Examination of Witnesses (Questions 240-259)
MR ANDY
DORAN AND
MR DURK
REYNER
WEDNESDAY 29 JANUARY 2003
Mrs Clark
240. May I take you back again to the charging,
variable or whatever? I have discussed that today with the officers
in my City Council of Peterborough and they are very, very firmly
of the opinion that this would be regarded as penalising residents
and therefore would not be the way forward. They have said that
they feel that a more productive way of dealing with the issue
would be to devise schemes of rewarding communities and individual
residents for good practice. I should like to know what you think
about that and what form that could take, if anything. I should
also like to raise another point on this topic. They do have a
considerable amount of concern over the actual level of implementation
and charges by neighbouring authorities. The resulting effect
on them, on Peterborough if you like, on the authority's economic
growth and development. Could I have some comments on those two
points, please?
(Mr Reyner) There is no doubt, if we only think of
our personal situation, we would rather be encouraged than be
threatened. Hopefully the variable charging could be designed
in a way which would seem to be more of an encouragement. You
are going to have to offer a comprehensive recycling system for
people, which has a cost. You are then going to have to try to
encourage them to use that. If they do not, and they prefer to
throw it in that bin, they can do that and you are going to have
to do it by saying you require extra for that throwing. In a sense
they will choose, will they not? It will be their choice to take
on the extra charge. I agree with your officers in a way. Yes,
it is confrontational and maybe councillors would hate that, but
somehow or other we have to raise . . . I will go back. Recycling
at present is still a voluntary system. We are trying to recycle
in a voluntary system, "Everybody, would you please recycle?
Would you like to join in? I am giving out red boxes for glass
recycling, would you like to use these boxes?". It was on
the front page in our local press: people said no, they did not
want to use the red boxes and they were going to continue to throw
their refuse away. We are being given statutory targets, but we
are all trying to use a voluntary system. Somehow we have to switch
to more of a compulsory method. People have to think that it is
easy to recycle and that they will just put it for recycling.
At the moment it is so easy to throw away in that dustbin and
we have to move away from the dustbin to recycling. I do not know
whether I have partly answered your question; hopefully some of
it and Andy can take on the second part.
(Mr Doran) What was the second part?
241. The second part was about the behaviour
and policies of neighbouring authorities and about how these might
impact on the economic development of the city.
(Mr Doran) Looking at variable charging systems, there
will be difficulties in defining boundaries. In two-tier areas
for a start, there could be complications. If the collection authority
decides to implement some sort of charging system, what would
the disposal authority do in relation to its civic amenity sites
because that could encourage people just to stick it all in their
car and drive it to the site rather than allegedly pay to have
it taken away. I do not know that there are any magic answers
to this. It is very difficult for an organisation like ours to
have a defined view on variable charging as well because it will
affect everyone in a different way and we have representation
from disposal authorities, collection authorities, unitaries,
the lot. I, like Durk, should like to think that it could be implemented
in a positive way, where people can actually see it as the result
of not following good practice which is available to them. They
can have the kerbside box, they can participate in that, they
could perhaps see the incentive, whether it is a reduction in
council tax or some other free civic service, for participating.
One of the things which came out in waste strategy 2000 was some
pilot work on this and we have seen very little work on this taken
forward at the national level. I guess in 2003 we are still a
little bit in the dark about how some of this could be implemented.
Mr Thomas
242. I just want to press you on a point which
was alluded to by Mr Challen in his questioning as well. We have
had evidence to this Committee from other organisations who say
clearly that there is no proper liaison between the Office of
the Deputy Prime Minister (ODPM)and DEFRA on these issues. Just
from the perspective of recycling, one being the funding and planning
body and the other the regulatory body, would you agree with that
sort of criticism?
(Mr Reyner) I would say personally, if this helps,
that I am still totally in the dark about what I am going to do.
In eight weeks' time I have to start hitting my target of 26%
and I do not know where I am going with planning, I do not know
where I am going with funding, I do not know where my funding
will come from in the future. My councillors know it is statutory
but will they take it literally or say they have pressures on
meals-on-wheels, all the other services? Personally we have it
down here that many, many authorities will fail this target. The
silly thing is that it is going to be the high performing authorities
of the present. If that all ties in, I am still in the dark, as
much in the dark as I was with the fridge-freezer problem and
I am strategic and operational head of a service; I do strategic
and operational and I run from day to day and I am still lost
as to how I am going to do this and where I am going.
