Examination of Witnesses (Questions 220
- 239)
MONDAY 4 JUNE 2007
MR PHIL
WOOLAS MP, AND
MR BEN
BRADSHAW MP
Q220 Martin Horwood: Would you support
it?
Mr Bradshaw: I have gone on record
many times to support the right of people to leave retailers to
deal with excessive packaging. I think that incentive will rise
even more strongly in those areas that may go down the route of
financial incentives.
Q221 Martin Horwood: I am not sure
of the wording. You are prepared to support in legislation the
right of return to major retailers?
Mr Bradshaw: That already is in
legislation. We have those powers. If you are asking specifically
about the Liberal Democrat Private Members' Bill, no, we already
have the power in legislation to force retailers to take back
excessive packaging. It is there already.
Q222 Mr Hands: I want to ask a couple
of questions about various forms of national standardisation because
again it seems to me there is a difference in approach from Defra
and DCLG on all of this. In terms of national standardisation,
obviously the method with which recyclables and refuse are collected
differs enormously, both in terms of product and in terms of collection
methods. Some authorities have various different bins; others
have a bag service. The Minister from Defra and I share the same
local authority. I think both of us have been victims of journalists
snooping around in refuse bins to find out what may or may not
be there. It is certainly quite complicated even though it says
on the bag exactly what can and cannot go in it. I have two questions
in terms of a national framework. The first is whether there should
be a national framework in terms of collection method. This is
perhaps more for DCLG in terms of whether bags, boxes and different
colours of bins and so on could be standardised. The second question
is more in terms of product. Again, the Minister from Defra and
I will be familiar with the German scheme of Der Grüne
Punkt, which I think is a national standard in Germany for
recyclables, and whether we should not be looking at national,
standardised symbols across all recyclable products in this country.
Mr Bradshaw: It is interesting
to receive a suggestion from a member of the Opposition for more
standards, more rationalisation and more regulation. Let me deal
with the first question on the systems. It is true that there
is a variety of systems around the country. People say, "Why
can we not have the same system everywhere?" The reason for
that is that different systems have developed in different parts
of the country dependent on the sorts of technologies for disposal
that there are in that local area. If your local council or your
local Waste Disposal Authority uses an MRF, a Materials Recycling
Facility, then the obvious incentive on your waste collection
authority, such as Hammersmith & Fulham, is to collect all
of your recyclables in a single bag. That makes it simpler for
the householder. That is then taken to the MRF, which you may
wish to visit. They are extraordinary pieces of kit. The MRF separates
out the paper, the plastic, the glass. Some MRFs do it better
than others. The new, modern, high-tech MRFs do it extremely well.
However, in those parts of the country that have not invested
in MRFs, the most sensible thing for them to do by and large is
separation at the kerbside. That is where you get two, three,
four—sometimes even five—separate bins at the kerbside,
where the householder is then expected to separate the materials
out and they are then put in different boxes in the vehicle that
moves around. That is more labour intensive obviously at the kerbside.
Again, it would be nice and more simple for people to have the
same system everywhere. It would be hugely expensive, however,
to force on local authorities that have either invested in MRFs
or in kerbside recycling to change their systems. What we are
interested in is that, whatever system local authorities have,
they increase their recycling rates. Recycling rates have increased
dramatically under both systems. On products, yes, we are working
very closely with the supermarkets and with local authorities
to try to ensure that as many products as possible are recyclable.
I think about 90% or more of current plastics that are in the
domestic household waste stream are currently recyclable. The
German green point system is a slightly different system because
that is a producer responsibility system. The producer of the
packaging has the responsibility for recycling. We have implemented
the Packaging Directive in a different way in this country, just
as successfully, and I would argue with less burden on business.
We are still more than on course to hit our statutory packaging
recycling targets.
Mr Woolas: It may be helpful to
the Committee to point out that the grant that is the main funding
for collection and disposal is formula grant, which comprises
revenue support grant, redistributed business rates and principle
formula Police Grant. That of course is not ring fenced. It is
up to local authorities to determine how and what they spend on
it. The reason why we take the devolutionary approach, apart from
the obvious, is also to reflect the different geographies of the
different areas. As Members will appreciate, one would not want
the same collection area in a rural district council as one would
in an urban metropolitan council. Those differences are there.
Of course, traditionally disposal has been dealt with by the larger
authorities and by the joint disposal authorities, reflecting
the realities of the need for infrastructure and greater geographical
scope.
Q223 Sir Paul Beresford: For the
record, I entirely agree that you have to have horses for courses
and for different authorities, rural or urban, there has to be
a totally different approach. The different approaches cost different
amounts of money. Are these going to be reflected in the grants?
The reason the charge is not ring fenced is that some local authorities
do better than others and therefore there can be an opportunity
for them to move money one way or the other.
