Select Committee on Environment, Transport and Regional Affairs Sixth Report


ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES

Individuals and Communities

178. Producer responsibility apart, once products have left the retail sector the duty of proper use and disposal passes to the product owner, or householder. Dr Kramer therefore detected "an amount of residual responsibility which each household has to take on board-whether you throw your old light bulbs ... into the dustbin or whether you start recycling them"; he suggested that such decisions are a matter for the individual, are beyond the power of the European Commission to influence and will be key to achieving a successful waste strategy.[325]

179. Others pointed out difficulties in persuading individuals to accept responsibility for their waste. The amount of household waste being sent for disposal is rising,[326] and Bob Lisney, speaking for the Local Government Association described "the behaviour of the public" as the primary barrier to more sustainable waste management,[327] adding later that research had indicated a belief among some members of the public that, rather than there being an individual responsibility for waste, it is simply "the council's job to get rid of" it.[328] Pat Delbridge Associates (PDA) commented that:

    "Local authorities increasingly find themselves coming into conflict with a public that sees waste disposal as the main problem rather than waste itself, and waste prevention as something that industry should do for them, rather than something that is within their own sphere of influence".[329]

The Halling Incinerator Action Group defined the public's willingness to participate in waste avoidance or recycling through "The 33% Rule", which suggested that:

    "33% will reduce and recycle because they believe that what they are doing is the only

    sensible way forward ... This sector will readily co-operate ...

    33% can be persuaded to reduce and recycle by implementation of some small financial penalties ie. charging for refuse sacks ... This sector takes a large amount of effort to coerce them ... education and some inducement to start participating ...

    33% will never be persuaded to reduce and recycle until they are forced to do so by law."[330]

180. We would agree with Pat Delbridge Associates that there is still scope for the public to influence waste production through prevention and also re-use and recycling. Waste Watch listed, from experience, some of the activities which householders could undertake. These included: shopping locally at specialist shops and foregoing convenience foods; re-using carrier bags; having milk delivered in returnable bottles; cleaning and sorting wastes, where kerbside collection schemes operate; donating plastic containers to schools for use in art classes; and composting kitchen scraps. However, they commented that it is difficult to persuade people to sustain activities like local, selective shopping since "the convenience of the supermarket for a working parent [is] a greater consideration than the environmental impact of additional waste generation. This remains a significant cultural barrier".[331]

181. The reluctance of some householders to participate in waste avoidance schemes is symptomatic of the larger problem of poor public awareness. Ian Avery, describing Hampshire's experience to us, said that "One of the messages we have learned ... is that there is more to this than giving the public recycling bins and then walking away and expecting it to happen".[332] We have noted previously the misconception which is apparently held by "the majority of the population", that waste avoidance and waste reduction are simply other terms to describe recycling rather than activities in their own right.[333] That Waste Watch noted an increase in recycling activities in areas where waste avoidance was being promoted at least indicates the goodwill of the Halling group's first thirty three per cent.[334]

182. Given the UK's poor performance to date in diverting waste from disposal there is still much to be done in order to engage even a third of the community in recycling and re-use. We received evidence of awareness-raising projects from Waste Watch and PDA. Jemma Little of PDA said that, while waste reduction is difficult to measure, the company believed reduction rates of nine per cent had been achieved by asking communities "what they can do to reduce their waste, what they can re-use, having a look in the dustbins ...";[335] Waste Watch entered into more detail in describing the "Zero Waste Challenge" it set for one particular family in Somerset as part of a wider awareness campaign, and which achieved a significant diversion of waste from disposal.[336]

183. These projects achieved success through engaging with communities rather than specifically with individuals: rather than simply explaining the theory of waste avoidance and re-use, campaigners analysed the contents of people's dustbins in order to identify "local solutions to a wider problem".[337] The community sector has been primarily responsible for such campaigns until now and has met with considerable success on a small scale. In order for the impact of such schemes to become widespread, it seems likely that local authorities must bear more of the responsibility for encouraging individual participation in the future. At present, there is a discrepancy in the law which does not allow local authorities to promote waste avoidance in the same way that they promote recycling: a Private Member's Bill currently passing through Parliament aims to address this, and we look forward to its success.[338] Local authorities taking up this new responsibility will need support: as a start, it would be useful for details of successful community campaigns to be disseminated widely. We recommend that the Government produce a best practice guide for local authorities on how to encourage waste avoidance and re-use within the local community.

