Examination of Witnesses (Questions 440-459)
RT HON
MARGARET BECKETT,
MP AND MR
RICHARD BIRD
WEDNESDAY 12 FEBRUARY 2003
440. Which is why the money will go into helping
to change people's behaviour in relation to waste.
(Margaret Beckett) Well, all we have had at the moment
is the preliminary announcement and whether the Chancellor will
be able to say more in the Budget will remain to be seen.
Gregory Barker
441. I just have to return to this theme of
the leadership deficit in regards to waste and recycling on the
part of government. Local authorities have told us that they perceive
that one of the biggest barriers to making progress in recycling
is the conflicting messages from different government departments
they are receiving particularly, with waste on one hand and planning
on the other and obviously your Department does not have responsibility
for planning. Indeed when the Local Authority Recycling Advisory
Committee appeared as a witness, they told us, in their words,
"There is not a sound business plan for implementing sustainable
waste management in this country, certainly not at a national
level and certainly not at a local level because we do not get
consistent messages. We are not hearing consistent messages from
across various government departments". That is what they
said. It is pretty damning, Secretary of State. What would you
say in response?
(Margaret Beckett) I do not believe it. They are getting,
and have been getting for some time, consistent messages from
us. They are getting funding from us. Some of them had a fairly
stiff letter from my Minister of State not so very long ago about
where there are inadequacies in their own performance. As I say,
we have had the Waste Summit, we have had the Local Government
Association involved and so on, and we are getting signals from
the Chancellor vis-a"-vis the Landfill Tax. I accept
that occasionally there will be difficulties, and that will inevitably
be the case, with regard to a particular planning issue and that
is bound to happen, but to say that the messages are conflicting
would suggest to me that someone is arguing that ODPM is saying,
"Oh, don't worry about waste. Do whatever you like",
which I do not for a second believe, so I am afraid I do not accept
the premise which lies behind the question.
442. If you do not accept their premise, what
do you say to the witnesses that we have had, for example, the
CBI who are concerned not so much with the mixed messages, but
with the legal definition of waste which is having an inhibiting
effect on the willingness of companies to actually reuse waste
materials? I am thinking here of pulverised fuel ash in particular.
Do you accept that there is a problem there?
(Margaret Beckett) That may be a specific area where
there might be a particular problem. I have not heard it said
and I will study the evidence given to you with interest. I have
not heard it said that that is a generic problem or that the CBI
thinks it is a generic problem, nor am I aware that they have
raised it with us, and if they think there is a generic problem
the Government ought to be addressing, then why do they not tell
us?
443. Maybe we should ask the Department.
(Margaret Beckett) It is one of those European legal
issues, I am advised.
Chairman
444. If there is a different legal definition
of waste, this is affecting investment by companies, which is
part of the mixed messages which, we are getting the impression,
people at the receiving end are receiving.
(Margaret Beckett) I am going to say something very,
very unsound, Mr Horam.
445. Which is?
(Margaret Beckett) I am getting the distinct impression
that an awful lot of people who have come to see you have all
got very good excuses for why they are not doing enough to tackle
the problem of waste. They are all saying, "If only the Government
did something different", but that none of them needs to
do anything different.
446. Well, as you said yourself, they need to
have some incentives sometimes.
(Margaret Beckett) Indeed and I would argue that we
are doing quite a lot to create them, incentives, behaviour mechanisms
and so on.
447. Except that you are not giving them as
much as they feel they want. The Landfill Tax increases were timid
which is what they were saying.
(Margaret Beckett) Are we talking now about the waste
industry itself rather than industry at large?
448. Yes.
(Margaret Beckett) My impression is that they are
reasonably pleased with having got the signal of £35 and
also that they themselves, I think you would find, maybe do not
always quite say to you what they sometimes say to us, but certainly
they would have been very uncomfortable about proposing a tax
increase which took effect too speedily. Where there are other
countries which have successfully tackled some of these problems
and do charge higher levels of similar taxes, what they have done
is they have done it over a period of time. They have allowed
people to plan so that the incentive is there, but it gave a proper
timescale and planning horizon for the industry to begin to invest.
