Examination of Witnesses (Questions 120-136)
COUNCILLOR KAY
TWITCHEN AND
MR GRAHAM
TOMBS
WEDNESDAY 15 JANUARY 2003
120. Finally from me, the LGA have argued that
economic factors have figured too strongly in the development
of waste management policy. How do you think you could seek to
redress that balance between economic and environmental considerations?
(Ms Twitchen) We have already talked about political
leadership and I do not want to go on endlessly about that, but
I do think there is a danger that commercial interests sometimes
override the environmental and social ones. One example is the
End of Life Vehicle Directive and we all know about abandoned
cars all over place—they are a danger, an eyesore and an
utter nuisance and are costing the taxpayer an awful lot of money
to get rid of. The Producer Responsibility Regulations kick in
in April or July 2007, but until then we have a situation where,
with a new car which reaches the end of its life, the disposal
has to be paid for by the manufacturer who produced it or the
importer, but for a used car the cost has to be borne by the last
user, and that decision has been taken. It was open to the Government
to apply the principle of producer responsibility whenever it
wished to do so—it could have done it from 1 July when the
other set of regulations kicked in. In other words, we could have
had a situation where the motor trade, the people who make money
out of selling motor cars, were picking up the bill for disposing
of them at the end of their life, and you know the reasons why
the cost of disposal has gone up so much, because, firstly, the
scrap metal market has plummeted and, secondly, they have to have
all the fluids extracted and so on. So the classic situation is
that the owner of a beat-up car that has died is expected to spend
£100 getting rid of it safely and clearly, in a lot of cases,
they have not got the resources to do that so the local authority
picks up the bill. It is not worth our while pursuing people because
it does not achieve anything—they are not people necessarily
of any great means—so it is a burden on the public purse
where it could have been a burden on the motor industry. I did
just want to go back to the point you raised earlier about something
else in Waste Strategy 2000. One of the key points so far as local
authorities are concerned is that it talked about giving waste
disposal authorities the power to require the collection authorities
to deliver waste to them in certain streams if they wished to
do so, so if a disposal authority, for example, Essex, wished
to have mass recycling of, for example, newspapers, it could say
to every district, "You have to do this; we want you to deliver
newspapers to us for recycling separately from everything else",
and they would have to comply. Now obviously we would prefer to
do it by negotiation, discussion and persuasion but it was decided
in Waste Strategy 2000 that if we were ever going to get serious
recycling under way that was one of the powers that local authorities
needed to have. That was supported in this latest document, Waste
Not Want Not, but it has never been delivered. Everyone agreed
it is a good idea and a fundamental to driving forward the recycling
and really getting it moving, but it has not happened and that
was the disappointment about Waste Strategy 2000. It was full
of good ideas and aspirational targets but so little has been
delivered.
Mr Challen
121. Do best value requirements create problems
in meeting targets in terms of waste management? Have you found
any issues in best value which do create conflicts?
(Ms Twitchen) No, not within my own authority and
the LGA supports the philosophy of best value but finds the way
it has been operated very cumbersome but there have been refinements
and it is becoming easier to manage as time goes by. Waste management
is not an isolated area of concern for the comprehensive performance
assessments reviews, which some people think maybe it should be
because it is such a critical issue. It is an area where change
really needs to be driven forward, although when Essex was subjected
to its CPA they did focus very much on our waste management function,
but it is open to them to ignore it or do that as they wish. Is
there anything in particular on the best value targets?
(Mr Tombs) Not so much on the best value targets.
The best value process has been quite complimentary, particularly
the need to compare performance, price and practice. I think we
recognise that has made a contribution to that shared understanding.
Mention was made earlier of data and the need for information.
The best value process has contributed towards that sharing of
internal performance data for local authorities and that clearly
has to be welcomed as an opportunity. With regard to the targets
as they have now been set, the 25%, the 33%, the 40% and so on,
there is a slight almost perverse dilemma there in that the higher
performing authorities have now been set the very high performing
objectives. The lower performing authorities who did very little
have not got to do a great deal to meet their new targets with
very little investment. There is clear evidence both in the UK
and in Europe of a very clear exponential increase in cost and
to go over the 25/30% barrier of recovery recycling becomes progressively
more expensive per centage to achieve, setting the higher targets
of 33/40 % and so on without having regard to those costs, and
that is an area of the best value regime target setting which
has yet to be explored in more detail. How are we going to do
that within a cost framework that is achievable against the competing
demands we spoke about earlier?
122. Earlier on you were talking about sharing
best practice, and certainly in my days in local government that
was one of the few ways you tried to find out about what other
authorities were doing. Does best value in this comparison mode
assist that process and does it help innovation, because certainly
as far as best practice goes my experience was that sometimes
you would go and have a look at a wonderful project or whatever,
you would come back to your own authority, and there would be
a whole range of people saying, "Well, it cannot be done
here", and they give you all these different reasons, so
in that sense best value demanding this comparison might improve
things, but do you have any examples or thoughts on that?
