Examination of Witnesses (Questions 1-19)
10 NOVEMBER 2004
MR STEVE
LEE, MR
CHRIS MURPHY
AND MR
ROGER HEWITT
Q1 Chairman: Good afternoon, ladies and
gentlemen. Welcome to this first evidence session in the Committee's
inquiry into waste policy and the Landfill Directive. We have
one witness this afternoon: the Chartered Institution of Waste
Management. Welcome and thank you for your written evidence. We
welcome to the Committee Mr Steve Lee, the Chartered Institution's
Chief Executive. Mr Lee, you were Environment Agency, were you
not?
Mr Lee: I have
been a man of many colours!
Q2 Chairman: I was just
checking. I did not want to put my foot in it in any way. I thought
it must be the same person. You are very welcome, because you
have been kind enough on previous occasions to come and give us
evidence. You are accompanied by Chris Murphy, the Deputy Chief
Executive, and Roger Hewitt, Honorary Treasurer. I notice the
two Chief Executives have put the Treasurer in between, which
must say something about resources. I have to say, gentlemen,
that I still find this a confusing and difficult area to wrap
my mind around, if for nothing else than that the acronyms and
nomenclature are quite difficult if you are not a day-by-day practitioner
in the schemes. Looking at the Landfill Directive, I was struck
by a point in paragraph 1.2 in your evidence when you said, "Government
should also take this opportunity and that of the forthcoming
Waste Strategy Review to check whether all the strategic inputs
and responsibilities to support their work are in place",
which gave me the impression that the whole of the implementation
of the Landfill Directive was still in a malleable state where
you perhaps felt that not all the thinking that should have been
done had yet been done to make certain that its implementation
was going to go as successfully as possible. In answering that
question could you tell the Committee a little bit more about
what this Waste Strategy Review is about, what will it cover and
who to your knowledge is supposed to be involved in it?
Mr Lee: I will
take that one, if that is all right, Mr Chairman. Thank you for
that question. It is a very important and timely question. At
the moment we have Waste Strategy 2000 that was written to guide
the waste strategy for England and Wales. Subsequently Wales has
got its own waste strategy, and, coming up to 2005, it is time
for the five-year review of all the policies, instruments, tools
and ideas that were originally built into the original strategy.
The strategy review is to be led by Defra and most of their work
will be done towards the end of this year and through the first
half of 2005. For me the most important question is what are the
bounds to this review of the strategy? How far do you intend to
go? Do Defra intend only to concentrate on municipal wastes? Do
you intend to stretch out all of the policy to cover industrial
and commercial waste as well? The bounds to the strategy review
are absolutely fundamental for me, and that is something that
we will want to learn from Defra in the next two to three months.
Q3 Chairman: So they have
a role to sort all that out. The Committee has received quite
a lot of evidence from various groups on the implementation of
the Landfill Directive, and let me just entertain you with one
or two of the quotes that have been put to us. The Environmental
Services Association referred to the country as being "unprepared"
for the implementation of the Directive, and Biffa Waste Service's
comment was that the Government had failed to provide adequate
information and guidance to waste producers. You, on the other
hand, took a different view. You said that the changes were "well
heralded", but you also recommended that the Government should
give greater attention to communication of waste initiatives.
Why the difference? Why does the trade think it is a bit of a
dog's breakfast and you think it is all right?
Mr Hewitt: I do
not think there is that much of a difference of view really, Chairman.
It may simply be a different emphasis on words.
Q4 Chairman: But they
are rather important in this context.
Mr Hewitt: Yes,
they are. There is no doubt that even today a very large part
of the waste producing community in this country do not understand
what the end of co-disposal and the Landfill Directive meant to
it. The amount of information given to them was sparse and their
understanding of what they needed to do was even sparser. It was
a pity that the forum that the Government established was not
established at least two years before it was put together, because
a great deal more work could have been done by the industry. The
members of the forum included the Chartered Institution, and the
ESA. All the interested parties together could have done so much
more to have provided the Government with the information it needed
to have made better plans. The fact is 16 July was seen by many
people to herald a major change. I am not only the Treasurer of
the Institution, I am also a major operator of hazardous waste
treatment plants, and I can tell you that the only change that
I noticed between 16 and 17 July was that I handled less hazardous
waste for treatment on 17 July than I did on 16 July. That should
not have been the case, I should have been seeing more, but I
did not, I saw less, and it has remained less from that day to
this.
Q5 Chairman: When we did
our last report into this we got the usual ministerial reassurances—as
they say, "Everything will be all right on the night"—and
I was in the House last week, or the week before last, for Defra
questions and I seem to recall questions of waste mountains,
of hazardous waste being discussed and the Minister looked with
distain on those who raised any question. Everything, according
to him, was absolutely fantastic. How is it that, in spite of
the run in we had to this, the information does not seem to have
got through to the practitioners? Give us a flavour about what
the current situation is.
