Examination of Witnesses (Questions 380-399)
WEDNESDAY 2 APRIL 2003
RT HON
MICHAEL MEACHER
MP AND MS
SUE ELLIS
380. The national recycling targets?
(Mr Meacher) Yes, national recycling targets. We have
to reach 17% this year on average across the country, if we are
going to meet the targets which we set down a few years ago. Now
there are 12% of local authorities who, on the information they
have given us, have already met them, some handsomely and are
far above, but there is a long tail who are far behind, but I
do know, as a result of successfully claiming significant sums
of money through the Challenge Fund, the local authority waste
minimisation and recycling fund now believe that they can make
a quantum leap in order to meet those targets this year.
Mr Drew
381. In terms of these local authorities, Michael,
is there any way you would categorise them, are they urban, I
am talking about the offenders, well maybe we can look at both
sides, give me some feel for the characteristics of why some are
much better than others, or is it just haphazard?
(Mr Meacher) I am not aware that one can make a categorisation,
I think it is across the piece. Certainly, there are particular
problems which do cause great difficulties for local authorities;
if you are an inner-urban authority and you have a large number
of high-rise flats, undoubtedly it is more difficult, sometimes
there are land use problems, the whole CPA system of trying to
incentivise often works less well in particular authorities that
are not used to this. But I think basically the reason is the
culture. I do not want to bring class into this, but undoubtedly
there are some prosperous local authorities in the south or on
the south coast which have extremely high records, there are other
authorities, much poorer authorities, in the north, but it is
not just in the north, by any means, for whom providing housing,
social services, good education, is the priority, and dealing
with very large numbers of people who are on social security,
I can well understand that is the priority. But we have tried
to provide them with more money, with more resources, with more
managerial support, in order to improve their performance.
Mr Jack
382. You made a very interesting statement,
Minister, a moment ago, where you said "I'm very annoyed
with local authorities who produce lots of waste." Well I
did not know it was a task of local authorities actually to manufacture
waste, I thought their problem was dealing with other people who
produce waste material. And the message I get, certainly from
local authorities, is that, in spite of the many schemes you have
identified to encourage them to develop recycling strategies,
new ways of collection and disposal, some of them are still struggling
with the resources that they need to produce and introduce the
whole variety of techniques that are now available, and we get
very mixed messages. And it was quite clear from the local authority
that we took evidence from, from the west country, that they had
said, "We have a lot of good relationships, Friends of the
Earth, we're going to put in extra resources," and they had
got up to 27% recycling, but that is their choice; for others,
as you rightly said, it is a different set of priorities. So,
first of all, what do you see as the answer to the question, it
is a simple one, do they have enough resources actually to deliver
on these programmes, and what incentives do they have actually
to go down the recycling route, as opposed simply to be bidding
for money to do a partial job?
(Mr Meacher) You started by saying that I said "I
am very annoyed with local authorities who produce a lot of waste."
I do not believe I ever said that, we will have a look at the
record. If I did say that, I apologise, because that is not my
view and I do not actually believe I said those words. I said
that I am concerned, where there is a great deal of waste generated
and often left littering the landscape, I am very concerned about
that, but I would be the first to say that is not the fault of
the local authorities, it is the fault of people, it is people
like you and me, I hope it is not you and me, who drop this stuff
in the first place and who generate the waste. And, indeed, I
hope that local authorities, in dealing with this problem, are
not just going to clean up their area, which has been littered
with waste by careless, thoughtless people within their boundary,
but that they are perhaps going to consider having litter wardens,
or whatever, who are going to ensure that people do not do this.
It is not a case of people just dropping litter and the local
authority will come along conveniently and pick it up, I think
that is very unacceptable, and I am totally on the side of the
local authority. Now you asked about do they have sufficient resources,
I did give an extended answer earlier saying why I believe they
do; now it remains to be seen if that is sufficient, they are
very substantial extra resources. In the Rate Support Grant, £1.75
billion over a five-year period in this category of RSG, £140
million Challenge Fund, specifically to improve recycling, a big
increase, 60% or more, in PFI money. Now I think those are substantial
extra resources. You said what incentive do they have to do this;
well they are getting extra resources from Government, as I have
just indicated, that is an incentive, but also I think there has
to be a stick, not just the carrot, and that the stick is you
cannot go on sending material from households, waste products
from households, to landfill. Let me make clear that the Landfill
Directive has three trigger points. The first is 2006, for which
we have a derogation period up to 2010; the second is 2009, with
a four-year derogation, 2013; the last is 2016, with a derogation
to 2020. Now in the first of those, which is very, very close
to where we are, we have to reduce the amount going to landfill
to no more than 75% of the 1995 landfill level. I am very, very
worried about achieving that. This is a national requirement,
it is mandatory, we are legally bound to do it, and this is an
EU Directive, and the Commission is within its rights to subject
us to infraction proceedings if we fail to do that, and infraction
proceedings are at a hideously high level, it could be as much
as £50 million a year, that is what we face as a country.