(Ms Twitchen) Can I tell you about an LGA initiative
which I am rather proud of? It is the Improvement and Development
Agency[4]
with the LGA. NAWDO, National Association of Waste Disposal Officers,
LARAC, and the national best value waste network are all getting
together to try to drive forward some of these issues and they
are making some proposals. We have not got funding for it yet
but at least people are starting to think about what can be done.
One is peer reviews where members will spend time in another authority
saying, "Look, we tried this and it did not work but then
we did it this way and it was a lot better so why not do it this
way". A lot of it is confidence building as much as sharing
data. There is an interactive website, because I think increasingly
people are looking to the web for ideas and authoritative examples
of what is going on, and there is also a system of lending officers
from very successful authorities to ones that are struggling a
bit, so those are three areas the LGA has initiated in a proactive
way.
123. Those are all voluntary systems. Do you
see any merit in forcing officers, particularly officers because
they are a driving force in many authorities, to go and have this
experience, or should it remain on a voluntary basis?
(Ms Twitchen) No. I come back to my founding principle
which is that local authorities are autonomous and as long as
they fulfil their statutory duties the rest of it is up to them.
The local people decide what priorities they want and elect them,
so I do not like the word "force"!
Sue Doughty
124. What has occurred to me, and you were here
when we were listening to the CBI, is the concern about the boundaries
between where their responsibility stops and what local government
has to pick up. My concern that I have put to them is about how
they join that gap and have a shared concern about goods moving
on to the end users and then on to local government to deal with.
How would you answer that question?
(Ms Twitchen) I think that holistic approach is not
helped by the fact that waste comes under the Office of the Deputy
Prime Minister, the DTI and DEFRA. I think if there was one single
government department where the buck stopped which really took
responsibility for the whole range of complex issues involved
in waste management, cradle to grave, that would go some way to
helping with that. Local authorities can only do their bit of
the job, and our bit of the job is the most difficult bit of the
waste stream but in volume terms it is not the biggest%age by
any means—that is agricultural, commercial and industrial
waste. Although we can talk about the holistic view and producer
responsibility and packaging reduction and putting into the household
objects that are more easily recycled or disposed of so when they
come out of the household our job is made easier and more environmentally
friendly, we cannot as local authorities achieve an awful lot,
and if one government department was responsible for the whole
picture then that would help.
Mr Ainsworth
125. I do not want a big debate about incineration
but would you comment on Friends of the Earth's suggestion about
the fact that a number of local authorities have signed long term,
20-30 year contracts as a result of the inflexibility of the strategy
and perceived difficulties that may arise in meeting obligations
under the strategy in the future, so it would be easier for them
to sign incineration contracts which may in themselves be an obstacle.
Are they an obstacle to achieving what we all want to achieve
in terms of reducing waste, and do you think they have signed
because of the inflexibility of the waste strategy?
(Ms Twitchen) I am not an economist but I would have
thought the long term contracts were linked to the enormous capital
investments needed. For instance, taking this place we were at
this morning, the capital cost is between £35 and £40
million and if you want to get that back over five years your
operating costs go through the roof. You have to phase it out
over a reasonably long period, have you not, to get your capital
payback?
126. What is in it for the local authorities
to sign these contracts?
(Ms Twitchen) I do not know. I do not think they would
have any choice. If they engage in a contract with somebody who
is providing very expensive equipment I imagine they have to make
the commitment to stay with that contract long enough to enable
the person providing the very expensive equipment to have their
payback. The LGA does not criticise them for doing that if it
is their judgment that that is the most cost effective way to
deliver the services that they want to deliver.
127. And you do not think that going down the
incineration route impedes the ability to develop recycling and
so on?
(Ms Twitchen) Personally, or the LGA? Personally I
think there is a risk if it is not appropriately tailored and
I think we are getting very much more sophisticated. Five years
ago recycling was a marginal matter. Now it is a mainstream activity
as far as local government and most people are concerned, and
there have not been very many recent new builds that I am aware
of apart from Kirklees. Now that is interesting because in Kirklees,
which is right in the centre of Huddersfield, they have transfer
stations all around the district and the incinerator is right
in the middle, and it is fairly low capacity, 90,000 tons, so
they are looking at a waste stream in the region of 200,000 tons.
They bring it into the centre, and they have an enormous composing
facility for all the green waste and a murf to sort out the recyclables
and they have an incineration capacity which is less than half
of their total volume. So they have got to recycle because there
is nowhere else for it to go. They cannot burn; they have to take
out the compostibles and the recyclables and only deal with the
rest through incineration, and I would not criticise them for
that. It is not the choice that most local authorities would make
but from the LGA's point of view I think that it is perfectly
sustainable.