Mr Hewitt: I think
the information has got through to the practitioners. If you mean
the people within the waste sector who operate waste management
facilities, the message has got through to them. The question
that I would ask—and I am not asking this of you, I would
ask the Government—is if you anticipated a crisis arising
post 16 July and that is what you put in place the hazardous waste
forum for, then what happened to the crisis post 16 July? Two
million tonnes of waste was going to be displaced from landfill
by co-disposal, and we have to remember what co-disposal and the
Landfill Directive is all about. It is designed, as is the Government's
waste strategy, to move waste away from being disposed to landfill
to other means. Also, there is a little phrase contained within
the Directive which says, "All waste must be pre-treated
prior to disposal." We could spend many hours talking about
what you mean by "pre-treatment", but I think most of
us have a very good grasp of what that means. If this two million
tonnes of waste was being displaced from landfill by the Directive,
plus another million tonnes is likely to occur because of the
imposition of the European Waste Catalogue and definition of "Hazardous"
Waste—that is three million tonnes of waste—in theory,
if not in practice, that would all need to be pre-treated prior
to disposal. Therefore, I should have seen trucks queuing up outside
my plant; I should have seen the amount of drums I treat every
day going up. Why is it that since that time I have seen 30% less
drums than I did the day before? The reason is that most of that
waste is going to landfill. It is going where it went to and where
it is not supposed to be going to, and the question mark about
it is how much of it is being properly pre-treated before it goes
there?
Q6 Chairman: That, I presume,
raises the question that when vehicles arrive with this material
present there are not people of sufficient qualification to say,
"No, you cannot bring that here." Is it as practical
a problem as that?
Mr Hewitt: I think
that depends much upon the regime. If a landfill operator is responsibly
relying upon the information he has been provided with as to the
mechanism of treatment for that material before it gets to his
gates and he is relying upon it reasonably so, then he will perhaps
accept that the material has been treated, but much of it cannot
have been. If you look at the amount of treatment capacity in
the country, one of the issues that the forum was established
to approach was that paucity of treatment facilities and how they
were going to encourage people like myself to invest more money
in more facilities. The answer to that was: "If I see the
waste, I will in invest in the facilities. If I do not, I will
not because what I have got already will be over invested",
and that is the case I have. The reality is that this waste now
goes to landfill, much of it in an untreated condition, and the
basis upon which it goes there must be questionable. If that was
the means of avoiding a crisis, then it has been avoided, but
in reality the problem is still there. I go back to the two tenets
that we are looking at: one is that all waste should be pre-treated—and,
as I said, we could debate the mechanism, and I am open to that
debate—the second one is that the whole purpose of the Landfill
Directive and the co-disposal ban in itself was to move waste
away from landfill, not to it. It seems to me we have achieved
exactly the reverse. If that is avoiding a crisis successfully,
I have to congratulate the people who thought that that is what
they were going to do.
Q7 Mr Mitchell: You said
we know what pre-treatment is. I do not. Is it expensive?
Mr Hewitt: It varies
greatly. Some wastes which are very hazardous require a great
deal of pre-treatment and a lot of thought about it before it
happens. Other material—and I do it every day—can
be treated from a hazardous condition to a non-hazardous condition
so it can go to non-hazardous landfill without any problems, but
I think the point that needs to be stressed here is this: The
real argument was about two things: the shortage of hazardous
waste landfill, because there would not be enough sites permitted,
and the shortage of treatment facilities. If you add those two
things together, you have, in theory, a mountain. If that mountain
was going to be going anywhere, it would have to be pre-treated
before it went there. It would have to go through plants like
mine to get to non-hazardous landfill sites. That cannot be the
case: because I could easily take another 200 tonnes a day for
treatment for that to happen, but it is not arriving. It must
be going to sites without adequate pre-treatment. It may be that
the originators of that waste can satisfy the receiving site that
the material is acceptable—the test will be "Is it
acceptable?"—and, I suppose, the end part of that is
this. Unfortunately the European Waste Acceptance Criteria may
not come into being for non-hazardous sites until 2007 at the
earliest. For hazardous sites it is now. So those non-hazardous
sites can go on taking that kind of waste way into the future.
If it is pre-treated properly, there is no question. If it is
not, there is a big issue there.
Q8 Paddy Tipping: You
mentioned a few moments ago about the Hazardous Waste Forum and
your evidence describes the Hazardous Waste Forum as a partial
success. Could you take me through what the success was, what
the failure has been? I got the impression it was set up far too
late and may be that the voice of the private sector was not being
listened to earlier?
