Examination of Witness (Questions 140-159)
1 DECEMBER 2004
MR ELLIOT
MORLEY, MP
Q140 Chairman: I did say
hazardous and non-hazardous, and if I did not, I apologise.
Mr Morley: I was
referring to hazardous waste. In relation to municipal waste municipal
waste figures are collected by the waste disposal authorities.
They are collected and also they are audited by the National Audit
Office and we are just waiting for those figures at the present
time. The municipal side is much more established and much more
reliable in relation to the figures compared to, for example,
non-hazardous waste. It is the hazardous waste where we are improving
the data capture.
Q141 Chairman: How is
that going to be disseminated to all the people who are, if you
like, the originators because it strikes me if we are talking
about sustainability, waste minimisation policies, pre-treatment,
some of the issues we have touched on already, there needs to
be some method to communicate collectively to generators of waste
how we are doing against the target. How is that going to be improved
so that people will know whether they are doing a good job or
a bad job as part of the overall target?
Mr Morley: We will
have the actual figures and we will make those figures available
because in the end it is Defra's job to monitor the progress that
is being made in relation to our obligations under the Landfill
Directive.
Q142 Chairman: Let me
ask you a question. The Local Government Association were kind
enough to furnish me with a graph which you may well have seen,
and this deals with the Landfill Directive, Article 5 profile
(so that we know what we are talking about) and it charts for
me to look at the rising trend of total waste with the datum
of 2002-03 moving inexorably upwards. It charts against that,
again moving inexorably upwards, a line of hazardous waste and
it comments about the challenging numbers which emerge from this
forward analysis and, I suppose, our ability to meet the targets
against an ever-rising stream of waste. How confident are you
that we are going to be able to meet all of these targets when
you are not dealing with a fixed quotient every year, you are
dealing with a rising quotient, and at the same time as trying
to deal with disposal you are also trying to deal with waste minimisation,
but that does not seem to be having much effect if the forward
projections are to be accepted?
Mr Morley: Be careful
about these projections because of course all that has happened
there is that you have taken a point in time on the data and you
have taken a projection from that point upwards. What is actually
happening is that we are seeing a slowing in increase in the municipal
waste stream and that is very welcome. It is still increasing
and we would prefer to see it decreasing, but the last figures
that we had in relation to the municipal waste stream showed the
biggest drop for some years and the total amount of municipal
waste going into landfill was the lowest for four years. That
was in last year's figure. Also, as I say, the rate of growth
was slowing in the municipal waste stream. In the commercial waste
stream there has been something like an eight per cent drop in
relation to commercial waste going into landfill, so the figures
that we have are demonstrating that there is a decline going on
in relation to the amount of waste going into landfill, both municipal
and commercial. We have already discussed the issue of hazardous
waste where we have seen a drop, which is exactly what we expected
to see, and I expect to see that drop continue.
Q143 Chairman: But am
I not right in saying that the targets that we had to meet as
far as landfill diversion were concerned, which were originally
set to start in 2005-06, were postponed?
Mr Morley: Sorry,
which targets were those?
Q144 Chairman: The targets
in terms of diversion from landfill, in other words the reduction?
Am I not right?
Mr Morley: No,
I do not think you are right, Chairman.
Q145 Chairman: As I understand
it, there was a target set in terms of where we are supposed to
be by 2005-06 in terms of diversion from landfill and the achievement
of that target was postponed until 2010. This was a derogation
that we had.
Mr Morley: Yes
but that is a derogation; it is not quite the same as a postponement.
We have taken a derogation, that is true.
Q146 Chairman: Why?
Mr Morley: Because
in terms of Europe we had more reliance on landfill than any other
European country, so in relation to the targets which were set
they fall on this country more heavily than any other European
country, and therefore we have taken that derogation to give us
some more time in relation to diverting the amount of waste going
into landfill because we start at a lower level than anybody else
in Europe. We are making progress on that and we are determined
to make progress on that, but that is why we have taken the derogation,
which just reflects our position.
Q147 Chairman: In statistical
terms, what level of confidence would you put on being able to
meet the increasing volume of material that has got to diverted
from landfill from where the target kicks in after the end of
the derogation period? How many per cent certain are you that
you are going to meet this?
Mr Morley: It is
a very difficult to give a hostage to fortune—
Q148 Chairman: Well try!
Mr Morley: What
I would say to you is that I am a lot more confident now than
I was a year ago in relation to the progress that is being made,
particularly by municipal authorities, where there has been an
acceleration in relation to recycling and reuse. In terms of the
commercial side there have been some very welcome trends in relation
to minimisation, particularly on the packaging side. I still think
that there is an awful lot more that needs to be done and I would
not want to give the impression—
Q149 Chairman: Let's look
at a number. As I understand it, in 1995-96, 23,700,000 tonnes
of material went to landfill and the amount that is going to be
allowed by 2009-10 is, roughly speaking, half that amount, so
where are we on the scale at the moment?
