|
WEDNESDAY 2 APRIL 2003 __________ Members present: Mr David Curry, in the Chair __________ Memorandum submitted by the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Examination of Witnesses RT HON MICHAEL MEACHER, a Member of the House, Minister of State, and MS SUE ELLIS, Head of Waste Management Division, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, examined. Chairman
(Mr Meacher) Well you and I can pair; the rest can go. (Mr Meacher) I take your point. (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 per cent plus, on landfill, and which would double in the period of the Landfill Directive up to 2016, 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; now 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. (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 (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 8 per cent 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 2003-4, treble by 2005-6, and that is targets. Secondly, funding; we have increased the Environmental Protection and Cultural Services category, a rather odd combination of the RFG, in the current two spending reviews, Spending Review 2000, 2002, by , 1_ 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, , 335 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 (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. (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 (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 per cent 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 per cent 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. (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 (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. (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 produce 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. (Mr Meacher) That is the responsibility of Defra. Mrs Shephard (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 - - - (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, A 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 per cent 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. (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. (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 (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. David Taylor (Mr Meacher) I do recognise the general problems over PFI, this is a very, very sensitive issue, which goes far wider than what we are talking about today. But a PFI system is a long-term, fixed-price contract, agreed by a private contractor, in order to deliver standards specified by the local authority, and it is for the local authority to determine those standards that they believe are necessary. I think, without being overprescriptive, they should certainly be very clear and detailed and thorough, and it is their responsibility for that to happen. (Mr Meacher) I understand that is a possibility, but, again, if they were well advised, certainly they would have clauses in the contract which would allow them, where there is a change in technology, much improved equipment or plant becomes available, that there should be a renegotiation of those parts of the contract. I agree, that may not happen, and these problems can occur, particularly if one has a 25-year period of life for a PFI, as opposed to, say, 15 years. They are also very large block contracts, up to , 25 million, so, of course, it does mean that you have a relatively small number of large contracts, rather than being spread evenly across the country. But I do recognise those problems. They are designed to produce greater efficiency in the delivery of agreed standards and objectives, but they do need very, very careful writing and very thorough examination; we are trying to provide guidelines to avoid some of the kinds of problems that you have mentioned. David Taylor: And PFI companies salivate when that word > renegotiate= pops its head round the door, do they not? Sorry about that. Mr Drew (Mr Meacher) Certainly, I am extremely keen that we should put in place effective mechanisms that do reduce the creation of waste. If we are really going to deal with this, the current rate of growth of waste arisings is about 3, 4 per cent a year, which is faster than economic growth, in the recent year or two almost twice the rate, and that is very serious, very serious indeed. If really we are going to achieve control of this problem we need to decouple economic growth from waste arisings, so that in a year in which you get 2 or 3 per cent growth you get, say, minus1 per cent waste arisings, compared with the previous year. Now we are an awfully long way away from that, but that is, I would say, a milestone before really we begin to get control of this problem. So I do not take the view that, well, reduction would be very desirable and if we do not get it we are going to have a lot of incineration, I am determined that we do get reduction, and if need be begin to think about more mechanisms to ensure that that happens. One way of doing that, of course, is through the landfill tax escalator, which the Chancellor said will be, it is an extra , 3 in 2005/6 and at least , 3 per year up to , 35, and, as I say, we are trying physically to reduce the amount going to landfill. The Budget 2000, the Chancellor said that the Government is considering an economic instrument in respect of incineration. We are determined to ensure that incineration pays the environmental and social costs and that those should be internalised. Also, of course, we want to minimise waste, as I have said, and move waste up the waste hierarchy, and incineration does not do that. Certainly, we want to avoid incineration becoming the next-cheapest option after landfill. So we are very conscious of the problem. In addition, I did publish guidelines, in September 2000, which said that approval would be given only for incineration which did not crowd out recycling or pre-empt future possibilities of recycling, so that one does not build a large incinerator which is going to gather waste from a large area around, in defiance of the proximity principle. So I am not saying there will not be any increase in incineration. As you rightly say, Denmark, which is often considered much greener than us, has a far higher level of incineration than we have, but that certainly is something that I believe is not necessary, not desirable, and probably will not happen. My last point is that, in addition, of course, to mass-burn incineration, there are the new technologies coming in, classification, pyrolysis, pan-aerobic digestion, which I think are quite promising, quite different, it is sort of cooking it in the absence of oxygen, as I understand. (Mr Meacher) I agree, and that is why the Government has commissioned a report on the environmental and social costs of all forms of waste management and disposal; that is in place now, it will produce a report, and in the light of that we will make a decision on whether or not to proceed, as the Chancellor hinted last year. Mr Wiggin (Mr Meacher) It is certainly not intended to be, and if a product can be reused, in my view, that is better than recycling, which is a more involved and expensive process. The number of times though that a product actually can be reused and, as it were, renewed, used again as new, must be relatively small; but certainly there is no intention to squeeze out renew at all. Recycling is not the holy grail, it is part of the way of handling products that cannot be reused or recovered. (Mr Meacher) Why did I not enshrine what, in that Bill? (Mr Meacher) Because the purpose of the Waste and Emissions Trading Bill is to secure a limitation on the amount of municipal biodegradable waste going to landfill, that is its purpose; it is not about establishing the waste hierarchy, that was already set out very clearly in the Government= s Waste Strategy in 2000. This was a particular part of that general landscape, and we need legislative cover, a legislative base, in order to do this, in order to say that A You sent 100 tonnes to your landfill last year; next year it= s going to be only 95, and the year after that 90.