So it is not just a matter of incentivising, I have got to tell
everyone that "This is really stark, it is a huge problem,
it has been neglected, it has got to be dealt with; we are giving
you the incentive, we are giving you the money, but you have got
to do it, and if you do not there will be penalties," because
otherwise we, the whole Government and the taxpayers, are going
to have pay those penalties.
383. That is a powerful line of defence for
your policy, but it is clear that local authorities are adopting
a mixed range of responses, there are some who may not feel that
their electorate, for example, have given them the tick in the
box and said, "Yeah, recycling's the number one—or
two, or three—priority, we've really got to go for this."
On the one hand, they are having pressure from you with letters,
and also they are struggling to meet, as you rightly said, many
other competing priorities on their resources; because, just on
a point of clarification, I assume the money in the RSG for this
is not ring-fenced?
(Mr Meacher) No, it is not ring-fenced.
384. Well we will not get into whether or not
the recent settlement has been generous, I think that was aired
earlier, in question time, today; but the question is that, a
lot of local authorities, some are very good, some are not so
good, what is in it for the ones that are not so good to bring
up their performance, in other words, where is the incentive,
apart from getting less rude letters from you, that seems to be
the only incentive there is at the moment?
(Mr Meacher) I repeat, I am not sure I can add anything
to my last, I fear, as always, rather lengthy answer. We have
supplied substantial extra funding. You are quite right that the
£140 million is ring-fenced, it is available only for approved
projects which meet the criteria we set down. The increase from
£8 to £9.5, £9.75 billion in the EPCS (Environmental
Protection Capital Services) bit of RSG is not ring-fenced. My
expectation is that at least half of that will be spent on waste
management, but particularly under the Government's new freedom
and flexibilities agenda it is certainly not ring-fenced, they
are not required to do that. My problem is that I am caught between
trying to give as much flexibility and discretion to local authorities
to meet what they believe are their priorities, and at the same
time having to meet a national target, where if we fail there
is a very substantial national penalty, and we have got to get
the balance right.
385. What does the Local Government Association
tell you about this mixed performance, what is their advice to
you to get the performance improved, because you sound like a
man shouting from the terraces to all these people on the pitch,
and they are not taking a blind bit of notice of what you are
saying?
(Mr Meacher) I think they are taking
a substantial bit of notice.
386. Well, not as much as you would like?
(Mr Meacher) Well, not as much as I would like, because
I would like them all steaming towards those 2003-4 targets, with
assurance at this stage that they were going to meet them. I think
the great majority are, but certainly I think there are going
to be a small number, I do not know how small, probably who will
not. I will say this for targets, and I have said this before,
that I would rather have a tough target which to some small degree
is not met than to have either no target or a weak target which
is 100% met; so that we are taking an ambitious and bold course,
and no doubt members of Her Majesty's Opposition will seize on
the small numbers of failures and say "There you are, you've
failed." But the important point, it seems to me, is that
the vast majority have improved their act very substantially.
387. I am sorry, can I just bring you back to
the question I asked. It is very kind of you to give advice to
Her Majesty's Opposition as to what they might do to beat the
Government, but let me focus just for a second on the question
I asked about information from the LGA, what do they tell you
about what needs to be done to get their members to respond?
(Mr Meacher) The LGA, of course, is in favour of flexibilities
and freedoms, as you would not be surprised to know, but also
they do recognise that there is a need to concentrate the mind
of local authorities on improved recycling and waste management
performance; and I have to say, if I can take the opportunity
of this Committee to say, and I hope this will not damage her
reputation, there was a most helpful and constructive response
from the Conservative Chairman of the Waste Management Committee
of the LGA, she has been extremely helpful and I think is very
good. So there is a great deal of co-operation there.
Paddy Tipping
388. Can I ask about the EPCS block, it has
increased, it is not ring-fenced. Can we ask you, notionally,
within that block, how much each local authority had available
for waste disposal activities; would you be able to tell us?
