Examination of Witnesses (Questions 160-179)
CLLR SIR
DAVID WILLIAMS,
MR PETER
HUNT AND
MR SIMON
BAXTER
22 APRIL 2004
Q160 Chairman: So he gets caught and
he says, "I got it from 47 Mickledever Avenue". So you
go round to 47 Mickledever Avenue and say "It's your fault".
Is that how it works?
Mr Baxter: That individual is
actually the victim of a crime. My understanding is that if there
is a duty to householders it makes them far more aware that if
you do come knocking on my door you need to be a registered waste
carrier. I am not wholeheartedly convinced of the argument of
duty of care for householders.
Q161 Chairman: That is what we wanted
to establish.
Mr Baxter: I do think they are
victims, but I think they do need to be careful who they give
their waste to. It may be that we think about a campaign to highlight
that each borough or parish council must do campaigning on ensuring
that if you do give your waste to someone they are registered
waste carriers. If not, you could be a victim and be interviewed
by the local authority involved with fly-tipping. I think that
is probably a more balanced approach.
Q162 Chairman: It is not an enforceable
duty, as envisaged.
Mr Baxter: I do not think it would
be particularly fair, if I am the victim of a crime.
Mr Hunt: At home we have tried,
through the local newspaper, publicity drives to say that it is
their duty to understand where that waste is going to and merely
giving it to some chap who happens to call and offers a cheap
deal is suspicious because there are proper ways to dispose of
waste, and people should ask for the right documentation to make
sure it is going the right way. We are trying to get that message
across to the individuals that they have a responsibility.
Q163 Mr Thomas: Would it be easier to
do this if there was some immediately identifiable national badge
or something? To ask a householder to find out about a registered
waste disposer, they will forget very quickly what they are supposed
to ask. However, if you say you have to have a green badge or
something to dispose of waste then you could get that round the
minds of the public and they could ask if the person who turned
up at the door if they had the green badge that shows they can
take away waste. Would it be simpler if we had some sort of scheme
like that, that was identified across the United Kingdom?
Mr Baxter: That is an interesting
point because, getting back to the waste carriers licence, I am
a waste carrier, I get a waste carriers licence but I have eight
vehicles and that is when it starts becoming slightly foggy: on
that day that you caught my vehicle it was actually hired out
to a company I met in the pub. This does happen quite frequently.
My view is that you are quite right: there should be a waste carriers
licence per vehicle and it should be like a tax disc that is renewed
yearly, bright orange, perhaps, like a disabled car sticker or
a tax disc that is clearly visible for each vehicle that I own.
The householder would then think, oh yes, I must look for the
orange sticker. I think that would be sensible.
Q164 Mr Challen: Moving on to some of
the demolition and construction waste and things of that sort,
do you think the system is too complicated at the moment for disposing
of these things? I ask that question because I have had a constituent
who bought a house on a filled-in railway cutting, filled in with
all sorts of demolition rubble and other kinds of waste, and it
appears, due to the fact that his house is now tipping over, that
the job was not done properly. Are there just too many people
involved in this case—the Environment Agency, all the different
departments of the local authority from planning through to all
sorts of other things—and for the ordinary person the system
is far too complex and people are getting away with murder.
Sir David Williams: Part of it
is a reflection on the price of land and the desperate desire
to build on every bit of railway siding.
Mr Hunt: In respect of that particular
case, are you suggesting that someone has illegally placed the
material onto which a house has been built?
Q165 Mr Challen: I think in this case
someone would have had a licence to fill that cutting in and they
probably said to a lot of other people, "Help us get this
fairly quickly; come along and dump stuff there because there
is nobody there to check it or monitor it and the testing of materials
dumped there just does not seem to happen".
Mr Hunt: If it went back to before
the licensing of landfill sites, that could well be the case.
In recent years the monitoring of what goes into a landfill site
is much more rigourous. Speaking from our point of view, we have
an inert landfill site and it is monitored to the hilt so people
are fully aware of what is in there. If someone then, in times
to come, wants to build on that land then there are an awful lot
of engineering surveys to be done before it would ever be deemed
feasible to build on. You also have to take into account the potential
gasses that may come out as well. I suspect that what you have
got is a problem with a site that is quite old and pre-licence.
Sir David Williams: The first
house I bought was on a former gravel pit, largely filled with
bomb damage rubble, but there were some subsidence problems and
the houses were built on big concrete rafts. Is it not caveat
emptor in cases like this?
Mr Baxter: Some people carrying
hardcore would say that it is not waste, we are recycling it,
we are going to fill a farmer's pathway. This waste has been put
there; there is no control over it and it is going off to be foundations
for a new house that is going to be built. Again, when does it
become waste? The definition of waste may need to be looked at,
but in my view unless you have a waste transfer notice, you may
say you are recycling it—it is the same thing with tyres
when they go outside the UK, because they fail the UK standards
they may be okay in Ethiopia—and this is what you get time
and time again; it is not waste. What may seem waste to you is
not waste to me because we are recycling. It is the same with
somebody's hardcore; it is not waste, we are going to take it
to a farmer's land because he has asked us to fill in his yard
because it is very muddy at the moment. I do think we need to
look at that as well.
