rio+10 summit in Johannesburg, most of them will not be met by 2015, partly because, as I think we now know, many Governments who say they will do things simply do not do them. Being clear about that at Rio+20 will be an important part of securing a realistic outcome from what it may achieve.

Rio+20 is likely to proceed on a much more sombre basis than earlier summits of this kind, but as other Members have pointed out, last year’s Durban summit on climate change demonstrated that expectations can sometimes be confounded, and I hope that we can approach this summit in that spirit. The fact that it has been demanded by the developing world rather than by developed nations makes a significant difference. It will look to the themes of Rio, but it will do so in terms of everyone’s development. It will consider the concept of a green economy in the context of sustainable development and the institutional framework that will make it possible, and I believe that it will do so in the light of the whole Brundtland report rather than just the oft-quoted first line. It must concern itself with the carrying capacity of the planet and with its concomitant—the need for global equity in the sharing of the resources that go into sustainable development.

It might be salutary to compare that starting line with what we thought obtained at Rio 20 years ago. The work of the Stockholm resilience centre at Stockholm university was mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Gower (Martin Caton), and was examined in some detail in the Select Committee’s report. The centre asked what the planet could put up with in a number of areas before its sustainability threshold was breached. What were the planet’s sustainability boundaries? It considered 10 of them: climate change, ocean acidification, stratospheric ozone depletion, the nitrogen cycle, the phosphorus cycle, global freshwater use, land system change, the rate of biodiversity loss, atmospheric aerosol loading, and chemical pollution. That work made it clear that we have not only transgressed three of those boundaries—the rate of biodiversity loss, the nitrogen cycle and, of course, climate change—but have often done so in a startlingly profligate way, and are close to doing so in three other areas: ocean acidification, the phosphorus cycle, and land system change.

Rio+20, then, is not just about how the planet can carry sustainable development, but about how can we row back and make the planet sustainable again, in terms of the carrying capacity that the Stockholm resilience centre set out so carefully. We should, however, celebrate some of our international successes. For instance, as a result of an international convention, we have returned ozone depletion to a point at which carrying capacity has been restored, and have done so through international negotiation and discussion in a way that was not thought possible a few years ago. That analysis, however, tells us only some of the tale. The reason for our transgression of the boundaries that I have mentioned is, overwhelmingly, the extent to which the developed world has hoarded its access to the planet’s carrying capacity at the expense of all other countries.

This is about sustainable development, but it is also about a worldwide green economy that is based on fairness and equity. In that context, it is clear that the proposals that Colombia and Guatemala are bringing to Rio+20—there may not be time to organise their sustainable development goals properly, but I think they understand that, and see this as a starting point—do not counter the existing millennium goals. I refer to the adoption of sustainable development goals for all, not just developing nations, relating to combating poverty, changing consumption patterns, promoting sustainable human settlement patterns, biodiversity and forests, oceans, water resources, advancing food security, and energy sustainability. All those are sustainability goals for the whole world: they do not simply mean that the developed world is giving back some of what it took from the developing world in the first place.

I think that the promotion of global resources will inevitably have to be developed in order to promote those goals. I hope that the United Kingdom will support the idea of a global transaction tax—even if it does not support efforts to introduce such a tax at European level—with the proceeds going to the development of these sustainability goals.

[Martin Horwood]

I strongly support the hon. Gentleman in making that call. The Government may have been right to reject a financial transaction tax at an EU level, which would have meant a real risk of driving businesses to other financial centres. A global financial transaction tax would avoid that risk.

[Dr Whitehead]

The hon. Gentleman is right. I appreciate his continuing loyalty to his adopted coalition on the issue. I thought someone had to go it alone and advance this idea, but he is right: a global transaction tax that everyone could unite around would be a far preferable way of proceeding, particularly if that tax was clearly hypothecated for the purposes of global sustainable development and global equity.

I agree with what the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs said about her approach to Rio in her recent speech to NGOs. Rio must be a workshop, not a talking shop. I also agree that being green is integral to sustainable economic growth and that we must put value on our carrying capacity so that it becomes an integral part of our economic transactions, not merely the fuel for them to take place. We must also add the essential ingredient of global equity in respect of resources. I hope the Secretary of State will pledge that the UK will push for that goal at Rio and call for the Colombian agenda of sustainability with global equity to be moved decisively forward.

That is the shape of the outcome I want at Rio. I do not want to be back here in 20 years talking about Rio+40 and wondering what might have been. By then it will be too late, as the Stockholm environment institute shows.

