Examination of Witnesses (Questions 300-319)
15 DECEMBER 2003
MR ELLIOT
MORLEY, MR
STEPHEN TIMMS,
MS SUE
ELLIS AND
MR JONATHAN
STARTUP
Q300 Mr Mitchell: The consultation paper
which was due tomorrow?
Mr Timms: It is going to be published
in the new year.
Q301 Mr Mitchell: Do we know when?
Mr Startup: We have certainly
not had anything which was on the stocks for publication tomorrow
which has been cancelled.
Mr Timms: There are some misapprehensions
around in this area.
Q302 Mr Mitchell: When you say every
other state was late with the directive, is that some particular
difficulty with the directive?
Mr Timms: I think it has proved
to be an extremely complex directive. It has taken us a fair amount
of time to get our heads round these things and reach a proposed
way forward. I guess that has been everyone else's experience
as well. Nobody at all implemented on time.
Q303 Mr Mitchell: The problem that the
metal recyclers have given us is that there has not been sufficient
clarity—I am talking now about the end of life vehicles
directive but I think it also applies to the WEEE directive—in
the instructions and the decisions made so that they cannot invest
as they are going to have to invest to fulfil the intentions of
these directives. Until government and the agencies—I accept
there is a large number involved—gives them a clear definition
of what has to be done and how, they cannot get money from the
banks; they cannot invest and they cannot begin to operate. It
is getting dreadfully late in the day.
Mr Timms: There will be a preferred
way forward in the consultation document that is published in
January. In the case of the WEEE directive, there has been much
less contention. I hope that it will be much clearer for everybody
where we are going on the ELV directive once the document is published
in the new year.
Q304 Mr Mitchell: The argument has been
that officials and departments do not seem to know the way the
market operates or what is to be done to kick start investment
in this area and it is getting late.
Mr Timms: I do not agree with
that. We have certainly been through a very thorough, lengthy
process as a result of which we are in a position to put forward
a preferred way forward in the document in January. I think that
will be based on a good understanding and certainly an enormous
amount of discussion with everybody involved. There is a wide
range of different parties with an interest in this. There is,
I think, quite a good understanding of how the dynamics of this
market operate. I accept that some people will disagree with the
conclusions we have reached, but I think that is inevitable.
Q305 Mr Mitchell: The argument was they
had to apply in January and the applications were to go in before
it is clear what they have to be doing.
Mr Timms: I do not think they
will. We will be consulting in January. The document will be published
in January. There will probably be a slightly shorter consultation
period than there normally would be because there have been earlier
rounds of consultation and then we would hope to be able to lay
some regulations in March. That will be in adequate time for people
to do what needs to be done.
Q306 Mr Mitchell: The clarification I
have on the final consultation is that the outcome on the ELV
directive, which was due tomorrow, has now been postponed.
Mr Timms: There was nothing due
tomorrow.
Q307 Mr Mitchell: So nothing in December
but something in January? Is that what we are hoping?
Mr Timms: Yes.
Q308 Mr Mitchell: What preparations are
you making for a festival of abandoned vehicles up and down the
country before 2007? Is this a threat?
Mr Morley: DTI are the lead department
on this issue. DEFRA is obviously involved on permitting, licensing,
and the Environment Agency functions. Although abandoned vehicles
are not a DEFRA lead issue in relation to waste management, we
do have an involvement in this. In that respect, the government
has made additional sums available to local authorities for dealing
with the problem. We are not convinced that there is going to
be a problem on the scale that some people have predicted, but
it is inevitable in the transition period. Abandoned vehicles
are a problem now which is why we have put measures in place,
not only the funding but also we have given enhanced powers to
local authorities in relation to the shortening periods of notification.
We have run some experiments. We are giving local authorities
powers to clamp and remove cars which are unlicensed. A lot of
abandoned vehicles are unlicensed which is not a surprise, because
they are often uninsured as well. The problem of abandoned vehicles
goes much wider than the issue of the end of vehicle life directive.
We do believe that both these directives from the DEFRA point
of view are very desirable in relation to the outcomes that we
will see. A free take back service for vehicles will certainly
resolve the problem of abandoned vehicles which is a very longstanding
one that has become worse in recent years. Also, the WEEE directive
will help us meet our targets on recycling and reuse. In that
respect, both these directives fulfil a very useful role. It is
true that the details on the end of life vehicle directive are
very complicated. It is not an issue just with our country; it
is an issue with a number of countries. There are a number of
options that have to be considered about the way forward and that
is why there is quite detailed consultation and issues have not
been resolved. I do not believe that is the case with the WEEE
directive, where I think people are generally satisfied with the
way that the consultation process has taken place. We are clear
on the direction in which we are going on that.
Q309 Mr Mitchell: I am not arguing with
the objective of the directives but on a priori grounds
surely it is to be expected—it certainly happened in the
case of fridges—that if you cannot dispose of them and the
fridges could not be taken back to Dixons or wherever to exchange
for new fridges, and if you are going to have to pay to get the
car disposed of instead of just being able to sell it for scrap
metal value, there is going to be an increase in abandonment?
Mr Morley: There is a difference
in the case of fridges. The problem with fridges is that there
was no capacity at the time to deal with them. We do have capacity
for end of life vehicles and WEEE for that matter.