(Mr Meacher) Yes, I think we can, and we know the
allocation to each local authority of this particular category
of the RSG; what we do not know, and I am not sure we have actually
collected statistics, and I do not think we have, which I think
is a pity, I do not think we have collected statistics about the
allocation by each local authority of its EPCS grant. There has
been quite a lot of discussion about would it not be better to
have greater transparency, not to require them to spend their
money in a certain way but at least there is evidence afterwards
of how it is spent, so that there can be discussion about whether
those were the right priorities.
389. But you can make an assessment of how much
from that EPCS grant each local authority is getting?
(Mr Meacher) Yes, I am sure we do know that; but we
do not know, out of that grant, how much has gone into waste management.
Mr Mitchell
390. The LGA told us that collecting recyclable
materials costs two or three times as much as just collecting
mixed general waste; now that means they are going to need extra
money, if you are going to achieve your targets. So just a concrete
question now; for the next three years, how much more money will
be made available to local authorities to promote recycling, from
the landfill tax, from the SSA budget and from any other sources
under the three-year Comprehensive Spending Review?
(Mr Meacher) The Government has already made its financial
dispositions in respect of what we call sustainable waste management,
and we believe that that is sufficient. You made reference to
one important fact, which is, what about the proceeds from a rising
landfill tax, and that is still being discussed within Government;
we have had requests that that should be recycled, obviously that
is a matter for the Government to consider.
391. But if you are going to achieve that, if
it does cost two or three times as much, they are going to have
to have more money?
(Mr Meacher) We believe that the amount of money which
we have already put in place is sufficient to deal with recycling.
Chairman: We will adjourn, on the assumption
that there are two votes, for 20 minutes.
The Committee suspended from 4.22 pm to 4.51
pm for a division in the House
Chairman: Welcome back, Minister.
Mr Lazarowicz
392. When we were discussing the landfill tax
earlier on I was very interested in the very emphatic way you
pointed out that the increase would be at least £3 a tonne
in future years. Given what you said, before the break, about
the danger that the UK might not meet its European obligation
in terms of the Landfill Directive, is not that really the crucial
issue? Will there not have to be a rate of increase much higher
than £3 a tonne actually to reach those objectives?
(Mr Meacher) That is certainly a point, obviously,
which has been made; it is not the only driver, but of course
I think it is a very important one. If we were to increase at
£3 per year after the first one, 2005-06, I think it takes
us to 2011, 2012, something like that, which is certainly too
late for the first trip-wire under the Landfill Directive; but
of course it is not the only driver. The other driver, as I have
said, is the WET Bill, which produces landfill allowances, which
allows us physically to reduce the amount of material going to
landfill; there is no limit technically on the amount by which
we do that, clearly we have to do it in order to ensure we do
meet the targets, and that, I have to say, is a very powerful
driver. Now it can be backed up, very helpfully, also by a physical
instrument, such as a landfill tax, but that is in some ways less
important than the physical controls that the WET Bill will give
us.
393. From what you are saying, I still draw
a heavy implication that the £3 increase is not going to
be sufficient to help us reach the targets; is that fair to say?
(Mr Meacher) It is, and there have been ministerial
discussions, I am not going to go into detail, but, clearly, you
will not be surprised, that point has been made very strongly.
394. Can I ask a specific question about the
way that we ensure that the UK complies with the obligations here.
Obviously, waste disposal is a devolved matter outside England
and Wales, but of course the responsibility to comply with Directives
is a UK responsibility to the European Union. Presumably that
implies that there has to be some way of ensuring that devolved
administrations make their contribution to the targets under the
Directive. Can I ask you what degree of liaison there is with
the devolved administrations in ensuring that the obligations
in this area are met? For example, it is a subject of discussion
at joint ministerial committee level between the administrations?
(Mr Meacher) The position is that for the UK to meet
its international obligations there is an override in the hand
of the UK Government, I think obviously that is right and necessary,
and of course it is for us to ensure in our discussions with the
devolved administrations that they understand that fully and will
comply. The UK Government does not wish to use administrative
or fiscal override to enforce this, but it is within our powers
to do so. I have to say, on this issue, there is, of course, full
co-operation from the devolved administrations, they understand
fully the requirements, they accept those. In the case of the
WET Bill, the amount which is set down as a maximum for the UK
year by year is divided between the four countries, and then the
three devolved administrations are responsible equally for carrying
out their part of the whole project.