Oral Answers to Questions

Alan Whitehead Excerpts

Thursday 30th June 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Paice]

I wish that the hon. Gentleman had listened to what I said. The fact is that it is unlawful for a Minister to legislate if he knows that it is unlawful to do so. According to all the advice that we have been given, using section 12 of the Animal Welfare Act 2006 would be extremely likely to raise a judicial challenge, which would not benefit the position.

I have made it clear that we are taking the matter forward. We are exploring all avenues, both in the Department and more widely outside Government, in trying to find the best way of satisfying the desire of the House.

[Dr Alan Whitehead (Southampton, Test) (Lab)]

T1. If she will make a statement on her departmental responsibilities.

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

My Department takes responsibility for safeguarding the environment, supporting farmers and strengthening the green economy. In addition, it has responsibility for animal health and welfare. Accordingly, I would like to take this opportunity to draw colleagues’ attention to the written ministerial statement and accompanying “Dear colleague” letter setting out the changes we are making to the pet travel scheme. I believe these changes strike the right balance between making it easier for people who wish to travel with pets and maintaining the protection people have a right to expect. They are consistent with our commitment to science-led, evidence-based policy making.

[Dr Whitehead]

Tomorrow, the League Against Cruel Sports will hold a national conference on wildlife protection with the support of the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds and other organisations. On the eve of that conference, will the Secretary of State confirm that the Government have dropped their plan to hold a vote to enable the repeal of the Hunting Act 2004 in this Parliament?

[Mrs Spelman]

We have not dropped our plan to hold a vote. That is part of the coalition agreement and it is in our business plan.

Fisheries

Alan Whitehead Excerpts

Thursday 12th May 2011 Commons Chamber

[Dr Alan Whitehead (Southampton, Test) (Lab)]

I am very pleased to be a sponsor of the motion and I congratulate the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Zac Goldsmith) on introducing it. I congratulate him also on drafting a motion that mentions not only discards but what we fundamentally need to do to achieve the aims and objectives that have been mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent North (Joan Walley), among others, of putting sustainability and our environment first in our fisheries policy.

Something that has always struck me about fisheries policy is that, whatever concerns one has about the motives and actors involved, it resembles what is sometimes described in political theory discussions as the tragedy of the commons. If eight farms surround a common and one farmer decides to keep pigs, which eat the beech mast from the common and get very fat, that works very well for that rational farmer who does very well. So then another rational farmer decides to keep pigs too, thinking that those pigs will also get fat from eating the beech mast on the common—and they do. But then another two farmers also decide, quite rationally, to keep pigs, thinking that the beech mast comes every year and is not a finite resource. After three or four more farmers have the same rational idea, all the pigs die because there is not enough beech mast for them all. Whatever the rational concerns of fishermen, fishing fleets and, indeed, policy makers about fish stocks and how fisheries work, unless there are policies that go beyond relying on the rational instincts of people who are involved in these issues, and unless policies regulate the industry so that it is genuinely sustainable overall, tragedy will inevitably result.

It is commonplace to say that the world is extremely overfished, but we also know that about 90% of all the cod that are caught have never had a chance to breed. I do not think that it requires a great deal of analysis to recognise that if 90% of the breeding population is removed before it can even begin to breed, that population will not last long.

[Mr Brian H. Donohoe (Central Ayrshire) (Lab)]

Only a fortnight ago, I went across the Clyde to Arran to see at first hand a no-go area, which has already achieved results beyond everyone’s expectations. Does my hon. Friend agree that there will be plentiful fish, but only on the basis that we allow breeding grounds where there is no fishing?

[Dr Whitehead]

My hon. Friend anticipates what I was going to say. Any ecosystem-based fishing policy has to relate to precisely the question of no-fishing areas. I appreciate the difficulties of enforcement and the problems that that represents, but under the Marine and Coastal Access Act 2010 we have developed the potential of no-fishing areas and have already seen results in limited fishing areas, which create a haven where species can start to rebuild breeding stocks and then repopulate other areas. That is an important part of an eco-fishing analysis.

[Zac Goldsmith]

I want to echo that point. The most successful marine protected areas around the world are protected with the co-operation of fishing communities, and the biggest beneficiaries, beyond the fish, are fishermen themselves. In Costa Rica, Japan, Spain and so on, there are lots of successful stories of marine protected areas, which have boosted fishermen’s income and increased biodiversity, which is crucial.

[Dr Whitehead]

The hon. Gentleman underlines a point that I wish to emphasise. The tragedy of the commons is a good example of regulated assistance for rational activity that benefits people who are trying to make a living and acting rationally in so doing. With the assistance of those no-fishing zones, there are substantial consequences beyond those zones, as there are benefits for all concerned.

