Examination of Witnesses (Questions 343-359)
WEDNESDAY 2 APRIL 2003
RT HON
MICHAEL MEACHER
MP AND MS
SUE ELLIS
Chairman
343. Minister, welcome to the Committee. I am
afraid we may be in for a somewhat fragmented afternoon yet again,
so everybody will just have to vote as quickly as they can and
we will resume as quickly as we can.
(Mr Meacher) Well you and I can pair;
the rest can go.
344. There have been occasions when I have not
felt the necessity to pair, if I may say so, but certainly we
could do. Could I begin on just a slightly epigrammatic note in
saying I was delighted to receive this little "Dear Colleague"
letter from the Department of Health, dated 27 February, and interested
to see the envelope in which it was delivered (a reused envelope),
so in terms of the use of raw materials.
(Mr Meacher) I take your point.
345. Pass that on; no need for comment, it is
a point I think that makes itself. Minister, as you know, we have
looked at the Department's Annual Reports a couple of times, we
have looked at Defra, as a Department, we have visited it, and
in fact are visiting it again on Monday. But the thing which witness
after witness seems to tell us is they just feel that the Department
lacks the capacity to deliver the complexity of the tasks which
it has in front of it. There are Regulations coming from Brussels,
it is not a question of whether we like them or do not like them,
but they are complex in their nature, they have to be translated
into law, interpretations have to be given, and there is a feeling
that there is just a sheer problem with the Department's ability
to deliver on those programmes, that legislation, in the time
necessary. But it is not a reflection upon the individual ability
of people, it is simply a reflection upon the sheer capacity the
Department has got to be able to perform the functions; it may
well be comment one can make of other departments, but clearly
yours is the Department which we shadow. What are your thoughts
on that?
(Mr Meacher) It is a very relevant question, and we
have given a lot of attention to that. This is an enormous problem,
as I never cease to say, which has been neglected for a long,
long time, and now we are having to face up to a problem of huge
proportions. I always express that by saying that we have to shift
from a policy, in terms of municipal biodegradable waste, which
has been wholly dependent, 80% plus, on landfill, and which would
double in the period of the Landfill Directive up to 2020, and,
instead of that, by a legally mandatory Directive, we have to
reduce it by two-thirds. Now that is an enormous problem, when
the other factor, which produces gasps from the audience when
I say it, is that nationally, on average, we produce enough waste
across the country to fill the Albert Hall every hour. So we do
have a colossal problem, and the managerial and financial resources
necessary to deal with this have not been put in place hitherto;
and we are trying to do that. There are two divisions in my Department,
one is the Waste Strategy Division, which has, I think, 36 members
of staff; there are 35 members in the Waste Management Division,
of which Sue Ellis, with me, is the Head. The total staffing resource
in Waste Strategy in Defra is about £1.3 million at the present
time. The Strategy Unit report, as you know, recommended that
there should be more resources, and that they should be focused
on delivery; we would not disagree with that at all. The range
it has to cover is very substantial, with a relatively small number
of staff. Landfill policy I have referred to, composting, the
achievement of the doubling and trebling of local authority recycling,
at this current time, the whole issue of recycling credits; it
is a huge area. So it is absolutely the case that we are stressed
and strained in order to deliver, but we are trying to meet that
challenge. Compared with 2001, 2002, last year, there are 20 more
staff, those figures I gave, 71, include 20 more, and it remains
to be seen whether we require still more, and of course we have
to get agreement with Treasury for that purpose. Now Treasury
of course are concerned, as we are concerned, about delivery plans,
and we have been looking for a high-level appointment outside
the Department, someone with a strong business track record to
deal with the issue of waste management and its delivery; and
we have just secured such a person, who has been appointed. I
am never quite sure whether this has been announced or not; if
not, I am very glad to announce it to you first. But we think
he is very good and that this is going to add significantly to
our capacity. But I do not deny that is a very important question,
and we have to review it as we go along.
346. One issue which was cited to us as an example
of this was the Animal By-Products Amendment Order, and that,
at one end, both the Environment Agency and the Composting Association
said "We can't do anything until we know what this things
looks like, and we're desperate for it"?