(Mr Doran) The point is that what I do not feel we
have currently or had in the past is a sound business plan for
implementing sustainable waste management in this country, certainly
not at a national level and certainly not even at a local level
because we do not get consistent messages. Hopefully some of the
evidence will point to some of those issues but we are not getting
consistent messages from across those various departments.
243. Wherever else there may be joined-up government,
this is one fleet where there is no joined-up government.
(Mr Reyner) I would probably tend to agree with that.
(Mr Doran) Yes, I agree.
Joan Walley
244. You talked just now about those authorities
which are perhaps not on target to meet their recycling targets.
Do you have any idea or could you let the Committee have a list
of those local authorities which are not on target to meet the
statutory standards set out both for the waste strategy 2000 and
the best value order 2001?
(Mr Reyner) In answer to the first part of your question,
it is going to be very difficult. I could stand here and say,
but to try to get an authority to say at this moment that they
will not succeed is hard. It is only in the back rooms when you
are having a cup of coffee after a meeting that people say they
will not get this, they cannot see how they are going to get this.
They have of course to try to put on a gloss at present. It is
only when you start getting to do the auditing later in 2003-04
that I believe what we say will come to roost. I know that of
the ten councils in Hertfordshire, four at the moment are saying
they will not. I personally cannot put a name on an authority
but there are enough. You will have to believe that there are
enough but I am not prepared to start naming councils. It is for
them to name themselves.
(Mr Doran) As I understand it, the Minister of State
for Environment, the department, has actually written to several
authorities suggesting that from their evidence they are likely
to fail the targets they have. The sort of evidence is not available
to an organisation like ours though we can try to extract it from
our members; some of those are not forthcoming, regardless of
the fact that we network. The department should be able to provide
you, if not with names certainly with an indication of numbers
and perhaps even the level of current performance those authorities
are at. One of the points Durk referred to and from what I have
heard—and it is only anecdotal—the authorities which
are likely to fail to meet targets in the coming year are going
to be what are considered the current higher performing authorities,
because of the way the targets were perversely set out. They were
based on 1998-99 data and with hindsight now if we had done nothing
we would be sitting here today quite happy that we would be meeting
our targets.
(Mr Reyner) And be getting funding.
(Mr Doran) And getting funding as well because government
has slanted funding to the low performers. The high performers
were asked to double. I am sure you can work out the inconsistencies
we feel.
(Mr Reyner) That no doubt backs up your comment to
me.
245. While we have this dual act and all this
inconsistency and all this shaking of heads about where local
authorities are at with their targets, given that we are an audit
committee, how would you suggest we try to get this more precise
information, which is not about missing figures for the sake of
it, but which is about genuinely making real progress in respect
of taking forward the recycling imperative. How would you advise
us?
(Mr Reyner) The only way we can possibly look at is
to ask the question ourselves of our membership really, ask people
to put truthfully where they stand. It is awful. I have just read
the latest recycling plans for Hertfordshire and I thought that
there is no way we are going to do that, there is no way we can
do that. I do this recycling. They say we are to treble the amount
of glass we collect from the kerbside, whereas statistically,
from trials councils do on glass on the kerbside you can only
double it. Some inexperienced recycling officers have for one
or two years been putting in predictions but when you get the
more senior long-serving recycling people they will say . . .
I am trying to think how we can get you that figure. It is hard.
It is so hard to get you that figure.
246. Do you feel that the best practice has
been developed in such a way so that there is a consistency between
the targets which have been set and the mechanisms for putting
into practice the actions which are needed by the local authorities?
Going back to the carrot and stick approach you were talking about
just now as well, do you feel that some work needs to be done
to enable local authorities to give an honest attempt at saying
what they are going to do and how they are going to achieve it?
Is the expertise here in this country or is it missing?
(Mr Reyner) The expertise is here.
(Mr Doran) Yes, the expertise is here.
247. Who has it?
(Mr Doran) A large part of it can exist within certain
local authorities and local government and given sufficient resources
to free up some of the expertise would be able to assist. The
difficulty we have is that we do not have that strategic direction
currently within the relevant departments. They are not joined
up, they are not giving us consistent messages and whilst we have
statutory performance targets now, that has only happened in the
last couple of years. Recycling has been talked about for such
a long time in this country, it has developed very slowly and
the ones which went ahead and did things are now wishing they
had not. There are so many disheartened people out there that
it will be very difficult to pull it all together. There are people
there. Arguably we do need more direction from government and
I do not know that the skills are currently within central government
and/or its advice from the Environment Agency.