@ So it is specifically for that purpose. It is not designed to go over the entire range of the Waste Strategy, because we think that is already understood, clearly publicised, and other mechanisms, which do have legislative cover, are already in place; this was just a gap which was being filled. Mr Lepper (Mr Meacher) Certainly we should be looking at what the Danes are doing, because I have always regarded Denmark as a country well worth looking at; they are not always right, as I say, things go wrong in waste management, even in Denmark, but of course we should look at it. Clearly, there is a lot of dissatisfaction about packaging in this country, I get more letters, no doubt from some of your constituents, which you send on to me, saying how the Government is doing nothing about packaging and it is all increasing. I suspect what triggers that is what happens in the supermarkets and at supermarket check-outs, when you have already got a product which is double-wrapped and then they give you a plastic bag, and sometimes a plastic bag to go into another plastic bag, and people think that it is far too much. I do say that people ought to refuse it, which I do, when I go through the check-out. But what they do not understand, and what I try to convey in the replies is that the recycling of packaging waste is already on a substantial scale. We had a 50 per cent target last year; for reasons to do with one of the compliance regimes, we just failed that and we achieved 48. But within the period 2006-2008 we shall be agreeing, in Brussels, for an increase in those targets up to 60-65 per cent, so within a period of three, four years, we shall be required to reprocess, recycle, two-thirds of all packaging; now I think this is not widely understood. What has happened in this country is that the measures already in place have led to repackaging, because what happens is, if you get a large package, a large plastic or cardboard package, people consume most of it, but a significant amount is left in the package, and often it is thrown away, it is wasted. So the idea is - and there may be a little commercial purpose in this as well, of course - to package it more closely to what is likely to be consumed, so that there is no waste of the contents, which is a good thing. So the bottles and the cardboard packages, and sometimes the plastic wrappings, are often smaller, the thickness of the bottles is often thinner. Now I have been taking a great interest in having > return and deposit= schemes reintroduced into this country, and one of the problems I have encountered is, A Ah, well, your policies have reduced the size of the bottles,@ or the thickness of the bottles. Now if you have > return and deposit= systems they will have to be cleaned out, scrubbed out with caustic soda, and the thickness of the glass is not sufficient to withstand this; so you have got a problem that it is contrary to your existing policy. So these are the sorts of problems that arise. I have said to the Advisory Committee on Packaging, whom I am meeting very shortly, that I am dissatisfied with the amount of packaging waste. It is done, as you say, on a tonnage basis, they do have to pay for that, if it is reprocessed they have to pay for the reprocessing of it, and the greater the weight, the more the tonnage, the more they have to pay; so they have got an incentive to reduce, and, to some extent, I think, they have, but it has not satisfied the public and it does not satisfy me. (Mr Meacher) Right; you mean, a shift to plastics. That is, I agree, a real problem, because plastic, of course, is the most difficult substance to recycle, because it is quite bulky and it is not easily squashed, so it takes up a lot of space, and the recycling rate is 12, 15 per cent, something of that order, and certainly we need to increase that sharply. What I did not say is that not only are the overall packaging targets being increased quite sharply, from 50 to around 65 per cent, in the next few years, but there are material-specific recycling targets, which for paper and glass are very high, and are going to be even higher, but for plastics, for the first time, it is going to require a significant increase in plastics recycling. And that will be a requirement on companies who use plastic, and indeed they may have to come into the household waste stream in order to recover, to retrieve, the plastic, in order to meet their recycling targets. So I think we are beginning to deal with this, but, I agree, not sufficiently to satisfy the general public. Mr Jack (Mr Meacher) We have not shied away. It is one of the recommendations of the Strategy Unit report, which did recommend that there should be pilots for local authorities who wanted to introduce what is sometimes called > variable charging= . It is not the case, of course, that there is no tax on people with regard to dealing with the waste that they create, there is, it is part of the council tax; the problem is that very, very few people realise that, and, of course, it is flat rate. If you live in the same local authority and you produce very little waste, you make no gain, compared with another family, next door, who create an awful lot of waste. And there is, of course, an argument for creating an economic signal, and I do understand the logic of that suggestion, but it is part of the Strategy Unit report, and I am afraid you are going to have to wait a little while longer to see our response. (Mr Meacher) It is a very good try. We have not, but the Strategy Unit team did look at action on this in other countries, and I think there were 17 countries, if I remember, who do this at the present time, and, of course, they looked at what those mechanisms were and how successful they were thought to be. There is no question that it can be done, there is no question about that. (Mr Meacher) We have taken firm note of them. (Mr Meacher) No. (Mr Meacher) No. We have the report, there have been discussions on this and other outstanding items; the Government now has an agreed position and that will be published very shortly. Mr Mitchell (Mr