Agriculture and Fisheries Council

Caroline Spelman Excerpts

Tuesday 12th July 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 natural environment and fisheries represented the United Kingdom at the Agriculture and Fisheries Council in Luxembourg on 28 June. Richard Lochhead MSP also attended. This was the final Agriculture and Fisheries Council under the Hungarian presidency.

Commissioner Damanaki spoke about the Commission’s proposed framework for setting catch levels for 2012 and beyond via the total allowable catch (TAC) and quota regulation (TQR). Against a backdrop of the poor state of many EU fish stocks and the continued issue of overfishing, the Commission announced its aim to ensure that all fish stocks should be fished within the threshold of maximum sustainable yield (MSY) by 2015 and where there was insufficient scientific advice or data the precautionary approach should be adopted and a cut of 25% should be applied to the TAC. Commissioner Damanaki also explained that she intended to split the TQR into two parts this year in order to improve the process: “internal” stocks to be decided at the November Council and “external” (those subject to international negotiations, principally joint EU-Norway stocks) in December.

There was near universal opposition to the idea of the 25% cut for data-poor stocks with 19 of the 22 fishing member states (and Austria) explicitly opposing this. There was concern that this approach would merely increase levels of discarded fish in many cases and that a more targeted approach, using all available data or advice, even incomplete, would be preferable.

There was widespread concern among all fishing member states about aspects of the MSY principle. Nearly all noted that 2015 was the target for all fisheries and that this should be achieved on a gradual basis. The UK, along with Ireland, Spain, Belgium and coastal state in the Baltic expressed concern about how individual species MSY targets could be identified correctly in a multi-species environment.

The UK, Spain, Denmark, France, Ireland, Belgium, Portugal and Austria also expressed concern about the idea of splitting the TQR decision-making across two Councils, creating administrative inefficiency.

In response Commissioner Damanaki emphasised the need to follow scientific advice and in the absence of such advice there had to be a precautionary approach. MSY had to be achieved by 2015 and this could be done on a gradual basis up to then, but could not be delayed. She was open to look at the November-December split to ensure that stocks related to the EU-Norway negotiations were not set in November but she wanted to stick to deciding things as early as possible.

There were three points raised under any other business. The first item saw Ireland express serious concerns about unrestricted mackerel fishing by Iceland and the Faeroe Islands. Setting autonomous quotas significantly higher than scientific advice threatened to damage one of the EU’s most valuable, and previously sustainable stocks. Ireland pressed for EU action in the form an immediate ban on all mackerel landings and all imports of mackerel products. The UK supported these concerns and emphasised the possibility of high-level international action to find a political solution. France, Sweden, Denmark, Netherlands, Germany, Spain and Portugal also supported Ireland. The Commission agreed that action was needed but noted that it could only act within the appropriate legal framework. Commissioner Damanaki said she was talking to Trade Commissioner De Gucht about finding a more effective legal instrument and she hoped to be able to propose something in the autumn.

The second item was a report back from the Netherlands on the high-level conference on common fisheries policy reform that took place in Noordwijk in March 2011. The final fisheries item was a declaration from Bulgaria, Czech Republic, Estonia, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland and Romania asking for appropriate levels of funding for fisheries as part of the new structural funding arrangements. In particular they emphasised the need for modernisation, research and innovation and small-scale fisheries to be sufficiently funded in the context of CFP reform. There was also a demand for a greater focus on aquaculture. Slovenia, Malta and Slovakia also broadly supported the declaration. Italy, France, Spain, Belgium, Portugal and Ireland drew attention to a declaration that they had recently sent to the Commission which was largely similar, but which also emphasised the need for the economic and social objectives of the CFP to be properly funded. The Commission said that the new funding instrument would prioritise sustainable fishing, research, aquaculture (inland and marine) and would be administratively simpler.

On agriculture, the main item concerned the Commission’s response to the E. coli crisis. Commissioner Dalli updated the Council on the public health aspects of the crisis. He also explained the actions taken to get Russia to lift its export ban on EU fruit and vegetables; an agreement had been reached, although some implementation action was still needed, and exports were resuming. Member states welcomed the agreement with Russia, and wanted to see its full and rapid implementation. All agreed on the need to review the operation of EU food safety alert systems and learn lessons from the outbreak. The UK stated that the protection of consumers must be the first priority, and noted that the EU alert systems had worked well in the recent French outbreak, allowing supply chains to be rapidly traced across several member states.