449. But it was their view that they wanted
a faster rate. They felt that they could accommodate a faster
rate, but it was the Government's view that they could not which
seems rather perverse.
(Margaret Beckett) Well, I am not sure that is not
just a misunderstanding. Certainly the overall approach that we
have adopted has been based heavily on what the waste industry
said to us, but also, as a point I made, I think, to David Chaytor
earlier on, there is also the rest of industry who are looking
at their inputs and charges that they are going to meet and so
on and the Government's job is to try and balance those different
demands and influences.
450. Do you look at the profitability of the
waste industry systematically? This is, after all, the vehicle
which you have to rely on to deliver many of these targets. They
say they are not profitable. They are driven by regulation, 80
% of which comes from Europe. That is what they say. To what extent
does the Department monitor the situation?
(Margaret Beckett) If they are totally unprofitable,
I am surprised they are still in business. Clearly one of the
things that they and we hope will happen is that gradually as
a result of behavioural changes through the various policy measures
we are taking and putting in place that we hope will bring about,
clearly there should be a greater role and greater profitability
for the waste industry in the future and I very much hope there
will be, not least because one of the things we would very much
like to see is the waste industry feeling that they have the confidence
in future direction, which is part of what has already been announced,
to begin to look at innovative ways of tackling some of these
problems and clearly they will only do that if they think it is
in their interests.
Ian Lucas
451. It has been a busy time, Secretary of State,
in your Department since the 2001 General Election because you
have had a departmental reorganisation to start with, then there
were also obviously the profound difficulties caused by the foot-and-mouth
outbreak which dominated certainly the early part of your tenure.
Do you think, against that background, that part of the reason
for the lack of progress of many of the objectives of the Waste
Strategy is because this issue was not given sufficient attention
and resources?
(Margaret Beckett) I do not think so. There may have
been a marginal influence because of the reorganisation which
took place after the 2001 General Election, particularly perhaps
on one or two of the funding schemes where there was a little
bit more delay in consultations one might have wished, but I do
not think it was of major significance because, as Richard has
just reminded me, it was a little while ago, November 2001, when
we had the Waste Summit and the Department was only set up in
June, so I do not think one could argue that it has had any delaying
factor which would have been of significance in the long term.
452. So why then is there this lack of progress
on the issue?
(Margaret Beckett) Well, I am not entirely sure that
I would accept that there has been a lack of progress. We are
not doing well enough on the recycling targets at the local authority
level and we have taken steps to try and address that. We are
making what looks like the right kind of progress in terms of
industrial and commercial waste. We have got a whole range of
structures and bodies like WRAP which have been set up comparatively
recently which are starting to deliver.
453. Well, we are putting more waste into landfill
now than when the Strategy started. Is that not a lack of progress?
(Margaret Beckett) We are putting a smaller percentage
of the waste that is produced into landfill, but I completely
accept that we are not making nearly enough progress. I said at
the beginning, that is why we set up the Strategy Unit process
and that is why we are taking the measures that we are now taking
to try and turn things round, but you do not do that overnight.
454. Turning to the measures that the Department
is taking, when you appeared before our Committee in November
2001 you emphasised the need for further significant steps to
be taken to prevent the UK from slipping behind in terms of this
overall policy area. What steps have you taken since then?
(Margaret Beckett) Well, I have already identified
the fact that that was when we had the Summit. We then set up
the Strategy Unit process and I chaired the Advisory Committee
that worked alongside the Strategy Unit. That was published a
month or so ago?
(Mr Bird) In November.
(Margaret Beckett) We have also had the further Spending
Review round which put more resources into this area, not least
with the local government settlement, and we are now making progress
on some of the other funding schemes which are in train which
took some little time to work out because they are new schemes,
so a range of issues has already been pursued. As I said a moment
ago, we will be responding to the Strategy Unit Report in the
fairly near future and we have the Waste Emissions Trading Bill.
Is it in the Lords at the moment or has it come out of the Lords?
So quite a number of steps have actually been taken. We have also
quite substantially increased the staffing of that section of
the Department and are looking at new structures to deliver and
implement some of the recommendations that are coming out of the
Strategy Unit Report and considering making new appointments there.
