Examination of Witnesses (Questions 1-19)
20 OCTOBER 2004
ELLIOT MORLEY
MP, MS LINDSAY
CORNISH AND
MS SUE
ELLIS
Q1 Chairman: Minister, thank you very
much for coming. I know that your time is precious and also short,
and I suspect we may be interrupted by divisions as well. We are
going to ask you a lot of questions about, for example, the waste
implementation programme. Awareness issues, the impact of those
programmes, the current situation on landfill and the Waste Electrical
and Electronic Equipment Directive, if we may write to you about
those as it will alleviate time and pressure today.
Mr Morley: Chairman, I am very
happy to deal with it that way.
Q2 Chairman: That is very good of you.
We will crack straight on with hazardous waste. As we know, the
whole process of co-disposal ended on 16th July. Prior to that
there had been a lot of alarm and concern that the system was
not ready, that it would all be a disaster, but in fact our feeling
since then is that it has all been very quiet. There may be some
reasons for that and I would be interested in your thoughts on
why that has been the case and whether perhaps it has to do with
the cycle of waste arisings in this particular sector; and also
the possibility we heard about last week from the Environmental
Services Association, that a lot of people got rid of a lot of
hazardous waste in advance of the Directive and in anticipation
of it. What do you feel about that?
Mr Morley: I am very happy to
outline that, Chairman. I should start by saying that I very much
welcome the opportunity to talk to the Committee, and also to
introduce Sue and Lindsay, who are here with me from our Waste
Division. If I can go straight to the issue of hazardous waste.
Hazardous waste obviously is a major change in relation to waste
disposal; it is a change that we at DEFRA support; we think that
not only is it a better way of dealing with waste, it is also
a major incentive for people to reduce waste arisings. I think
that is the key to this and it is one of the factors why the hazardous
waste stream has indeed gone down, as you quite rightly say. I
think the situation with it was that we have had a very good dialogue
with the ESA, the trade association; our officials did a very
good job in relation to the preparation; we did a lot of work
with the Environment Agency; and there was enough capacity available
from 16th July, when the changes came, and that capacity continues
to increase, Chairman. We currently have something like 1.6 million
tonnes available and that is projected to increase to around about
2.4 million tonnes by next July, which is just about equivalent
to last year's figures. But we do expect a significant drop, and
we expect that, firstly, because you are quite right that a lot
of people took decisions to bring forward hazardous waste disposal
before the July deadline, particularly contaminated soil—no
two ways about that; secondly, because costs have increased a
lot of companies have looked at ways of treating and minimising
their waste. Hazardous soils, for example, can be remediated on
site and it is something we want to encourage, and this change
has clearly brought about that kind of switch. We know of one
site in the Midlands where 400,000 tonnes of contaminated soil
is being treated on site which otherwise would have gone into
landfill, and that is a significant amount. Other companies have
managed to minimise their hazardous waste. Some of course took
other decisions which might have been advancing it before 16 July.
So there was a prediction within the industry that there would
be a significant reduction in hazardous waste going into landfill
post-July, and therefore that drop is not unexpected. But I am
very keen to see that reduction continue.
Q3 Chairman: We heard also last week
that larger and perhaps more reputable businesses in this sector
are simply not bidding for work in hazardous waste now because
the prices have dropped so low because there are people in the
market who are undercutting the traditional market operators,
and their view was that the prices are so low that the waste could
only be being disposed of illegally. What do you say to that?
Mr Morley: That is not my information;
in fact, the prices are still up on disposal of hazardous waste.
It is true that a number of large companies took the market decision
not to have sites for hazardous waste, although, having said that,
there are a very large number of applications in the process of
being approved for single cells on many established landfill sites.
Some have been approved and some are in the process of being approved.
So I really do not think that there is evidence to say that. I
think the reason why some of the larger companies have not decided
to offer this is simply a market decision and they may do it later
on in time.
Q4 Chairman: Is it not worth your having
a look at this issue because the Managing Director of SITA, who
was here with us last week, actually said that his gut feeling
is that the price level which is prevailing in some parts of the
country is not the right price for treating waste in the correct
way.
Mr Morley: That is some parts
of the country. I do not have a complete breakdown of prices.
All I can say, Chairman, is that the last time I looked at prices
they had increased quite significantly in relation to the disposal
of hazardous waste. I also want to emphasise that we are very
anxious to make sure that there are proper standards which apply
to all forms of disposal, and right down the disposal chain. I
have been talking to the Environment Agency about this and they
have been stepping up their enforcement, and I think they have
done a very good job on this; and we do have some plans for some
particular targeted enforcement, which will send a very clear
message to the whole sector that illegal activity will not be
tolerated, and we plan to make that a very high profile affair.
Q5 Joan Walley: Can I just come in there
and ask you what you think about areas where there is going to
be no tolerance of rubbish at all, and what part you expect local
authorities to be playing in these zero rubbish zones?
Mr Morley: Zero rubbish in what
way?
