House of Commons - Environment, Food and Rural Affairs

Select Committee on Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Fourth Report

3 Issues of concern

13. The most frequently repeated concern of our witnesses was that the Government had failed to clarify in good time what would be expected of the recycling sector once the Directives were implemented.[16] As a result companies had not been able to reach investment decisions, with the result that there was a risk that there would simply not be systems and equipment in place to deal these waste streams. For example the British Metals Recycling Association told us that only one of its 2,500 members had been able to invest in the facilities needed to fulfil the requirements of the ELV Directive.[17] The Environmental Services Association told us that:

"with less than a year before the WEEE Directive becomes law … [our] members are still unsure of the Government's timetable for producing relevant guidance and information. Such uncertainty impacts directly on issues related to land acquisition, planning, and the construction and permitting of the new facilities".[18]

14. The Minister for Environment told us that he had some sympathy with the difficulties faced by those who need to make decisions about investment.[19] He argued that the ELV Directive in particular raises "complex issues", and that the difficulties were not unique to the United Kingdom. However, the Better Regulation Taskforce put it well:

A balance is needed between flexibility and certainty. Stakeholders want the Government to take sufficient time to explore any flexibility offered by the Directives so that, as far as possible, the Regulations meet the needs of England and Wales. However, when it comes to making investments, they look for as much certainty as possible. The timing of business investment decisions is crucially dependent on having sufficient information available to reach a judgement on when to invest. Invest too soon and there is a risk that new facilities will stand idle; invest too late and business opportunities will be lost.

The starting point for giving stakeholders this certainty is to give them an understanding what the Government is trying to achieve.[20]

We strongly recommend that the Government ensure that, as soon as possible, it issues clear guidance to the recycling industry about exactly what is expected of it, in order that it can make decisions to investment in new facilities. If it fails to do so it will exacerbate the potential problems associated with these Directives - such as, in the case of the ELV Directive, an increase in the number of abandoned cars. We further recommend that over time the Government continue to update its guidance, and take steps to communicate its wishes clearly to stakeholders.

The 'own marque' system

15. It is currently intended that after 2007 each motor manufacturer will be responsible for proper disposal of its own marque of vehicles under the ELV Directive. In effect producers will contract directly with chains or groups of vehicle dismantlers to deal with 'their' waste vehicles. An alternative approach, advanced by the British Metals Recycling Association amongst others, is that producers should pay vehicle dismantlers indirectly, via a central pooled fund. Under such a system any dismantler could deal with any make of vehicle.

16. There are arguments in favour of each approach. The Minister of State from the Department of Trade and Industry claimed that "the own marque approach is a pure implementation of that principle that each manufacturer is responsible for the vehicles that they have produced",[21] since manufacturers will be directly responsible for disposing of their 'own' vehicles. Others are unconvinced. The British Metals Recycling Association told us that the own marque system would give manufacturers "inappropriate leverage" over recyclers.[22] The potential problems are twofold: first, manufacturers are likely to favour larger vehicle dismantlers, or those organised in chains, encouraging consolidation in the sector; and, second, the uncertainty resulting from the fact that manufacturers could choose to take work away from dismantlers overnight might discourage investment. The Association argued that "what we should be aiming for is a structure which involves the greatest number of recycling sites so we can continue to have neighbourhood recycling opportunities".[23]

17. The British Metals Recycling Association drew attention to three reports produced for the Government, each of which recommended a 'central fund' approach as opposed to the own marque system. The evidence we have received makes us seriously question the 'own marque' approach to funding the disposal of end of life vehicles after 2007. The objective should be to ensure that complying with the ELV Directive is as straightforward as possible. We urge the Government urgently to re-examine whether that objective will best be achieved by encouraging consolidation and concentration in the dismantling sector, as the 'own marque' approach seems likely to do.