So we have increased the money, the staff, we continue to pursue
some of the programmes and there is the Strategy Unit Report to
which we will be responding in the near future.
Mr Challen
455. Does it seem at all perverse that the laggards
in terms of local authority recycling rates should be rewarded,
if you like, for such a low target under the statutory targets
for recycling? If you go back to 1998/99, the local authority
which recycled less than 5 % only had to try and achieve getting
to 10 %, but if you were doing 15 %, you had to double the amount.
We know that it is bound to be more difficult the higher up the
ladder you climb in terms of recycling rates, so is that not a
little bit perverse?
(Margaret Beckett) Well, I take your point entirely
and it is a difficult issue, but a very clear decision was taken
that you had to have targets that were specific to the circumstances
of each authority because that was the best way of trying to make
sure that they actually met them, that it took account of their
circumstances, and that is why the decision was broadly made,
as you say, which was a target which was related to the circumstances
in which the authority started. I accept that you could say there
is a perversity about it in terms of the different approach, but
what I would also say to you is that target-setting is a fine
art, and I am not saying that anybody really gets it quite right,
but if you set somebody a target which it is patently obvious
to everybody they have not got a hope in hell of meeting, then
essentially you rather remove their incentive to try because they
can legitimately say, "Well, it is absolutely ridiculous.
It is crazy. How can anybody expect us possibly to do that?"
So what those who set up the targets, and I am happy to say I
was not one, tried to do was to assess what was realistic and
sound, demanding, but achievable because that is the whole point,
to press people to achieve.
456. Is there not a bit of a contradiction here
in a sense with your response to Ms Walley's question about bidding
processes? Bidding processes are almost a bit of a lottery in
some respects. I think that is how local authorities sometimes
see them. If there is no relation to where extra money can go
to help local authorities reach these targets based on these percentages
we have just had set as targets, if we have a successful authority
getting money and perhaps an unsuccessful authority, in terms
of its targets, not getting money, where do these policies tie
up where the money does not follow the targets, if you like?
(Margaret Beckett) Well, what happens in terms of
the assignment of the money is that we have advice from an independent
panel of judges, not just somebody in DEFRA, and they look at
what is likely to be the most effective use of the money, et cetera,
and try and make that balance and those difficult decisions. Nobody
will have been set a target on the presumption that they cannot
possibly achieve it unless some good fairy comes along and gives
them a great pot of money. These are the things that it is expected
and anticipated local authorities will realistically be able to
achieve if they are carrying out the statutory duties that are
laid on them.
457. Well, there is money available and that
money is not necessarily being used to secure the Government's
targets.
(Margaret Beckett) I have explained already the reason
for the different targets for different authorities, but the overall
impact or the pattern of those different targets is calculated
and assessed on the basis that that is what we will deliver on
the Government's national target, so in that sense the funding
coming in, in support, where we can, of those programmes is geared
to delivering the Government's national target. Every local authority
has a target, so given that there is not unlimited money, it is
clear that not everybody is going to get additional funding, but,
as I say, we do have a fairly rigorous assessment process which
does try to get this right. Of course what is beginning to happen
now, I think it is a relatively new process, is that authorities
are clubbing together in some cases and saying, "Maybe we
can meet a general target together if we pool our resources and
our activity and so on", and are bidding on that basis and
we are looking at some of those ideas and proposals.
458. Would you encourage that approach?
(Margaret Beckett) Not in every circumstance, but
obviously if it is a sound approach and it looks as if it will
deliver. We always look for it to deliver more overall than would
have been achievable if they had not been prepared to put forward
these proposals and we have got a number of things in the pipeline.
459. Do you think there is any kind of conflict
between these top-down targets and best-value performance indicators
which is more of a bottom-up approach?
(Margaret Beckett) Well, there should not be. I know
that has been suggested, but there is no reason why there should
be because, as I said a moment ago, the whole framework within
which those targets were set was geared for the same purpose,
to meet the overall national effort that has to be made, so I
know the allegation is made, but I am not sure what the evidence
is to stand it up.
|
