Examination of Witnesses (Questions 80-99)
17 NOVEMBER 2004
Baroness Young, and Ms Liz Parkes
Q80 Chairman: You say "collectively".
Let us name some names. Who are the collective?
Ms Parkes: Well, the Government
is clearly in the lead on negotiating and implementing directives.
Q81 Chairman: Right. I do not want to
put words into your mouth, but it sounds to me as if you are saying
that the Government has a key role to play in assessing the impact
and communicating to the interested parties what the effect would
be and, following the logic of what you have said, in this case
it has not been done?
Ms Parkes: I would say that Government
has a key role. We have a role in advising Government, but equally
parts of industry are very active in working in Europe to actually
see what is coming down the line, to make sure that we are actually
driving that rather than being driven by the agenda. There is
a lot of evidence of very good work that has taken place through
the Hazardous Waste Forum and through other mechanisms such as
Envirowise to increase awareness amongst waste producers, particularly
SMEs.
Baroness Young: But I think, to
defend Government gently on this one, it is a very complicated
set of processes that leads from the producers of waste, some
of whom will be big business where it is fairly easy to interrelate
with them, where one would expect them to have thought through
what some of the implications are, and others where even with
the best available information about who the producers were it
would have been (and continues to be) extremely difficult to be
able to be in touch with them because they are very small businesses
and there are notorious difficulties of really interrelating with
the SME community. But there is a huge programme of work now tracing
back from the end-of-pipe position that Liz talked about right
through the waste streams back to producers and that, I hope,
will be intensified with the introduction of the Waste Acceptance
Criteria, where those are not just about what happens to operators
but are about the way in which wastes are produced by the producers.
Q82 Mr Lepper: Can we think a moment
or two about the impact of the co-disposal ban. We had evidence
last week from the waste management people, who conjured up pictures
of anywhere between three-quarters of a million and a million
tonnes of hazardous waste which have become invisible. That could
be trundling around the countryside somewhere in white vans, or
bigger vehicles, but it has just disappeared from the scene and
nobody seemed to know where it was or where it was going. Has
the Environment Agency made any estimate of how much hazardous
waste is unaccounted for following the ending of co-disposal and
what has happened to it?
Baroness Young: Well, first of
all, I do not think we accept the figures that are being put around
for the kind of missing hazardous waste quantum. Our information
certainly is two-fold, I think. One is that the quantum of hazardous
waste being produced was reducing anyway. It has reduced by almost
25% since 1999, 10% in the year 2003 alone, so we would have expected
there to be a downward trend in hazardous waste. To be quite frank,
with the amount of promulgation of information about the regulations
and the amount of effort that we, Government, Envirowise and a
whole lot of other people, the trade bodies, have put into
communicating what the issues are it would be pretty outrageous
if we had not seen an acceleration of the reduction in that waste.
We do believe that a lot of the missing tonnage is not missing,
it is being properly consigned and segregated rather than being
simply bulk consigned as hazardous waste and so far our investigative
work has not revealed huge abuse, though we would be rash to say
that no abuse is happening. One of the disappointments, I think,
is that we are getting lots of people coming forward and saying
that abuse is happening, but we do need chapter and verse from
them. The numbers of firms who are alleging that there is a missing
waste quantum but not coming forward with chapter and verse is
unsatisfactory. Some people have, but not many yet and we would
very much like that information in order to be able to follow
it up. Liz has been very much involved in the work to look at
both what is happening to the hazardous waste streams in terms
of reduction and at the inspection and enforcement process that
we have been involved in to make sure that we are not seeing lots
of illegal activity.
Q83 Mr Lepper: Just before we come to
this, why the over-estimate? You say some people come along to
you with tales which are then not substantiated?
