Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn. —(Ms Butler.)

I am extremely grateful for this opportunity to raise an issue of increasing importance for this country, which touches on many aspects of public policy. Energy from food waste raises issues of energy security, waste management policy, climate change, land use, food security and the environment in which we all live. The House will be relieved to learn that I do not intend to cover all those topics in detail this evening, as there is simply not enough time.

I wish to focus my remarks on the case for energy generation from food waste, specifically through the process of anaerobic digestion. I should declare a constituency interest right away. Ludlow is rightly famous for the quality of its food, both from local producers and also through the outstanding Michelin starred restaurants in Ludlow town itself, as well as the many other fine places to eat across the constituency. But Ludlow is also fast becoming known for what we do with the food that we produce but cannot eat—the food left on our plate; food waste—both in our homes and in commercial premises and processors.

Since 2007, such waste has been collected by South Shropshire district council and taken to the Biocycle anaerobic digester on the edge of Ludlow, which is operated by Biogen Greenfinch, where it is turned into biogas, which generates heat and electricity. It is the first of only two such plants operating in this country. It is a fitting legacy for South Shropshire district council, which will sadly disappear on the 31 March, that under a Conservative administration it has pioneered the innovative use of this technology to turn waste into electricity.

Anaerobic digestion and the gases produced by natural decomposition as a process can be traced back to the 16th century. While the first construction of an anaerobic digester was apparently in a leper colony in Bombay in 1859, it was English scientists who developed the technology to generate gas for street lighting in Victorian England. I am afraid that, as a nation, we have lost that early technological lead. One of my criticisms of this Government's supposed enthusiasm for green energy has been the lamentable progress made in recent years in encouraging that technology.

This is a low-tech, low-carbon biological process that happens naturally when bacteria break down organic matter in environments with little or no oxygen. It essentially mimics the workings of a cow's stomach and produces a biogas made up of around 40 per cent. carbon dioxide and 60 per cent. methane—a greenhouse gas, as hon. Members know, that is 21 times more potent than carbon dioxide. It is effectively a controlled and enclosed version of the anaerobic breakdown of organic waste in landfill. It provides an almost ideal methane-mitigation policy, because the methane is captured and has no opportunity to escape into the atmosphere.

Almost any organic material can be processed with anaerobic digestion, including waste paper, cardboard—which is often of too low a grade to recycle, if it has been contaminated by, for example, close proximity to food—grass clippings, leftover food, industrial effluents, sewage and animal waste.

I am pleased to support my hon. Friend, who is my Shropshire neighbour. He has mentioned the various things that can be used in anaerobic digestion. I met the Environment Agency today, which mentioned that slurry is used for those purposes in other European countries. Does my hon. Friend agree—I speak as chairman of the all-party dairy farmers group—that the Government should do more to communicate the potential for putting slurry into those digesters, particularly bearing in mind the difficulties farmers face with nitrates directives?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend and want to put on the record that he does valiant work for the dairy industry through the all-party group. To some extent, he has pre-empted a point that I was going to make, which I will cover now. There is 20 or 30 years' experience of generating energy through heat from slurry in a process of anaerobic digestion—I believe that the first plants were opened in the 1980s. There are only about 20 or so farm slurry plants in operation, of which four are based in Shropshire or the Shropshire borders. An innovative farmer, Mr. Clive Pugh, who lives within four miles of Bishop's Castle in my constituency, persuaded about half a dozen farmers to adopt that technology in the early 1990s. He is now investing in generating capacity to turn that into electricity, as well as heat for his dairy parlour. We are, however, way behind many other European countries in this area.

My hon. Friend may not know this, but I was something of a trailblazer in this field when my right hon. Friend Mr. Heathcoat-Amory and I invested in an anaerobic facility in Dorset nearly 30 years ago. I am sorry to say that we lost all our money, but there is no doubt that even in those days, the aims and the opportunities were clear. As my hon. Friend has persuasively argued, the science has advanced very quickly, so the opportunities should not be confined to Ludlow, but should be nationwide.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend who, as so often in matters to do with food, was an early mover in this area. I am sorry to hear that his investment was not as fruitful as it might well be if he were able to make it today.

In other European countries, generating energy from farm waste is significantly more advanced. In Germany, there are about 4,000 plants. My hon. Friend Daniel Kawczynski asked whether the Government should be doing more. Only as recently as last month, they finally produced a vision for anaerobic digestion, which I am sure the Minister will refer to. Their vision is to encourage by 2020 some 1,000 farms across the country to use anaerobic digestion to deal with farm slurry. I applaud that, although it was not the Government's idea—I cannot claim that it was mine, as it came from the National Farmers Union, which produced exactly that figure in October last year—and welcome its adoption as Government policy.