Q166 Mr Challen: You clearly agree that
there is considerable confusion about definitions here. Have you
made representations to DEFRA, particularly from local government,
about this? Has it been a problem for councils to deal with?
Mr Baxter: My understanding is
that there are discussions on-going. There is a cross-cabinet
group looking at fly-tipping at the moment, I believe. I have
sat on one or two—DFT, DEFRA, OPDM have been there—and
they are talking about construction waste.
Q167 Mr Challen: In the context of fly-tipping?
Mr Baxter: Yes.
Q168 Mr Challen: This is authorised waste
that councils will be aware of where people are maybe stretching
definitions.
Mr Baxter: As I say, there are
discussions going on, but I do think it needs to be tidied up.
If it is construction waste that is going to be recycled and used
as part of a construction site there should perhaps be a special
kind of notice about it: it is a waste transfer note however it
is being used at this site. At the moment it is a free for all
with construction waste.
Q169 Mr Challen: In terms of vehicles
that are displaying these special badges that you would like to
see, do you think that local authorities perhaps (or anybody else
such as the police) should have stop and search powers to pull
these vehicles up and see what they are carrying, where they are
taking it to and where it is from?
Sir David Williams: That is the
only way it is going to work.
Mr Baxter: The powers are already
there; they came in within the Anti-Social Behaviour Act recently.
I think they were enacted on 31 March. They do have the powers
to stop, search and seize vehicles that they suspect—or
maybe suspected—are involved in fly-tipping, but it does
not go far enough. I guess it comes back to what I originally
said that if you are carrying waste and you are not a registered
carrier and you do not have the adequate paperwork, then your
vehicle should be seized pending enquiries to verify that you
are who you say you are and what you say you are.
Q170 Mr Challen: Are there any areas
that this consultation missed out on that you thought should be
addressed?
Sir David Williams: We have a
concern about the related area of the EU directive on hazardous
waste. At worst we think we may finish up with an embarrassment
like we did with CFCs and fridges where in the country as a whole
we were caught unawares about this. That is a loosely related
area, but I presume you have already had some evidence about that.
Q171 Chairman: Yes, the Environment Agency
expressed great concern about this whole area.
Sir David Williams: Yes.
Q172 Mrs Clark: If I can widen the topic
not to exclude fly-tipping but also to include other types of
environmental crime such as anti-social behaviour, do you actually
think that local authorities are doing all they could within existing
resources? It is very easy to say that what they really need is
more money across the board, but is that really fair?
Sir David Williams: I think that
local authorities have done quite a lot better. Take graffiti,
the simple example, I would have thought that most local authorities
have doubled or quadrupled the amount of money they are spending
on this and in my own authority we have had better results from
this by rapid removal of graffiti. We have also mobilised the
local community in action days as well which I think I mentioned
the last time we were here. It is patchy, to be fair. Peter and
I were talking about dog fouling before we came in. We think considerable
progress has been made about that.
Mr Hunt: I am not saying that
we have it perfect, by any means; we have an awful lot still to
do. My local authority woke up to the problems some 18 months
ago and made positive moves in the budget process to direct monies
in this direction, largely fuelled by the views of the public,
by CPA inspections. We started directing significant sums and
started a campaign.
Q173 Chairman: One of the questions in
our mind is why 18 months ago a whole load of local authorities
suddenly woke up to the fact that there was a problem. The problem
has been there for a long time, why are the solutions so recent?
Sir David Williams: I do not think
they are that recent; I just think it has got a much bigger public
concern and there is an obligation and a pressure on the local
authorities to do it. I think they have been doing it for a long
time.
Q174 Mrs Clark: I am finding more and
more that what I am getting on the doorstep is not huge burglaries
but, frankly, dog muck. I am getting it from house after house
after house and also the state of, say, the garden four houses
up that has suddenly become an absolute tip. This is really grinding
on at people now. They are becoming ground down by it.
Mr Baxter: To answer your question,
"Are councils doing enough?" certainly ENCAMS have shown
that only a third of local authorities actually take any action
on fly-tipping which is disappointing. However, I think that many
have found it difficult to understand and work their way through
the legislation. Many do not have the political vision to tackle
these issues. We talk about anti-social behaviour and is it the
crack dealer, is it prostitution? No, actually it is dog poo,
it is the fly-posting, the fly-tipping, the graffiti, the abandoned
vehicles, noisy neighbours. MORI has shown that time and time
again and authorities are now waking up to that. Fly-tipping has
been here for many a year as has graffiti and fly-posting, but
it is people's perceptions of crime that is prevalent. Recently
I went to Birmingham—this is a side issue but it is quite
interesting—and I sat next to quite an elderly lady probably
in her mid-70s. She said to me, "Where are you going?"
I said, "Birmingham". She said, "Oh, right. I am
off to Ireland." I said, "Oh, good, that will be nice".
She said, "Where do you live?" I said, "Camberwell".
She said, "That's very posh, isn't it? That's in Surrey,
isn't it?" I said, "No, it's between Peckham and Brixton".