Issues for local authorities

Dealing with abandoned cars

18. Underpinning our inquiry has been the concern that if the Directives are not implemented in the best way possible a fiasco like the 'fridge mountain' might result, with the risk that waste will be 'fly tipped'. This is a particular concern in relation to the ELV Directive. If end of life vehicles are worth more to vehicle dismantlers than the cost of their disposal they will pay to collect and dispose of them. Thus the market is dramatically affected by movements in world prices for scrap metal, and by disposal costs.[24] The fall in the price of scrap over recent years (which has recently recovered somewhat) has been accompanied by increases in abandoned cars. The effect of the ELV Directive will be that vehicle dismantlers will charge between £50 and £150 per vehicle for disposal. So between now and 2007, when the last owners of vehicles will be responsible for their disposal, there is a risk of a significant rise in the number of abandoned vehicles.

19. The evidence we received about how great the increase in the number of cars was likely to be was mixed:

There was general agreement that around 340,000 vehicles are abandoned each year already;[25]
West Sussex County Council told us that a sixth of all end of life vehicles were currently abandoned, and that "if the cost of depollution goes up we could see an awful lot of those transferring into the abandoned vehicle route";[26]
The British Vehicle Salvage Federation offered a 'guesstimate' of an increase in the number of abandoned vehicles to 500,000 per year, although one of its members told us that the number "is going to double, if not more";[27]
The British Metals Recycling Association said that "the figure will probably appear to quadruple";[28] and
The Environment Agency said that it thought the number of abandoned vehicles would go up, but would not double.[29]

20. The Government, however, said that it was "not convinced that there is going to be a problem on the scale that some people have predicted", although it accepted that "it is inevitable in the transition period".[30] The Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders said that although there would be "some increase in the number of abandoned vehicles", the problem would be contained by "steps that both the Government and DVLA and other operators are taking".[31] In particular the DVLA has introduced a system of continuous registration of vehicles,[32] which the Government believes "will make a big difference".[33] Nevertheless, the Government obviously believes that some increase in vehicle abandonment before 2007 is inevitable: the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, for example, has revised the Fire Service target which refers to fires deliberately started in abandoned cars to allow for the effects of the ELV Directive.[34]

21. The response of local authorities to the disposal of abandoned vehicles varies: there are examples of good practice. We were told that the 'environmentally friendly' disposal of a vehicle can cost a local authority around £360 (including police, fire and council staff time).[35] Until 2007, when responsibility passes to manufacturers, local authorities will be obliged to pay for increased numbers of abandoned vehicles - and in evidence they powerfully argued that they simply do not have the financial resources to do so.[36] The Minister for Environment assured us that the Government "has made additional sums available to local authorities for dealing with the problem [of abandoned cars]",[37] but it is not clear that these resources are specifically for the problems which might arise from the ELV Directive. Therefore, we recommend that the Government look again at the funds it has made available to local authorities for dealing with abandoned vehicles, specify in response to this report exactly what these sums are and how they have been allocated and distributed, and ensure that they are adequate to deal with increased abandonment up to 2007.

Problems with the 'own marque' system

22. After 2007 it is hoped that the problem of abandonment may diminish somewhat as producers, rather than last owners, become financially responsible for end of life vehicles. However, it is unlikely to go away altogether, and it appears that local authorities will continue to have a role to play at least in identifying abandoned vehicles and arranging for them to be taken away. We are concerned that an 'own marque' approach will mean that it is more difficult for local authorities to deal with the problems of abandonment, since they will not simply be able to use a single contractor to deal with any and all abandoned vehicles. We invite the Government to reflect on the issue, and to explain exactly how in practice local authorities will deal with abandoned vehicles after 2007.

