Examination of Witnesses (Question Numbers
20-39)
RT HON
HILARY BENN
MP, PROFESSOR ROBERT
WATSON AND
MS BRONWEN
JONES
13 JANUARY 2010
Q20 Lynne Jones: Just going back
to the earlier discussion, we have heard about the plethora of
committees, task forces, Foresight reviews, and so on, that are
related to the development of the food strategy. Would it be possible
to have some kind of a roadmap as to what all these things are
and how they are all feeding into the process of actually getting
to a point where we have got a fit-for-purpose food strategy and
food policy?[4]
Hilary Benn: With pleasure we
will try and draw a map of how they connect together. I am not
at all in favour of setting up bodies for the sake of setting
up bodies, and frankly they are to do a job of work. If you take
the Pig Task Force, talk to the industry—do not talk to
me—and see what they have got to say about do they think
that has done an effective job. They will say that it has, and
I would certainly say that it has, a very recent example being
the work they are doing on labelling to try and get a code, which,
as I said at Oxford, I expect all the retailers to sign up to.
The Fruit and Veg Task Force—absolutely practical. Two questions:
how do we produce more; how do we get people to consume more?
Q21 Lynne Jones: I am not criticising
their existence, it is just very confusing (it is confusing to
me, so I am sure it must be confusing to other people) to see
who is doing what and how it all fits together.
Hilary Benn: I will do my level
best.
Q22 Chairman: I think it is to achieve
that: how does it all fit together in terms of the fact, Secretary
of State, that you indicated that this is the start of a continuing
exercise? The fact that you selected 2030, I presume, parallels
the FAO's two key benchmark dates in terms of increasing population
and the associated food production that goes with it. So nobody
would expect everything to be instantaneously sorted overnight.
Who is then going to be responsible, just to pick up on Lynne's
point, for continuing the work and drawing this all together so
that the strategy that you believe you have commenced, if you
like, starting is going to be updated?
Hilary Benn: Defra will, as leading
on this, working across government and with all of the partners
who have all got to play their part in helping to make all of
this happen, is the short answer.
Q23 Chairman: Are you going to be
able to hang on, in doing this, to the undying support of the
food industry? The feeling I get is that their head has been turned
by the Department for Business, because they see themselves as
business as opposed to part of what was, if you like, the old
Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. You are the sponsoring
ministry for the food and drink industry. Are you going to be
able to keep them on board as a key ingredient to your work in
the future?
Hilary Benn: Yes. I see no reason
why that should not be the case.
Q24 Chairman: You have told Lord
Mandelson to get off the lawn, have you?
Hilary Benn: No.
Q25 Chairman: Is that because you
will not or just have not got the—
Hilary Benn: I am not sure what
the potential problem is, to tell you the honest truth.
Q26 Chairman: The reason I say that
is that there are many things for which his department has responsibility,
as it does for every business in the country, which are very much
what I call business-focused issues, whereas you come at it from
the point of view of the department that has the responsibility
for food and drink. It is a question of how you advocate your
role on behalf of the food and drink industry in the rest of government,
whereas from the companies' point of view they might say: "Defra
is jolly good but we lean a bit more towards BIS".
Hilary Benn: It depends what it
is that is being discussed at any particular point in time, because
there will be decisions that BIS takes, because it leads on that,
that affect food companies and lots of other companies besides.
I have just given the example of how it is the Department of Transport
which, rightly, takes decisions about drivers' hours that affect
the ability to collect milk and deliver supplies, and so on. You
will have seen the welcome there was from the British Retail Consortium
for the production of the strategy, and I have no qualms or worries
on that score whatsoever, Mr Chairman.
Q27 David Lepper: This is related
to that, in a way. The NFU, in their comment on the strategy,
talked about the importance of Defra owning the strategy, being
able to own and, effectively, draw up the policy across government,
and referred obliquely to what happened over The Lancet
report on emissions from animals and livestock reductions, and
so on. They gave us an example of the role that Defra could play
and should play for more effective control as a clearing department
on issues related to food strategy. Is that one of the ways you
see Defra going forward—having the strength to do that?
