Examination of Witnesses (Questions 120-123)
17 NOVEMBER 2004
Mr Michael Roberts, Mr Richard Foreman, and Dr Paul
Brooks
Q120 Mr Lepper: Has the CBI been involved
in making representations about that, or did you suddenly find
it thrust upon you?
Dr Brooks: The consultation period
ends on 30 November, so the answer is yes, we will be.
Mr Lepper: Thank you.
Q121 Chairman: Can I just in conclusion
ask you one thing. You have referred to the implementation processes
in the United Kingdom of the Landfill Directive. What discussions
have you had with your sister organisation and with other European
Union countries about their experiences? What do they say to you
about the way, for example, these measures have been implemented
in Germany, France, or Italy? Did you have any discussions to
give us some comparisons on this subject?
Mr Roberts: In a moment, if I
may, I will turn to Dr Brooks, who (wearing his Corus hat) has
experience of operations overseas. I think a general observation
is that the process works more smoothly in general, in terms of
developing policy. There is engagement of the business community
at a technical level at an earlier stage in the process and when
it comes to the issue of producing guidance, for example, the
finished product in terms of guidance tends to be briefer and
to some extent, therefore, clearer. There is an argument to say
that in some cases business might actually welcome more detailed
guidance which gives greater clarity and certainty than might
otherwise be the case. There is a view in this country from our
members that compared with what is seen overseas guidance is longer,
is more detailed, but not to the benefit of adding clarity; it
is to the detriment of it and tends to make it more prescriptive.
That is the general view. Perhaps I can ask Dr Brooks to come
in.
Dr Brooks: We have operations
in most European countries, but particularly Germany and the Netherlands,
so I feel we are qualified to answer that. I would say simply
that we do not see the same level of delay and debate in other
countries on this landfill issue in particular, but also on other
issues, I have to say. That is quite interesting in many ways
because, of course, Holland is very much based on consultation
and very much that sort of type of society, but even then we do
not see the same level of issues and certainly there is, to echo
what Michael said, identification of the key issues much sooner
in the process, I would say. Therefore, the key debates are held
much earlier and a clear strategy is set out earlier in the whole
process.
Q122 Chairman: But there is no question
that they do not do what the Directive says they are doing, because
often the allegation is that people abroad have a more lax time
than they do in the United Kingdom?
Dr Brooks: Well, certainly in
those two countries which we were talking about, Germany and the
Netherlands, I think they do comply with the requirements of the
directives. They generally take a more pragmatic view of them,
though, and will look at them not quite as precisely or in quite
the same specific terms. They will say, "Well, that is equivalent
to what the Directive says, therefore that's the way we will do
it." That is quite often my experience, particularly in Holland.
Mr Roberts: Just in general support
of that point, at the risk of opening up a Pandora's Box at this
late stage, one of the issues which is in the background of all
this is the definition of waste and how different countries approach
that issue. I think it is interesting that recently there has
been a European Court of Justice ruling on how Italy has approached
that particular issue and it would appear that the judgment has
been that the Italian government and enforcement agencies have
taken a more liberal approach, which perhaps has brought them
in contravention of the spirit of the European approach. But it
does seem to at least provide one example of a slightly different
approach in other countries.
Chairman: Mr Tipping caught my eye before
"final" becomes final.
Q123 Paddy Tipping: I just wanted to
open another box, but you will have to be brief in light of what
the Chairman said, which is that of the planning system. It takes
a heck of a long time to get planning for these things and once
you have got your planning you have got to get your regulation
and your permit. What can be done to speed things up?
Mr Roberts: With regard specifically
to planning as it affects the waste management industry, I suspect
that the Environmental Services Association would probably be
better placed to answer your questions there, but the general
point I would make is that in the first instance there needs to
be a clear statement and ownership at a regional level of the
strategic priorities for providing waste treatment and management
facilities. The process of the planning system as it has recently
been reformed in principle provides for that to happen in a way
in which it did not happen before. Regional spatial strategies
are supposed to embrace a whole range of individual strategies,
as I am sure you are familiar with, of which waste will be one
and these spatial strategies will now have statutory force. The
challenge is to ensure that the quality of those strategies is
good. That is not straightforward because there is a lot of change
going on in the planning profession, particularly within local
authority departments. There is a loss of much of the past expertise
and I think that is a big challenge which needs to be addressed.
I think the other aspect with regard to ownership is that although
the regional level can set the priorities, ultimately the development
control process, the signing off of permission on an application
happens at the local level. Local politicians will be more than
keenly aware of the public's perception of provision of waste
facilities and although it is perhaps a little bit pat to say
it, there clearly needs to be a far better debate with the public
involving business as well as local authorities and politicians
more generally to confront the public, the individuals, with the
consequences of many of their consumption and purchasing behaviours
to the end that people need to recognise that if indeed they are
going to continue with those behaviours there will be a generation
of waste and that will need to be dealt with in some way, either
to reduce it or to treat it, or then to dispose of it. I do not
think that debate has happened sufficiently to date and until
it does there will not be, if you like, the political space for
politicians (either at the local or indeed at the regional level)
to take the really tough decisions about enabling facilities to
come on-stream in a way that we would all want them to.
Mr Foreman: Could I just add a
technical point to that. I think one of the problems with planning
at the local level is the general public's perception of things,
and the general public's perception of things can be manipulated
by scare stories in newspapers. From that point of view, I would
welcome the recent Defra research into the health effects of waste
management systems and the waste management industry in this country.
I am slightly disappointed that that does not make the headlines
in the tabloids, but that sort of unbiased opinion signed off
in that case, I think, by the Royal Society no less does help
inform things like planning debates.
Chairman: Gentlemen, I am sorry it was
a slightly shorter session than we might have planned for reasons
of the votes earlier on, but nonetheless I am grateful to you
for your contribution and for the written evidence you have sent
us. In those areas that we identified where you are kindly going
to send us a little more information we look forward to receiving
it. Thank you very much for coming.
|
