Examination of Witnesses (Question Numbers
1-19)
DR PAUL
LEINSTER AND
MS LIZ
PARKES
15 OCTOBER 2008
Q1 Chairman: Good afternoon, ladies and
gentlemen. Welcome to this first public evidence session of the
Committee's inquiry into the Waste Strategy for England. On behalf
of the Committee, may I formally welcome Mr Paul Leinster, the
chief executive of the Environment Agency. I think this is the
first time in your current role that you have been before us.
We had got so used to Sir John Harman and Baroness Young. I will
not say it is nice to see a new face because they were always
very helpful to us but you are particularly welcome and I hope
you will enjoy giving evidence to the Committee. You are supported
by Liz Parkes, who is the head of waste. Can I at the outset thank
you for your written evidence? You certainly seem to like the
Waste Strategy. It took me quite a long time as I read through
to find some points where you disagreed with it. You have not
fallen in love with it too much, have you?
Dr Leinster: I do not think so.
Basically, it is a sound document.
Q2 Chairman: Let me ask you about
the Waste Strategy which is a key part in terms of the beginning
of the document and laying out what the government sees as the
waste hierarchy. Perhaps you could comment from the Environment
Agency point of view on whether the government have the balance
right in terms of dealing with the consequences of producing waste,
as opposed to the production of waste itself. Some might say there
is more emphasis on the recycling elements as a solution to the
waste problem rather than tackling the production of waste in
the first instance. How do you see that from the Agency's point
of view?
Dr Leinster: I think your observation
is right. As you go up the waste hierarchy, it becomes increasingly
more difficult to get measures in place. It requires more people
to change behaviour and look at the waste they are producing to
see if there is a better way of doing things. Under our regulation,
the Pollution, Prevention and Control Directive, we have a way
in to this. Under PPC we can require companies to look at their
resource efficiency. PPC sites currently account for about 16
million tonnes of waste. These are the major, industrial sites
and we regulate them under integrated pollution, prevention and
control. We can put into permit conditions a requirement for them
to address their resource efficiency. One of the other areas that
we have been working on—we have been working closely with
WRAP on this—is quality protocols. How do you get materials
which are previously defined as waste back into use so that people
see the waste that is produced as a resource rather than something
to dispose of? We are actively working on about 15 protocols to
reduce the amount of waste that is disposed of.
Q3 Chairman: I know that has been
a problem in the past and we will look at that in a little more
detail but you said a second ago that you could talk to companies,
if I understood you correctly, about the production of waste.
Could you give us an example of an exchange you have had with
a company where you have said, "Look, there is too much waste
coming out of you"? How did the conversation go?
Dr Leinster: It becomes quite
difficult because you are having to have a good understanding
of their production process and look at ways in which that production
process can be changed. The way we tend to do it is by benchmarking,
by showing what are relative performances within the sector and
using that as a means of highlighting—
Q4 Chairman: It is a very interesting
interventionist approach but how do you identify who are the people
that you would like to have a conversation with?
Dr Leinster: We look at the quantities
of waste that are produced. We have a series of reports which
come from all of those companies. Any company which is regulated
under integrated pollution, prevention and control has to give
us an annual return in terms of the major emissions to air, the
discharges to water and the waste that is produced. One of the
things that we are now asking for, but they have been reluctant
so far, is to provide us also with some production data so that
we are able to normalise the amount of waste that they produce
against the level of production that they have. The way we tend
to focus on it is on gross quantities of waste produced by a site
and we go and target those sites which are producing the most
or other places where we know you can recycle or reuse that particular
type of material.
Ms Parkes: The action we would
take would depend on the sector. Half of all the waste from these
sectors we regulate comes from the power supply sector. Whilst
we all support waste minimisation and avoiding production at source,
it is very difficult to stop producing those ashes and those byproducts.
The work we have been doing with WRAP on the quality protocols
is about defining quality standards for the reuse and recycling
of that material, stimulating the markets for reuse of that in
the secondary aggregate trade. The action we need to take is very
sector specific.
Q5 Chairman: Do you have enough resources
to enable you to pursue what is obviously a promising line of
inquiry?