Hilary Benn: I think the production
of a strategy is a demonstration of that. The fact that we have
a Cabinet Committee, which I chair, on food policy is another
sign of that. The Lancet report was not the greatest example
of joined up government that I have ever come across in my life,
but I think the Government is very clearly committed to working
together to make all of this happen, and it is very clear that
Defra is leading it.
Q28 Miss McIntosh: Welcome, Secretary
of State.
Hilary Benn: Good afternoon.
Q29 Miss McIntosh: I was very taken
by the comment that some food waste is unavoidable—eggshells
and banana skins could never be eaten. That was, perhaps, rather
touching. Just one omission that is quite striking: there is no
mention of waste from catering sector services, which I gather
amounts to some three million tonnes food waste a year. It is
neither in the main body nor in the annex measuring progress for
reducing waste. I just wondered if that was deliberate.
Hilary Benn: No, it is not deliberate
but wherever food waste is being produced we all have a responsibility
to try and minimise it. We are approaching it from, really, three
angles: one is raising awareness of the problem, so the work that
WRAP has been doing, as you will be aware—the Love Food
Hate Waste campaign and the statistics that we collected on the
amount of food that is being thrown out—has certainly got
people debating this in a way that was not the case two or three
years ago. That is a step forward. The second thing is the positive
incentive we are providing for people to turn food waste into
energy; one other task force we established, indeed, was the anaerobic
digestion task force to do a very specific job of work and say:
what are the remaining obstacles to getting this technology up
and running and being used?—and it has done a cracking job.
The third thing is the consultation that I will be initiating
in about a month-and-a-bit, or so, saying: what is the next stage
on food waste and other kind of waste? Should we continue to put
these things into landfill? I have to say, in my view, I do not
think we should be putting them into landfill. Why would you put
food waste into landfill, when it produces emissions that add
to the climate change problem, when you can turn it into energy?
One or two other countries have said they have fixed a date when
stuff would not go into landfill any more, and that will then
further drive the market for recycling or, in the case of food
waste, alternative use, and the obvious one is either compost
or the generation of renewable energy.
Q30 Miss McIntosh: It is interesting
you are very pro-anaerobic digestion, which is welcome, but the
government seems to be very slow to support other forms of energy
from waste, and particularly trying to educate the public that
it is just perhaps as good as AD (anaerobic digestion).
Hilary Benn: I am very keen on
energy from waste in the form of anaerobic digestion because it
seems to me it addresses two issues that Defra has a particular
responsibility for: one is food waste (the one that you have raised,
rightly) and the other, of course, is the potential for slurry
waste to be used in this waste. If you think about NVZs, it is
important that we take action to deal with pollution of watercourses.
However, the Government having done, I think, all that is required
to provide sufficient incentive for AD—it doubled the ROCs
in April last year, which will benefit from feed-in tariffs, and
the Environment Agency has said the digestate will not be treated
as a waste, which are all things that the AD task force addressed—I
think we are just at the point for this to take off. As far as
other energy from waste plants is concerned, we are supporting
a number through the PFI credits, but you are absolutely right
that there is a residue of a feeling that this is unhealthy. If
you go to other European countries, I remember talking to my Danish
opposite number and saying: "Tell me how controversial energy
from waste incineration is in your country", and she said:
"What controversy?"
Q31 Miss McIntosh: Do you know why?
I have to declare an interest. I am half-Danish. My uncle gets
cheap distance heating, as they call it, because what they do
is instead of sending the waste to landfill they burn it. There
are no particles, there are no emissions, so they tick all the
EU Directive boxes, and they win the residents onside (but you
can only do it with new housing not with existing development)
by giving them cheap heat. So there is no controversy whatsoever.
Hilary Benn: District heating
schemes.