Mr Hewitt: I think
the sadness about it was that it was set up too late. I think
there were a lot of people on that forum with a great deal experience,
both from within this country and outside. I have operated waste
management in the United States, Europe, all over the world, so
there is a great deal of experience to be taken, not just from
me, but from others. I think the bony fingers of caution were
raised that, if we did not plan properly, there would be issues
of misdescription, misrouting, hazard and possibly environmental
damage that would be to nobody's credit at the end of the day.
A great deal of good work was done—the document I am looking
at here was a report on treatment capacity available—but
I do not think it was used properly. It was not considered adequately
and it was not used properly, and you began to feel that what
we were sitting here doing was arriving at an answer that was
already pre-thought out, that we were trying to give everybody
a comfort feeling that this crisis was going to be averted; but,
if you did the arithmetic or the analysis and you spent any time
in the business, it was obvious to anybody that if you had six
million tonnes of hazardous waste prior to 16 July you have got
at least that post it. There is an argument that a lot of producers
over-classified waste because the economics prior to the ban meant
that you could send hazardous and non-hazardous to the same place
at virtually the same price, so they over classified; but even
if you factored that out, and a lot of other percentages too,
you still arrive at today being unable to account for at least
750,000 tons, probably well over a million tons, of hazardous
waste. We cannot account for it. Where is it?
Q9 Paddy Tipping: Let
us stick with the process for the minute. I think you used the
phrase "the bony fingers of caution". Whose fingers
are they? Who is being cautious? Is it the ESA—Steve Lee
knows all about that—or is it Defra itself? Who has put
the mockers on this?
Mr Hewitt: The
ESA did. The Environmental Services Association was very voluble
in its views. Their members made clear their reservations and
their concerns, we did at the CIWM and so did many other members.
The consultants employed to produce information said the same
things.
Q10 Paddy Tipping: Who
was saying, "There is a problem"? Who was not taking
you seriously? That is what I am getting at?
Mr Hewitt: I think
that the Agency were concerned but came into the piece with everybody
else too late to do it, and, I have to say, since 16 July and
discussions with them and debate about the issues, I think they
have understood there is a problem here and have set about a responsible
programme of measurement, audit, tracking in order to get to grips
with it. My criticism, I think, sits with Defra in that they were
the originators of the forum, and I think they should have listened
much more carefully to the words that were being spoken, to the
concerns that were being levied and the facts that were being
put before them that, if this was not handled properly, we had
enough experience. In August 2002 the ban on corrosive and liquid
waste to landfill came to pass. I saw that mountain of waste outside
my sites for two months. It disappeared. Where did it go? It went
back to landfill, but it should not be going back to landfill;
that material was not being treated and it was not magicked away
anywhere. We already had enough examples of what could go wrong
if you did not have the policing and the control mechanisms there.
That was not taken sufficient notice of. Time and time again we
raised those and other points.
Q11 Paddy Tipping: What
you are telling me is that people in the industry knew of the
problems and often knew the solutions, and I think you said very
clearly that Defra did not take any notice. What is the lesson
to be learned on this? Most of our environment legislation is
now driven from the EU. If you were to look back over this episode,
how would you use the knowledge, the learning that we have had
about future EU legislation? How can we implement it in the UK
more effectively and more efficiently?
Mr Hewitt: I think
we need to get the interested parties together much earlier. Where
there are issues in investment for future technologies—that
is people like myself being encouraged to make that investment—we
need to be very certain that the economic parameters will be available.
We do not want a situation where the Environment Agency is used
as some sort of fifth power within the economic balance of the
way that waste management works. I think that is where the Environment
Agency has been put by the way this whole process has not worked.
So, getting people together much earlier, I think listening, not
just sitting there and taking notes but listening to what is being
said, and being prepared to work together constructively. We are
not all right all the time, we can all be wrong, but working together
constructively in order to deal with the issues when they occur,
but having a policy and intending to tell people that that is
going to work so that other people in the waste industry—the
brokers, the transporters, the transfer stations—the other
people involved who understand that this policy, this directive,
must be obeyed and the parameters of how it is going to be obeyed
are laid out and put there early. The delay in the implementation
of the hazardous waste regulations is a big mistake. The fact
that the Waste Acceptance Criteria were not brought in last July
is a big mistake. We should bring these things in early, we should
plan to bring them in early and we should make them effective
and work.
Q12 Paddy Tipping: So
early decisions will help long-term private sector investment?
Mr Hewitt: Yes,
and working together.
Q13 Paddy Tipping: You
are saying that there is not enough clarity and so you cannot
do that?
Mr Hewitt: Correct.
Q14 Chairman: Before I
bring in David Drew, what were the reasons given for the delay
and did you think they were valid?