Q6 Joan Walley: In terms of dealing with
all the waste and making sure that in local authorities you have
a proper partnership approach with local authorities in terms
of the extra targeted resources that you have just referred to.
Mr Morley: Local authorities clearly
have a role to play in this, although a lot of the specialist
hazardous waste sites are operated by specialist companies, although
there are many existing sites which local authorities use which
are offering a single cell facility. Local authorities are the
first point of contact for such things as asbestos from buildings.
With asbestos roofing, for example, there are many people who
have an asbestos garage and take it down and of course that does
have to be treated as hazardous waste, and people do go to the
local authority for advice. Generally speaking, local authorities
respond to that quite well and they do either have the facilities
or they are able to advise people where the facilities are for
getting rid of them. So the local authorities have been well aware
of the changes and I think they have reacted to them generally
pretty well.
Q7 Chairman: You mentioned the growth
of new on site cells; do you have a feeling for how many of these
there are?
Mr Morley: We can give you the
figures of the latest situation.
Ms Ellis: Chairman, the latest
figures I have, which were from last week, which was my last report
from the Environment Agency, operational now there are 18 single
cell sites; there are a few more where permits are still pending
and about 28 where the applications are in, but they have not
gone through the process of the Environment Agency.
Q8 Chairman: So you have given us a pretty
optimistic picture. You may remember last December the Hazardous
Waste Forum said you should set up a contingency plan; have you
done that?
Mr Morley: Yes, we have. It is
basically based on the fact that a lot of existing sites are permitted
up to a certain capacity. They can actually take a larger capacity
than that which they are permitted for, and if we would have had
to do so then we could have changed of permitting limits.
Q9 Chairman: It might still happen, might
it not? It is not impossible?
Mr Morley: I really doubt it.
It is always dangerous, Chairman, as you know, to say never in
any walk of life, but I really doubt it because all the drivers
now are to reduce waste going into landfill, whether it is domestic
or whether it is hazardous. The incentive there now is to reduce
and to remediate and as the bulk of hazardous waste was all the
soils—the figure was about 60%—then I predict that
we will see a lot of on site treatments. We have also seen a lot
of soils which have been removed because it has been brought forward.
So there will be a hiatus for a start, but I think that the industry
will settle down to methods of treatment of waste that will not
involve disposal. There will always be some, but I do believe
that we do have the capacity to deal with the waste streams which
are arising.
Q10 Sue Doughty: I understand what you
are saying, Minister, about reducing and that there is less of
a problem than might have been anticipated a few years ago, had
this matter come in, but we are still back to the fact that although
possibly 60% is being dealt with on site we have this 40%, of
which construction and demolition waste will be a fair amount,
particularly in the southeast of England, as we have this huge
building programme. To our knowledge there is only really one
site in London and the southeast which can deal with this. Do
you think that is a problem?
Mr Morley: There has never been
a site in London that dealt with their hazardous waste. There
are sites in the southeast. I did notice with interest the speech
that was given at the Liberal Democrat conference on this issue,
which struck me as a speech being written a few months beforehand,
before the facts were actually reality. In fact the kindest thing
I can say about it, it was complete nonsense really. It suggested
that we are hiding all this waste in the basement in DEFRA and
in our garages, and I can assure you that is not the case. In
fact there is more than one site in the south-east, is there not,
Sue? Do you have the figures for that?
Ms Ellis: I do not actually have
details of the sites in the southeast, but we have to remember
that it is not just dedicated hazardous waste sites, it is, as
is already indicated, stable non-reactive waste of that type that
can go into these single cells. So the provision is fairly wide.
But there has not been a lot of provision in the southeast in
the past, so in truth material has always had to travel.
Mr Morley: So the reality is,
Chairman, there is not much change in the southeast and the capacity
is adequate.
Q11 Sue Doughty: I would like to return
to the points you made and the speech at the Liberal Democrat
conference, and some of the comments that were made about the
missing waste were also a matter of concern for this Committee
last week. I accept that we have some explanation, but there were
some areas where we just could not get to the bottom of where
all the waste was going. It was very convenient that we did not
know where it was, but there we are. We have this new regime coming
along, the Waste Acceptance Criteria, and that has to be in place
for 16 July next year, and we have the regulations coming out
in force. Those regulations are expected to be in final form in
April, then we have to lay them before parliament, and we have
a very uncertain parliamentary year, as we are all very aware.
Do you think that timetable for the finalising and the passing
and the coming into force of the new regulations on the Waste
Acceptance Criteria, the hazardous waste front, are practical?
Mr Morley: You are talking about
the Waste Acceptance Criteria, are you?
Q12 Sue Doughty: I am.
Mr Morley: On the Waste Acceptance
Criteria, the regulations were laid last June on that, so the
regulations have been put before parliament. It does not come
into effect until next July. So that is all in hand.
Q13 Sue Doughty: You are reasonably comfortable
that it is all going to be all right in June?
Mr Morley: Yes, because there
was a one-year delay, but that was primarily following the consultation,
and it was the reaction of the producers—the people who
produce waste—who wanted a bit longer in relation to getting
the methods of stabilisation into place. The landfill operators
were much more keen on dealing with it as quickly as possible.
