Examination of Witnesses (Questions 40-59)
2 DECEMBER 2003
MARGARET BECKETT
MP AND MS
LINDSAY CORNISH
Q40 Chairman: I imagine you do occasionally
speak to ODPM on matters relating to waste, despite rumours to
the contrary?
Margaret Beckett: That is not
the problem; it is whether the authorities will want to give detailed
figures of precisely what they are doing in this and other areas.
Q41 Mr Chaytor: Secretary of State, can
you tell us when you think the landfill tax should hit the £35
per tonne rate?
Margaret Beckett: No, I cannot.
Obviously, as you know—
Q42 Mr Chaytor: Why not, because it is
a central part of the Government's waste management strategy.
Margaret Beckett: It is true that
it is a central part of the Government's waste management strategy
to make it very clear to industry and to all players that that
the landfill tax will increase, and what its destination is. There
is also the escalator of at least a few pounds a year. What industry
have said to us—and I accept it may not be precisely what
they said to you—is that in many ways the most important
thing from their point of view is to know the ultimate destination,
rather than the precise speed of travel. I understand that it
is experience from elsewhere in the European Union that there
had been a variation in the speed with which this has taken place;
but where targets had been set two or three years ahead, then
you could start to get people making the investment and making
change to head towards those targets. It has been the certainty
of knowing they were heading somewhere rather than the speed.
Obviously, it is such a substantial increase from the present
£14 that one would not be looking two to three years ahead;
but the industry seemed to want from us the certainty of a substantial
increase and also a degree of flexibility. It gives us a chance
to assess how fast we go, and depending on the circumstances at
the time. We would be reluctant to set a detailed pattern of progression
towards it and then have to change it because circumstances had
changed.
Q43 Mr Chaytor: What circumstances could
require the Government to change that detailed—
Margaret Beckett: If we found
that we were meeting targets faster than had anticipated, we might
look at it again; if, on the other hand, if it was moving more
slowly than anticipated you might want to look at it again. It
is not in any case a matter for me; it is a matter for the Chancellor.
Q44 Mr Chaytor: But your Department will
make representations to the Chancellor and to the Treasury about
this.
Margaret Beckett: We have a general
and constructive dialogue with the Treasury on a whole range of
issues, of which this is one.
Q45 Mr Chaytor: Is that dialogue suggesting
that you are content with the £35 target not being hit until
the beginning of the parliament after next, because that is the
likelihood at the moment, unless the present amount is significantly
increased?
Margaret Beckett: We will have
to assess that as we go along.
Q46 Mr Chaytor: Is your assessment that
if it were not until 2010-11, it would deliver the reductions
in landfill that were necessary?
Margaret Beckett: I am afraid
I cannot answer that question. It is too early to tell. The target,
after all, has only recently been set, and was very much welcomed.
At this stage, most people have indicated to us that it is the
overall signal they are looking at rather than a specific timetable.
Q47 Mr Chaytor: But the Government has
done an analysis apparently, which I think was referred to in
the Government's response to our earlier report, assessing the
level of tax which would help achieve the landfill targets necessary.
This analysis has not been made public, so far as we are aware;
so my question is: what is the objection to making that analysis
public so that this Committee and other interested parties could
judge for themselves what the timescale for the £35 target
should be? Is there any objection to making that analysis public?
Margaret Beckett: I am not so
sure that it was our analysis, but I will certainly undertake
to look at that issue.
Q48 Mr Chaytor: It would be very helpful
if you could let us know whose analysis it was, which branch of
Government, and why that cannot be made public. To go back to
an earlier point about the issue of campaigns and the Re-Thinking
Rubbish Campaign, the underlying feeling behind Simon Thomas's
question I think was that our Committee is sceptical about some
of the public awareness campaigns that different Government departments
have launched in recent years. In terms of the new campaign, my
own view would be that given that so many members of the public
have not even thought about rubbish, it is difficult to urge them
to re-think it. Are you convinced that these campaigns really
do have an effect? Are you sure that the Government can call on
the right kind of expertise to get the message across in the way
that companies operating in consumer goods markets can call on
expertise? Have you evaluated the last major environmental campaign,
Are You Doing Your Bit? If so, what did the evaluation say?