The process is not quite as efficient for farm slurry as it is for food waste, as the animals, in generating the slurry, consume some of the nutrients that would otherwise be available directly in the food. Some by-products of farm waste, through slurry, are not as nutrient rich for the fertiliser that comes out at the other end, if I may put it that way, whereas food waste has the benefit of providing a nutrient-rich fertiliser, which is another reason why anaerobic digestion is a better use of food waste than incineration, due to the quality of the by-product.

Having touched on the Government's new vision for anaerobic digestion, I should discuss the other aspect, which is that they are looking for 100 commercial plants to use food and other organic materials to generate electricity through anaerobic digestion. They have helped to fund the existing two plants, including the plant in Ludlow. While that is welcome, they have been, to put it generously, slow to recognise the potential of the technology. They have been asleep at the wheel, and I am grateful that they are now catching up to where other parties have reached in seeing the potential of reliable renewable energy from food waste.

Does the hon. Gentleman, who is being extraordinarily generous in giving way, agree that one reason why the technology has not taken off as quickly as it should have done is because of difficulties in planning and, perhaps, certain concerns among neighbours locally as to how they might be affected? Examples of good practice would assuage those fears.

The hon. Gentleman is right to a degree in that whenever the word "waste" is attached to a planning application, there is fear or concern among local populations about what the impact might be on residents. I shall come on to describe what happened in Ludlow, so as to give him and the Government some reassurance that, at the right scale, the process not only becomes relatively straightforward to get through in planning terms, but has few of the associated risks to local residents that people fear from other types of energy generation from waste—in particular, from domestic refuse.

That takes me to a description of what happened in Ludlow. The plant began by combining green waste with food waste. As I have said, green waste can go through the same process, but relatively quickly it became clear that the contamination of waste put into green bins in order for it to be digested is a fraught issue. On a visit to the plant, the manager showed me a concrete block that had been placed in a green bin, and old kettles were also placed in green bins. That is not the stated objective of the green bin, but I am afraid that, until people are much more educated about how to deal with recycling and the separation of waste, such errors will arise, wittingly or unwittingly. Such errors pose a significant problem for the efficient operation of the plant, and it was therefore decided quite quickly to focus purely on food waste. As a result, not only domestic collections but commercial waste were used to obtain the necessary volumes.

The plant in Ludlow is on a 0.2 hectare site, and it is capable of processing 5,000 tonnes a year. The original plan was for the immediate population of Ludlow—nearly 10,000 people—to be able to generate enough green and food waste to serve that processing capacity. However, with the focus solely on food waste, that proved insufficient, so the collection is now being made from neighbouring towns. There are currently 7,000 participating households generating food waste from a weekly collection in separate caddies supplied by the local authority.

The cost of collection is relatively high in the pilot, but the local authority, working with the collection company, Veolia, is considering the possibility of providing a separate collection alongside the existing collection of either green or ordinary domestic waste, which takes place fortnightly in South Shropshire. The great advantage of taking food out of the domestic waste stream is that because of odour and vermin problems, residents become concerned if it is not collected more regularly than every fortnight. That is the main reason for the popular opposition to a fortnightly collection scheme. Putting the waste in a separate container from which it can be collected weekly, along with both green and domestic waste, disposes of the problem and represents a major advantage to residents. Another major advantage is the capture of the odour in the processing building, and specifically in the contained vessel once it is "cooking". The initial odour problems in the plant have been dealt with quite satisfactorily and relatively quickly, although the plant is within 200 m of the nearest house.

Let me return to the point originally made by Mr. Williams. The planning application was supported on a cross-party basis. Although I made a party political point in saying that the Conservatives introduced the scheme, I concede that it was supported by the Liberal Democrats on the local authority, which ensured that this was not a partisan issue and that residents were not stirred up to object to the application. Residents now accept the scheme as part of the fabric of Ludlow, and, as I have said, are beginning to see the benefits of the weekly food waste collection.

I hope that the Minister will acknowledge the additional benefit that the scheme reduces the number of waste miles. The plant is a prototype, and it could not be replicated across the country on a commercial scale covering 10,000 households. Work needs to be done to determine the most appropriate minimum size, but 30,000 to 50,000 households would probably bring the concept to a commercial level and would be appropriate for most large and medium-sized towns. There would be a significant reduction in both the cost and the environmental damage that would be incurred in the transport of large volumes of waste over large distances to reach the few available landfill sites, which is the current alternative.