395. One other question in this area. Earlier
on, you pointed out that the Department was studying the various
economic instruments for incineration, in the light of the earlier
work. One of the issues raised with us was the statement from
your own Department that it would be commissioning a review of
the environmental and health effects of the waste management and
disposal options; has that review been commissioned, and when
is it expected to report?
(Mr Meacher) It has been commissioned, it is now in
place. I do not know when it will report, but I think it will
not be a lengthy study. I think it will be an examination of the
existing evidence, a systematic investigation of the evidence,
probably taking into account international data, and it will summarise
that. I think this is correct, it will not involve new empirical
work on the ground.
Paddy Tipping
396. A question about composting and how important
composting is in meeting reduction targets, and, more particularly,
where do you think the focus on composting should be, should it
be on home composting, or a collection of composting services
organised by local authorities?
(Mr Meacher) That is an interesting question, because,
of course, we want individual householders to compost; the problem
is, of course, that that cannot count towards the local authority
recycling and composting targets because there is no way of checking
systematically whether it is happening and whether it is being
done to the appropriate standard. The only way in which that can
happen is for the compostable material to be collected and taken
to a civic amenity site and put into the appropriate container
for proper composting. It is not easily resolved. I certainly
would not want to not incentivise individual householders to compost.
I do, I am sure many others here do so, I think it should be a
regular part of the armoury which is done just automatically.
But there is no way that I can see how, reliably and verifiably,
we can count that as part of the local authority targets. There
is no doubt that there will be composting at civic amenity sites.
One of the ways by which we have tried to promote this is by allowing
a pooling arrangement, which is, where there is a civic amenity
site which is common to a number of authorities, we have permitted
the recycling which is carried out at this facility, which is
supported jointly, to count towards the targets; although I have
stipulated that in nearly all cases there should be some overall,
small increase in those overall targets.
397. And as one composter to another, and the
Chairman is a composter as well, just tell me about the WET Bill
and the Amendment that I think Lord Dixon-Smith put in; some of
us will be meeting tomorrow to discuss the WET Bill. What is your
attitude to this Amendment, at 98 degrees it is going to cause
sludge for compost?
(Mr Meacher) That is exactly correct. This is a definition
which was put in in another place, it is Clause 22. The problem
for us, as you indicate, is that heating at that level will kill
not just the harmful pathogens, it will kill all the useful agents
as well, and really it would render the material unfit to be used
as proper compost, it would be little more than sludge. So I am
afraid the Government is going to have to reject that.
398. But it does illustrate a kind of tension
within the Department. You have got the Animal By-Products Order
coming, clearly the legacy of FMD is still very painful within
the Department, we want the compost of organic waste; and how
are you trying to resolve this tension, what risks are going to
be taken, because life is not risk-free, and what risks are you
prepared to take on composting?
(Mr Meacher) This is an EU Regulation and, of course,
all the Member States have agreed to it, but it is attempting
to draw that balance, exactly as you indicate, in order to develop
a new set of rules that allows the composting of catering waste
to be done economically, whilst at the same time duly protecting
animal and public health. We believe that that balance is secure.
Obviously, I think we have to err on the side of not taking any
significant degree of risk of allowing foot and mouth to recur,
obviously that must be right; at the same time, the Composting
Association certainly is lobbying us on the basis that the requirements
that we lay down are onerous and quite costly and not as economical
as they should be, and it is for the Government to decide where
the balance should lie. In my view, clearly, if there is any erring
on the side of protection, it has to lie in terms of protecting
public health, I think that must be the number one priority. But,
as you rightly say, nothing in life is risk-free, and certainly
we do not want to exclude the role that composting can play.
399. And, just finally, I have lost sight of
the soil strategy that is within the Department; just remind me
where that is—it has gone underground, I am told—and
how it links into the composting strategy?
(Mr Meacher) I think there is a need to have a soil
strategy, there has been substantial discussion about this. I
am not quite sure what lies behind your question, which is a very
well-placed one. I was concerned that the work which we have done
up to now has been very process-oriented, process is always necessary
to produce outcomes, but I am keen that we move now to another
stage in the production of a soil strategy which is associated
more closely with actual outcomes on the ground, and what I am
trying to get agreement to is having secure and clear outcomes
in terms of targets on the ground which can be delivered by the
strategy. If I can get that I hope we can produce a soil strategy
within a reasonable time.
|