Baroness Young: Well, I am not
saying they are tales because we are very grateful to people who
do raise these issues with us, but I think to some extent some
of the hazardous waste operators who were expecting a particular
volume based on their previous experience are now not seeing that
volume coming forward and their assumption is, therefore, that
it must be being illegally disposed of or mis-consigned. Our view
is that in many cases producers thought about the ban quite innovatively
and have either already adopted ways of segregating their truly
hazardous waste so that they can minimise the amount of hazardous
waste they consign, and therefore the cost that they bear, or
in some cases have accelerated in the period prior to the deadline
in order to get as much as possible of their hazardous waste quotient
out of the way. We think that is probably pretty true of the construction
industry, where we saw a big acceleration of hazardous waste consignment
in the run-up to the ban. The combination of those impacts and
also the sorts of changes that we wanted this change to drive
(which is more treatment, more reduction, more minimisation),
those are the things we would expect to see as a result of these
initiatives, both the cost of landfill and the co-disposal ban.
Q84 Mr Lepper: So the picture that we
were having painted for us to some extent last week of an industry
frustrated, waiting around for more guidance, more direction from
Government to know how to comply with these various new directives
coming on stream is perhaps not quite an accurate one? What you
are suggesting is that within the industry itself there has been
quite a lot going on in terms of preparation, despite the absence
of all the guidance that might be needed?
Baroness Young: I think we have
got to specify the difference between waste producers and waste
operators, the people who receive it, because I think they
are operating under very different circumstances, but Liz will
best be able to tell you about the things that are still outstanding
in terms of guidance that will allow industry to make even more
progress.
Ms Parkes: I think it is fair
to say that what industry needs for this July is in place and
was in place prior to July, but there was some frustration at
the time it had taken for that to come forward. What industry
are calling for now is greater clarity over the full Waste Acceptance
Criteria requirements, which will come in next July, and they
are looking for that certainty, particularly, as Barbara says,
upstream so that they know the standards that waste needs to be
treated to. Certainly we are engaged and we have guidance ready
to go as soon as Defra implement the remainder of the regulations
relating to the Landfill Directive. We have guidance that we can
get out there to help advise industry.
Q85 Mr Lepper: Have you got any estimate
of illegal disposal at all?
Ms Parkes: The evidence is that
there has not been a significant increase in illegal waste disposal
of hazardous waste since 16 July. We are keeping that under review.
As Barbara said, we are following up the intelligence that we
have had from parts of industry to look at particular practices
and we are very pleased that that intelligence is now coming forward
and there is an acceptance that to actually then focus in on that
activity will take a number of months, because if we are talking
about mounting surveillance with a view to taking enforcement
action that will take a number of months. But there is no evidence
of increases in fly-tipping and particularly no evidence of orphan
waste streams, which is something we have been working on very closely
with, with Defra and the DTI, and particularly producers, so that
we fully understood the impacts of a certain landfill closing,
for instance, and were able to help the producer identify another
disposal site for that waste or treatment option or a waste minimisation
option.
Q86 Mr Lepper: Thank you. Just one final
thing, if I may. What you have told us so far suggests the Agency
reacting to information received, as it were, about hazardous
waste being illegally disposed or unaccounted for. Is the Agency
also doing things that are rather more pro-active in terms of
investigating these issues? I do not want you to blow any undercover
operations that are going on.
Ms Parkes: I am sorry if we implied
that we were only being reactive.
Q87 Mr Lepper: I thought there must be
more to it than that. If you could just tell us about that.
Ms Parkes: We obviously inspect
all licensed facilities, whether they be licensed landfills or
transfer stations. In addition to that, which we have been targeting
at hazardous waste in the run-up to July and we expect to carry
on focusing on hazardous waste over the next two year period because
this is a period of change, we have also carried out over 1,000
audits, investigation visits to producers, cradle-to-grave audits,
looking at particular waste streams that we thought were
vulnerable to illegal waste management, concentrating on those
we thought would pose the greatest risk. We have carried out over
thirty stop and search operations of waste carriers where we work
with the police and other enforcement agencies. In addition, I
can say that we have got forty-five prosecutions actually pending
and we have taken seven prosecutions to date relating to hazardous
waste. So we are very much targeting our efforts at hazardous
waste but it is too early to see the direct outcomes of that since
July.
Mr Lepper: Thank you.
Chairman: The Committee stands adjourned
for either the vote or series of votes, depending upon what happens,
and I would ask colleagues to come back as quickly as possible
after the last of the votes that are now commencing.
