Examination of Witnesses (Questions 260-262)
MR ANDY
DORAN AND
MR DURK
REYNER
WEDNESDAY 29 JANUARY 2003
260. It ties them into contracts which are too
long, for example.
(Mr Reyner) That would not be my interpretation of
best value. I suppose that is where I may differ. To me best value
is that you have to achieve statutory targets at the best price
possible. That may not be cheap and it may cost you money.
261. What would your best value indicators be
then? What are the criteria against which you measure best value?
(Mr Reyner) We are going to have to keep the recycling
one, are we not, because we are being measured on it? My concern
is if there is a contradiction in terms. I probably should get
rid of my method of refuse collection, which is back door, no
receptacle and we have one of the lowest kilograms per head disposal
to landfill per year in the country, we are round about 550. What
I should do is go to wheeled bins and then go fortnightly, alternate
weeks. The silly thing is that I would probably then hit my recycling
rates, but I would landfill more at the same time and it would
go against home composting and waste minimisation because you
would be putting in a system which would possibly put more waste
to landfill. I do not mind the recycling indicator. It has been
standardised over many years and is probably a very good comparator.
I do not know whether we should raise the profile of the amount
we landfill. It is in there. I believe we do calculate the kilogram
per head but how much we landfill is not given the same status
as a waste manager. Bit by bit we probably need to hone down how
much it costs to recycle or how much it costs to landfill and
that is the only way I can see indicated. We do try to work off
those as comparators: "I see you only spend this. How do
you do it?". That is best value and benchmarking. I did not
think best value was working against waste. That is my feeling.
Sue Doughty
262. You have been calling in your memorandum
for public procurement at local level to be tackled comprehensively
and about the role that public procurement could play in developing
the market for recyclates. Do you have any examples of how this
could happen?
(Mr Doran) LARAC's representation comes from waste
managers and I would say that we come at it from that perspective.
I am not saying we are necessarily procurement specialists. One
of the things which has been addressed reasonably well recently
is the issue of development markets. We have traditionally complainedand
I hope we do not seem to be complaining too much todayabout
the issue of funding and markets. I am pleased to say that markets
are now in a much healthier state. One of my own personally held
beliefs is that there seems to be very little standardised practice,
certainly across areas of local government which I am aware of
and probably Durk is aware of others. There seems to be no standardised
approach to green procurement across local government and I am
sure there are instances within central and other areas. I feel
we could do ourselves a great service in this country in closing
the loop which we have talked about for a long time, but we are
not actually practising. As local government and waste people,
we are out talking to the public, trying to persuade them to buy
recycled as well and that is one of the campaigns which LARAC
has supported, trying to promote people to buy recycled and we
should be doing it ourselves. As to how to take it forward, it
does need some sort of formal prescription. There is nothing which
seems to have worked too well hitherto on a voluntary basis. We
mentioned regional development agencies in the memorandum and
there could be a lot which regional development agencies on a
regional basis, building on, supporting local economies, could
add to the Government network in that area. I would not go into
great detail on specifics.
Chairman: Thank you very much indeed. We have
reached the end of our time. Thank you both for your very frank
evidence which was extremely useful to the Committee. Thank you
very much indeed.
|