Yes, it is true that we should end discards, but if we do so that will not by any means solve the problems. The motion goes much further and proposes that an ecosystem-based fishing regime should be part of a new common fisheries policy. The question of discards is a world issue for fishing. The average estimate of discards from catches across the world is about 8%, but it is certainly far worse in Europe, and that is a result, as we have heard, of aspects of the CFP as it stands. Let us consider the prawns and shrimps that we eat on our table. For every tonne of shrimp that is landed, probably 10 to 15 tonnes of fish have been discarded. That is across the world—it is not just in Europe. It is unlikely that many people would accept a non-sustainably sourced prawn on their plate if they were aware of the overwhelming numbers that died to bring that prawn to their plate.

Discards are an important issue not only in the EU but across the world, not just because the fish could be used but because we are damaging species by changing breeding populations and ecosystems.

The motion asks the UK Government to develop a package of measures beyond which it would be impossible to go in considering whether to endorse a new EU fisheries policy.

[Neil Carmichael (Stroud) (Con)]

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. I generally welcome the motion and will be happy to support it, because it is absolutely necessary that we have a different approach to the common fisheries policy. I wish to draw the House’s attention to a report produced many years ago by a House of Lords Committee, which highlighted the need to apply science and technology—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dawn Primarolo)]

Order. The hon. Gentleman is making an intervention. If he wishes to draw the House’s attention to something, he can make a speech, but he cannot do so in an intervention, so we will leave it at that.

[Dr Whitehead]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. If he wishes to intervene again briefly, I will give way.

[Neil Carmichael]

That is extremely generous of the hon. Gentleman. Does he agree that the House of Lords report was absolutely right to highlight the need for science and technology and draw our attention to the systems used in Norway?

[Dr Whitehead]

The answer to that very pithy intervention is yes. As we move towards a new EU fisheries policy, it is absolutely vital that we remove ourselves from all the baggage of previous fisheries policies, which, since the first one was introduced in 1983, have never contained an environmental, conservation or sustainability component. A few things have been added—rather like adding Dolby sound to Philips cassettes to try to make them work better—but basically the policy was designed simply to stop countries squabbling about who should fish where. In relation to what I said about the tragedy of the commons, that merely divides the commons between different people to carry on fishing in the same way, rather than moving the debate forward.

It is essential that we have an EU fisheries policy that is fit for purpose for the world we now live in. That is the bottom line of the debate. That includes ending discards and introducing technology that ensures that what is caught approximates most closely to what is intended to be caught, for example by using different nets. It includes looking at science to secure the best way forward for reducing the collateral consequences of fishing. It includes no-fish zones, which my hon. Friend the Member for Central Ayrshire (Mr Donohoe) referred to.

It is an ambitious package of measures. Nevertheless, it seems to me that it must be our starting point if we are to have fisheries that are fit for the 21st century. If we continue with fisheries that are fit for the 19th century, the fish will have disappeared by the time we are not much further into the 21st century. I wish the Minister good luck in his endeavours, which I hope will be fruitful. It is encouraging to hear the difference in tone from the EU Commission, and if we can build on that tone, on the Fish Fight campaign, which I, too, congratulate Hugh Fearnley-Whittingstall on bringing to the public’s attention, and on the head of steam that has built up to recognise that we have to make a step change, not a gradual change in fisheries policy, we will find that these debates have been worthwhile, and that the Minister’s success in achieving such changes on behalf of Europe will have been a triumph indeed.

Oral Answers to Questions

Alan Whitehead Excerpts

Thursday 17th March 2011 Commons Chamber

[Richard Benyon]

We are shortly to publish our waste review, which is examining the balance and trying to move waste up the waste hierarchy. It will demonstrate this Government’s serious ambition to work towards getting as close as we can to a waste-free society and to ensure that communities are protected wherever they can be.

[Dr Alan Whitehead (Southampton, Test) (Lab)]

This morning, the Secretary of State repeated her suggestion that the Environmental Audit Committee might take over the functions of the Sustainable Development Commission, which she has abolished, as a watchdog on sustainable development. Does she recognise that that will be a complete fantasy unless resources and organisation are fundamentally addressed? What efforts has she made to get resources for the EAC so that it can perform that role?

[Mrs Spelman]

The hon. Gentleman might have misunderstood what I said. There is a four-pronged approach to mainstreaming sustainable development, in which the Environmental Audit Committee might, I suggested, play the role of holding Secretaries of State to account in the way that Select Committees regularly do. Although the Select Committees are bodies of Parliament rather than Government, I have written to the Chair of the Public Accounts Committee to ask whether some of the 700 auditors in the National Audit Office, which comes under her jurisdiction, might be released to help the Environmental Audit Committee in that role.