Dr Leinster: I think we do. Another
example that is related to the power sector is if you have flue
gas desulphurisation which is taking the sulphur gases out of
power stations, you produce a byproduct—we have now defined
it as a byproduct—which can be used instead of new gypsum
within plasterboards. A number of these sites have relationships
with plasterboard manufacturers and the material goes from the
power station into new plasterboard production.
Q6 Chairman: Effectively it moves
from the status of a waste with all that entails to a raw material?
Dr Leinster: Yes, it does.
Q7 Chairman: That process that you
describe seems to address some of the rather bizarre stories that
used to come out when we were doing our hazardous waste inquiry
about when is a waste not a waste.
Dr Leinster: Yes.
Q8 Chairman: Looking at the overall
balance, there is an enormous amount of attention paid to the
household waste stream, but when we look at it in tonnage terms
it is a smaller part of the overall waste picture. In terms of
the policy balance, have we got it right? An enormous amount of
focus and political attention goes on the household waste sector
and not on other areas which are bigger.
Ms Parkes: I do not think we have
been wrong to have the focus on municipal waste. There are very
clear and demanding targets from Europe. It is quite polluting
waste and it is about changing consumer behaviour, so it is very
important, but we do feel that having got measures in place to
tackle municipal waste, attention does now need to be turned to
industrial and commercial waste which is 91% of the overall waste
stream. The challenges there are different. We do not have the
same mechanisms to bring about change. If you look at what has
happened on municipal waste, at the beginning of the century it
was quite a challenge to get UK recycling rates up to anything
comparable with what is happening in Europe, but that has now
changed. Domestic waste recycling is about 30%. When you look
at the measures that have been taken to bring that about, you
have clear directive targets; you have the landfill tax which
provides the economic incentive; you have clear responsibilities
for local government to collect, recycle and dispose of that waste.
We have a huge amount of investment coming forward to generate
new infrastructure so all the levers are there. We think we have
to look at that model and see what else needs to be done to the
industrial and commercial side.
Q9 Chairman: Coming back to the Strategy,
do you feel that it provides an adequate toolkit to take up the
challenge that you have just put before the Committee?
Ms Parkes: The Strategy was a
review of the previous strategy. It was not intended to be a whole
new approach. The intention was to focus on municipal waste but
not at the expense of industrial and commercial waste. We think
the time is right to look at that, to see what has happened.
Q10 Chairman: Do you feel that there
needs to now be a separate piece of work done on that or not?
Ms Parkes: Yes. There is further
work that is needed and we are working on that in partnership
with Defra and others to look at industrial and commercial waste
in more detail and see where industry is doing the right thing
anyway and where is the economic climate that would be encouraging
them to do the right thing and what further interventions might
be needed to bring about a step change in behaviour.
Q11 Mr Drew: What research have you
done into the differentiated map out there of local authorities,
particularly where there is a split between waste collection authorities
and waste disposal authorities? Have you as yet managed to show
for example that unitary authorities, where you have managed to
combine the roles, are more effective at recycling than where
there are two tiers?
Ms Parkes: We obviously receive
an awful lot of information under the Landfill Allowance Trading
Scheme. We are the monitoring authority for that and we receive
the reports from waste disposal authorities on the amount of waste
going to landfill. We do put out regular information on that.
I think it is too early to say and it is not for us to sit in
judgment on what is the right model of delivery for this at local
government level. Local authorities had to employ the right methods
that work for their local situation, depending on the types of
properties they have, depending on where their populations are
coming from. Lots of local authorities are making huge drives
here to encourage the public to do the right thing as well as
investing in new infrastructure. Obviously, meeting the landfill
diversion targets does remain a challenge but it does look like
most authorities are on track to do that.
Q12 Miss McIntosh: You gave the figures
for recycling in this country. Am I not right that many other
European countries, particularly the Scandinavian countries, are
now going away from recycling and much more heavily towards incineration?
Ms Parkes: I do not think it is
about moving away from recycling. There are figures in Defra's
Waste Strategy of that show that a high level of recycling is
not incompatible with a high level of energy recovery. Some of
the countries you have mentioned may have more integrated systems
that look at energy from waste, district heating schemes, and
look at this as a whole, but we do not believe that either of
those is incompatible. The challenge is reducing reliance on landfill
and we really think that in England there has been quite a significant
step change. At the start of Landfill Directive implementation,
we had something like 1,500 licensed landfills in England and
Wales and that has now reduced to 500 operational sites, so quite
a big step change and I think it does seem to us that the corner
has been turned but there is no room for complacency. There is
still a long way to go but this is a highly different picture
to the one we saw at the beginning of the millennium.