Margaret Beckett: I understand
your reservations about government-run national awareness campaigns,
though it is not the Government that will be running these schemes;
it is the Waste Resources and Action Programme people. I cannot
recall the answer to your question about whether a detailed evaluation
of that particular campaign was carried out, but I can let you
know.[7]
I referred to the money being made available. Half a million of
the budget for this year is funding the continuation of the Re-Think
Rubbish Campaign. That will include a full evaluation of its effectiveness,
so that will be undertaken.
Q49 Mr Chaytor: Which leaves less for
the campaign itself.
Margaret Beckett: Yes, I realise
that. Unfortunately, the resources are not unlimited. We took
the view, and I hope it is a view with which the Committee concurs,
that it is important not just to fund campaigns but also to evaluate
their effectiveness. That is why this is being undertaken. The
other half is going to go into the pilot projects, which will
be carried out in the early part of next year; and the hope is
that that full roll-out will be in April. There is both an evaluation
and some piloting. There will also be some funds available perhaps
for existing local campaigns that had had a demonstrable effect
on participation in recycling, as I said to Mr Thomas. Some of
it could be made available to well-developed campaigns that would
be ready to start in the New Year; and we will be asking the local
authorities to bid for this funding from early December.
Q50 Gregory Barker: Secretary of State,
do you think that rather timid response to Mr Chaytor's question
is part of the reason that this morning at a seminar for the EAC,
WasteWatch put up a slide on the waste issue, headlined "Continuing
lack of Government leadership; fear of telling the public and
industry what to do, and hesitant use of fiscal or legislative
instruments"? There is a perception amongst the professionals
and experts out there that there is a distinct lack of leadership
in this whole area, and your response there has rather reinforced
that view.
Margaret Beckett: They are legitimately
entitled, of course, to voice criticism; but it does seem to me
that we have done a great deal since the re-assessment of the
Waste Strategy 2000, with the Waste Summit, followed by the Strategy
Unit report, followed by the setting-up of the new unit and the
programmes that it is now undertaking. All of that has been quite
a considerable investment of time and effort on the part of people
in my department. Of course, you can always find people who say,
"we should have more funding; we should have more leadership"
but, to be honest, I think it would be helpful sometimes if people
concentrated more on what they can actually do, instead of saying,
"we would do more, if only we had better leadership".
I am not standing in anybody's way! They are perfectly entitled
to make much more effort.
Q51 Sue Doughty: I would like to turn
to the whole issue of planning because there are a number of areas
where planning seems to be identified as one of the things that
is stopping us going forward; in fact the Government response
to the problem of waste planning. It was said the review of Planning
Policy Guidance 10 would provide a way forward; but if planning
guidelines are going to be desperately late if we want to use
them, to deal with the problem that is galloping ahead of us of
how to deal with hazardous waste. There are a whole lot of other
issues in relation to that. We need waste acceptance criteria,
and regulations for hazardous waste. In fact, I understand from
a letter I received today that was issued by your Department on
Friday, that these regulations will not be before parliament until
spring 2004. There are issues about putting in for plans. We have
already heard today about 37 hazardous waste plants. We seem to
be worrying an awful lot. Do you think that PPG10 is going to
bale us out?
Margaret Beckett: If I could deal
with the waste acceptance Criteria, the Hazardous Waste Forum
fairly recently set up a treatment and capacity task force, including
stakeholders from industry. They are looking at the issue and
looking at progress and advising on facilities that are needed.
They will report to the Forum and then us. Of course, we are still
consulting about when the full waste acceptance criteria ought
to apply. That consultation ends on 17 December, so obviously
we will need to look at that as speedily as we reasonably can,
but we are still engaged in the process. You asked me about the
whole issue of PPG10 and how that can be reviewed. We hope and
anticipate that the new Planning and Compulsory Purchase Bill,
which you may not have had time to scrutinise, will make some
improvements in handling and will enable us to draw together some
of the threads, because I completely accept that the existing
PPGs in September 1999 need reviewing.