Oral Answers to Questions

Alan Whitehead Excerpts

Thursday 4th November 2010 Commons Chamber

[Richard Benyon]

I understand my hon. Friend’s point. I know her local fishing community and how much she stands up for them. I am happy to meet them and discuss this. As we go forward with our negotiations with the Commission on catch quotas for next year, we have to do so on the basis of knowledge of what is there and on the basis of science. That sometimes requires us to ask fishermen to take actions that can add to their working day. I do not want to burden people with regulation—that is not the direction that the Government are going in—and I am happy to meet my hon. Friend and the MMO to see whether we can find another way forward, but we need an accurate declaration of stocks in those areas.

[Dr Alan Whitehead (Southampton, Test) (Lab)]

6. What discussions she has had with the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government on the likely effects of the outcome of the comprehensive spending review on the funding available to reduce the amount of waste going to landfill.

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

We have worked closely with the Department for Communities and Local Government to understand cost pressures on local authority waste management over the spending review period and have taken these into account in the overall local government settlement. Significantly increased financial flexibility will free local authorities to allocate resources to meet their priorities and make continued efficiency savings while continuing to deliver our overall environmental goals for waste management.

[Dr Whitehead]

Has the Secretary of State looked at last year’s estimate by the Waste and Resources Action Programme suggesting that there will be an additional 3 million tonnes of dried municipal recyclates circulating by 2015, while all-materials recycling facilities would be used up and 60% of local authority areas would have insufficient capacity? What has changed in this analysis since May 2010 other than her Department’s withdrawal of seven private finance initiative waste projects and the cutting of local authority budgets by 28%?

[Mrs Spelman]

I invite the hon. Gentleman, who has a great interest in this subject, to look at some municipal waste statistics that have just been published this morning. The more recent data show three things: first, that we are producing less waste; secondly, that we are recycling more waste; and thirdly, therefore, that we are sending less to landfill. That is what makes us confident that the 2020 targets can be met with fewer publicly funded projects.

Energy and Environment, Food and Rural Affairs

Alan Whitehead Excerpts

Thursday 27th May 2010 Commons Chamber

[Chris Huhne]

I am grateful to my honourable colleague for that question. The coalition agreement states very clearly that the fundamental objective is as he has described, and the Department will examine the best way in which we can deliver it, taking account of the administrative costs.

We know that many people want to take steps to make their homes more energy efficient, but the up-front cost can be prohibitive and there can be uncertainty about the results of measures. Our green deal will enable householders to benefit from energy efficiency and to repay the cost of the work over time, through savings on their energy bills.

[Dr Alan Whitehead (Southampton, Test) (Lab)]

I, too, congratulate the Secretary of State on his elevation to his new post. He will be aware that energy efficiency in the home particularly relates to the ability of that home to operate efficiently, and the emergence of a feed-in tariff and the renewable heat incentive is an important part of that process. Will he tell the House whether he is prepared to stand by the feed-in tariff and its financial implications, and the renewable heat incentive? Will he guarantee the finance that will accompany that, in order to ensure energy efficiency and the development of small-scale generation in the domestic sector?

[Chris Huhne]

I am always pleased to hear questions from the hon. Gentleman, because he is a neighbour in Hampshire and has followed this agenda closely, with great passion and commitment, for many years. The issues that he raises are key. He will note that the coalition Government agreement contains a firm commitment to feed-in tariffs, and we will take that forward. Renewable heat is an important issue and we want to ensure that we make progress on that. The Department will have to come up with the exact ways in which we do that, but this is a crucial part of the whole package. Broadly speaking, a quarter of our carbon emissions come from our housing stock, much of which will still be there in 2050; people will still be living in it. Given that, what we are trying to do, particularly with the green deal, is move to a situation where we can retrofit that stock with insulating measures that will make a dramatic difference. Our Bill is designed to do that, and I very much look forward to working with people from across the House, including those on the Opposition Benches, whose substantial commitment to this agenda over many years I recognise, to make this a really effective, long-term piece of legislation. We want it to be something that we can all take pride in, that will be on the statute book for many years and that will stand the test of time.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Alan Whitehead (Southampton, Test) (Lab)]

Today’s debate specifically relates to the coalition’s proposals for energy and climate change as well as for environment, agriculture and rural affairs. What is striking about the coalition document is the number of things it contains that the previous Government had done, planned or set under way and that are now claimed to form the coalition’s targets and aims for environment and rural affairs and, indeed, energy and climate change. In a sense, that is reassuring because a key observation that should be made is that the arguments about climate change cannot call upon the Greek defence. A similar argument cannot be made that less should be spent on countering it because particular circumstances have arisen recently. The timetable for the measures that need to be put in place to ensure that we can move to a low-carbon economy and reach the targets that have been agreed universally in the House for reducing carbon emissions remains in place. The time available to make those changes also remains the same. Superficially, therefore, having the aims in place is an important part of the recognition of the urgency of the matter.