Dr Leinster: When you look at
the development and the maturity of the waste management industry
in different countries, they are at different stages. You need
to look at what is the best environmental option for the types
of waste that you are receiving, how best they can be used within
the overall mix, so you start looking at them as a resource rather
than as a problem to be got rid of.
Q13 Paddy Tipping: The point Liz
made was that it has gone from 1,500 to 500. What is the projection
forward?
Ms Parkes: There will always need
to be landfill for disposal of residual waste that you cannot
do anything else with. There is about six and a half year's landfill
capacity left in England and Wales. The challenge is that that
is not evenly distributed but obviously looking at reducing reliance
on landfill is a good thing. For a long time we have had a plethora
of mineral extraction sites that needed to be restored. Landfilling
has certainly been a safe option but not the most sensible option
in terms of sustainable resource use. New ones are still being
created, albeit at a slower rate and obviously, with the current
economic downturn, we would not expect to see a big increase in
new landfill capacity.
Q14 Miss McIntosh: I understand that
in the United States they are going back over old landfill sites
and extracting minerals because of their value. Are there plans
to do that in this country?
Dr Leinster: People are starting
to look at it. One of the interesting things is that the levels
of a number of the precious metals in landfills are higher than
the levels in the native ores now. It certainly is an option that
needs to be looked at because the extraction could be easier.
Q15 Chairman: One of the Strategy's
elements is reform regulation to drive the reduction of waste.
You are a regulatory body. What have you done to fulfil that objective
of the Strategy?
Ms Parkes: Paul has already talked
about the Integrated Pollution, Prevention and Control Directive
which has very clear obligations in terms of resource efficiency.
We implement the producer responsibility legislation in relation
to the packaging: Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment and
there are other voluntary mechanisms in place. The crucial thing
the Agency has done is really looking at removing unnecessary
regulatory burden. For instance, there are an awful lot of what
we would call fairly low risk waste activities that strictly speaking
do need a licence. Under the legislation they require a permit
from us. We do not think that is sensible in all cases and we
have put in place a system whereby we assess the risk from those
activities. We look at the benefits to the environment from recycling
and we have, if you like, set aside the legislation reducing the
need for many thousands of permits. Also, we adopt regulatory
positions where we think the law may be setting out the right
challenge but it may be too challenging for the industry to meet.
We work in partnership with industry to make sure that regulations
come in on time and are rigorously enforced but we are also mindful
of the need for alternatives. If you want to divert waste from
landfill, you need to be confident that alternative infrastructure
is there in order to enforce rigorously. All the time, it is adjusting
our regulatory approach to try and bring about that step change
in encouraging recovery whilst not having a negative impact on
the environment.
Q16 Chairman: When you look at the
various streams of waste, whether it be municipal, business or
commercial, what are the ones that make you pull your hair out
and say, "Look at that. They are producing all of this and
they are doing absolutely nothing to reduce their waste stream"?
Who are the real sinners in the waste world?
Ms Parkes: Historically, they
have been in the construction industry because it is a huge amount
of resource that is going on to sites and often coming off sites
as waste, never having been used. Obviously, where elements of
that waste are hazardous, that is extremely wasteful, frustrating
and potentially damaging for the environment because we have seen
quite a high level of fly tipping associated with the construction
industry. We are pleased to say that the site waste management
plans that have recently been made mandatory do seem to be having
an impact. This is an example of where something that started
off as a voluntary initiative, working with the big players has
really started to bring about a change. Frankly, it just makes
good economic sense so that is where I think we have been most
frustrated but the signs are encouraging. The area we are now
turning our attention to because we think it needs more of a strategic
approach is the whole issue of organic wastes. If you look at
all the organic material foodstuff, green waste, that comes out
of either homes or commerce, shops, industrial processes and you
put all that together, that is something like 100 million tonnes
of waste potentially that can go back on to land and add value.