Commissioner Ciolos (Agriculture) explained the measures he had put in place to support affected growers, amounting to a budget of €210 million. Member states needed to provide the necessary verified data rapidly to ensure good audit standards, and decisions on how to apportion the money would be made at the Management Committee on 22 July. He argued that this reinforced the case as part of CAP reform for giving the Commission more scope to intervene in such crises. The Commission also stated it would find an extra €5 million to support promotional campaigns over the coming years. The main grower member states welcomed the Commission’s action, and the increased budget, while bemoaning the bureaucratic difficulty of securing the necessary information to support claims. Belgium, Italy, Portugal, Greece, Austria wanted more products adding the list of those eligible for compensation or the criteria loosened to allow compensation for having sold at a low price but there were no loud calls for a bigger budget. The UK stressed the importance of restoring consumer confidence to allow producers to get their returns from the market not subsidies. The Commission noted the need to act quickly and simply meant an EU-wide approach, although member states could add national mechanisms (state aids) on top if they so wished. He stressed that proper audit was essential to ensure appropriate financial management.



There were three agricultural items under any other business. The first related to the food for deprived persons programme. Italy called for rapid action to ensure the food for deprived persons programme could continue at its planned level of funding (€500 million a year) following the recent European Court of Justice ruling that would heavily restrict it. Belgium, Slovenia, Cyprus, France, Hungary and Poland agreed. The Commission stated that the European Court of Justice ruling would limit funds to what was available from intervention sales, about €130 million for 2012 and nothing in 2013, but there was a Commission proposal on the table to resolve the difficulties and allow the full spending to proceed, should the Council agree it. Germany, the Netherlands and UK all said they did not agree—this was a social programme, for national Governments, not something for the CAP. Poland indicated they would bring the issue to the Council for decision under their presidency.

The two final items under any other business were reports back from the French on the recent G20 meeting of agriculture ministers, and from Hungary two conferences they had held on the future of livestock sector and on organic farming. There was no further discussion.

Environment Council

Caroline Spelman Excerpts

Tuesday 5th July 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 represented the UK at the Environment Council in Luxembourg on 21 June. Stewart Stevenson, Scottish Minister for Environment and Climate Change, also joined the delegation.

At the beginning of the Council, the presidency presented its progress report on the proposal for a directive on control of major accident hazards involving dangerous substances (“Seveso III”), which highlighted the key issues that remained for discussion during the Polish presidency, in particular: the scope of the directive, the provisions on public information and the inspections regime. The Council noted the progress report.

Ministers agreed Council conclusions on the EU Biodiversity Strategy to 2020. There was very strong support for the strategy itself, but some debate around whether to endorse the associated targets and actions proposed by the Commission, or to leave these for further discussion. There was general acceptance that the actions needed further discussion, but the Commission and several member states were keen that Council should specifically endorse the targets now, as a means to influence discussions in other fora, such as on the EU budget and CAP reform. Others, notably Denmark and Italy, argued that they should be subject to fuller examination first, to avoid the risk of signing up to something that would not be achieved. I was able to accept language that endorsed the targets, but only if the targets, as well as the actions, took fully into account international agreements. I highlighted the recently published Natural Environment White Paper, the UK National Ecosystem Assessment and the England Biodiversity Strategy. I identified the importance of delivering biodiversity objectives through a reformed CAP. Conclusions were ultimately agreed that endorsed the strategy, considered that the strategy and its targets were a key instrument to enable the EU to reach its overall 2020 target and emphasised the need for further discussion on the actions.