I strongly support the concept of anaerobic digestion, particularly if it is used to generate heat rather than electricity. In the context of household collection, however, would it not be better to concentrate on commercial food waste and to encourage householders to compost their food waste at home? That is what I do, using the bokashi and Green Cone systems.

There is clearly a case for composting green wastes in households with the necessary space and capacity, such as those fortunate enough to have gardens, but according to information provided by the Waste and Resources Action Programme, some 17 per cent. of all waste is food waste in one form or another, whether it is commercial or domestic. The domestic component is very significant. It will not be possible to persuade everybody to compost, because that is simply not an option for people living in buildings in multiple occupation, for example. There is a place for composting, but we need to look at the whole range of options when trying to generate renewable energy, and this is one significant option that hitherto this country has failed to adopt, for the reasons that I have outlined, and it should be encouraged in the future.

I am coming towards the end of my remarks, as I know the Minister wants to reply and tell us what wonderful things the Government are doing. Before he does so, however, I wish to say that the green energy proposals recently put forward by my colleagues have emphasised that biogas could potentially account for some 50 per cent. of residential gas heating. That is an eminently achievable target, if there is sufficient adoption of the technology across the country. It will require feed-in tariffs and continued use of double renewables obligation certificates, which is the regime that currently applies, but the environmental gains, especially from replacing fossil fuel fertiliser in the agricultural industry, which is a significant generator of greenhouse gases, are enormous. I urge the Minister to do as much as he can to push forward this policy as fast as he can. I would be delighted to welcome him to Ludlow so he can see what we have achieved, as some of his predecessors did.

I congratulate Mr. Dunne on drawing this important and timely subject to the House's attention. Although I may at some future date be able to take up his invitation to visit his constituency, I have to say I know it very well from the days when I used to rattle through it, within the speed limits, on my old in-line-four Honda CB550K on my way back and forth from university every weekend. It is a beautiful part of the country, and it is great to hear about this innovation.

The hon. Gentleman has rightly drawn our attention to the Biocycle anaerobic digester plant, and the Government have identified anaerobic digestion as the preferred method of treating food waste in our waste strategy 2007. Before I forget, may I also thank my hon. Friend Lynne Jones for her intervention? There is a place for composting as well, right at the source, but the Government are certainly very much in favour of anaerobic digestion as one of the ways forward.

The financial help provided towards the development of the Biocycle plant is a prime example of our support for the technology. The hon. Gentleman was understandably full of praise for South Shropshire's role, and I agree, but I was surprised that he condemned what he implied was the Labour Government's lamentable record on investment. Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs funding covered the costs of the design, build, commissioning and operation of this plant for 8,000 hours, and the original contracted payment was £537,162, and it subsequently increased by £122,158 to give a total of £659,320—and I could go on. Not only in terms of Biocycle but across the board, this Government put significant investment into resources, expertise and money to support such developments.

While this Government support the development of such technology, we must not forget the bigger picture. In the UK, we currently pay for, but do not eat, about £10 billion of food every year; that is equivalent to an astonishing average of £420 of waste per household every year. About 6.7 million tonnes of food is wasted, and that rises to 10 million tonnes if we include the retail and commercial sector. I must say that my parents and our grandparents would be banging the dinner table at us and saying, "Eat your food up!"

This food waste has large environmental and social impacts. Much of the waste currently ends up in landfill sites and degrades to produce dangerous greenhouse gases. Each tonne of food waste that is treated by plants such as the one in the hon. Gentleman's constituency saves a tonne of CO2 compared with landfilling. I do not think we can, but if we could deal with the problem and all those hundreds of tonnes purely through anaerobic digestion, it would result in the equivalent of removing one in five cars from the road, in terms of 18 million tonnes of CO2.

Enough of the statistics—what are we doing to tackle this waste? First, the Government's waste strategy, which was published in 2007, put a strong emphasis on waste prevention. The Waste and Resources Action Programme, to which reference has been made, and its partners are running the very good and consumer-facing Love Food Hate Waste campaign, which was launched in November 2007. It involves working closely with the UK grocery sector, the food industry and organisations such as the Food Standards Agency to make it easier for consumers to get the most from the food they buy and to waste less of it. Our target for March 2011 is to reduce the amount of waste food thrown away each year by 250,000 tonnes, and we are currently on track. We have also set ourselves an ambitious quantified target to secure commercial sector reductions at the back of store, and further up the supply chain.