So we feel that, given the additional time and given the notice
people have had, that people will be ready for that next June.
Q14 Sue Doughty: I think this Committee
will find a lot of comfort in that if that is the case, because
we obviously had a lot of problems, particularly around 14th July,
with end of life vehicles where, in fact, at one stage the breakers
shut up shop for a day or two until they could actually get a
solution.
Mr Morley: They did, it is true,
Chairman, although that was to do with an issue not exactly to
do with the Hazardous Waste Criteria, it was to do with a longstanding
issue on end of life vehicles and the establishment of de-pollution
equipment on site. It is a very, very complicated issue. There
was also a complication in that the test that was being used at
landfill sites, to identify whether or not there was hazardous
material in the load, was regarded as too sensitive. It was picking
up, basically, oil contaminations and it was giving a reading
which was exaggerating the risk that was in the load, which was
predominantly plastics in terms of the residue. In one sense I
think the Committee should take some comfort from the fact that
people were applying the criteria and the tests so rigorously
at landfill sites where there was a problem; but I am very glad
to say that with goodwill and good sense on all sides the issue
was very quickly resolved, and I am very grateful to the ESA and
also to the trade bodies from the motoring dismantlers for seeking
to find a sensible, pragmatic solution bearing in mind the need
for the environmental standards, which is an issue, I believe,
that everyone shares.
Q15 Sue Doughty: Going on to the Federation
of Small Businesses, and the whole problem of SMEs—and I
know it was an issue that was raised before in debate—we
have this problem where they really felt that they had not got
the information they needed in time to enable their members to
make the necessary changes. It is always a problem with small
business about the fact that they have a disproportionate burden
of paperwork to go through—often they have to do it after
work, and they do not have lots of people there, as large businesses
do, to handle this sort of thing. Do you accept that there was
a problem there?
Mr Morley: I do find it a bit
bewildering, Chairman, in that we set up a Hazardous Waste Forum.
The idea of a Hazardous Waste Forum was to involve stakeholders
so that they could be involved, informed and indeed give us their
input at every stage of the developments of this process, and
the Federation of Small Businesses were a part of that Forum.
The idea of including bodies is that they, through their own networks,
will keep their members informed, and that was part of the process.
So I find it a bit bewildering that the Federation of Small Businesses
then said that their members were not informed when they, as their
umbrella organisation, has been informed from the very beginning.
How long had that process gone on, Sue?
Ms Ellis: It was about 18 months.
We also informed the small business sector at DTI in putting information
out through their network—earlier in the summer there was
a little leaflet that went out to people—and who also established
the Envirowise help line so that small businesses could ring up
and get detailed information relating to their particular problems.
Q16 Sue Doughty: Did you find that people
were actually coming back to you on this?
Ms Ellis: Yes.
Q17 Mr Thomas: Minister, we talked there
about the southeast of England and the availability of sites for
hazardous waste. Are there any parts of either England or Wales
or region where you do have concerns about the availability of
sites? We do not want to see massive transport of hazardous waste,
do we?
Mr Morley: No. Obviously, Chairman,
I would like to see as good a geographical spread of sites as
possible because I would like to see vehicle movements minimised
as a general rule, let alone the issue of hazardous waste. The
problem is that there has always been a geographical imbalance,
and Wales is a case in point; there has always been very limited
facilities in Wales, although given the nature of Wales we can
perhaps understand why there has been limited facilities—they
tended to be concentrated in the south of the country for obvious
reasons. So there is and always has been an element of moving
waste around. It is not quite as bad as it seems because in many
cases waste goes to trans-shipment sites where it is often accumulated
until you get a full load, so therefore you minimise vehicle movements,
and of course it makes economic sense to do that. That is a well-established
structure of the waste industry, and that has not changed. So
there is adequate provision and although it does indeed involve
some movement of waste around the country, particularly hazardous
waste, but there is nothing new in that, I am afraid.
Q18 Mr Thomas: But it could be improved
upon?
Mr Morley: I am always keen to
see it improved, but it does require people opening up the sites
because this is a provision which is provided by the private sector,
and the level of investment of course is driven by whether people
feel that there is a market demand for the particular facility
that they have. We want to get away from landfill and of course
that is going to influence the market, although we want more treatment
and we want more remediation, and that also influences the market.
So you are seeing a lot of waste companies beginning to invest
in, in some cases, quite sophisticated treatments. You are beginning
to see building rubble, for example, instead of going landfill
being graded, being treated, being used as hardcore, for which
there is a demand. This is all growth in the sector, which I very
much welcome. I am very pleased to see how the industry has responded
in some cases in quite a sophisticated way, and I very much welcome
that.
Q19 Mr McWilliam: Minister, the Deputy
Prime Minister produced a report fairly recently about housing
development, particularly in the southeast and involving an awful
lot of brown field sites. It is logical, is it not, that a brown
field site is much more likely to produce contaminated soil than
a green field site?
Mr Morley: Yes.
|