Mr Morley: I come
back to the point I made to you before. In fact, we have seen
the levels of landfill last year at the lowest level for four
years. So we have seen one of the largest drops for a very long
time in the amount of municipal waste.
Q150 Chairman: What is
the amount that went to landfill last year?
Mr Morley: I will
have to get that figure for you, Chairman. That was 29.3 million
tonnes.[4]
Q151 Chairman: 29.3 million
tonnes went last year so in tonnage terms it has gone up from
1995-96 by six million tonnes and between last year, 2003, and
2009-10—that is six years—you are telling this Committee
that you are confident that you can get out of landfill 18 million
tonnes?
Municipal waste arisings in 2002-03 = 29.3 million
tonnes
Municipal waste landfilled in 2002-03 = 22.0 million
tonnes
Biodegradable municipal waste (BMW) landfilled in
2002-03 = 15.2 million tonnes
BMW Landfill Directive target for 2009-10 = 11.2
million tonnes
BMW to be diverted from landfill before 2009-10 =
3.0 million tonnes.
Mr Morley: I am not sure what
that 18 million tonnes is.
Q152 Chairman: You have
just told us that 29.3 million tonnes of material is currently
going into landfill.
Mr Morley: In 2002-03,
yes.
Q153 Chairman: As I understand
it, of the bio-degradable municipal waste that is allowable to
go into landfill in 2009-10 that figure is 11 million tonnes.
If that is right—
Mr Morley: That
is correct, yes.
Q154 Chairman: So effectively
in a period of six years maximum, or five and a half years depending
on where you take it, you are going to have to remove 18 million
tonnes from landfill. What is the track to reducing that? What
does the graph look like in reductions? Is it a straight three
million tonnes a year or does it increase or decrease? How is
it going to be done?
Mr Morley: It is
going to be done by diversion, by—
Q155 Chairman: Break this
figure down as to where it is going to go when it does not go
into landfill. What does your analysis tell you?
Mr Morley: It is
going to go different ways because of course different waste authorities
are going to put in place different methods in relation to diverting
waste from landfill. You are going to see some energy from waste
investments, you are going to see some very large-scale composting
and mechanical digestion projects. We have something like £400
million of PFI credits available for very large schemes for managing
waste. You are seeing those coming on-line at the present time
and there will be further announcements.
Q156 Chairman: It seems,
Minister, that there are not a lot of plans in place but I would
be interested because the United Kingdom has signed up to achieving
various targets and we have postponed the evil day because, as
you rightly counselled the Committee, of our heavy dependence
on landfill. You as a representative of the Government who signed
up to these targets would not have done it if you were not entirely
confident that you would achieve the target. So somebody must
have given you some numbers that said "we think we can get
rid over this period of time (five or six years) of this 17 million
tonnes of waste." It is going to go somewhere and you hinted
at some of those methods but there must be a piece of analysis
sitting in Defra with some numbers attached to it that gives you
confidence about where it is going to go. For example, you talk
about PFI projects, but there are only a known number of technical
ways that you can divert and deal with waste. So can you provide
us with some breakdown as to what you estimate the flows of waste
are going to be other than landfill?
Mr Morley: I will
certainly see if we can do that, Chairman, but in terms of diversion
into what methods of treatment, it very much depends on choices
which are made by waste disposal authorities. I will certainly
try and give you what figures we can.
Chairman: I think it would
be helpful. Mr Simpson?
Q157 Alan Simpson: Mr
Morley, I think you have an enormous groundswell of sympathy and
support on the Committee in wanting to be where Defra wants us
to end up. The difficulty is knowing how we get there. Most of
the evidence that we have had from the industry suggests that
we are really going to struggle to meet any of the targets that
you have said we are committed to. It has specifically said that
in terms of recycling and composting on their own, it is almost
impossible to see how we can meet either the 2013 or even the
2010 targets. Can you just take us through, if not now in writing
afterwards, how we are going to deliver on those gaps against
the rising landfill waste volumes that we are currently dealing
with that the Chairman has taken us through? That gap is the struggle.
It is not the will, it is not a lack of desire to end up with
what we have signed up for; it is just how we are going to get
there.
Mr Morley: I understand
the point that you are making on this and I also do accept that
of course there are major challenges in relation to reducing the
waste stream and these targets. What I would say to you, however,
is that when I took over this job one of the very first debates
I had in my new role was actually on the NAO report on waste.
That report said that we were not going to hit our recycling targets.