The Committee suspended from 4.01 pm to
4.25 pm for a division in the House
Q88 Joan Ruddock: May I, on behalf of
all Members of this Committee, apologise to our witnesses for
this horrendous delay and confusion and the fact that this state
of affairs will probably continue. But to get to some questions,
you spoke earlier about the Waste Acceptance Criteria and your
dismay about the way that that had not been planned sufficiently
well. As I understand it, there are two stages. First of all,
are you quite confident that the date it is to come in, in July
next year, is actually properly prepared for and happening and
is your concern with the second stage or is the whole thing still
problematic?
Ms Parkes: If I could just confirm
there is a single date, which is July 2005, which is the date
when full Waste Acceptance Criteria will come in for hazardous
waste. There is no other Waste Acceptance Criteria proposed for
non-hazardous waste. I do not know, to be honest, where the 2007
date came from. I think perhaps there is some confusion in people's
minds between the waste treatment requirements and Waste Acceptance
Criteria. It is true to say that we are still awaiting confirmation
of when the waste treatment requirement for non-hazardous waste
will come in. We suspect it will be 2007, but we are awaiting
confirmation of that.
Q89 Joan Ruddock: Obviously that is an
important clarification for us. We have been misled.
Ms Parkes: The key date, therefore,
is July 2005 and we have been saying that having got through the
co-disposal ban we must turn our attention immediately to preparing
collectively for the 2005 date. In fact we have just organised
a seminar with Defra for the waste producing industry and the
waste management industry on 6 December to try and make sure that
both parts of industry are engaging and that the intermediate
service providers are also well-informed and engaged. Really what
we want to do is to make sure that we do not see a repetition
of some of the things that almost happened this July by making
sure people are very aware for next July. If I could also say,
because we do realise there is some confusion over the timetabling,
it is not the most transparent of directives. We have just produced
a very simple timetable, as simple as one can make this complex
issue given that different dates apply to different types of waste,
and we will be issuing that next week together with some very
simple guidance for the producing industry which helps to explain
the way through and the relationship between waste treatment and
Waste Acceptance Criteria. So it is a helpful guide which actually
says, "This is what you need to know to deal with your waste
so that you can get it to landfill," to try and find a way
through this complication.
Q90 Joan Ruddock: That is obviously very
important. What sort of assessment have you made of the likely
impact of this on waste management?
Ms Parkes: For Waste Acceptance
Criteria coming in?
Q91 Joan Ruddock: Yes.
Ms Parkes: Well, we are talking
with the industry about what they foresee may happen because it
depends upon what treatment methodologies are employed between
now and next July. We have not so far identified any problems
with particular waste streams but we really do think there needs
to be proper industry engagement to make sure that they are informed
and that we are informed, and that is the purpose of this first
workshop on 6 December, to get that engagement going and to actually
look at particular waste streams. What we have said through the
Hazardous Waste Forum is that if we need some follow-up sessions
early next year then we will make sure that happens as well.
Q92 Joan Ruddock: Thank you very much.
If I could go on to ask about whether you will have all your technical
guidance in place by the time this comes into force in order to
see that it is successfully implemented?
Ms Parkes: As I say, there is
further guidance needed for next July. That has been developed.
Much of it has been out to consultation and really we are just
waiting for the new regulations from Defra because we obviously
cannot issue guidance in advance of those regulations being finalised,
but we are using the Hazardous Waste Forum to share advance copies
of documents like this so that we can get that direct feedback,
not just on the content but on the usability of the guidance.
Q93 Joan Ruddock: You have not got much
time to do that then, by the sound of it. When do you expect to
get the information from Defra?
Ms Parkes: Well, that is a question
for Defra as to when they will consult on the regulations. We
would like to see a consultation this year and the regulations
coming into force in advance of the July deadline. Obviously the
earlier the better.
Joan Ruddock: Thank you.
Q94 Chairman: Are Defra moving at the
right speed or are they going slow for any reason?