(Mr Meacher) Absolutely. I think, Mr Chairman, you
are referring to the EU Animal By-Products Regulation, which comes
into force on 1 May, so it is just slightly less than one month's
time. I agree there has been uncertainty and there has been I
think misinterpretation of the existing By-Products Order, because,
of course, we were concerned that the composting of catering waste
should in no way endanger animal and public health, after recent
history, and that was construed in a way which may well have been
mistaken, namely that this prevented, for example, household composting,
it did not. But it is important to clarify those rules, that is
going to be done by the EU Regulation, it allows national standards
to be set for the composting of catering waste, excluding animal
by-products, it sets minimum treatment requirements for the composting
of waste which does contain animal by-products, and also it bans
certain animal by-products from being landfilled, particularly
food factory waste and retailer waste. The latter, I have to say,
does cause problems for the retail sector, and we have secured
some transition to application to the end of 2005, before it comes
into force. But I accept that there has been uncertainty, and
I hope that finally now this is going to be resolved.
Mr Mitchell
347. Can I follow that with a controversial
point, because is it possible that it is not just a failure of
money and personnel and getting used to a job which is becoming
more and more demanding, also it is a failure of political will
and leadership. Because I think the British are a pretty dirty
race and regard fly-tipping as a God-given right, a basic part
of the constitution, and actually to do anything in this area,
where we do need to improve our act pretty quickly, you have got
to be bossy with people, you have got to tell them what to do,
which they will not like. And you have got to wade into a complex
field, which is local authority financing, where they are all
going to say, "We haven't got the money; you can't get us
to do this," as well as the tax field, what happens to landfill
tax and how it should be increased pro rata. So it is such a complicated
area that there is, I think, an instinct just to keep your head
down and say, "Well, we've got to do something, it's Europe
expecting us to do it, the mistakes are all theirs, let's just
lag behind"?
(Mr Meacher) That is an interesting caricature of
the situation, and I am sure we can enjoy the picture, but it
is not accurate, I think, at all. I think that three things are
required, basically, which are the centrepiece of the strategy.
One is targets, because everyone here, I am sure, knows about
the waste hierarchy, which I think is not controversial, that
the first requirement is to minimise waste, do not create it in
the first place; if it is created then recover, reuse, recycle
it, if at all possible, or compost it. If that, for any reason,
is not possible, and I would need some good explanation of why
it was not possible, there is incineration, which is at a very
low level here, and I am not suggesting there is any wish at all
on the part of the Government to increase it, it is about 9% of
biodegradable waste. And then there is landfill, which, of course,
is far too extensive. Now the way to change that is to incentivise
waste minimisation, and we have got several proposals to do that;
secondly, to promote recycling. And the way to do that is to have
clear targets. I think we have. Compared with 1998-99, local authorities
have to double by 2003-04, treble by 2005-06, and that is targets.
Secondly, funding; we have increased the Environmental Protection
and Cultural Services category, a rather odd combination of the
RSG, in the current two spending reviews, Spending Review 2000,
2002, by £1.7 billion. In addition to that, we have provided
a ring-fenced local authority recycling waste minimisation fund
of £140 million, on a Challenge Fund basis. Also, for the
purposes of providing the enormous increase in equipment and plant
that is needed, we have increased PFI access, which in Spending
Review 2000 was £220 million, it is now, in the current Spending
Review, £355 million, and there is £50 million also
for community recycling. Now I do not think local authorities
can say honestly they have not got the money, no doubt they will,
but I shall need a very good explanation as to how that is justified.
Thirdly, which is in some ways the most difficult, is to provide
markets, because it is all very well to set up this collection
infrastructure and to do all the recycling if in the end you cannot
find a useful product to sell it on; because otherwise what will
happen here is, as has happened in so-called "green"
countries, like Denmark and Sweden, where you have high recycling
levels, no-one wants it, and still it ends up in landfill. So
that was why we set up WRAP, the Waste Resources Action Programme,
which was designed to help local authorities liaise with industry
and find new and innovative ways of using waste products. Now
we have done those three things. I cannot compare us directly
with every other country in Europe, but I do not think we have
been less than very proactive, and I would be surprised if we
were not among the leaders in trying to deal with the problem,
which has been neglected for a very long time.