Mr Woolas: In so far as factors
such as population density and sparsity are taken into account,
in so far as there is a relationship between topography and waste,
it is taken into account but we try to take into account the balance
between being too prescriptive and complicated in formula and
genuinely allowing a non-ring fenced budget. You are absolutely
right to say that there are different performances in different
areas. We take the view that that is a good thing. It is better
to have a flotilla than a battleship. Good practice in local authorities
tends to be in public sector delivery. There are many schemes
and indeed some incentives to share best practice on waste collection
and disposal but we think a hands off approach is best.
Mr Bradshaw: Under the Gershon
efficiency reviews, local authorities have overshot their required
savings by, I think, £300 million but I can write with clarification
on that if you like.
Q224 Chair: On this particular topic?
Mr Bradshaw: On waste collection
and disposal, yes.
Q225 Anne Main: I have some questions
about co-mingling, both intentional and unintentional. As I am
sure Ministers are aware, there were some quite large headlines
over the weekend about spoiled recyclables so I would like to
ask what sort of service the public can expect to receive if they
do not have an MRF that operates at a dirty level and sorts things
out for them. What are we going to do to ensure that the public
has confidence in recycling genuinely happening and also would
you like to push forward to have more co-mingling or not?
Mr Bradshaw: With regard to the
last part of that question, I think I answered it before by saying
we want local authorities to use the systems they have to improve
their recycling levels. There is no doubt that doorstep separation
produces a cleaner waste stream and that is the argument that
is made by a number of organisations, including the Community
Recycling Network who I think were behind The Sunday Times
or at least behind an element of The Sunday Times article
on Sunday. Not only is it an umbrella organisation for community
recycling but it is also a campaigning organisation that favours
kerbside separation. For the reasons I stated earlier, we would
not want to insist to local authorities that that is the way they
should go, particularly if they have invested a great deal of
money in high-tech MRFs which are very good. It is possible to
find examples of waste that has been contaminated. However, a
company that was taking waste from a local authority for recycling
and reprocessing does not have to accept that waste if they are
not satisfied with the standards of cleanliness of the waste stream.
Any company that did and then felt it was not up to scratch and
disposed of it to landfill would have to pay the costs of that
landfill. We are looking at some of the allegations that were
made in The Sunday Times article but at first view the
advice of my officials is that this is at most a minor, fringe
problem that should not dent people's confidence in their recycling.
The data is collected very carefully, audited by the Audit Commission
and by the Environment Agency as to where waste and recyclables
go. On top of that, there is this very strong financial incentive
against landfill because of the landfill tax escalator which of
course the Chancellor more than doubled in his recent Budget.
Q226 Anne Main: You said the majority
of waste and plastics is recyclable. What are your views on the
fact that many authorities, particularly in supermarkets, handle
bottle banks for plastics and certain plastic containers? Of course,
because the plastic has a recycling sign on it, the public put
those in there but they are not recyclable and often inadvertently
give a co-mingled plastic which, unless you have a separation
facility, then is spoiled waste.
Mr Bradshaw: Are you saying that
some supermarkets operate recycling facilities for plastics and
the public put in materials that are not recyclable?
Anne Main: They are the wrong
plastics.
Chair: They do it with plastic
bottles but some people put in plastic which is not bottles and
cannot be recycled.
Q227 Anne Main: Tomato cartons, yoghurt
pots and the like.
Mr Bradshaw: Until we have 100%
plastics recycling, people I am afraid are still going to see
whether it says it is recyclable, either on the container or the
bottle, or whether their local authority, if they are doing it
themselves at the supermarket, specify what is and what is not
recyclable. In my experience, a plastics reprocessor or a local
authority that was packing plastics would not be caused huge problems
by having the odd bottle or wrong piece of plastics in there.
There are other contamination issues that pose much more serious
problems to MRFs, for example. Shredding paper, of interest perhaps
to politicians, is one.
Q228 John Cummings: 20% of the rubbish
that is put out of households is retail packaging and yet in your
White Paper you are saying that business should take responsibility
and that the public must take responsibility. Why the softly-softly
approach and cosy relationship with supermarkets and the industry
in general? Why not the same pressures? Why the velvet glove for
business and the mailed fist for the public?
Mr Bradshaw: I do not accept that.
Q229 John Cummings: It is in front
of you. You have a White Paper coming out and we are going to
have further discussions, consultations and voluntary agreements.
Mr Bradshaw: It is not a White
Paper; it is a strategy and it has already come out. As I said
in my answer to the first question from your Chair, I do not accept
the description that we are being soft on the private sector.
I outlined two sets of statutory regulations that apply to packaging
and to the private sector. I also said that we are one of only
two European Union countries that has implemented one of those
sets of regulations and, as a consequence, we have seen one of,
if not the lowest, levels of growth of packaging waste. On top
of the statutory requirements outlined in the White Paper, I have
also said already that we are asking the Commission to tighten
up one of those sets of regulations. We have also reached a voluntary
agreement with retailers representing 95% of UK retailing to stop
packaging growth by next year completely and to reduce it in absolute
terms by 2010.
