Examination of Witnesses (Questions 280
- 292)
TUESDAY 7 NOVEMBER 2000
MR MICHAEL
PASKE, DR
DIANE MITCHELL
AND MR
MICHAEL PAYNE
Chairman
280. Can you give us some examples then of authorities
that refuse to remove old mattresses, and things, when farmers
ask them to do it?
(Dr Mitchell) We had a recent case where some tyres
had been tipped on an SSSI, and neither the Environment Agency
nor the local authority would remove those tyres, quite a substantial
number of tyres, that had been dumped.
Christine Butler
281. Did they not protest?
(Dr Mitchell) They were eventually removed, but—
Mrs Dunwoody
282. What was the name of the authority?
(Dr Mitchell) I am sorry, I do not have the details
of the case to hand.
(Mr Paske) We will happily provide that for you.
283. And any other cases, with names?
(Mr Paske) We are happy to do that as well.
Mr Benn
284. So, to be clear, it is entirely at the
discretion of those agencies, the local authorities and the Environment
Agency, as to whether they choose to effect removal in a case
such as you describe, as opposed to leave it to the farmer to
do something about it?
(Dr Mitchell) Where those are a hazard to the environment,
say, if there are some drums with some hazardous material in them,
that has a threat to, say, water-courses nearby, I think the Environment
Agency will have a duty to remove those wastes.
285. So do I take it, from the answer you have
just given, that you would support a stronger and clearer duty
being put on local authorities, or the Environment Agency, to
effect removal?
(Mr Paske) Yes.
286. Then could you tell us what other changes
you would like to see in the current set-up to deal with the problem?
(Mr Paske) There are other things as well, which include
Landfill Tax Credits, but, again, Diane, perhaps you would like
to go into that, would you.
(Dr Mitchell) Yes. I think we would like clearer guidance
given to various authorities and the Environment Agency, or given
advice on where they can remove these materials, rather than compel
the landowner actually to deal with them themselves.
287. And what about effective prosecution of
those responsible; how often do people get caught doing this?
(Mr Paske) All too rarely, and then, when they are
caught, very little is done about it, unfortunately; but, Diane,
any further details on that?
(Dr Mitchell) I think, the evidence required successfully
to prosecute fly-tippers, it is quite a substantial amount of
evidence needed. And I know that the Environment Agency tries
certainly to publicise those cases where they do prosecute successfully;
in other cases, we just do not hear about them, or they are not
successful. Trying to find the person responsible for tipping
is very difficult.
Chairman
288. What about sham recovery?
(Mr Payne) We are not aware of this as a significant
problem. We have looked at the evidence put in to your Committee
by The Guardian newspaper, and, frankly, none of that seems to
relate to genuine farming operations at all.
289. I am sure it does not relate to genuine
farming operations, but you have just pointed out earlier that
farmers are having life quite difficult, so is there not a temptation
for them to farm waste rather than animals or crops?
(Mr Payne) There may well be a temptation, and I am
sure that, amongst farmers, as amongst other sectors of the community,
there may be those who give way to that kind of temptation; but,
so far as we are aware, we just do not see a significant problem
in this area. Clearly, there are problems, from the evidence that
the newspaper has put forward; but with an economic instrument
you are very often likely to get perverse effects, unless you
do your research and development of the economic instrument extremely
carefully. But, if you provide an incentive for material to go
to other places, it is quite likely that you are creating the
incentive for illegal disposal as well.
(Mr Paske) So it is illegal rather than abuse, I think,
Chairman, is the point that we would make.
290. But in an earlier session we had people
suggesting that the Landfill Tax was far too low and that it perhaps
ought to go up to £30. Do you think, if that happened, the
temptation for farmers to take material as sham recovery would
rapidly increase?
(Mr Payne) I am sure that the temptation would increase
for any person so minded, whether they be a farmer or anybody
else; but perhaps it would be appropriate for some of the revenue
to be devoted to policing.
291. So you think better enforcement would be
one way. Now what about the fly-tipping itself; do you think that
would increase if the levy went up?
(Mr Payne) My personal view is, there would be a dramatic
impact.
292. Would the NFU like to see the levy go up
then?
(Mr Paske) From the answer that Michael has just given
you, and on the hoof, I would say no.
Chairman: On that point, can I thank you very
much for your evidence.
|