Mr Lazarowicz
348. On the question of political leadership,
one of the themes which came through from witnesses time and time
again before the inquiry was the need for waste policy to be focused
on one particular government department; now the general trend
of the views expressed was that Defra should be the one on which
responsibility for waste policy is focused. Do you think that
waste policy should be focused to a much greater extent on a single
government department, do you think Defra should be the department,
and, if you do think it should be, do you think it has got the
necessary vision as well as expertise to be able to take that
leadership role?
(Mr Meacher) Mr Chairman, this is a problem, which
I hope does not keep recurring in this session, but, as you will
understand, my problem is that, for reasons beyond my control,
our control, everyone's control, the Budget and associated reports
that were going to be published with it have now been postponed,
and the Government's response to the strategy in a report has
not yet been published, but certainly I am expecting it to be
published very soon, but not yet. And in the light of that, this
is one of the recommendations, and I am debarred from entering
into a discussion of the Government's response. So I cannot reply
directly to that; it having been stated as a recommendation to
Government, I am afraid I have to wait until a full report is
made. If a decision were made to concentrate it on one department,
and if that were Defra, the second part of your question is, do
we have the vision as well as the expertise; well, I think that
is for you to judge, perhaps, in the light of your questions.
I think we do. Short of climate change, which is the overarching
issue, for reasons we all know, we are giving more attention to
this, more staff time, more concentrated effort in dealing with
waste, and more of my time on this issue than on any other. I
think that is right, I think it shows vision, commitment, and
I hope we bring with it expertise.
349. One of the specific areas where that type
of expertise was identified, and I take what you were saying about
the difficulty you have in answering the question directly today,
one of the areas identified, I think, by the Local Government
Association was in relation to European Community emerging Directives
and policies. They were concerned that whatever departments ended
up with responsibility there was a real need for that department
to be prepared to go into bat for waste management policy at European
level; and do you think that is something which is done effectively
enough at the moment under the current departmental structure?
(Mr Meacher) It is true that, in the negotiation of
some of the Directives which are relevant here to your question,
in particular the Waste Electronic and Electrical Equipment Directive
and End-of-Life Vehicles, there has been, traditionally, we inherited
this, a situation of balanced responsibility between DTI and the
Environment Department, which is Defra; that continues. I accept
the point that people will make that one should have clarification,
one should concentrate it in one place, there is an argument for
that. It would be a more serious argument if I thought that there
were a serious breakdown or difficulties, lack of joined-up government,
between departments. In this case, I really do not think that
that is the case, so I think it is less of an issue, but I do
understand the point you are making.
Alan Simpson
350. Minister, you and I will know, from the
experiences that we had last year, that at least some parts of
your Department may use the word "targets" but actually
they work quite hard to avoid meeting them. Can you say, just
for the record, the UK has a very poor record of waste minimisation
and recycling, and I would like you just to try to spell out,
in the sort of great catalogue of critical reports that have been
done on the UK's record, what makes you believe that the recommendations
from the Strategy Unit are going to be implemented, any more than
recommendations that have been made in the past?
(Mr Meacher) Your premise with which
you started your question, namely that there were officials, I
think you said, who may be aiming to block what happens, I cannot
accept that. I accept that all departments, probably, in terms
of both ministers and officials and the relationship between them,
do run up against glitches, problems, blockages, which are not
handled well; that happens, I suspect it happens in almost all
organisations. I do not accept that there is a deliberate attempt
to prevent implementation. On the point which you raise about
confidence in delivery, why should it be any better in future,
well, to meet your point about making an admission, I have made
this admission enough times, quite openly, and I am perfectly
happy to make it again, that the level of recycling that we inherited
was pathetic, it was 6% in 1997, it is now about 12, 13, which
is a bit better, well it is double, but it is still extremely
low and deeply unsatisfactory and not good enough. I am not sure
if that wholly satisfies you, or whether you want me to say more.