Q310 Mr Mitchell: There are various environmental
requirements which require investment by the people who are going
to dispose of the vehicles.
Mr Morley: Under the new directives
that is certainly true but at the present time the main reason
for an increase in abandoned vehicles is the value of scrap. Instead
of getting a small sum of money from scrap vehicles, now it has
changed and you have to pay. The value of scrap has changed. I
notice that my own local scrap yards are now offering to take
vehicles free of charge and that is a market pressure.
Q311 Mr Mitchell: Scrap has gone up now,
we are told.
Mr Morley: That is absolutely
right. We are not complacent about this. We do understand that
there may be a transitional problem which is why we are working
with local authorities and the Home Office and looking at a range
of measures as to how we can deal with this.
Q312 Mr Mitchell: Are you going to help
local authorities to face that transitional problem financially?
Mr Morley: Yes.
Q313 Mr Mitchell: You certainly had to
pay afterwards with the fridges saga.
Mr Morley: That is right. We have
made £21 million available in the current financial year
and we will make a similar sum available next financial year as
well.
Q314 Mr Mitchell: What about the registration
procedures? Now we have continuous registration by DVLA. Is that
going to help?
Mr Morley: We believe that it
will make a big difference, yes.
Q315 Mr Mitchell: In terms of local authorities,
I was struck in north east Lincolnshire which always lags behind
north Lincolnshire, I am sure, that the problem of dealing with
vehicles being disposed of was (a) finding out the owner which
took too long and meanwhile the vehicles was left on the street,
was vandalised and eventually became a fire risk so the Fire Brigade
then has to have it taken away quickly; (b) there was the development
of some pound or protective place where the vandals could be kept
away. The vehicles could be towed and there was a waiting period
to find out who the owner was. Is this going to be financed on
a scale that is commensurate with that kind of problem?
Mr Morley: I am sure local authorities
would always argue that they could use more money, but we have
certainly made this money available to address problems such as
having a secure place to store the vehicles. We accept there is
a cost in that. We also recognise that there are hot spots in
relation to abandoned vehicles. You find in some parts of the
country this is much more prevalent than others. Perhaps north
east Lincolnshire is one of them. It does not appear to be a major
problem at the moment in north Lincolnshire, but that is because
they are all going to north east Lincolnshire. We have identified
30 hot spots around the country where we are working with local
authorities, with DTI jointly, the Home Office and DEFRA about
how we can give some extra support to those areas where there
are particular problems. There are ten schemes set up and running.
There has been one in London as well, Operation Cubitts, where
we have concentrated on where there are particular problems and
I am sure we can continue to do that.
Q316 Mr Mitchell: Are these hot spot
schemes trial areas which will eventually be extended?
Mr Morley: They could be. They
are certainly trial areas addressing parts of the country where
abandoned vehicles are a particular problem.
Q317 Mr Drew: I think it is fair to say
that on the evidence we have taken there is a marked difference
in terms of those who have submitted evidence between their confidence
in the ELV and the Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment Directive.
We have been told on a couple of occasions that in terms of the
government approach to this there are seven different agencies
including the two departments. Was there not a need from the outset
to have a clear lead in one ministry and all the different component
parts reporting to that ministry? From what we have been told,
there is confusion with ELV, about who is doing what, about the
level of competence within the ability to introduce this, and
this is now at least causing a great deal of concern in the metal
recyclers.
Mr Timms: The position has been
clear. It is a DTI lead with an implementation team drawing on
the other agencies that you have described. I am not aware of
anyone having been unclear that that was the position.
Q318 Mr Drew: You were not present but
I am sure you will read the evidence. In the previous session,
they were very critical of DEFRA. It is easy for me to blame poor
old DEFRA but the arguments go something like this: they felt
that the DEFRA team was under-powered, did not have the requisite
legal advice, did not do enough responses quickly enough. That
is only one part of it but the metal recyclers are key. If we
are not going to have a rather difficult period to go through,
they are key to how they invest in their industry and they work
with the producers to make sure we do not end up with these surplus
vehicles.
Mr Timms: We certainly recognise
the importance of the metal recyclers as critical players in this.
Indeed, I have a meeting with the Association shortly. For that
reason as well I will be reading the evidence they gave to the
Committee. It is a DTI lead in relation to this so I am not quite
sure why the criticism would be levelled in that way.
Mr Morley: I think they are a
bit confused. Because it is recycling, they think it might be
a DEFRA lead. It is very clearly a DTI lead and I do not accept
the criticisms of our DEFRA team, who I think have been working
very hard in this and they are very sensitive to the needs of
the recycling sector.
Q319 Mr Mitchell: The argument was that
it takes a long time for investment to come through and to be
paid off. There might be a queue for the equipment but we are
talking about investment for four, five or six years. To justify
that investment, they need absolute clarity in what they are being
told to do. They have not had clarity. The officials do not know
the market and the way the industry works well enough to give
them clear instructions as to what they are expected to do.
Mr Morley: I would dispute that.
I think it is in the interests of the metal and recycling sector
that we do not rush into this but we take a bit of time to get
these details right. I have a suspicion that some of their assumptions
on the kind of structures that we put in place may not necessarily
be right.
| 