The Council then adopted conclusions on the protection of water resources and integrated sustainable water management in the European Union and beyond. There was an exchange of views on expectations for the upcoming Commission blueprint to safeguard Europe’s water resources to be produced in 2012. I stressed the importance of the protection of water resources and integrated sustainable water management and the need to put in place measures to conserve and make better use of these resources. The forthcoming Commission “fitness check” provided an opportunity to thoroughly review existing EU water legislation to ensure it was effective and fit for purpose and I highlighted the importance of integration of water issues into other policies, notably agriculture. On the issue of water shortage and drought, I emphasised that the importance of these topics does not mean that further EU legislation in this area is necessarily required, as some member states propose.

Over lunch and into the afternoon session Ministers discussed the conclusions on the Commission’s roadmap for moving to a competitive low-carbon economy in 2050. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State called for these to welcome the important analysis in the roadmap; endorse the cost-effective trajectory it sets out including the milestones for 2020, 2030 and 2040; and set a timetable for the Commission to produce further analysis of the policy changes needed to deliver these reductions. Only one member state refused to note the Commission’s finding that a 25% domestic emissions reduction in 2020 was on this cost effective pathway, and so discussion ended with the adoption of presidency conclusions reflecting the majority view.

A progress report on the proposal for a regulation on the possibility for member states to restrict or prohibit the cultivation of GMOs in their territory developed into an exchange of views. Those member states which support the proposal strongly endorsed the progress made. The UK and Germany, among others, reiterated our concerns about the impact on the single market and WTO obligations; and the potential negative impact on safe products finding their way to the market. The UK supported proportional and pragmatic regulation on the cultivation of GMOs and while we supported subsidiarity, this should not be at the expense of the single market or the EU WTOs obligations. We encouraged the Commission to ensure the effective operation of the current system.

Under other business France called for an EU management plan for cormorants, the Netherlands for action on nanomaterials, and Denmark spoke on not using credits from industrial gas CDM projects for compliance with the effort sharing decision targets. The incoming Polish presidency outlined its environment priorities: biodiversity; resource efficiency; climate change (adaptation and preparations for the conference in Durban); and, preparations for the UN Rio+20 conference.

Oral Answers to Questions

Caroline Spelman Excerpts

Thursday 30th June 2011 Commons Chamber

[Roberta Blackman-Woods (City of Durham) (Lab)]

1. What recent discussions she has had with the chair of the independent panel on forestry on the future of the public forest estate.

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

First, I am sure that the House would like to join me in wishing the Bishop of Liverpool, who chairs the independent panel, a speedy recovery from his recent operation. As the panel is independent, it is important that its members, including the chair, enjoy complete freedom to produce their report, the scope of which extends beyond the public forest estate to include the future of all England’s forests.

[Roberta Blackman-Woods]

First, may I associate myself with the right hon. Lady’s comments about James Jones, Bishop of Liverpool? She will be aware that at least some members of the independent panel think that more of our woodlands should be in public ownership, not less, so will she give the House a commitment not to sell off any more publicly owned forests and woodland, and instead to seek to work with partners to find ways of adding to it?

[Mrs Spelman]

As I have said, the panel is independent, and I have had no separate conversations with its members to hear the views that the hon. Lady has expressed. The important thing is to wait for the panel to report to us with its recommendations. In the interim, Ministers have made it absolutely clear that there will be no further sale of the public forest estate.

[Oliver Heald (North East Hertfordshire) (Con)]

Does the Secretary of State recall that in the 1990s John Major, as Prime Minister, launched an initiative in the national forest to develop a parliamentary area, where MPs could sponsor a tree? The aim of that voluntary activity was to encourage biodiversity and help the forest. Could the independent panel consider such initiatives, because I am sure that throughout the country there are groups of individuals who would like to do their bit?

[Mrs Spelman]

My hon. Friend is right, and I remember that extremely good initiative. We want to encourage not only parliamentarians but all individuals, and schools and places of work, to plant more trees. We aim to plant 1 million new trees within this parliamentary Session. I will certainly look at the parliamentary scheme as an opportunity to remind colleagues how important it is that we do our bit.

[Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op)]

I supported John Major’s initiative, which was very good, and sponsored two trees in memory of my parents. If we care about our forests and woods, we must ensure that the next generation visits, enjoys and learns about them. The number of out-of-school visits is collapsing and we must do something about it. Will the Secretary of State join the initiative of the John Clare Trust, which I chair, in launching the “Every child’s right to the countryside” campaign, and give it a bit of support?