We need, however, to ask questions about the detail of the targets and consider whether the commitments in the coalition document provide the reassurance that we will move with the speed that we need on not only climate change but on renewing our energy sources, ensuring that energy efficiency is uppermost in the conduct of our building and refurbishment programmes and progressing with the energy economy.

There are a number of important commitments in the document, including the aim of rolling out smart grids and smart meters over the next few years. That follows from the previous Government’s commitment to rolling out smart meters within 10 years and to moving towards much smarter management of the national grid system. Indeed, there is an urgent need to renew and strengthen the grid system so that it can deal with the changing nature of how energy enters and is redistributed from it. It will be a very different grid in future. In the past, essentially, a number of large power sources delivered energy in one direction towards business and households. A new grid that takes energy from local and renewable sources and distributes it in an entirely different fashion is an essential element of that renewal process.

However, we must face up to the fact that those changes will cost a large amount of money to introduce. It is up to the incoming Government to express early their commitment to the idea that those changes essentially involve front-line services as far as the future energy economy is concerned. The lights must stay on, but our economy must be on a much lower-carbon footing. The question we need to pose for the new Government at this early stage is this: is there a commitment to funding, underwriting, and ensuring the success of those new ways of delivering energy for our economy?

Similarly, I welcome the commitments on pay-as-you-save and energy efficiency. The proposed new energy Bill and the coalition agreement emphasise such arrangements, but again, they will cost money to underwrite and underpin. It is not sufficient simply to say that Tesco or B&Q or another body will come along and sort out the question of energy efficiency in homes and the necessary investment. Rather, it will be necessary to set out the financial programme to underpin the commitment on energy efficiency in homes, and to say how much that will cost and what the return on the investment will be.

We must invest in more than passive energy efficiency in homes. If we are to move toward the targets—I assume that the new Government wish to maintain them—it will mean radically increasing the energy efficiency of homes so that we can save energy in the future. It will also involve ensuring that new homes are zero-carbon by 2016, which was the previous Government’s target. It will not be possible to achieve that change simply by introducing passive energy efficiency measures for homes. Among other things, if we are to achieve those targets, we will need to introduce microgeneration, energy-producing devices both to new build homes and by retrofitting. If, as was recently suggested, the pay-as-you-save measures will apply only to energy efficiency in homes and not to microgeneration, a key way of achieving those targets will be lost. It is therefore essential that early commitments are made to ensure and underwrite the introduction of microgeneration devices.

The previous Government gave key undertakings on feed-in tariffs, small-scale generation and, as important, the renewable heat incentive, which will ensure the rapid development and deployment of renewable heat sources in this country. My eyebrows were raised by the statement in the coalition document about a full roll-out of a feed-in tariff in electricity. That might have been a mistake, but if it was deliberate, the suggestion is that there is no commitment on renewable heat, which is a way in which to ensure that renewable energy moves forward rapidly in the domestic sector. I will be delighted to be proved wrong, either in an intervention from someone on the Government Benches now or later in the debate. I hope that it is not the Government’s intention to change or resile from renewable heat arrangements and underwriting, and that the finance and commitment are in place. I hope that I am told later that my suspicions about what the document includes will not be borne out.

Finally, I come to the curious statement in the coalition document on nuclear power. I have considerable sympathy for the position in which the Energy and Climate Change Secretary finds himself, because I too do not think that new nuclear power is a good idea for the future, as I have said in the Chamber on a number of occasions. However, I am clear that there should be a new nuclear programme and that will need to be planned, because it is no longer good enough simply to leave the replacement of aged energy supply and the development of new energy to the market. Left to its own devices, the market will probably ensure that we have a new generation of gas-fired power stations, which will ensure that we go way off our climate change targets. If the sole contribution of the Secretary of State to the nuclear debate is simply to say, “Well, someone may come along and build a nuclear power station,” they may well not do so. Without other plans, we will simply get a new generation of gas-fired power stations, which would be catastrophic for our approach to climate change.

Following that logic, the Energy and Climate Change Secretary must take positive action on new nuclear power. If the national planning statement is to be rewritten, he must agree on sites for new nuclear power stations. If he does not do so, there will be no such power stations. His position urgently needs to be made clear to ensure that when it comes to planning the new energy economy, there is clarity rather than muddle and chaos.