Despite those initiatives, we will inevitably be left with a large amount of food waste requiring treatment, and that is where anaerobic digestion comes in. It is ideal for wet, energy-rich waste food, and it ticks all the boxes environmentally. It can produce 100 per cent. renewable electricity by combustion of the methane captured from the digestion process; heat produced by the process is recycled within the plant and the treated residue—the hon. Gentleman mentioned this—can be returned to the land as a fertiliser; and the whole process reduces greenhouse gas emissions compared with other waste processes. For those reasons, AD was identified in the Government's waste strategy as the preferred method for treating food waste, and it is a key component of our renewable energy strategy, which is to be published in June.

Anaerobic digestion will contribute to the UK's share of the EU's binding target for renewable energy, which is proposed to be 15 per cent. by 2020. It will also help us to achieve the legally binding targets in the Climate Change Act 2008 to reduce UK CO2 emissions. The Government's initial analysis suggests that the anaerobic digestion of all organic wastes to produce biogas could contribute approximately 10 to 20 TW hours of heat and power by 2020. That represents between 3.8 and 7.5 per cent. of the renewable energy that we estimate will be required by 2020. Food waste could contribute around 30 per cent. of that.

Although we are eager to see a much greater uptake by local authorities and businesses, anaerobic digestion can also provide our farmers with opportunities. It will help them to reduce the methane emissions produced by agriculture—those are running at 37 per cent. of the UK total—and allow them to diversify into the renewable energy field. We should not miss these opportunities. But for the treatment of food waste to develop, waste collections need to change. That is because AD ideally requires a clean stream of organic material and, as the hon. Gentleman said, that is best achieved with separate collection of household food waste. Progress on this is good, but we know that there is more to do. Latest figures show that weekly separate collections of food cover well over 1 million households, in 37 local authority areas. Trials in 2007-08 supported by WRAP showed some encouraging participation rates, with an estimated capture of 62 per cent. of all food waste on average.

Of course, for AD to develop it also needs a market and investors. They need certainty that the demand will be there for AD and its products before investing, so confidence needs to be built in the quality and use of the materials involved in the process. The Government are working hard to drive the increased use of AD forward in several ways. The hon. Gentleman will know of the changes that we have made to the Renewables Obligation Order. The revision of that shows the Government's long-term commitment to renewable electricity and will allow the sector to mature with certainty. Anaerobic digestion is among the technologies that will receive additional support in the form of two renewables obligation certificates per megawatt-hour from 1 April, as a result of changes introduced by the Energy Act 2008.

We know that the residues, or digestates, from AD plants can be used as fertiliser. In order to facilitate market development in that area, the Environment Agency and WRAP have developed a standard and quality protocol. That sets out conditions for digestate production and use. A draft has already been published, and has been notified before the European Commission's technical standards committee. So we are making progress and we recognise the potential of the technology.

The DEFRA-sponsored AD demonstration programme will support exciting projects in different sectors. A total of £10 million will be available from the environmental transformation fund until 31 March 2011. It will seek to fund between three and six projects that demonstrate different benefits of AD, and the Biocycle plant was an earlier example of a similar scheme.

DEFRA also recently published "Anaerobic Digestion—Shared Goals", which the hon. Gentleman mentioned. This outlines a programme of work with a broad range of stakeholders, including agriculture, energy and water utilities, the waste management sector, regulators, and local and regional government. To develop practical ways to increase the use of anaerobic digestion, we are setting up a new anaerobic digestion task group. Its implementation plan, which we hope to have in place later this year, will set out the practical measures that the Government and stakeholders can take to achieve the shared goals.

I am also pleased to say that AD is one of the measures eligible for support under the rural development programme for England 2007-13. It also qualifies for the bioenergy capital grants scheme, which supports the installation of biomass-fuelled heating and combined heat and power projects, including anaerobic digesters.

So progress is undoubtedly being made, but we need to do more. If the Government and all the stakeholders work together, we can succeed with this technology and create a prosperous AD market that benefits society, the environment and businesses.

I thank the hon. Gentleman for raising this important topic and I commend the work that is being done by Biocycle. We want to see more such work, with businesses and farmers taking advantage of this technology. It is a challenge, but it is also an opportunity. I thank the hon. Gentleman and other hon. Members for contributing to what has been a lively and informative debate.

Question put and agreed to.

House adjourned.