(Mr Tombs) Let us not confuse contracts with a particular
technology. If you want to go down the PFI route you have to look
at the longer term arrangements. We spoke about best value and
that tells you that you must get the best value from the arrangement.
What we need to be doing is looking at those technologies, whatever
it happens to be, and looking at flexibility within those technologies
so one can meet increasing standards and increasing social expectations
in what we need to be achieving. If that means 20-year contract
there is nothing wrong in a 20-year relationship to secure best
value and the best technology to suit the system. There is nothing
wrong with that at all, whether it is private sector or the public
sector. There is a debate about using a particular technology—and
you mentioned incineration—which by definition is a very
narrow technology that one is using, and there is that debate.
Some areas have had that debate and have decided to go down that
route as part of an overall solution; some authorities have said,
"No, it is not a particular technology we want to explore",
which does not mean they will not have a 20-year contract for
some other technology through PFI or what-have-you that is meeting
the needs of their community or system that they have chosen.
So let us keep the two separate.
128. You mentioned the dysfunctionality of the
way the Government handles waste. There has been a suggestion
for a strategic waste authority. Would the LGA welcome that?
(Ms Twitchen) The LGA is a bit ambivalent, I am afraid.
Yes, it sounds like a good idea; yes, it is always good to get
all the players in the room round the table talking and there
is always some benefit, but I think the real value would be if
it had some teeth and if it was seen as a point of reference for
government, because I have talked about the worry that we have
that the functions are split across several different departments,
so if you had a strategic waste authority that was, if you like,
the point of reference for the Government with a key opportunity
to interact with government then I think it would have some value,
but if you want information about waste it is readily available
from the LGA, from any local authority, from all sorts of academic
institutions, from the Environmental Services Association, Uncle
Tom Cobley and all—there is plenty of information around—but
if you want progress you have to have drivers, and bringing everyone
together to be a driver is great and the LGA would support that
but then you need to have authority to drive which means being
respected by government, being regarded as an authority, and being
listened to. So in other words yes, if it had some teeth.
129. And if you helped shape it, that might
be useful? If you were involved in that process?
(Ms Twitchen) Yes. We would certainly want to be because
our members are the people who deal with the most difficult part
of the waste stream and who get the most public comment and criticism.
130. You are often calling for more resources
and this is clearly an issue, but within that debate how do you
account for the fact that so many different authorities perform
so differently when it comes to recycling rates? That there are
huge variations across the country?
(Ms Twitchen) Yes, there are. It is really a fairly
new science for all of us and it is a matter of prioritisation.
I cannot explain why some of them do not do very well. Some of
them have other pressing social and environmental problems that
they prioritise and it is as simple as that, and I would not ever
criticise them for that. It is their job to set their own priorities
and it is more difficult in a very rural area, for example, to
get good recycling rates because it costs you an awful lot of
money to send all the vans round picking stuff up from people's
houses, and it is very difficult to get good recycling rates in
an inner city urban area where people are often living in flats
and have not the space to store things. Where do you put a box
of newspapers? We are talking about some very personal lifestyle
issues.
131. If I may, you say it is for them to set
their priorities but, of course, the Government has set a priority
through the strategy with mandatory targets. Are you telling me
that you do not approve of those targets being set?
(Ms Twitchen) I do. I am not entirely comfortable
with the way they are set but that is fine. The LGA does not have
a problem with that, and mostly they are working well towards
meeting them: some are exceeding them: mostly they are getting
there. Do not forget that the figures lag behind the reality.
We have not the figures for last year yet and already people are
six months ahead of the figures. It is fast moving and improving
very rapidly.
Mr Challen
132. What more do you think needs to be done
and who needs to do it to inform the public and to clarify in
the public's mind what the various environmental hazards and benefits
are of the different forms of waste disposal, for example, between
landfill or incineration? It seems to me that every time anybody
proposes such a thing within a ten-mile radius of any population,
everybody is agin it.
(Ms Twitchen) I think the planning issue is difficult
and there is never going to be a solution. People do not want
a bottle bank on their street corner or a football stadium in
their town. If you live near anything you do not want it to change.
I have an amazing situation in my division in Billericay where
we have a pub which has a very bad reputation for noise at night
in the carpark and somebody wants to build a supermarket there
and there are objections. If you had a supermarket and you wanted
to build a pub you could understand it but this is the other way
round and people are up in arms because they do not want change.
I think building any new facility of any kind is always bound
to meet with resistance—anything that is going to attract
lorries or activity people are not going to want and I do not
know what the answer is to that. I think you just have to accept
that we are a democratic society; that people are entitled to
make their opinions felt; and you have to try and meet their fears
and needs as far as you can but it is not easy.