Q52 Sue Doughty: How much confidence
do you have that when we have to start getting the planning consents
in place from July 2004 and having to implement these, that all
the mechanics will be in place so that the industry can put forward
plans, which are usually very difficult to get accepted, get them
implemented and on-stream to meet the targets that we will have
to meet?
Margaret Beckett: I am a cautious
soul, and I am never willing to say, "it will be perfectly
all right". All I can say is that we are mindful of the problems
that we are facing and will do our utmost, along with those who
are charged with delivering in this area to make sure that this
will happen as fully as we can possibly manage. I am certainly
not going to say, I am afraid, that I am absolutely confident
that there will not be any problems. That way disaster lies, experience
suggests to me.
Q53 Sue Doughty: Do you feel this is
really a strategic approach, given the different areas that we
need to look at, the difficulty of what sort of treatment it is
going to be, where the planning is going to be, and what the regulations
say are the criteria? I understand that there is a necessary period
of consultation and design, but in terms of working backwards
from when we need to do this, where do you feel the strategy is
now? I can quite understand why you said what you did, but do
you think the strategy is going to deliver, even if it does not
deliver to the date?
Margaret Beckett: Yes, we think
so. We have tried to engage, both through the Forum and also through
bodies such as the task group, those who have a greater degree
of expertise and who will be working on this and able to deliver
the targets. I have to admit that my confidence is shaken slightly
by discovering that you might have been given different figures,
but we do believe that it is within our capacity, broadly speaking,
to tackle these problems, and tackle them within the timescale,
hopefully not with any overlap.
Q54 Mr Francois: You mentioned, Secretary
of State, that there was consultation. As my colleague Sue Doughty
says, that is in many instances appropriate. However, one theme
that recurs in your evidence again and again is that decisions
are awaited. In the hour that you have been here, again and again
we have heard that decisions are awaited on one subject or another.
Why is it, putting it bluntly, that Defra seems to be so indecisive
in this field?
Margaret Beckett: Well, because,
bluntly, it is only a year since we had the summit and the Strategy
and the report. It takes time to design programmes. It takes time
to put people in place and particularly to change structures,
if the feeling is that the structures that were there were not
as effective as one might have wished, and because, I fear, we
live in a democracy and people expect to be consulted about things.
That takes time as well.
Q55 Chairman: Can you tell us how long
you have known that the co-disposal ban will come in, in July
2004?
Margaret Beckett: Not offhand.
Q56 Chairman: It is probably about five
years. So there has been a bit of time to get the act together,
and we very much hope that your confidence will be fulfilled.
I was slightly disturbed to—
Margaret Beckett: Mr Francois
was asking me why Defra had not done the work. Can I remind you
that Defra has only been in existence for two years.
Q57 Chairman: I am not sure that that
is a terribly convincing argument, to put it politely.
Margaret Beckett: Well, if your
case is that this is a unique failure of this Department, and
that people had known previously when the Department did not exist,
and that the Department should have done more when it was in existence,
in itself—
Chairman: I do not find the argument
any more convincing.
Q58 Sue Doughty: We have got to a stage
now where we are not convinced these will be in place. One of
the things that worries me about the 37 hazardous waste plants
is in connection with the last piece of literature that I read
about it, which I think came from the Environment Agency, which
was presented at a sustainable waste group. There is not likely
to be any plant at all in the south-east of England. Have you
any information on that?
Margaret Beckett: I do not have
any information on the sites, not with me anyway.
Q59 Sue Doughty: It is one of the most
densely populated areas of the country, generating the most waste,
and we may not have anything. Have we any contingency plans? Are
we learning the lessons of the past, particularly with fridges?
Margaret Beckett: The Environment
Agency is the responsible body to deal with these issues. I can
only repeat what I said earlier. We did set up in the year since
the summit and the Strategy Unit report, despite the view expressed
by some members of the Committee that not enough has happened
fast enough, the Hazardous Waste Forum, among other things. We
have engaged players in the discussion. I repeat that they are
charged with looking at the issues and reporting to us if there
is more work that needs to be done. Up to this point in time,
the indication has been given that it is not necessarily going
to be easy but that it can be done.
7 Please see supplementary memorandum, Ev 11. Back
| 