184. The Government was also asked, in a recent Parliamentary Question, what provision is made in the National Curriculum for raising the awareness of schoolchildren about waste issues. From its answer, it would appear that waste is included within the Curriculum's "requirements and opportunities for pupils to study environmental issues", but it is not considered a priority.[339] It is clear to us that there must be far greater education of the public as to the importance of waste avoidance and the hierarchy. This should begin at school with a much higher profile accorded to these issues within the National Curriculum.

Public consultation

185. Communities also have an important role to play in determining the Waste Disposal Authority's choice of options for local waste management. Hampshire County Council, having had an application for an incinerator at Portsmouth turned down because of public protest, told us that "Community acceptance is as important as achieving the best solution in purely technical terms", and that the best way to achieve community acceptance is to ask the community to participate in developing the strategy.[340] Seeking such participation from the community will also help to raise awareness of the problems in dealing with waste.

186. Views about consultation were rather mixed. Peter Neill of the Environmental Services Association suggested that the need for consultation was accepted by the waste industry, but that it was probably wasted effort in that "waste management facilities ... will never be popular in the public's mind".[341] Similarly, Roger Levett of the Town and Country Planning Association, while advocating the importance of consultation in formulating strategy, agreed that there is a problem in asking communities to decide upon facilities in the immediate locality.[342] Consultation processes can fall into difficulties: Mr Levett suggested that the type of formal consultation which is carried out for most local authority land use planning can be daunting to individuals who "get entangled in it";[343] evidence to provide support for this view was offered by Manchester City Council, which carried out such a formal procedure (sending documents to community groups and local libraries and advertising in the local press), but later accepted that its consultation had not been entirely successful. This was in part because the proposal used "certain technical phrases" which had proved incomprehensible to consultees.[344]

187. The authorities which have combined in Hampshire's Project Integra were by far the most enthusiastic advocates of increased public consultation. Following the defeat of the incinerator proposal for Portsmouth, it had been decided to go about the process of consultation in a different way. In addition to the traditional consultation procedures adopted by Manchester City Council, the partners in Project Integra called in a consultancy firm-Pat Delbridge Associates-to set up three "community advisory forums" to audit the proposed strategy. Each forum comprised fifteen to twenty community representatives including people the consultancy describes as "opinion leaders" such as teachers, nurses, business people and environmental activists. Over a period of six months the groups "were given information and then asked for feedback and were involved in the process where they learned for themselves" and through discussion with independent experts.[345] At the end of the process the groups prepared a report which led to the adoption of a 40 per cent target for recycling in Hampshire, in place of the existing 25 per cent target.[346]

188. Hampshire Waste Services expressed its confidence that the higher target for recycling is achievable. This was in marked contrast to the approach of Durham County Council: the latter has a recycling rate of 3.3 per cent which it believes is "unlikely to increase significantly".[347] Hampshire Waste Services also informally expressed the belief that Project Integra had benefited substantially from undertaking a more complex consultation process, and had gained widespread support for the county's integrated waste strategy.[348] In a previous inquiry, we heard similarly from Thames Water that involving the community in the development of a sewage sludge incinerator in East London had led to acceptance of the scheme without the need for a public inquiry.[349] PDA told us that it has since conducted a similar consultation for Essex County Council.

189. Consultation is in everybody's best interests. The public has a right to know what the options for waste management are and their economic and environmental costs or benefits. The waste disposal authority has an obligation to fulfil the public's requirements, which it can only do if it knows what those requirements are. For the waste industry (together with the waste disposal authority) effective, early consultation with the public is a way to develop strategies which may win public support and further, to develop public confidence in the industry's professionalism.

190. PDA affirmed that where the public have been given the opportunity to examine all the possibilities they have "accepted that waste management is a complex issue ...[and have] urged councils to maintain as much flexibility as possible", accepting even that incineration and landfill "cannot be completely discounted".[350] By contrast, the comments of the Environmental Services

Association (noted in paragraph 186) are representative of outdated and condescending attitudes towards the public and its ability to understand complex questions. We are fully convinced of the right of the public to be consulted about the management of waste and of its ability to understand the issues and draw reasoned conclusions. Such consultation would provide valuable support to local authorities deciding on a waste management strategy; the principle applies equally to the Government, in formulating its new statutory strategy. However, as is amply demonstrated by the experience of the authorities in Hampshire and Manchester, such consultation has to be carried out wholeheartedly if it is to be effective.