I am very glad to say that we are going to hit our recycling targets
and that is because of the rapid progress that is being made and
the rapid increase in terms of recycling which has been going
on by local authorities, and that of course is diverting waste
out of the waste stream. I am confident that we are going to hit
our target of 17% for the 2003-04. We will get the figures very
soon from the NAO on that. Our next target is 2005-06 which is
25% which makes a big contribution in terms of reducing the municipal
waste stream. I think that is achievable. It is challenging but
I think it is achievable because we are still seeing that acceleration
of diversion of waste out of landfill and we are seeing a big
increase in composting. We are also seeing some major investments
in various forms of waste treatment and that is reducing the amount
of waste going into landfill. As I say, we have seen a big drop
on last year's figures. I am confident that we can see further
reductions in terms of meeting the kind of targets that we have
to under the Landfill Directive and the points that you make.
So while it is challenging, and I do not dispute that for a moment,
given the underlying fact that we have still got an increase in
the waste stream, and that is what makes the achievement of targets
so difficult because you are constantly running because the waste
stream is increasing even though you are making the good progress
on the recycling and the reuse and the minimisation and also the
new investments. I think people generally are becoming more aware
in relation to waste. The introduction of the landfill allowances,
for example, makes a huge difference to local authorities as a
major driver. It is something I should have said in relation to
how we are going to achieve these particular issues. By setting
limits with the landfill allowances, that will force local authorities
to meet those targets or to buy in credits to allow them to achieve
them. That is also an encouragement for good local authorities
who have made excellent progress who will have credits to sell.
It is also an inducement to them to continue the work that they
are doing in relation to minimising waste. In relation to other
local authorities, there will be a considerable cost, including
fines, for not achieving those targets. Those are very powerful
drivers and they are part of the strategy that we put in place
to achieve the overall targets, and they also deal with the points
that you make.
Q158 Chairman: Minister,
I am pleased to see that you have adopted the standard word which
usually in Defra terms equates to the triumph of hope over expectation
and that is the word "challenging". The Permanent Secretary
in our more difficult areas of questioning falls back on that
word. When all else has failed, if pressed, use the word "challenging"!
Mr Morley: To be
fair, though, Chairman, I do not duck a question and you know
very well that I will not duck a question from the Committee.
I am not going to pretend that everything is easy or there are
no real problems because there are. We have put in place a range
of mechanisms. The Landfill Allowance Scheme is a very novel scheme
and it is the only one of its type in the world. We know, for
example, carbon trading schemes, which we have also pioneered
on a national basis in this country, work very well. We know that
they are very effective measures, along with the Landfill Tax
and other fiscal measures we have in place, which will bring about
this change in attitude and culture in terms of how waste is treated.
So I am optimistic but I am not going to duck the fact that there
are real challenges with this.
Chairman: Mr Taylor wants
a brief supplementary and then Paddy Tipping.
Q159 David Taylor: It
is a brief supplementary and it relates to authorities like my
own of North West Leicestershire which as a minerals producing
area of the East Midlands has got very substantial numbers of
landfill sites and potential landfill sites and therefore it is
in our interests that the local authority, North West Leicestershire
District (co-terminous with the constituency), was able to up
its record in terms of recycling. I am sorry I was late, Chairman,
I do not think this point has been made so far. The Minister will
be aware that there are some shire districts which have been enormously
cash-strapped for other reasons and which have found it very,
very hard indeed to devote the extra resources necessary to upping
their own performance in this area. Is the Defra ministerial team
in regular contact with the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister
in terms of the resources that are available, whether ring-fenced
or not, for shire districts like my own? I have to say that they
have actually improved their record tremendously and they are
very much heading towards this 2010 target but to double again
within a three-year period is a word that is well beyond "challenging"
on the spectrum. I am not going to say "impossible",
but there we are.
Mr Morley: What
I would say is that we are in close touch with ODPM in relation
to the financial commitments that go with the targets that we
have set for local authorities, but what I would say to you is
that in terms of the environmental protective and cultural services
block there has been something like an additional £1.5 billion[5]
gone into that, to actually help local authorities deal with these
targets and local authorities have known for a very long time
the kind of reductions that they need to make. So there is a responsibility
on local authorities to be making the necessary investment and
to be utilising the money which has gone to them both directly
through the actual block and also indirectly through the waste
minimisation funds that they can bid for (and local authorities
have been bidding for) and of course the PFI credits in relation
to the large schemes, so there are considerable resources available
to local authorities to finance the kind of changes that they
need to make to meet these challenges.
David Taylor: Two Midlands
local authorities are right at the leading edge of this—Daventry
and Lichfield and I rejoice that that is so—but they are
well-resourced, so-called "leafy" authorities which
are able to do this. Cash-strapped authorities find it much more
difficult even though the political will is there. That is just
an observation.
4 Footnote by witness: The relevant figures
for England are as follows: Back
5
The current figure is £1.2 billion. Back
| 