Meacher) I do think that, and that is exactly what we have set. The targets are not aspirational, they are statutory performance standards, which under the BVPI (Best Value Performance Indicator) system local authorities are required to adhere to; so they are statutory targets. Now you say A You= ve got targets galore,@ I am not going to comment about the wide range of them, but I do know that in waste management it is absolutely essential that there are targets to guide resources and effort in local authorities. We started off in 1997 where there were a handful of local authorities whose recycling rate was 1 per cent. Let me put up my hand and say I think Oldham was 3 or 4 per cent, it is very low; there are other local authorities who are at 25, 30 per cent, possibly somewhere even above that. So there is a huge range. Now how do you drag up, apart from this block of, say, I do not know, 15 per cent who really have done extremely well, the remaining 85 per cent, the second half of that in particular, who have really never given any particular attention to this at all. I think the only way to do it is to set a target and a timescale and expect them, and intend them, to meet it; that is what we have done. I do not regard this as targets coming out of our ears, I regard this as the minimum statutory pressure necessary to get a change on the ground. (Mr Meacher) That is a very good question. (Mr Meacher) I will give it a good answer, like the other three. What I am proposing is, first of all, to identify those who are failing. I wrote to 142 local authorities last August, saying A The latest evidence we have from you, in your annual returns to this Department on recycling, does not suggest that you are in line to meet your targets in 200; this is the information we have, if it is incorrect please tell us, and obviously we will take note of that and revise our opinion.@ As a result of that, we have excluded 20 or 30 from the danger list, if you like. I have now written to the remainder, 100 plus, saying that A In the light of the information you have given, I am still not satisfied; and have you drawn up a plan to bring you back on track, do you need assistance from either the private sector or from WRAP, or from possibly local authorities around you who have a better performance? We are expecting you to do this. I would like to have your response within a short time;@ date given. That is the point we have reached. I will follow that up in the light of what was said, by demanding that. I do have an action plan which indicates how they are going to get back on track. In the last analysis, if all else fails, we can remove, of course, although I do not want to do this, the waste management function from a local authority and give it to someone else, whether that is a private company or a consortium of local authorities who could do the job better. But, of course, the local authority will still pay whatever it costs, so it is not as though this is an unwelcome function which conveniently can be removed from them, they have a responsibility and I am determined that they meet it. And the key point is, I repeat again, and many other Members have said it today, that there has to be pressure put on local authorities to get them to reduce the amount of waste that is being created. In parts of my own constituency, I have seen completely unacceptable levels of waste creation, which not only are littering the landscape but which, in nearly all cases, will end up in landfill, and that is not acceptable. (Mr Meacher) They could do. (Mr Meacher) I am not proposing that, because, of course, the local authority will then turn round and say A By fining us, you= ve made it more difficult for us to achieve our objective,@ and there is some force in that argument, so it is not the best way to proceed. (Mr Meacher) I am not quite sure what you mean by that. The national recycling target for this current financial year, which has just started, is, nationally, across the country, 17 per cent, but, of course, those who started very low cannot be expected to get 17; they have got to do a little better. (Mr Meacher) Yes, national recycling targets. We have to reach 17 per cent 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 per cent 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 (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 (Mr Meacher) You started by saying that I said A 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_ billion over a five-year period in this category of RSG, , 140 million Challenge Fund, specifically to improve recycling, a big increase, 60 per cent 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 per cent 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 A 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. (Mr Meacher) No, it is not ring-fenced. (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_ , , 9_ 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. (Mr Meacher) I think they are taking a substantial bit of notice. (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 per cent 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 A 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. (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 (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. (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 (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. (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 (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, 2005/6, 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. (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. (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. (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 (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. (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. (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. (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. Chairman (Mr Meacher) Clearly, there are. (Mr Meacher) They ought to be incorporated in the appropriate PPG, Policy Programme Guidance, which is being updated continually; there are, I think, about 35 of them, I can never recall, off the top of my head, which is the one relevant to your question, and when I have tried to read them I have found them almost impenetrable, but they are the basis, the bible, on which there is systematic laying-down of guidelines and detailed instructions as to how particular parts of the administrative programme should be carried through. There is no doubt that sustainable waste management must be a key part in sustainable construction. (Mr Meacher) I am delighted to hear that. I will be very pleased to give you a note on that, because it is a very important question and I would like to draw your attention to, and indeed refresh my memory of, what the most up-to-date, relevant PPG does say about this. (Mr Meacher) I am. (Mr Meacher) Yes; we will also give you a note on that. Chairman: Otherwise I think we have had a very satisfactory session, and we look forward to your musings when they emerge. Thank you. |