I am very critical of it. But, of course, we are committed to
reach 25% by 2005-6, and that, of course, is dependent on all
local authorities meeting their targets; now it is my responsibility
to ensure that they do. Why will it be different in future; because
we have the mechanisms, we have targets now, for the first time,
we have funding mechanisms on a much bigger scale than before.
We have set up WRAP, as I said, which is designed to achieve the
use of the end product, and, perhaps most important of all, the
very fact of there being a Prime Minister's strategy in a report
means that this is not just a little problem, which has been marginalised
in one department in Whitehall and the rest of us can forget about
it, it has been given salience, it has been given profile. Of
course, the Treasury has been deeply involved in this, and there
have been discussions, for the first time, across Whitehall, of
what is necessary to deal with this problem; now that has not
happened before. And I think when Whitehall does get engaged,
and it has, this is a Prime Minister's report, Whitehall does
jump to it, and I think it will be different; we shall see.
351. You threw out a sort of tantalising phrase
there, that there have been discussions across Whitehall; can
you let the Committee know perhaps what progress has been made
in ministerial formulations of a Government response?
(Mr Meacher) After the Strategy Unit's report was
published, which I think was December, there was an inter-ministerial
group, on which I sit for Defra, which was formed under Treasury
chairmanship, in order to resolve some of the outstanding issues
coming from the Strategy Unit report. We have had a number of
meetings, certainly there is, as they say, a frank exchange round
the table, but we have got now a policy which is agreed across
Whitehall on which we can respond very positively to the Strategy
Unit report.
David Taylor
352. I do not think anyone in this room, or
outside, would deny the personal commitment you have given to
this and the time that you devote and the intelligence with which
you pursue the various objectives, but I am not at all certain
that your vision and values, as it were, are shared by the agencies
for which you are responsible. The Environment Agency submitted
a memorandum to us, and two brief sentences, the Agency "does
not believe there will be an overall reduction in the quantities
of waste materials produced over the next 10 years," and
(paragraph 4.2) "waste minimisation does not appear to be
actively pursued in the majority of UK companies." If that
memorandum could speak, it would be in a resigned tone; if it
could move, it would be shrugging its shoulders. Do you think
there is sufficient leadership being given by those sorts of reactions?
(Mr Meacher) You have quoted two sentences, or two
paragraphs, and I accept that those paragraphs are there, but
I do not think that they are representative of the general tone
or thrust of the document, and, from my knowledge and constant
meeting with the senior leadership of the Environment Agency,
I do not believe for a moment that that represents their views.
The big issue for the Environment Agency here, in addition to,
of course, all that local authorities are doing in recycling,
is fly-tipping, which has been mentioned, it is a very real and
difficult issue, and it is very serious, in some places it is
growing, and it needs to be dealt with, but it is a very difficult
issue to deal with. But specifically with regard to the Environment
Agency, I have no doubt whatever that any role which they are
allocated in the Government's response to the Strategy Unit's
report, they will pursue faithfully and energetically, that is
my honest belief; if there is any evidence to the contrary, I
would like to know it.
353. Without pursuing yet again this question
of integrating responsibility into one government department and
which one should it be, philosophically, who should be co-ordinating
the drives for waste minimisation, what role do individuals, businesses
and government, with a small and a large G, play in all of this?
(Mr Meacher) I do not think that is an issue which
is just to be orchestrated from one department. It is, to use
this awful word, but it is very meaningful, "mainstreamed",
it has to be part of the mind set and part of the policy programme
of many organisations, and I believe it is. WRAP clearly has a
role here, promoting waste minimisation, the national recycling
fund is also called waste minimisation, and that has funded promotional
schemes to increase awareness, including amongst local authorities
and their electorates. There is an industrial element to that;
of course, Packaging Waste and the other Directives with regard
to electronic, electrical products and vehicles, there is EnviroWise,
which was the old energy efficiency best practice programme, which
is directed at business to help them minimise waste, and, of course,
the tax system, in terms of the landfill tax escalator, going
up to £35 a tonne, and the tradeable permits, reducing physically
the amount that can be sent to landfill. All of those are promoting
waste minimisation. So it is not just one body, whether Defra
or the Environment Agency, which is in control of this policy,
it is something that we have to mainstream across all relevant
organisations, and we are doing our best to do so.