Local government (waste collection)

191. The system for collection and disposal of household waste is currently divided in two. The collection of waste from each household is the responsibility of the Borough or District Council, or the Unitary Authority; in this context the authority is known as the Waste Collection Authority (WCA). The responsibility for disposal of the waste is borne by the County Council or Unitary Authority, known in this context as the Waste Disposal Authority (WDA). Thus, where unitary authorities operate, the Waste Collection and Waste Disposal Authorities are the same body. The Waste Disposal Authority is responsible for arranging contracts for the disposal of wastes collected by the Waste Collection Authorities. The Waste Planning Authority (the same tier of government as the WDA) is responsible for land use planning in relation to waste management. The cost of disposal is recouped by the Waste Disposal Authority through the Council Tax.

192. This is the theory. In practice, as we have noted in our previous comments on the Landfill Tax, capping is making it increasingly difficult for local authorities to recover the rising cost of waste collection and disposal from the taxpayer; instead, it is alleged that authorities are having to divert funds from other parts of local authority budgets, such as highway maintenance, in order to compensate.[351]

193. A simple answer to the authorities' difficulties would be to suggest that they make more of an effort to divert waste from disposal into recycling schemes, or to encourage householders to avoid waste altogether. Yet as noted above, local authorities still do not have powers to promote waste avoidance and they claim also that it has been difficult to find money to pay for recycling facilities, where these do not already exist:[352] one witness suggested that small authorities, particularly, lack the "infrastructure and the wherewithal" to attract partners for such projects from the private sector.[353] In this section of our Report we will discuss, first, the Supplementary Credit Approvals which have in the past helped local authorities to invest in recycling schemes; and secondly, strategies for changing waste collection practices which have been suggested to us by witnesses to the inquiry.

SUPPLEMENTARY CREDIT APPROVALS

194. Supplementary Credit Approvals (SCAs) generally are granted by the Government, upon application by a local authority, as additional capital for expenditure upon specified approved projects. SCAs for local authority recycling and composting projects were introduced by the previous Government in 1991. Between 1991 and 1997, £66.4 million was allocated to local authorities through the scheme-a significant amount of money-but it ceased to operate at the end of the financial year 1996-97 and the new Government does not plan to re-introduce it.[354] Both the Local Government Association and the Composting Association regretted the discontinuation of the scheme, suggesting that this had added to the difficulties local authorities experience in trying to acquire capital funds for investment in material recovery systems.[355]

    195. Making Waste Work, in describing the functioning of the SCA system, credited it with success in promoting local authority recycling. The paper stated:

    "During the life of the SCA programme, recycling rates nationally have increased by 2.5% and the programme has contributed substantially to this, perhaps by as much as 40%".[356]

In real terms forty per cent of 2.5 per cent is an increase in recycling of one per cent over the four years to 1995: inevitably, this low level of achievement calls into question the effectiveness of the system. The former Committee took up this question with the Rt Hon. John Gummer MP, then Secretary of State for the Environment, in the autumn of 1996. He told the Committee that the credit approval scheme had had "some very good effects" but confessed, rather surprisingly, that "I am not sure that it is the core of how I would want to proceed now".[357] He suggested that Producer Responsibility and other Government initiatives such as Capital Challenge might, in the future, prove more effective methods of funding for these recycling and composting projects.[358]

196. The reason why the SCA scheme was not more effective was explained to us by Peter Fenton of Manchester City Council. While expressing the importance of the allocations to local authorities, he told us that under the scheme funds had to be spent within the year of allocation or forfeited, which made their use very difficult:

    "The way the system works if we get approval to spend in any particular financial year, that comes through in November, we have then got five months to do it in that year. So the system ... does not lend itself to the authority spending a lot of time thinking about these issues".[359]

The Composting Association noted an additional problem with the time limit for use of the approvals in that it can be very difficult to gain planning permission to develop recycling or

composting facilities within the twelve month period.[360] Michael Walker therefore suggested an alternative, two stage, process for allocation of the credit approvals: the DETR would allocate the funds upon approving an application by a local authority, but would only pass the money to the authority once planning permission had been acquired. The authority would have two years in which to gain planning permission for its proposal, and seek release of the funds.[361]

197. Given the ineffectiveness of the previous system for allocating Supplementary Credit Approvals, we consider that the ending of the scheme was justified. However, as we have previously commented, the Producer Responsibility system thus far has failed to provide an equivalent source of capital for investment in recycling. In the light of the additional difficulties local authorities now face through the Landfill Tax, we believe that the establishment of a source of capital will be essential to support their recycling and composting projects. The Government therefore should establish a replacement source of capital in the next financial year. This could be financed through the money saved by ending the SCA scheme, or through the Packaging Regulations or the Landfill Tax.