Q32 Miss McIntosh: This Government
does not seem to have gone down that path, even when there is
scope for it. For example, SELCHP has got the capacity (this is
a different debate to be had) but we do not seem to have been
as enthusiastic in educating the public here in the way that Scandinavians
have.
Hilary Benn: It is the reason
why we still send, although we have seen a big increase in household
recycling rates—from eight to 37 per cent in 12 years—quite
a lot of waste to landfill. If you look at other European countries,
indeed, energy from waste takes up quite a bit of that. My view
is that attitudes are changing; we are supporting local authorities
in that work as they take those projects forward and try and get
planning permission. I think the public's understanding of the
health impact lags behind the reality, and I think we all have
a responsibility to say: "Look, this is another form of generating
renewable energy in these circumstances". I think the consultation
on the landfill ban will provide a further impetus alongside,
obviously, the rising landfill levy, which is a very, very sensible
policy for trying to make all of us think about waste in a different
way.
Q33 Miss McIntosh: The NFU say, quite
rightly, that if the policy is going to work in your strategy
then consumers have a key role to play. Are you doing anything
specifically on labelling, particularly relaxing and having more
accurate labelling out-of-date?
Hilary Benn: Yes, we are doing
a number of things. One is working with the supermarkets on this
question of "sell by", "display until" and
"best before" because I think it is pretty clear there
is some confusion in the minds of consumers. That is, of course,
different from "use by", which it is very important
that we all observe because that is about food safety. We have
already seen one major supermarket moving from "buy one get
one free" to "buy one now and get one free later",
which is absolutely the same benefit for the consumer but has
a contribution to make in minimising waste, and I welcome that.
That is the first thing. The second thing is to recognise the
extent—if we are talking about country of origin labelling—to
which we have it already for beef, for veal, for poultry and eggs
from outside the EU, for fish, most fruit and veg, and also honey,
olive oil and wine. Actually, if you look in UK supermarkets,
you find quite a high level. The pig task force is producing this
code. If all the supermarkets sign up, and I hope they will, then
that will lead to a further improvement in relation to pork and
ham, which is coming along, in my experience—
Q34 Chairman: Excuse me just for
asking this. It is a lovely conversation you are having here and
it is what I call terribly good, very well meaning and—
Hilary Benn: It is very practical,
Mr Chairman; it is getting on with it and making it happen.
Q35 Chairman: It is, but in the context
of the strategy document, if I turn to page 56 and we look at
"Our goals for 2030", it says: "Food waste is avoided
as far as possible". Nobody would disagree with that. So
you look and it says: "Supply chains are efficient and minimise
waste". Supply chains are efficient and minimise waste. I
am not certain whether that necessarily follows.[5]
If you had put the word "if" at the beginning of that:
"If supply chains are efficient waste can be minimised",
fine. However, then you go on to say how and over what period
of time? Is there a target? Is there a benchmark? Is there a potential
for saving waste? To pick up on Anne's point, 45 per cent of the
food-spend in this country is out-with the home. So why, in a
crucial sector there, is there no mention of waste from the food
service and catering industry and there is no mention of the work
that is going on in the food industry to minimise its waste production?
There are some very good achievements—the FDF initiative
there, which was supported by one of your ministers recently at
their Christmas reception to launch this thing. There is good
work but there is nothing here that sort of says: "Right,
what is the role of Defra to assist this process along? Do we
have a role? Yes or no? If so, what is it and what do we think
the potential is for minimising waste in the sector? What you
do not waste you do not have to produce. That land could be used
to do something else." That is the point that seems to be
lacking in terms of giving that sort of, I suppose, harder feel
to what are very lovely phrases like "Surplus food is valued
shared with and redistributed to vulnerable people".
Hilary Benn: I will give you a
very practical example on that: FareShare do a cracking job. I
have just written to all of the supermarkets to say: "If
you are not supporting FareShare's work it would be really nice
if you could".