Civic amenity sites

23. Several of our witnesses discussed the way that waste electrical and electronic equipment would be collected from private homes as required by the WEEE Directive. Although collection of larger items by or on behalf of retailers or distributors, and separate collection by local authorities of smaller items, would be needed, witnesses also emphasised the importance of civic amenity sites, to which individuals could take waste.[38] The Environmental Services Association (ESA) said that civic amenity sites "will play a key role … by facilitating its [WEEE's] collection and separation from the municipal waste stream". It argued that further development of existing civic amenity sites would be "easier, quicker and more cost-effective" than developing new collection and deposit infrastructure.[39]

24. However, there are a range of concerns about the existing civic amenity infrastructure and about its development. The ESA identified issues of

Physically small sites, unable to take increased volumes of waste;
Inaccessible sites, or sites which are unable to take a large throughput of vehicles;
The need for licences, in some cases, for hazardous materials (such as cathode ray tubes). Obtaining amendments to waste management licences will take time and impose costs on the operators of sites; and
Sites might be restricted in what they can handle by the conditions placed on their original planning permission. Amending planning permission will also be costly and time-consuming.[40]

Moreover, in large parts of the country, particularly in inner cities, civic amenity sites may not even exist. Thus some expansion of the infrastructure is inevitable. We believe that civic amenity sites have a crucial role to play in ensuring that waste electrical and electronic equipment can be collected separately from the rest of the municipal waste stream. We recommend that the current network of civic amenity sites be expanded, so that such sites are easily accessible to all. We recommend further development of those sites which already exist. In order to facilitate these recommendations we also recommend that the Government find ways to streamline the process of gaining and amending waste management licences for civic amenity sites, and of gaining and amending planning permission.

Issues for the Environment Agency

25. Both Directives will place new duties on the Environment Agency. In particular, the Agency will have responsibility for "regulating storage sites and treatment facilities for both ELV and WEEE; monitoring and enforcement of those sites to ensure compliance; and monitoring and enforcement of non-permitted sites".[41] The Agency also says that "there are other duties which may fall to the Agency … but as yet these are unclear. For example, registering producers, importers and compliance schemes for producer responsibility obligations and also for auditing achievement of recovery and recycling obligations".[42] In addition, we have previously commented that the Agency should not "lose sight" of environmental crimes such as fly-tipping,[43] so we trust that it will respond vigorously to the problem of abandoned vehicles.

26. These additional responsibilities will place strain on the Agency. The British Vehicle Salvage Federation says that "we are also seriously concerned as to whether the Environment Agency will have sufficient resources to operate the new permitting requirements …and be able to police the system".[44] However, although the Agency agreed that it faced a number of challenges, it said that "it is important to keep this in perspective".[45] Moreover, the Minister for Environment pointed out that the Agency had already received an increase in its budget to address its increasing workload. But we note the call of the Better Regulation Taskforce for the Environment Agency to be granted additional resources by Government, or given powers to raise funds, specifically to deal with the ELV and WEEE Directives.[46] We urge the Government to ensure that the Environment Agency is adequately resourced to deal both with the requirements of implementation of the Directives and with their consequences, and to identify in its response to this report exactly how much additional resource has been or will be allocated to the Agency for this purpose.

Printer cartridges

27. We received evidence from those involved in recycling printer cartridges which argued that cartridges should be included within the provisions of the WEEE Directive. It was pointed out that over the lifecycle of a laser printer, for example, ten times more waste by volume would result from the replacement of cartridges than would from disposing of the printer itself. The claim was made that to subject printer cartridges to the Directive would be good for the environment, since it would encourage their remanufacture and recycling.[47] Although the Government expressed sympathy with the argument made, it argued that "printer cartridges are consumables and they are just not in the scope of the Directive, unless they happen to be in the product when it is discarded".[48] Although we understand the argument made by the Government, we are concerned that excluding printer cartridges from the WEEE Directive will not encourage their sustainable re-use. We invite the Government to think again about the matter.

16 see, for example, Ev 58, para.12; Ev 25, para.26 Back

17 Q 275 Back

18 Ev 25, para.26 Back

19 Q320 Back

20 Better Regulation Taskforce (2003) Environmental Regulation: Getting the message across, July 2003, p.12 Back

21 Q326 Back

22 Q260 Back

23 Q259 Back

24 See, for example, the Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders (Q15) Back

25 Ev 80, para.2 Back