FUTURE OPTIONS FOR WASTE COLLECTION

Direct charging

198. In so far as the Waste Disposal Authority must pass on to the Waste Collection Authority any disposal cost savings in respect of materials recycled, there would appear to be an incentive upon the WCA to encourage householders to cut down the amount of waste they produce, through education on avoidance, re-use and recycling. However, their powers to do so are limited and as we have just discussed, so is their ability to invest in recycling projects. The DETR identified a possible "weakness" in the current system of waste collection which is the inclusion of the costs of waste collection and disposal within the Council Tax. Lisette Simcock, Head of the DETR's Waste Policy Division, described this as a barrier to household waste reduction in that "it does not provide householders with a direct link with the amount of waste they generate and expect to be collected and disposed of and there is no cash incentive ... to change".[362] A possible means to correct this weakness would be to introduce direct charging of households for the waste they produce (sometimes known as variable charging).[363] Support for this suggestion came from a varied group of witnesses including the Local Authority Recycling Advisory Committee, Waste Watch, recycling groups, Aspinwall & Company and Professor Coggins of the University of Sheffield.[364]

199. Ms Simcock said that the Department had yet to consider the possibility seriously, since there are potential problems in implementing such a scheme.[365] A primary concern would be that direct charging would place a disproportionate burden upon low income households; a second would be that the administrative costs might simply absorb the sums raised by the charge.[366] Other problems cited by the DETR included the difficulty of implementing such schemes in densely populated areas (for example in blocks of flats with communal bins), neighbours putting waste in each other's bins, and increases in fly-tipping and burning of waste to avoid charges.[367] The Local Government Association agreed that these problems had led local authorities to maintain "reservations" about the possibility of direct charges.[368]

200. The DETR has, however, been monitoring the performance of such schemes in other countries and has learned that charging has succeeded in some cases in achieving a 40 per cent diversion of waste from disposal; additionally, Ms Simcock said, "we have not come across evidence of serious public health hazards or widespread non-compliance and on the whole the problems that have emerged do not appear significant enough to outweigh the benefits".[369] While expressing concern over the possible impact direct charging might have upon lower income households,[370] both Friends of the Earth and Waste Watch argued for direct charging to be tried on an experimental basis, so that its viability here can be assessed.[371]

201. Although the evidence we have received suggests that direct charging for household waste collection might be possible, we remain to be convinced that the benefit in waste reduction would outweigh the social and economic costs of implementing such a system. We do not consider it to be suitable.

'Kerbside' collection of recyclables

202. In order to increase recycling rates, many authorities are now opting for door-to-door collections of recyclable materials (known as 'kerbside') to supplement or replace collections through material banks and civic amenity sites. Friends of the Earth consider kerbside collection to be essential to improved recovery rates,[372] and the DETR now advocates it in its guidance to local authorities on recycling.[373]

203. The principal benefit of such a collection strategy is the greater incentive it provides to householders to participate in recycling; recent figures released by the Audit Commission indicate that one authority, Castle Morpeth, increased its recycling rate by 16.6 per cent between 1994 and 1997 through the introduction of a kerbside collection system.[374] Yet inevitably, as we have noted in our previous comments (see paragraph 82), there are difficulties for local authorities seeking to implement such systems. Increasing the complexity of the waste collection service may lead to greater costs, as may the separate collection of materials in different vehicles.[375] Procter and Gamble noted that in Germany the collection of packaging separated from the domestic waste stream increases the cost of dealing with the waste to over £300 per tonne, and there are environmental problems with vehicle emissions and increased fuel consumption.[376] Householders may be concerned over hygiene if the materials are stored in the home for any extended period. For the processor of the materials there are still likely to be problems with contamination, where householders fail to separate the recyclables fully, and with the reliability of the supply.[377] The London Borough of Hounslow and Lincolnshire County Council both confirmed that "the 'throw-away' mentality" persists, so that such collections are not always welcomed.[378]