Q36 Chairman: Please will you come
back to my point? Where is the hard edge about how you are going
to take forward, in the context of this approach, waste reduction
in the three sectors of the household sector, the food service
sector and the food manufacturing sector? What is government's
role in helping waste to be reduced? What does government believe
is the potential to reduce that waste? Where is the hard cutting
edge?
Hilary Benn: The hard edge is,
one, that you have to raise awareness of the problem, and it is
a fair point in terms of referring to what the catering industry
is doing in the document (I am sure it could always benefit from
yet more examples); secondly, the landfill levy is very hard-edged
indeed because anybody who is producing waste, including food
waste, is going to pay a bigger and bigger amount of money to
dispose of it; thirdly, by providing incentives for alternative
ways of using that waste (and we have discussed anaerobic digestion
at some length) and, fourthly, there is the commercial incentive
that caterers and others have got to try and minimise the cost
of stuff that, in the end, does not get used. The onus is on them
to do that. I cannot think of a mechanism, unless you can think
of one, Mr Chairman, where government would say to caterers—
Q37 Chairman: No, and that is the
whole point. The Government has chosen, in this document, to make
a statement: "Food waste is avoided as far as possible".
You have got yourself into this area and there are certain things
that are happening, which, quite rightly, you point to, to say
that the trends in waste could well start to come down. What I
am saying is, if we are talking about sustainable use of farming
and of raw materials, to have some indicator from government as
to what it thinks the potential is to reduce waste and to identify,
if it believes it has a role, what that role is, would have, I
would have thought, been part of what I call the cutting hard
edge of a strategy, but that is missing.
Hilary Benn: With respect I do
not agree because the steps that I have just outlined and the
things that we are doing is indeed government's role in relation
to this.
Q38 Chairman: Where does it lead
to? What is the downward track of food waste reduction? Is it
one per cent a year, two per cent a year? What would you think?
Hilary Benn: That is a debate
about whether it is sensible for government from the centre to
set a target.
Q39 Chairman: No, I did not say that.
I talked about potential. I am talking about benchmarking. It
is like saying: "Where do I think we can go with this technology?"
I agree you cannot mandate industry, but you have the overview,
you have the science and you make the statements that you think
that something like this could occur, right, but where is the
hard-edged information to give us some idea of what it all means?
I pick on this deliberately because that is one of the themes
that runs right the way through this. There are lots of wonderful,
well-meaning statements that nobody would disagree with, but when
you actually say: "Where is the hard edge? What does this
mean? Where are the facts that will guide us in our strategic
thinking?" they are not there.
Hilary Benn: In relation to government's
role, with the consultation on whether we should ban food waste
from going into landfill, that is a very hard-edged proposal.
The consultation, as I said, will come out in the near future.
We would have to think about a date by which that would come in
but that would give you a very clear answer to the question: is
food waste going to continue to end up in landfill? I do not think
it is sensible that it should. That is the first point. Secondly,
I will go away—it is a fair point you have raised in relation
to those issues—because the people who can answer the question
"what is the potential" in relation to catering waste
is, indeed, the catering industry and the supermarkets themselves.
The reason I said earlier, Mr Chairman, that in relation to milestones,
rather than us, in drawing up Food 2030, saying: "Right,
we think the potential for catering waste reduction is X per cent
over so many years", having set out what it is that we are
trying to do (which nobody disagrees with, I grant you), if we
then talk to the industry and say: "Okay, what do you think
the potential is?", given the incentives we are offering
to use food waste in another way, given the incentive that you
have got because of the cost of sticking it into landfill, we
will see if we can come back from them with some indication of
what they think the potential is. I think that is the right order
in which to do it, and I do not apologise for not having done
it in the publication.
Chairman: Anne, if you would like to
finish your question.
4 Ev 23 Back
5
Food 2030, January 2010, http://www.defra.gsi.gov.uk/foodfarm/pdf/food2030strategy.pdf Back
|