354. They are all jigsaw pieces; who is assembling
the big picture then?
(Mr Meacher) That is the responsibility of Defra.
Mrs Shephard
355. Without advocating a command economy, surely
one of the problems is this fragmentation that you have mentioned.
Certainly, in the evidence we have had from local authorities
and from other bodies close to government, we have been left with
the impression that because of the fragmentation of responsibility
it is extremely difficult to deliver on the targets, you are setting
the targets and in some cases local authorities are responsible
for delivering parts of those targets. What have you got to say
about that; you have the machinery you have, but could it be easier,
this machinery or other?
(Mr Meacher) I do not believe it is fragmented. Fragmentation
in the English language is a pejorative word, a dissemination
of responsibility is a positive—
356. No, I think it is a descriptive word, of
things in fragments?
(Mr Meacher) Yes, that is right, and no-one thinks
that is a good thing, but disseminating responsibility to all
of those who need to be responsible, which again is I suppose
the meaning of mainstreaming, saying, "I'm not going to do
it all, but all of you have to do it, you've got to take this
on board and you've got to act in this way." Now I think
there are clear lines of responsibility here. I think local authorities
are in no doubt whatsoever what they have got to do, they have
got targets, they have got money, and hopefully help in liaising
with industry. Also they know that they have got to reduce landfill;
if they continue to send the same amount to landfill they are
going to be hit hard, in terms of extra tax. Actually, they are
not even going to be able to do it because they will be told that
the amount that they can landfill this year is X% less than last
year. So they are absolutely clear. The Environment Agency has
responsibility for fly-tipping, I quite agree; the Environment
Agency and local authorities now, according to changes we made
a month ago, share responsibility for duty of care in the handling
of waste, from small businesses, large businesses, in the way
in which it is transmitted to final disposal. I am not persuaded
that there is a lack of clarity or undue fragmentation, I think
we need a variety of organisations to take responsibility for
this, as long as their duties and functions are clearly defined
and they understand them, I think that is a benefit, not a weakness.
357. I think that you will find it interesting
to read our final report, because your view truly is not shared
by some of those agencies and organisations, in which I include
local government, which have responsibility for delivering. They
feel, and we have had this repeated a number of times, that the
fragmentation—and I shall say it again—really does
make life more difficult, and there is no clear line of command,
there is certainly a clear line of responsibility but that is
not the same as a clear line of accountability. And I believe
you will find, when you see the report, that this is the problem
perceived by them?
(Mr Meacher) I feel tempted to do what I should not,
which is to tease a very senior member of the Conservative Party
with recommending a command and control system.
358. That was why I began as I did, by saying
that I really do not want to appear to be recommending a command
economy; but there is no doubt that the evidence that we have
heard does seem to recommend that there are just too many people
on the pitch?
(Mr Meacher) Obviously, I will read your report with
great interest, we shall go over it with a tooth-comb. I am surprised
to hear that; obviously, we will look at the evidence and we will
consider it very carefully, and if that is really an impediment
clearly we need to do something about it, but I am quite surprised.
I do not think that this is a problem of the magnitude, it applies
to every business, every household in the country, this is a massive
problem, it is physically disaggregated everywhere, and the idea
that there could be a single control system for dealing with it
I think is not practicable. I repeat, I think it needs to be a
disaggregated management problem which matches the issue which
is to be addressed, but there must not be overlap, there must
not be a failure to cohere, in the way in which that management
system operates, and that does require a quite sensitive balance
between a number of different organisations; that is difficult,
but I think that is the right model.
David Taylor: On behalf of the Party, can I
welcome Gillian Shephard to the Labour Party.
Mrs Shephard
359. No, I think command economy, is it not?
(Mr Meacher) We do not agree with the command and
control system either.
David Taylor: She will get her membership card
in about two years' time.
David Drew: Preferably recycled.
|