204. The determination of local authorities and other groups to address these problems has led to some interesting solutions. The concept of kerbside collection can be implemented in many varied ways: perhaps, as the Department suggests, beginning with only one or two materials and increasing in line with public support. Ian Avery told us that the Waste Collection Authorities participating in Hampshire's Project Integra are each operating different collection systems and have found that "different types of container, yield different results"; while the operation of different collection systems poses a problem to the Disposal Authority, the breadth of the experiment is helping them "to avoid trying to re-invent the wheel all the time".[379] Haringey is reported to be using electric vehicles to cut down emissions during collections and Worthing has set up a scheme in conjunction with the Institute of Grocery Distribution which has successfully increased waste diversion to 14 per cent for an increased cost of only £1.33 per household per year.[380]

205. It is the cost of such systems which is likely to be the most significant deterrent to local authorities at the present time, yet even this can be countered. Michael Walker of the Composting Association told us that the answer lies in implementing a "twin bin" system: one bin for non-recyclable waste and the other for recyclable, or compostable, material. Since the waste is split between the two bins it was argued that it is possible to collect each bin only once a fortnight. By alternating the collections it is possible to keep costs, and emissions, at existing levels, with only "a one off cost to pay for the second wheel bin".[381] We questioned how hygienic it would be to store wastes for a fortnight, particularly in hot weather, but were assured that odour and associated problems did not appear to cause complaint provided the waste is stored in a proper bin rather than a plastic bag.[382]

206. On the subject of waste receptacles, we have noted both on our visit to Hampshire and within our constituencies that a wide range of bags (black, green or transparent plastic), boxes and bins are now being used. We consider it to be particularly important that Waste Collection Authorities ensure the materials used to contain waste for collection and transportation are fit for purpose and, wherever possible, recyclable or biodegradable.


325  Q691 Back

326  See paragraph 21 Back

327  Q110 Back

328  Q163 Back

329  Ev p 42 Back

330  Ev p 122 Back

331  Ev p 103 Back

332  Q517 Back

333  Ev p 42; see also Q270 Back

334  Q270 Back

335  Q516 Back

336  Ev p 103 Back

337  Q516 Back

338  Waste Minimisation Bill Back

339  HC Deb, 307 c801 w Back

340  Ev p 298; see also Q493 et seq. Back

341  Q653 Back

342  Q540 Back

343  Q539 Back

344  Q595 Back

345  QQ494, 524 Back

346  See Annex 1 Back

347  Ev p 72; see also Annex 1 Back

348  Annex 1 Back

349  Sewage Treatment and Disposal, Second Report 1997-98 HC266-I, Annex II Back

350  Ev p 44 Back

351  See paragraph 145; Q140 Back

352  See paragraphs 69 and 145 ; also QQ110, 583 Back

353  Q154 Back

354  Calculated from This Common Inheritance 1996, Cm 3188 HMSO London 1996 p 81 (Commitment 233); see also Q876 Back

355  QQ 183, 446; see also Ev pp 9, 143 Back

356  Making Waste Work, Cm 3040, HMSO London 1995 p42 Back

357  Minutes of Evidence Wednesday 20 November 1996, HC 102-i 1996-97 Q72 Back

358  Ibid, Q69 Back

359  Q601 Back

360  Q458 Back

361  Q458 Back

362  Q27 Back

363  Q27 Back

364  Ev pp 140, 106, 192, 202, 264 Back

365  Q27 Back

366  Q28 Back

367  QQ27, 29 Back

368  Q181 Back

369  Q27 Back

370  Q310 Back

371  QQ302, 310, 312 Back

372  Q291 Back

373  Op cit. Back

374  Surveyor, 26 March 1998 pp18-19 Back

375  QQ415, 446 Back

376  Ev p 194 Back

377  Q500; Ev p 274 Back

378  Ev pp 175, 20 Back

379  Q500 Back

380  Ev pp 173, 194 Back

381  Q447 Back

382  QQ448, 449 Back


 
previous page contents next page

House of Commons home page Parliament home page House of Lords home page search page enquiries

© Parliamentary copyright 1998
Prepared 30 June 1998