[Mrs Spelman]

The hon. Gentleman is right to say that the opportunity for our children to learn in nature is incredibly important, as we highlight in the natural environment White Paper, in which we have given an undertaking to remove the barriers to outdoor learning. The Department for Education wholly supports that.

[Christopher Pincher (Tamworth) (Con)]

2. What recent discussions she has had on the delivery of her Department’s biodiversity strategy.

[Chris Skidmore (Kingswood) (Con)]

4. What recent discussions she has had on the delivery of her Department’s biodiversity strategy.

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

My Department has regular discussions with interested parties on the delivery of our biodiversity strategy. The Government’s vision for the natural environment, including biodiversity, is set out in the natural environment White Paper, the first in 20 years. The UK also endorsed the EU biodiversity strategy last week. We will shortly publish a new biodiversity strategy for England, which will build on this.

[Christopher Pincher]

I welcome my right hon. Friend’s commitment to biodiversity, particularly the idea of biodiversity offsetting set out in the White Paper, but will she confirm that the rules on offsetting that she will put in place will keep it local, so that any development affecting biodiversity in Tamworth must be offset in Tamworth, not in some other part of the country?

[Mrs Spelman]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. We have given an undertaking in the natural environment White Paper that biodiversity offsetting should be in the local area, because local communities need to feel the benefit if they are to take the development. At present it is section 106 agreements that should deliver on biodiversity offsetting, but what happens is often so far removed from the community that the connection is not made.

[Chris Skidmore]

What plans does the Secretary of State have to include green belt land in the biodiversity strategy, to ensure that it is protected for generations to come?

[Mrs Spelman]

My hon. Friend is speaking to a Member of Parliament whose constituency is entirely in the green belt, so I can give him a strong assurance about the protection of the green belt. The Department for Communities and Local Government has given an undertaking on that, which will be repeated in the national planning policy framework. DEFRA’s strategy of course includes the protection of the green belt, but even within the green belt, communities will have the opportunity to designate green areas to provide extra protection and enhance biodiversity.

[Nic Dakin (Scunthorpe) (Lab)]

The wildlife crime unit plays an important part in protecting endangered species and preventing the trade in endangered species. How will the Secretary of State ensure that that continues, given that its budget is guaranteed for only two years?

[Mrs Spelman]

We have said this on a previous occasion, but it is worth repeating because it is important. We have secured the funding for the wildlife crime unit. It is an important part of combating the threat to endangered species from those who seek to do them damage.

[Mr David Hanson (Delyn) (Lab)]

Has the Secretary of State seen the concerns of the Institute of Ecology and Environmental Management, based on a survey of businesses, that although the aims of the biodiversity strategy are laudable, there may be a skills shortage so that we cannot reach the required level by 2020? What steps will she take to assess the skills required and build the skills base to achieve the objectives?

[Mrs Spelman]

I am happy to share with the House the fact that I co-chair the green economy council, where businesses from all sectors of the economy come together on a regular basis to discuss with us how to green the economy. As part of that, we have a focus on improving green skills, precisely to ensure that we have people with the experience and training to deliver on our important commitments to protect and enhance biodiversity while growing the economy.

[Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)]

3. Whether she plans to introduce pilot projects to evaluate biodiversity offsets.

--- Later in debate ---

[Graeme Morrice (Livingston) (Lab)]

6. What steps she is taking in response to recent trends in food prices.

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

With permission, Mr Speaker, I will answer this question with Question 10. [Interruption.] I think that they are grouped.

[Mr Speaker]

I think not. If I have missed something and the Secretary of State wishes to explain it I will be obliged, but I think not.

[Mrs Spelman]

Sorry, Mr Speaker. It has been withdrawn, I think.

The Government are committed to promoting better functioning of agricultural markets to help mitigate future price spikes. Last week I attended the G20 Agriculture Ministers meeting—the first time that Agriculture Ministers have been convoked under the G20. We unanimously agreed on measures to increase food production sustainably and provide better transparency and governance in order to regulate supply and demand. I wish to see further liberalisation of markets, which as the Government’s foresight report states, will help dampen price volatility.