Ms Parkes: The delays have been
to do with the negotiation on Waste Acceptance Criteria. There
has been some very tricky technical detail, technical issues around
testing and sampling. Again, we are working in partnership on
that. I think they are now moving as quickly as they can do to
get the regulations in place and I understand that they have everything
they now need to consult on the regulations. That includes obviously
a full regulatory impact assessment. I should say that one of
the other key aspects which we hope will come into play and which
we want to see is the requirements being passed up the chain to
the producer. As I said earlier, it is important we do not just
see this as an end-of-pipe obligation. We do have some sympathy
with the waste management industry, which has to satisfy the requirements
of the Directive end-of-pipe and it is very difficult if they
have not got the necessary evidence from the waste producing industry,
so we have been encouraging Defra to look at the controls upstream
and if possible to impose requirements on producers as part of
the duty of care to make sure that waste is properly characterised.
We think that will really aid compliance and make sure that the
awareness is there upstream, but obviously that is a bigger change
and will require full consultation and a full regulatory impact
assessment because it is important it is not over-bureaucratic.
Q95 Mr Drew: If we can look at this issue
of municipal waste, trying to find an alternative to landfill.
If I could just start with a very local example, but I am sure
it is true of other parts of the country. In Gloucestershire we
are in the process of negotiating a PFI deal and the idea is that
as part of that PFI deal there will be the beginning of a substantial
reduction in landfill. The problem is that for that PFI to work
there is the need for both time and resources and in the interim
the local authority is likely to face some fines because of its
inability to have already reduced its commitment to landfill.
Is there a way round this, and if there is what should the local
authority be doing other than what they are asking me to do, which
is to seek a delay in the imposition of the fines from central
government?
Ms Parkes: I think the targets
are challenging, particularly the second group of targets for
local authorities given the lead time in getting new technology
in place. So I think it is a challenge and I believe there are
frustrations over the lack of responsiveness of the planning system,
but also I think there is a challenge we all face in terms of
getting public acceptance of waste facilities. All of that contributes
to delays. Really the Agency's role with regard to the municipal
waste targets is one of monitoring and running the trading scheme
and then reporting back to Government, and really the question
of whether local authorities are able to meet their targets or
not is one for Government to take up with local authorities. We
are inevitably concentrating our efforts on the other 90% of the
waste stream. Frankly, there is always less interest in the non-municipal
waste stream and it is important that we continue to focus our
efforts on that 90%.
Baroness Young: The whole aim
of the move to try and divert from landfill is, of course, not
just an end-of-pipe issue but about the way in which municipal
waste is produced and then segregated and sorted. We would like
to see more action in the future—it is unlikely before
an Election, I am sure—to put economic incentives in place
to promote greater household segregation of waste. That will help,
of course, the whole process of local authorities being able to
meet their targets. The work we did on public opinion showed us
very clearly that households are willing to sort their waste if
they are given the right facilities to do so and that they are
willing even to be incentivised (if that is the word) by paying
a higher charge for unsorted waste for the future. So there are
other bits of economic instruments and mechanisms which can be
brought into play to help the process.
Q96 Mr Drew: So can I be clear that there
is at least a problem, not just for the Gloucestershires of this
world but nationally, that if this is a process it is happening
around the country the non-municipal waste is not going to get
the level of prioritisation that it could and should be getting
because at the end of the day the local authorities are going
to be focusing on avoiding being fined because that is what will
really hurt them?
Baroness Young: I think one of
the bits of the jigsaw that is still missing in this country is
a workable system for the strategic planning of waste because
in reality although the municipal waste stream is reasonably well
planned for and handled, because local authorities have got a
key central role. For the majority of other waste streams there
is not an immediately obvious location for the coordination of
all of the activity that needs to take place in terms of the way
in which waste producers are encouraged and incentivised to reduce
their waste and the way in which waste managers and waste operators
then provide the facilities for the disposal of that waste. So
although Government has a responsibility to provide under the
Directive an adequate network of proper installations for the
disposal of waste in a modern fashion, I do not think yet we have
quite got the system right to be able to get that to happen, to
get the strategies in place, particularly to break through some
of the planning issues which get in the way of providing that
network of facilities and also to be able to step in when the
market fails to provide it. At the moment in terms of hazardous
waste, for example, there is quite a lot of sitting back by the
operators and waiting to see what will emerge as things like the
Waste Acceptance Criteria emerge, as the market begins to develop,
as they see how much waste minimisation actually reduces the hazardous
waste streams. We have got an example there of a potential market
failure and yet I think we do need to have a much more effective
way of planning strategy and then implementation beyond that if
we are going to really see waste across the piece, not just individual
waste streams, which is very much how it is planned at the moment.