248. Could you perhaps suggest whether or not
the targets which are set are even ambitious enough? Could you
also set out for us why the targets which are there just are not
being met and what it is that other countries are doing which
has enabled much more ambitious targets to be met? What is the
difference there?
(Mr Reyner) The first one is what the other countries
in the world are doing. We get that quoted at us a lot. Really
they are not measuring the same as we measure. It is as simple
as that. There is a report, but we cannot put our finger on it
at the moment, which says if you compare what Germany counts as
being recycled and the material we count, they are going to be
recycling roughly the same as us. They just count different material.
Some of them do not count beach sweepings, but beech sweepings
go into the denominator. I am always amazed how anyone can think
I am going to recycle 400 tonnes of street sweepings, which include
grit, dirt, dead leaves, oil, detritus. That tonnage is going
into my denominator but I have to try to recycle it. An impossibility.
So it makes the recycling target harder. There has always been
a fuss about building rubble being taken out. I could continue.
Some part of it is definition: what European countries define
compared with us. Then they do have variable charging, or they
do have the green dot system. They do have different forms of
funding, there is more funding. We know the green dot system is
a very expensive system compared with our method of approaching
legislation. I do not think you are comparing us with how other
countries in Europe are run. We do as well we can with what we
are given. At the moment I do not know what we are going to be
given next and that is what worries us and that is why our planning
. . . I would go further, all the ABPO seems to us to do is ask
us to fight with both arms behind our back. You are trying to
plan green waste recycling, composting, removing biodegradable
waste and then somebody says you cannot put kitchen waste in there
and then you may have to have in-vessel, but you may not be able
to get planning permission for too many years for in-vessel. So
then we stop everybody from doing kitchen waste because it is
not allowed. Kitchen waste is allowed in a lot of European countries,
but it is not going to be allowed in ours.
249. Do you support Essex County Council who
wrote to us following our session two weeks ago saying there needed
to be some reclassification?
(Mr Reyner) Yes, that is well put; I could have said
that so much faster.
250. In terms of what is recycled and what then
becomes a recycled good, what about the amount which then goes
into landfill, if it is not giving value and becoming a recycled
good?
(Mr Doran) Is the question around whether recovered
goods, that is materials collected from households, will end up
in landfill still?
251. Yes, how much is actually re-used, how
much ends up in landfill.
(Mr Doran) Speaking from my own experience, it does
vary on a material by material basis. The vast majority of the
time the material the public collects does end up getting through
to the reprocessing facilities it is destined for. There are occasions,
and unfortunately it is a very damaging situation in the public
arena, where materials, perhaps for reasons of contamination,
for reasons of operating hours, operationally valid, logistical
reasons, do not get to the recycling plant and are landfilled.
252. We always worry that a lot of paper from
the House of Commons which should be recycled never actually gets
there.
(Mr Doran) That is probably very different case by
case. There are material losses in every recovery process anyway,
so for every tonne of newspaper you put into a newspaper reprocessing
plant you do not get a tonne of recyclate at the end. There are
losses in the system. The more important point is that it actually
gets to where it is supposed to be going in the first place.
Ian Lucas
253. Can you give me some indication of what
proportion of local authorities you think will fail to meet the
target? I do not want you to name individual authorities, but
just give us some idea of where we are.
(Mr Reyner) Andy put down 25 % but he could not remember
where he read it or how he got the indication. There are meant
to be 400 authorities, are there not? I would think you would
get a good quarter which may fail. The funny thing is—and
I have to keep going back to where I know—Hertfordshire
has 10 councils and a county. By the end of 2004 we have to recycle
20 % in a pooled target, but we could not do pooling, though we
are all agreed in our big waste strategy that we will pool, because
six authorities could not really advise their chief officers to
raise their recycling rate, say from the current 12 % to 18 %,
because if they failed, they would get told off. In a sense the
pooling fell apart, but we will still hit the 20 %. The fact is
that I may not quite hit my target. I am probably going to get
22 % and my target is 26 %, so I am going to go under my target.