Mr Hewitt: I do
not think enough reasons were given for the delay. The delay appeared
to me to be nothing more than a wasted passage of time. I am sorry
to sound so accusatory about it, but there were views about resources
and staff and legal people and drafting resources, and so on,
but anybody used to doing things to critical paths and building
projects and making them work knows that you commit resources
to overcome things when you know there is a necessity for something
to happen. If you have convinced yourself that that necessity
perhaps can be avoided or the crisis around it is not going to
arise, you can take a laid-back view, but, in my view, not enough
emphasis was placed upon the need to get these things in place.
It was almost as if it was going to be all right on the night.
It has not been all right on the night, and unless they are put
in place one cannot have an effective regulatory structure. We
cannot ask the Environment Agency to regulate if the structure
to regulate against is not there.
Q15 Mr Drew: It is that
very point that I want to take up. Obviously in the previous inquiries
that we have undertaken the criticism of the industry has often
been that the civil servants that they have been operating with
have not had sufficient grasp of the detail or knowledge of the
industry to be able to engage in a sufficient level of rigorous
debate so that we can get appropriate solutions. Is there any
evidence that this is improving, and, if it is not improving,
what message should we be taking to Defra to try to get it to
improve?
Mr Hewitt: I have
been in this business over 30 years and I can look at Defra, DOE,
through all of its developments over that period of time. It would
be fair to say that the resources that the Government department
has in the shape of Defra now are far less than they were 25 years
ago. The way that the industry worked with the then DOE, or whatever
it might have been called at the time, I think was different.
I think it was more rapid and I think it was more productive.
I think they are short of resources. Defra is inadequately resourced
for the job it needs to do. Maybe there is an issue of management
for those resources, I cannot say—I am not responsible for
that—but I believe they are short of the necessary people,
and it has been that way since the establishment of the Agency.
1996, I think, was the big moment in time when the Defra resources,
or DOE as it was then, shrank, and they have never been replaced.
I think it would be a fair comment to say from their side that
they do not have sufficient resources, and they should have.
Q16 Mr Drew: Can I parallel
my earlier question with one to do with the Environment Agency?
Have they got a better calibre of people, have they got more understanding
of what is happening in the field, or are they too remote to really
be able to do this job effectively, which is basically to be able
to lead from the front to take people with them?
Mr Hewitt: My personal
view is the Agency needs more resources; it needs more policemen.
I think it has been a mistake. For example, the landfill tax has
disappeared back into the Chancellor's pocket. I would like to
see a big chunk of that given to the Agency to fund the resources
it needs to police waste management in particular, and hazardous
waste would be one of those items. Initially when we started the
discussions, particularly in the forum, the Agency were somewhat
behind in understanding the size of the problem and actually appreciating
the kind of malpractice that has gone on in this particular sector.
It has caught up with that. It has taken the issue on and it is
developing the policies. I suspect had they more resources to
have done that with, particularly in the field in policing, then
they would be a lot more successful more quickly. I think there
is another aspect to Agency regulation, and that is that they
should be encouraged to be less tick-boxing and more measuring.
There is a big difference between those two things. I think effective
regulation is about measuring and less tick-boxing. I think that
is the way these kinds of organisations tend to grow over a period
of time, and I guess they will see the need to change that but
I think it is needed in this instance.
Q17 Mr Mitchell: You gave
us quite a high estimate of three-quarters of a million tons of
hazardous waste disappearing. One of the highest ones we have
had. It is a nightmare vision actually.
Mr Hewitt: I am
sorry?
Q18 Mr Mitchell: I said
it is a nightmare vision: three-quarters of a million tons being
driven around the country in lorries which has disappeared. I
wonder how much has gone into fly-tipping. The evidence of increased
fly-tipping is all around. Certainly whenever I venture into the
country, which is rare, you see quite a lot of dumped stuff. The
Clean Streets organisation in Grimsby tells us there is more fly-tipping,
and it must be going on on a scale because it has even reached
the Archers! Even they have had fly-tipping. How much of this
has gone into fly-tipping prosecutions?
Mr Hewitt: I do
not believe that we are seeing a very high level of fly-tipping
of hazardous waste. That we have not seen. I know it was anticipated
or worried about, but we have not actually seen that. I do not
think that is where this waste is going. It is not being fly-tipped
in ditches or in pieces of waste ground. There may be a little
of that, but it is not huge. I would be interested to hear Steve's
view in a moment on that, but I do not think it is huge. I think
this waste is going into landfill sites, and it is going misrouted,
misdescribed and not pre-treated.
Q19 Mr Mitchell: And mixed
in with non-hazardous waste?
Mr Hewitt: Oh,
yes.
|