(Mr Tombs) There is new planning guidance out from
the ODPM that is requiring local authorities to share regional
infrastructure developments, so what is taking place can be more
strategically considered within a regional dimension, particularly
obviously the larger facilities, the infrastructure facilities.
Whether that will aid the planning process in terms of the proximity
issue for local people I frankly doubt, but at least there is
this recognition now that, instead of looking at a county dimension,
one would look at the regional to see if there are any complimentary
opportunities that can be shared to try and share the problem
or the challenge, but there is always going to be a proximity
issue, whether it is a bottle bank, a processing plant or what-have-you.
133. The question is about education as well,
I think. Where you are an education authority and a waste disposal
authority—and not every authority is in that situation but
where that is the case—is there room for more joined-up
thinking and ways of tackling it?
(Mr Tombs) Certainly on the general environmental
issues and on what is almost the cultural change that is needed
then yes, but an awful lot is going on through local authorities
and has been for many years, be it on waste, litter and other
environmental challenges that we face. That is going on now but
it is a long haul in terms of making that cultural change. Coming
back to the specific issue you raised a few moments ago, we were
in Germany and culturally they are very aware of the environmental
opportunities and challenges and values that they have, and yet
the guy still had a problem building his plant for those that
live near it. That does not change and that is in a society that
is very adapted to wanting the best.
134. I imagine that in Germany more people are
willing to separate their domestic waste. Did you find that and
how would you explain it?
(Mr Tombs) They do because they have the opportunity.
I would put it to you, having been involved myself, where the
opportunity is created for householders to take part in a scheme
where they can understand it, they will take part and take part
successfully—whether it is Germany, UK, France, anywhere.
It is about the opportunity and the simplicity to make that contribution.
(Ms Twitchen) Also sometimes it is necessary to have
the carrot and stick. Going back again to Waste Not Want Not,
it talks about the potential for local authorities to charge—which
we are not allowed to at the moment—for collection other
than for bulky waste, and the LGA very much supports local authorities
being given the power, not the duty, to charge. There are lots
of ways you could do that: you could say, "One free black
bag but after that you pay a pound a bag", or you could say,
"We will weigh what you recycle and everyone that recycles
more than so many tons gets a voucher for the swimming pool",
or whatever. There are all sorts of incentives and what we would
like to see is local authorities being released from the shackles
of the current legislation and being given complete freedom to
say, "We will not charge you for waste in your council tax
but do it this way, and those who have a good pattern of waste
minimisation and recycling will benefit and those who cannot be
bothered will pay for it". There are all sorts of opportunities
here, but we are hidebound at the moment. This is one of the points
in the report that we very much hope the government will take
up, because it has the potential to make people think a tiny bit
more about putting the rubbish out and whether it is worth bothering
to recycle, and those sorts of points.
Joan Walley
135. Have you or the LGA got any particular
views about the advantages and disadvantages of unifying waste
collection and waste disposal authorities? This was something
you touched on earlier.
(Ms Twitchen) The LGA recognises that in many cases
of two-tier authorities there are inefficiencies which is why
one of the things we supported in Waste Strategy 2000 was this
power to direct that I mentioned earlier, which would help. I
think if the power was there one would probably not need to use
it very often but it is a matter of having the power that I think
would help, and it is true that, statistically, unitary authorities
often have a higher rate of recycling and diversion than two-tier
areas. What they do not have, though, is the ability to exercise
economies of scale and I would rather work on a co-operative,
collaborative basis where you can all get together in the interests
of the community that you all serve, because whichever tier of
local government you are in it is the same people who elect you,
and work together because if we embark now on a major rethink
of the way waste services are organised within local government
we will not apply our minds to what we can do. We will get hung
up on all sorts of re-organisation. On the Landfill Directive
the dates for the changes in behaviour are fast approaching. I
listed before the WEEE Directive and the ELV—there is a
whole raft of European legislation which we must comply with.
We cannot afford the luxury of spending two or three years gazing
at our own navels and talking about internal re-organisation so
I do hope that is not a debate that will be opened up. The structure
is good enough to enable us to deliver; what we need is the leadership,
the funding and the determination to do it.
136. With that I think we have to close our
Committee this afternoon but thank you both for coming along.
We are very conscious that it has been very disjointed because
of the divisions and if there are any issues which you feel, on
reflection, could have been flagged up please write to us.
(Ms Twitchen) I would like to do that, if I may. [5]
There were a couple of detailed points that I was hoping to bring
up so I will write to you.
Joan Walley: That is fine. Thank you very much.
5 Please see supplementary memorandum
on Ev. 53
4 The Improvement and Development Agency is a separate
body. Back
5
Please see supplementary memorandum on Ev. 53
Back
|