The fact is that some authorities only had 12 % and they are going
to get 16 %. It sounds strange but you may find generally that
the country may hit next year's target; but if you were to look
at individual authorities there are going to be a lot of individual
failings. How is this group going to look at that or how is the
Government and DEFRA going to look at that? We keep going back
to the fact that a lot of that 25 % will be the high performers.
Our councils have put a lot of work and effort in over the years,
the ones which have been beacons and these are the ones which
could be sitting here failing more than the ones which only have
to get 5 % for no effort. I might as well not have recycled. It
would have been better if I had not done a thing; my authority
should not have recycled until we were given this target and then
I would have had a 4 or 5 % target or 8 % target. You would have
given me loads of money to do that and I would have achieved it.
That is my concern. The authorities which have really worked hard
are the ones which are having to work even harder with little
funding.
Gregory Barker
254. Just to carry on the issue of pooling,
in what ways does government guidance need to be changed?
(Mr Reyner) We were trying to think of the answer
to that. It is a carrot and stick thing again, is it not? How
do you try to encourage an authority to put some investment in?
How do you encourage councils that this statutory target is serious
and that it is something we all want to do, if then they do not
have some form of penalisation? To me pooling is a way for partnership.
If you pool you are partnering. You are getting all the benefits
of partnering. It really has to happen. I would call it the cornerstone
of our strategy: we will work together, we are going to share
this problem, the high performing councils will pool and swop
their systems with the low performing councils and then we will
piggyback and help each other. But they cannot and were unable
to sign up to it. I do not know how to resolve that.
(Mr Doran) The issue local authorities faced first
off when the pooling arrangements were suggested was the timescale.
It was announced in early summer, if not June/July, and letters
from chief executives signing up for authorities to increase targets
or reduce targets had to be with DEFRA by 20 September.
255. Lack of consultation.
(Mr Doran) Those sorts of things take negotiations
within the authority, let alone with a partnership of many authorities
in a county area. It needs to be longer term.
256. What would have been the outcome had you
had extra time? What would the different outcome have been?
(Mr Reyner) Persuade them.
(Mr Doran) If we had had extra time, I feel we could
have got collections of authorities, possibly based on county
areas, though not necessarily, which could have joined together
in a joint strategy, so they would have a common direction for
what they were aiming to achieve and that might involve —
257. Are you saying they do not have a common
direction now?
(Mr Doran) No. Depending on which authority is where,
they might be doing different things. If you are a low performing
authority, on a lower level at the moment, you will perhaps be
implementing "bring" schemes, you will be putting out
more banks on the streets. Other authorities might be looking
at going for separating organics and households. Authorities are
doing different things at different times to get from where they
currently are. If you put together a joint strategy, I feel you
could pool your targets within the area, you could get that expertise
being swopped, which is going on to a certain extent, but which
could be formalised. You could then get the funding, this is the
important point, and make that a conditional part of it, that
you made a bid for additional funding as part of that package
and said to government, "Here you are. These authorities
will deliver overall this level of recycling, it will be here,
here, various levels. These services are going to be put in and
we need this level of funding to do it". Those sorts of things
are perhaps happening through local public service agreements.
Something can certainly be done, but it needs time. It is not
the sort of thing we could have done in the time which was given
to us this year. One of the points we do have is that joint waste
strategies, which have been talked about since before the year
2000, are still not a requirement on local government. We were
told we were going to be on a statutory basis and we are still
not. Our problem is where it is down to local whim, the fact that
local authorities fall out with each other, which does happen,
local authorities may not be working as effectively together as
they could be. If there were a requirement to produce a joint
waste strategy, certainly if there were funding attached to it,
pooling to be tied in with that, we could have a very robust framework
for taking forward delivery.
258. Best value. Often contentious. We have
been told by numerous witnesses and certainly my own experience
in East Sussex is that numerous people have said to me that they
see an inherent conflict, not always but frequently, between achieving
best value and delivering on waste targets. What are your views
on the compatibility of best value and delivering on targets?
If you agree, could you give me some practical examples?
(Mr Reyner) Why do they not think it is compatible?
I do not understand.
259. They are having to go for the cheapest
financially, which may in the longer term not bring the desired
effect.
(Mr Reyner) I see. In other words they feel best value
implies that it is cheap and therefore keeps the costs down.
|