It is a potential source of energy. What we think is really important
is to look at this as a strategic resource and identify what the
best outcomes are for that material so that we see a higher grade
material going on to the very best land. This is where our quality
protocol on compost is really helpful in those markets. Also,
lower grade material can be very valuable in restoring contaminated
land and helping to meet the regeneration targets. We think taking
a strategic approach for the whole of that sector is an important
next step and that is the work we are just commencing at the moment.
Dr Leinster: Can I add a couple
of examples? One is the success of the hazardous waste regulations
and the implications of those for construction and demolition
waste. Prior to the introduction of the regulations it was easier
for construction and demolition companies to consign something
and define it as hazardous waste because there was no cost differential.
They just consigned a lot of material as hazardous waste. Now,
with the new regulations in place, people take the time to segregate
it and to deal with that bit of the material which is hazardous
in the right way. Getting people to segregate their wastes and
deal with them all as separate waste streams has provided a lot
of benefit. One of the areas that does make me scream still is
subcontractors. You can deal with the prime contractors and they
will have site waste management plans but sometimes subcontractors
do not have the same disciplines and controls around what they
do. What we need to do to those folks is make it easy for them
to be doing the right thing and sometimes it is not easy for them
to dispose of their waste in the right way.
Q17 David Taylor: Liz Parkes seemed
to suggest a moment or two ago that the reduction in numbers of
landfill sites from 1,500 to 500 was necessarily a performance
indicator but is it not the case that there is a smaller number
of larger sites? There is a very large site straddling the Leicestershire/Derbyshire
border called the Albion site. In relation to the area and operational
lifespan, are they greater typically now for new sites that are
being sanctioned?
Ms Parkes: I do not think we have
seen an increase in bigger sites. We have just seen a reduction
in smaller sites and small operators who perhaps inadvertently
got into land filling, farmers and so on, filled up their sites
and got out of it. The economies of scale are such that, yes,
we are going to see larger sites and we will see, I suspect, over
tipping on existing sites because, having established that precedent,
it is easier often for people to get planning permission.
Q18 David Taylor: Can we move on
to waste as a resource and look at the European Waste Framework
Directive? In its earliest incarnations, it was rather imprecise
and unworkable. Legal decisions over the years have helped and
you yourself said that there was a lack of clarity which fuelled
debate and disagreement, often at the expense of identifying better
options there are for managing waste and so on. In June of this
year revisions were agreed in Brussels, were they not, which should
remove some of the barriers to greater use of waste. How do you
see this developing in the months and years that lie ahead? What
is the follow-on from those changes?
Ms Parkes: We are still awaiting
the final text from the Commission which is expected this autumn.
We are pleased that the whole Directive has not been thrown up
in the air because you are absolutely right. The case law has
provided clarity. Let us remember that it is supposed to be a
Framework Directive so it is not supposed to provide a lot of
technical detail. We are pleased that the fundamental structure
of it has not changed and we can therefore continue to rely on
that body of case law. Where we most welcome the changes is looking
at the end of waste criteria. The work we have been doing with
WRAP on quality protocols is quite revolutionary and I do not
think many people thought we would get this off the ground. It
was to define end of waste and set standards for specifications
and it has really led the way with this work now in Europe. We
are delighted that the Commission has recognised that work. We
do indeed consult with the Commission before we adopt any of these
standards and protocols to make sure that they are going to be
well received at European level and we need to look at these as
internationally traded commodities as well. The devil will as
ever be in the detail and it will be about the implementation
of this, but we do not think it is going to bring about a huge
amount of change in itself.
Q19 David Taylor: I am pleased to
note that there could be new products—metals, paper, glass,
tyres and textiles. Representing an area where there are substantial
numbers of quarries which have in the past used recycled fuel
oil—you are aware of the dilemma that there was with that;
it was concentrated at quarries who could then use it in their
work—the Environment Agency were not helpful in developing
that operation at all. I think it has withered away in many part
of the quarrying industry. That is unfortunate, is it not? Why
are you doing nothing on RFO?
Dr Leinster: We are doing stuff
on RFO. The work on the rest of the waste protocols shows that
if people take the right approach then we are very happy to say
that that material ceases to be waste. However, if there is a
clear, environmental impact with something, then we have to say
that there is an unacceptable environmental impact.
| 