Ms Parkes: Just to add to that,
traditionally municipal waste has gone to the same landfill as
other commercial industrial waste. Local authorities are now,
as you say, concentrating very much on meeting municipal waste
targets and it is very likely that the new treatment plant will
come into place in municipal waste. It is important that we do
not forget about the industrial and commercial waste within that,
because if you put the two together one may get the economies
of scale that are needed to make sure that proper diversion from
landfill is in place. This is why we need to look at the whole
picture, not just focusing on a single waste stream.
Baroness Young: One of the most
important things, I think, is to look at what makes up the totality
of some of these waste streams. For example, it was really only
when we began to think in depth about hazardous waste that we
realised just how important the construction industry is in all
of this and the huge amount of the hazardous waste stream that
comes from construction and how there can be quite a major impact
both in terms of volume and in terms of the facilities needed
for disposal by things like on-site remediation and by proper
segregation of hazardous waste at site. Those things can make
a big difference to the way the market operates but they need
to be planned for.
Q97 Chairman: Can I just follow up one
of the points. I noticed Paddy Tipping nodding at the same time
I was about planning issues and the provision of new facilities.
If I have understood the issue correctly, Lancashire County Council
are running into problems already on their proposals for new waste
stations and part of it appears to have been occasioned by a lack
of transparency in their proposals for a plant, for example on
the edge of Preston, and an unwillingness to fully engage not
just the adjoining area but perhaps the people of Lancashire in
a proper debate and informed discussion about what should happen
to their waste. Do you think that local authorities should, given
the new arrangements which are coming on-stream, now spend a lot
more time advising, educating and being open with people about
this whole matter? Is transparency a key ingredient to success?
Baroness Young: We certainly believe
that if you look at the examples of successful best practice in
terms of county level waste planning, for example, Hampshire is
always held up as the example of a county which went in for a
major public engagement exercise that really tried to develop
an ownership in the public of the fact that it is their waste
and what would they like done with it, rather than, "Would
you like an incinerator at the bottom of your garden?" They
had a fairly successful time in being able to introduce a more
modern range of waste disposal techniques and they have got a
good and improving level of recycling, re-use and waste minimisation.
But it has proved difficult for other counties. Cheshire had a
very bumpy ride and had to withdraw its proposals and, as
you know, Lancashire is in the same position. We believe that
greater engagement is important, that the question the public
needs to talk through with its elected representatives is, "We've
got this waste. How are we going to reduce it? How are we going
to recycle it? How are we going to safely dispose of the residual
amount?" and there needs to be even greater transparency
around the issue of the genuine impacts of various waste disposal
facilities ranging right across all of the techniques, composting,
recycling plants, incineration, landfill, and really trying to
get beyond the "Not in my backyard" proposition but
also making sure that wherever possible facilities are sited in
places that are not going to cause nuisance and are going to be
a sensible place for waste facilities to be located. I think some
of the great angst that there is amongst the public about certain
waste facilities is because they were originally put in the wrong
place and the planning decision was a wrong one.
Q98 Paddy Tipping: You were just talking
about involving people and you made some points a moment or two
ago about financial instruments and, in effect, direct charging
and I got the impression that you were saying that the Agency
were in favour of direct charging. Is there a case for some pilots
on direct charging?
Baroness Young: I certainly think
that incentives for recycling, sorting and segregating, even if
they are the reverse incentive of paying for the residual unsorted
waste at the moment, are well worth trying, although I think probably
using the "tax" word is unhelpful at any time and particularly
unhelpful in the run-up to an Election. I hope that we can have
that sort of discussion after the Election.
Q99 Paddy Tipping: It is a third term
issue then?
Baroness Young: Your words, not
mine!
| 