[Graeme Morrice]

The United Nations and the OECD recently predicted that global food prices could rise by as much as 30% in the next decade. What action is the Secretary of State taking to tackle commodity speculation and rising food prices?

[Mrs Spelman]

There is no conclusive evidence that speculation is the principal cause of price volatility. Farmers would be the first to explain that they speculate—or hedge—in order to even out the highs and lows in their prices. The fundamental problem in world markets is that of tight supply and demand, so the most important thing we can do is increase food production sustainably. That is a priority for my Department.

[Neil Parish (Tiverton and Honiton) (Con)]

It is important not only to examine food prices but to ensure that people are buying the right product. There are likely to be a lot of low-standard eggs coming into Britain, because we will have met the standards for the new enriched cages by January but a lot of Europe will not. What are the Government doing to prevent such eggs from coming into Britain?

[Mrs Spelman]

As I have told the House before, I was the first among the EU Agriculture Ministers to spell out how important it is that all egg producers comply with the changes in the law that will apply from 1 January. I am delighted to be able to inform my hon. Friend that it will not be legal to market eggs in this country that have not been produced in enriched cages.

[Albert Owen (Ynys Môn) (Lab)]

We are all aware that external factors push up food prices, but another problem is the imbalance between the supermarkets and the producer, which is passed on to the customer. We have just had an unsatisfactory response about the adjudicator. What we want is a proactive ombudsman with real teeth, so that consumers and producers get a fair price.

[Mrs Spelman]

That is a bit rich coming from a representative of a party that was in government for 13 years and had the opportunity to introduce such an ombudsman, which is something that this Government are now setting about doing.

[Andrew Rosindell (Romford) (Con)]

7. What estimate she has made of the proportion of livestock slaughtered in England that was reared in the UK in the last year for which figures are available.

--- Later in debate ---

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

10. What her policy is on future levels of recycling of domestic and commercial waste.

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

I commend the right hon. Lady for her long-standing commitment to this issue. Our waste review set out our ambition to move from a throwaway society to a zero-waste economy. This includes maximising the recycling of waste that cannot be prevented or reused from households and businesses. We will work with local authorities and the waste management industry to make it easier for everyone to recycle, whether at home, at work or on the go.

[Joan Ruddock]

Just a year ago the Secretary of State said of recycling:

“We need to go faster and we need to go further.”

So is it the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government who has crushed her ambition and vetoed a target for recycling in this country? Having won the battle over fortnightly bin collections, why does she not now adopt Friends of the Earth’s target of halving black sack waste by 2020, thus reducing costs and creating jobs?

[Mrs Spelman]

I support the scale of the ambition of Friends of the Earth’s target, and we are of course bound by an EU target to recycle 50% of household refuse, but if targets are too specific they can be distorting, driving councils to meet centrally imposed indicators instead of doing what is best for their local circumstances. A good example of that was the landfill allowance trading scheme, which led to the anomaly of disincentivising the recycling of business waste.

[Nigel Mills (Amber Valley) (Con)]

My right hon. Friend might be aware of the problem of heavily soiled films used on farms being exported to China as clean waste, rather than being put into the recycling process in this country. What action can she take to stop these illegal exports?

[Mrs Spelman]

If it is illegal, it is important that we take legal sanctions to prevent it. Whenever possible, we want to see our own waste industry growing. At present it is projected to grow at 4% per annum, and there is no lack of ambition in the industry to deal more effectively with all forms of waste that we can treat in this country.

[Mr Jamie Reed (Copeland) (Lab)]

The lack of ambition belongs entirely to the Secretary of State. The Sunday Times called the Government’s waste review a “sloppy, flyblown mess” hamstrung by Tory dogma. The Welsh Government have adopted a 70% recycling rate, which will create 50,000 new jobs by 2025, yet in England this Government have abandoned recycling targets. Will the Secretary of State tell the House why she has scrapped recycling targets for England? Will she also publish an assessment of how many English jobs will not now be created, and how much investment in the waste industry will not now be made, as a result of her decision?