"Oh, okay." I said, "Where do you live?" She
said, "Orpington". I said, "Orpington's very posh.
I worked there many years ago." She said, "Not any more,
dear. Very unsafe." I said, "Why's that?" She said,
"Graffiti everywhere. Not safe to go out." I think that
says it all. There is this fear that if I go out something is
going to happen to me. I think that typifies the whole issue around
envirocrime. As I said, I am fortunate to get the national picture
and it is about creating a can-do culture; it is about having
a clear political vision at a local level that we do not tolerate
envirocrime in our area. I think there are some very good authorities
that are very pro-active in resolving it. Certainly Camden are
very good; Westminster are very good; Kensington and Chelsea are
very good as are Newham, but it is very hit and miss and it is
very local. I do think for those authorities that do want to take
a pro-active approach the legislation needs to be changed to encourage
other people to start taking a lead. Things are beginning to move.
Q175 Mrs Clark: On that perhaps you could
encourage Lambeth to be a bit more pro-active.
Mr Baxter: I live in Lambeth but
I do not work for them anymore.
Q176 Mrs Clark: If you could have more
money, if there was a possibility of extra resourcing, where should
it go?
Sir David Williams: In this area
what I would put money into is not local authorities directly;
I would have a big anti-litter campaign because litter irritates
people almost as much as graffiti. Local authorities have been
criticised by ENCAMS for not doing a very good job as if it were
the local authorities who were dropping the litter almost. We
think in a way they have not seen the wood for the trees because,
to go back to what I said earlier, if the litter was not dropped
in the first place you would not have the problem. Something like
£500 million is spent across the local authorities in England
street cleaning and all these sorts of areas. A very small proportion
of that spent on an aggressive publicity anti-litter campaign
would make an enormous difference. You have to change the climate.
Litter is probably not as difficult as some of the other things,
but if you got a culture of not dropping litter we would save
hundreds of millions of pounds of public money. We would not need
to be saying that we need more money to get up to a certain standard.
Graffiti is very much more visible and very much more irritating
to people generally and that is part of the reason for the great
irritation and pubic protests.
Mr Baxter: I think campaigning
is important; you could spend a million pounds on campaigning.
However, I do think you need it to have teeth. Youth litter is
an issue and if they are not going to get punished for it they
will continue to do it. I think we do need to change hearts and
minds. There have been some great campaigns up and down the United
Kingdom trying to do that, but ultimately this comes back to firm
enforcement on those who are responsible for dropping litter.
I do not think it is about resources necessarily; it is not about
flooding local authority with money. It is about realigning your
services to meet the needs of that community and thinking creatively
how you can overcome these issues. Many authorities will have
sections to look at refuse and cleansing and where the services
are in-house they could merge those and improve their skills and
training to identify envirocrime. Why not empower your local road
sweeper and the mobile crews who have to pick up these bags on
a daily basis to start issuing fixed penalty notices and make
them environmental bounty hunters. That is something we did in
Southwark. It is not just flooding a local authority with more
money—here is another £3 million to resolve this issue—it
is going back to the source, punishing those responsible for putting
it there in the first place, looking at the services you currently
have. You could think about using Trading Standards officers and
Environmental Health officers when they visit premises to do food
safety checks, that they can also issue a Section 34 notice asking
them what happens to their waste. It is about thinking creatively.
Any additional money is always welcome, but it is not just about
money, it is about how you use your resources. We have an education
team within my team at Southwark. I have an enforcement team and
an education team who go into schools to talk about graffiti,
fly-posting, fly-tipping; do not play in abandoned vehicles if
they are burnt out, when you are playing football in the park
watch out for needles and dog poo. We need to get them to think
in primary schools, secondary schools, through businesses; it
goes right the way through everything. I think campaigning is
very important. Education is very important. However it still
comes back to "I know if I do this, something is going to
happen".
Q177 Mrs Clark: I think you have really
answered my next question which is that it is really about mainstreaming.
It has to go through the centre of all policies throughout the
local authority, not just a one-off campaign—however successful—not
just a time limited strategy.
Sir David Williams: Peter has
been involved in a campaign and has brought some literature.
Mr Hunt: I endorse what my two
colleagues have said. It is about education. It is about getting
the message across that is everywhere for everyone to see. It
then has to be followed by the enforcement side of it. What we
are trying to do in Blackburn and Darwen is badge everything.
It is identifying that this is what it is all about so that whenever
they see that badge it is about "Thrash the Trash" message
(forgive the wording but it catches with people) and it really
has focussed people's minds and attention. As we were talking
before about dog fouling, five years ago people would allow their
dog to foul and probably not look around to see if they had been
seen; now they may allow the dog to foul but they look around
to see if they have been seen and they pick it up if they have.
We need to get that with litter. I travel to France quite a lot
and there is nowhere near that same problem there. We are all
Europeans; why does it happen there? It is because it is in the
culture and that is what we have to change.
Q178 Mrs Clark: In terms of anti-social
behaviour, is it just a youth thing do you think?
Sir David Williams: No.
Q179 Mrs Clark: Is it predominantly young
people?
Mr Baxter: Littering or anti-social
behaviour?
| 