Q230 John Cummings: I wish you the
best of luck.
Mr Bradshaw: Thank you.
Q231 Chair: Mr Woolas, do you think
there is anything that local authorities could be doing individually
that might help to encourage people in their areas to minimise
packaging?
Mr Woolas: Producers?
Q232 Chair: Yes.
Mr Woolas: Yes. Part of the sustainable
community strategy is to look at what the strategy paper describes
as the chain. The balance that local authorities have to strike
is that between the efficiencies which, all things being equal,
would lead to economies of scale and sustainability which, all
things being equal, would lead to locally produced product. Part
of that procurement and regeneration strategy is therefore geared
towards this issue of packaging. Again, we take the view that
being too prescriptive in that would be self-defeating. If one
considers the range of local authorities from, say, Birmingham
City Council with a £1 billion budget and a population of
around a million through to a district council with a budget of,
in some cases, £12 million and a population of 50,000 or
thereabouts, you can see the range of differences.
Mr Bradshaw: There are two things
in the waste strategy which will help with that. There is the
first ever waste minimisation target and the possibility for local
authorities to introduce incentive schemes which will work through
the system as a waste minimising and packaging minimisation incentive.
Q233 Anne Main: On local authorities,
many people have commented and said there are lots of small, licensed
premises. If they could be allowed to collect bottles and cans
from outside those rather than as commercial waste, that would
be advantageous. Would you support that?
Mr Woolas: On the whole, I would.
That point has been made by a number of local authorities.
Q234 Anne Main: It would be a valuable
contribution if they could be allowed to do that?
Mr Woolas: The Local Government
Association has made that point and certainly local authorities
have.
Mr Bradshaw: They are already
allowed to but local authorities can make a charge for it. That
is my understanding and my official is nodding.
Q235 Dr Pugh: During the local elections,
practically every political party and a couple of national newspapers
ran campaigns against alternate weekly collections. One point
being made was that it is not the only way to boost recycling.
What is your take on the comment that recycling can be boosted
appreciably without using this particular device? Where the methods
are successful, are there any social patterns emerging? In other
words, does recycling on a more voluntary basis work better in
suburban than in urban areas?
Mr Bradshaw: I am not sure whether
I heard the beginning of your question correctly. Did you say
that during the local election campaign political parties campaigned
against—?
Q236 Dr Pugh: I do not say nationally
but local political parties in various places.
Mr Bradshaw: The official policy
of all three main political parties was and remains that it should
be up to local authorities to make those decisions although, as
I said earlier, our shadow spokespersons for the DCLG gave a rather
different impression in some of those statements they gave to
the media. Let me leave that aside. The view the Government has
is that again it is entirely a matter for local authorities. I
believe your own has either embarked or is about to embark along
that route. Sir Paul Beresford's has already done so, as I understand
it, very successfully, as has my own local authority in Exeter.
The impression we get is that where local authorities organise
and plan these systems competently and well they do not appear
to cause too many problems, at least after a while. However, it
is very important that they do that. The other thing that the
Local Government Association would tell you—they have all
the figures on this—is of the top 20 local authorities for
recycling, 19 have alternate weekly collections and the other
one is a waste disposal authority which does not really count.
Q237 Dr Pugh: All I really wanted
was confirmation that it is not a matter of dispute between, say,
you and The Daily Mail that alternate weekly collections
are not the only way to boost recycling but you acknowledge that
in other areas recycling has been boosted via other mechanisms.
Having got your agreement on that, do you believe—and is
it the view of your Department or of Mr Woolas's Department—that
where alternate weekly collections are introduced, they work universally?
Mr Bradshaw: No. We do not know.
There are clear examples where local authorities have blundered
into introducing alternate weekly collections without proper consultation,
without proper planning.
Q238 Dr Pugh: It works in the narrow
sense of boosting recycling?
Mr Bradshaw: There is no doubt,
as I said earlier—these are Local Government Association
figures and I think you have already taken evidence from them—that
there is evidence that authorities that have introduced alternate
weekly collections have high levels of recycling. That may be
because they are historically local authorities that have high
levels of recycling but 19 out of the top 20 recycling authorities
have alternate weekly collections. Of course there are other,
very important drivers. The landfill tax escalator, LATS, the
Government's own recycling targets all are pushing up, quite rightly,
the huge expansion of kerbside collection, a nine-fold expansion
of kerbside collection since 1997, making it easier for householders
to recycle. All of these things are putting up recycling levels
but we do not think—I am sorry to have to stress this again—that
it is the role of central government to tell local authorities
how to do it. It is up to them to make the decisions based on
their housing stock, their experience, their knowledge of their
own areas. This is what we believe. It is called devolution.
Q239 Dr Pugh: Suppose they all turned
their back on alternate weekly collection and they decided to
do things differently. Do you think your national recycling targets
would then be met or could be met?
Mr Bradshaw: If the 130 local
authorities that have already gone down the route of alternate
weekly collections suddenly reversed that decision?
| 
