Supplementary memorandum by the Department
for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (RC 61)
Following the hearing that Phil Woolas and I
attnded on 4 June I agreed to write with clarification of a couple
of issues, namely prosecut ons of packaging offences (response
to Q216 and Q217), efficiencies (response to Q22) and reliability
of data (response to Q286). I also address an oversight I made
regarding alternate weekly collections in London (response to
Q255).
PROSECUTIONS FOR
PACKAGING OFFENCES
In response to questions Q216 and Q217, prosecutions
for packaging offences are carried out through the Criminal Courts
and it is the local authority that takes action rather than individual
officers. Of four cases, one was brought by Trading Standards
at Oldham Borough Council, one by Cambridgeshire County Council
and two by Northamptonshire County Council.
All cases were successfully prosecuted for a
cessive packaging with three also successfully brought for breaches
of the Trade Deseriptions Act. In one of these cases the Magistrate
specifically stated that they thought the packaging offence was
the more serious offence.
As a point of clarification, the issue in Q214
is with the final measure that is given in the Directive's essential
requirements where it reads: "packaging shall be so manufactured
that the packaging volume and weight be limited the minimum adequate
amount to maintain the necessary level of safety, hygiene an acceptance
for the packed product and for the consumer". It is our view
that consumer acceptance isn't quantified in the Directive and
is therefore open to interpretation.
I would also like to clarify that there are
three countries which have enforcements regimes: France, the UK
and the Czech Republic, with Slovenia to follow shortly.
EFFICIENCIES
Regarding question Q223, the forecast cumulative
position by the end of 2007-08, based on the data submitted by
councils in their annual efficiency statements, is £35Om.
The target Defra had was £300m, so the "overshoot"
is expected to be approximately £5Om.
RELIABILITY OF
DATA
The evidence submitted by the GLA to the Committee
shows data for the collection of non-household waste for four
London Boroughs for 2000-01 and 2005-06 (table in paragraph 18).
The table shows a decrease for Kingston-upon-Thames from 15,045
tonnes in 2000-01 to 0 tonnes in 2005-06. My officials have compared
the data in the table against data provided by local authorities
to Defra's municipal waste surveys which includes non-household
waste recycling tonnages. For 2005-06, Kingston-upon-Thames reported
that it had recycled nearly 12,000 tonnes of non-household waste,
making the drop between the two periods much smaller. In Kingston's
case this is mainly recycled rubble.
My officials have also confirmed that there
was a decrease in the amount of non household waste reported by
local authorities in London of 17% between 2004-05 and 2005-06.
However, this change should be kept in erspective; it equates
to only 187,000 tonnes of waste—4% of London's total municipal
solid waste (MSW), or about 0.5% of England's municipal waste
in 2005-06. Municipal aste accounts for around 90% of total waste
produced in England. It may also be that part of the decrease
in London's non-household tonnages could reflect changes in reporting
requirements in 2005-06 that enabled a more detailed breakdown
of waste type to be reported and hence potentially shifted some
marginal tonnages between she household and non-household classifications.
Instead it is more reliable to consider total municipal waste,
which fell in London by a similar proportion to that observed
n-tionally, and to draw conclusions from longer term trends rather
than focusing on a single year as fluctuations in waste produced
can occur for seasonal and other exogenous factors.
The Environment Agency has recently written
to the Mayor seeking information and evidence relating to the
Mayor's claims regarding commercial municipal waste in London.
In their written evidence the GLA relate the
municipal waste figures to figures for waste received at a selection
of landfill sites. This is a misleading comparison as the figures
given relate to all waste going to those landfill site- (not just
that from London) and there will also be other landfill sites
receiving waste from London. Added to this several landfill sites
used by London have closed over recent years. Hence, this is not
a complete and therefore accurate picture of the trends in waste
from London that is being landfilled. In order to obtain this,
we have asked the Environment Agency to analyse landfill site
returns which we should receive later this month and be able to
provide a more comprehensive assessment of waste being sent to
landfill from London.
Defra and the Environment Agency take waste
reporting seriously. The Agency is conducting a detailed audit
of all waste disposal authorities. These will tell Defra if the
authorities audited are complying with the rules for reporting
commercial waste and if there are any systematic problems that
need to be addressed. The initial round of audits of 24 authorities
is ongoing (including some in London) and will be completed by
the end of June 2007. They will discuss any problems with the
authorities concerned and inform Defra if there are serious problems.
Defra will take appropriate action, including the potent all options
to impose penalties and/or suspend authorities from trading, depending
on the circumstances. The Environment Agency will publish reports
of the audits later this summer. All waste disposal authorities
in England will have been audited by 2009. I will send the Committee
a summary of the outcome of the first set of audits.
ALTERNATE WEEKLY
COLLECTIONS (AWC)
In response to question Q255, I stated that
I did not believe that any local authorities in London had implemented
AWC. There is in fact one, Harrow Borough Council. I apologise
for this oversight.
ENERGY FROM
WASTE
Further to our discussion on the role of energy
from waste I wish to draw the Committee's attention to chapter
5 of Waste Strategy for England 2007, which directly addresses
the issue of locking in waste. Striking the right balance between
recycling and energy recovery will require both excellent, early
consultation between stakeholders and suitably flexible facilities
and contracts—ie that do not require fixed amounts of waste
to feed waste to energy plant. Technology providers are known
to be offering local authorities flexible solutions, safe in the
knowledge that any future shortfall in capacity (eg due to improvements
in recycling) can be made up from residual waste from other sources.
In relation to gas plasma technology, I wish
to clarify that while this is not one of the processes being specifically
looked at as part of Defra's New Technologies Programme, the Defra-funded
Waste Technology Data Centre contains information on the strengths,
weaknesses and history of this technology. Plasma technology is
also referenced in Waste Strategy 2007 as one of a number of advanced
processes for recovering energy from waste. Due to the emerging
nature of this technology, we do not have sufficient evidence
to support—view on its commercial viability for treating
municipal waste, although the technology providers claim it is
cost-effective on certain high gate-fee wastes.
While Government does not generally have a preference
for one waste to energy technology over another, with the exception
of anaerobic digestion for treating food waste, any given technology
is more beneficial if both heat and electricity can be recovered.
Technology choice needs to reflect Iocal circumstances, which
will vary, but Government expects greenhouse gas emissions to
be a key consideration of those developing waste to energy plants.
| 