[Mrs Spelman]

That is a gross distortion of our waste review. The hon. Gentleman should not rely on newspapers to give him a guide to what is in it; he should take the trouble to read the real thing. Have I not just said that we expect the waste industry to grow by 4% per annum? We have not scrapped recycling targets; we are committed to EU targets for recycling. In addition, we have more ambition with regard to landfill, which exceeds the ambition of the previous Government and involves proposals not to bury metal and wood in landfill.

[Tom Greatrex (Rutherglen and Hamilton West) (Lab/Co-op)]

11. What recent discussions she has had with her EU counterparts on reform of the common fisheries policy.

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

[Chris Skidmore (Kingswood) (Con)]

T3. The Secretary of State is aware of the recent UK National Ecosystem Assessment report, which Friends of the Earth has described as essential summer reading for all MPs. It estimates that the health benefits of living within view of green spaces are worth approximately £300. Given those economic benefits, what will the Secretary of State do to ensure we better value our national environment, in particular the green belt?

[Mrs Spelman]

The National Ecosystem Assessment report should be compulsory reading for MPs, not least because the Minister for policy at the Cabinet Office, my right hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset (Mr Letwin), described it as a game changer. The most important aspect of the report is the tool itself: 200 scientists from around the world came together to give us a scientific tool that enables us to estimate the true value of what nature provides for us for free.

[Fiona O'Donnell (East Lothian) (Lab)]

T2. Will the Secretary of State join me in welcoming Oxfam’s “Grow” campaign on sustainable farming and food? Has she met Oxfam, and what discussions has she had with Department for International Development Ministers on this issue?

[Mrs Spelman]

As I have said before, what came over very strongly at the G20 from the Agriculture Ministers of the world’s richest nations was the responsibility we have not only to grow more food sustainably but to aid developing countries to grow more food sustainably themselves. We have good relationships with all our stakeholders and key non-governmental organisations—I would count Oxfam as one of them—and with our DFID colleagues in order to make sure we play our part.

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

T4. The Minister has already given a response on the inshore fishing consultation, but will he give my under-10-metres fishermen the assurance that all the responses will be carefully considered, including concerns about the suggested structure and the fact that there will still be people with quotas who no longer fish and have not done so for many years?

--- Later in debate ---

[Luciana Berger (Liverpool, Wavertree) (Lab/Co-op)]

Given today’s worrying report from the Committee on Climate Change showing that the UK is in danger of missing its carbon reduction targets, will the Minister back plans supported by more than 100 organisations, including the Co-operative Group, WWF and the Aldersgate Group, and commit to introducing the mandatory reporting of corporate greenhouse gas emissions?

[Mrs Spelman]

We are consulting on that, but I would like the hon. Lady to know that my Department is responsible for climate change adaptation and we are completely committed, together with the Department of Energy and Climate Change, to achieving our carbon emissions targets. We will do all that we can because this is such an important matter, as was outlined in the Foresight report. The challenge that we will face on food security if we do not tackle the combination of an increasing population and demand for food, hungry people and climate change means that we will be held to account.

[Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)]

T6. Given that the Government are in favour of animals being stunned before slaughter, when might we have some food labelling regulations that will mark kosher and halal products as such, so that those of us who object to ritual slaughter do not buy them inadvertently?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mary Macleod (Brentford and Isleworth) (Con)]

T7. I am delighted that Octink, from my constituency, has been named one of the UK’s greenest businesses for the third year running. Does my right hon. Friend agree with me and with Will Tyler, its chief executive, who says that this approach is not only good for the environment, but helps his bottom line. What more can we do to promote the financial aspects and benefits of green business?

[Mrs Spelman]

I applaud the green business that my hon. Friend has described, and I hope that she will convey my support for it. The Government have set up a green economy council, which I co-chair, and it is very encouraging to see just how many businesses, in all sectors of the economy, understand the importance of having both a green economy and a growing one.

[Albert Owen (Ynys Môn) (Lab)]

Everyone in this House and across the country wants to eradicate bovine tuberculosis. Although the matter is devolved, what discussions does DEFRA have with the devolved Administrations about the science-based evidence, as we need to exchange this information, get best practice and eradicate this disease once and for all?

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.