Examination of Witnesses (Question Numbers
153-159)
MR DIRK
HAZELL, MR
RICHARD SKEHENS
AND MS
GILL WEEKS
12 NOVEMBER 2008
Q153 Chairman: Welcome to the further
session of the Committee's inquiry into the Waste Strategy for
England 2007. Can I formally welcome then, from the Environmental
Services Association, Dirk Hazell, their Chief Executive, Richard
Skehens, the Managing Director of Grundon Waste Management Limited,
and Gill Weeks, the Regulatory Affairs Director of Veolia Environmental
Services (UK) plc. Thank you for your written evidence, which
was very helpful to us. Can I start with a question about your
optimism about the United Kingdom meeting its landfill diversion
targets. You express some concern as to whether we will actually
hit the targets, that the Strategy the Government have put forward
is optimistic in that respect. We have had submissions indicating
that these targets that we have are currently not stretching enough.
Do you think that we could do better than is laid out if, shall
we say, policies, like, for example, banning certain wastes from
going to landfill, were adopted? What do you think are the maximum
levels of recycling that we might seriously achieve in this country
by 2015?
Mr Hazell: Thank you, Chairman,
and I will try to be brief with your question. I think the first
answer is that it looks like the 2010 target will be met with
40% recycling, and that is corroborated by low prices in the landfill
allowance trading market. The 2013 targets are another matter.
The Audit Commission, as the Committee probably knows, have looked
at that, they have far more evidence available to them than we
have, and they think that delays in the planning system or in
funding could in fact put those targets in jeopardy. That is our
view, and, in any case, it takes years to put an item of infrastructure
on-line even when it has got permission, and Defra have provided
a schedule on that, so we think there are things the Government
could do actually to accelerate things. In terms of landfill bans,
we have no dogmatic objection to landfill bans, although some
materials, like asbestos, will always need to be landfilled. Article
22 of the new Waste Framework Directive encourages Member States
to go for separate collection of biowaste for treatment outside
landfill. ESA supported stricter obligations and, I suppose, one
way of answering your question is to say that, if you were to
prevail on the Government to go for separate collection of biowaste,
that would be quite a good way of getting the recycling rate up
for 2015 rather more quickly than might otherwise be the case.
It is difficult to put a figure on what we think the 2015 figure
is, but, as I have already said, we think there are difficulties
with the 2013 target.
Q154 Chairman: Going back in time,
you told us in your written evidence that the Waste Strategy 2000
made a mistake of not supporting its aspirations with effective
policies, regulations and economic incentives. Do you think that
the Waste Strategy for 2007 repeats that mistake?
Mr Hazell: No. I think it is fair
to say, and I am not saying this just because we are here because
we say it when we are not here, that your Committee has been a
very helpful pressure on the Government, as indeed has the European
Union.
Q155 Chairman: You can say that again!
We like that!
Mr Hazell: Your Committee has
been particularly helpful—
Q156 Mr Drew: Particularly the Chairman!
Mr Hazell: All the members and
all the chairmen, by and large. It has been very, very helpful
because certainly I have been in the job and Gill has been in
the job for many years and actually, if you go back to the start
of this decade, the only way we could ever get the Government
to talk to us was actually to come and talk to you, and it was
the same with the regulator. We are in a completely different
context now. Defra has put far more staff and resources into it,
there has been, since Margaret Beckett, a different ministerial
attitude towards this subject, and, when you look at the Strategy
that came out last year, there is a sort of route map of getting
to where we need to be. There is clarification of the roles of
different technologies, there is an accelerated increase in the
landfill tax, and one of the things that would be very helpful
to us, if you could extract it from ministers, is some sort of
commitment for the medium- to long-term future of the landfill
tax because that is a driver for investment. There is contemplation
of enhanced capital allowances, there is nodding in the direction
of more sustainable treatment for commercial, industrial and construction
waste, there is a very timid reference to the "polluter pays"
principle for household waste and there is reference to site waste
management plans, so you are dealing with much more sophisticated
theory, refined targets, but, as well as that, you have actually
got some practical policies, so it is like being in a different
country, frankly.
Q157 Dr Strang: You have said that,
in your view, the rate at which we can reduce the production of
waste is likely to be fairly slow and that, therefore, there has
to be some concentration on the managing of existing waste. It
would be fair to say, would it not, that that is contrary to the
Government's policy with its waste hierarchy which puts prevention
at the top? If I could just throw in a further question, do you
think we need more bold initiatives, and have you any suggestions
as to what can be done to try and make more progress?
Mr Hazell: We do. There are two
components to your question. The first is that we do not, as the
waste resource management industry, oppose minimisation, we are
not opposed to it, but the waste hierarchy is not a rigid imperative
and it is not in itself an infallible guide to what is best for
the environment. There was an awful lot of lobbying that surrounded
the new five-stage hierarchy that is in Article 4 of the Waste
Framework Directive. It is a five-stage hierarchy now, not a three-stage
one, that is fine, and it does allow diversions from the hierarchy
in the interests of what is environmentally feasible and also
you have to take into account what is economically and socially
appropriate as well, so there is reasonable pragmatism in that
new framework law. Our concern on minimisation, it is not so much
that we are against the minimisation because we are not, it is
that, if the Government focuses too much on minimisation at this
stage, it can become an excuse for not focusing enough on the
infrastructure that will replace landfill, and we are still very
short of that in this country. Second, in terms of stronger waste
minimisation, we do support the Chief Executive of the Environment
Agency's evidence on PPC permitting; you have good evidence on
that. He, rightly, referred to the quality protocols for end-of-waste
for certain waste streams that the Agency are rapidly developing,
and that is really with a view to influencing European Union standards
because that has got to be decided at the European level. I think
the only caveat we would offer this Committee is that there is
a need for much clearer guidance on how that end-of-waste regime,
the quality protocol regime, relates to the REACH regime, the
new chemicals regime for Europe. Originally, waste was not supposed
to be in it. We have got a deal for compost, which is quite helpful,
but the other waste streams, if we could get official and clear
guidance, because the REACH stuff is so complicated, on how the
REACH regime relates to the quality protocols and end-waste, that
would help. Also on minimisation, extended producer responsibility
is something we would encourage the Government to look at much
more closely. There is a generic reference to extended producer
responsibility in Article 8 of the new Waste Framework Directive.
This Government has not had a very strong record on producer responsibility
and we do think that that needs to change if you are serious about
minimisation. If you get the right extended producer responsibility,
you encourage producers to build better-quality goods that last
longer, they are easier to recycle at the end of their life phase,
they are less hazardous, and you also build in the financial means
to pay for the treatment once the consumer is finished with them.
Q158 David Taylor: Domestic recycling
rates have quadrupled in the last decade or so and in your submission,
in a passing comment, you say that is largely because the easy
wins have been secured. Very briefly, what do you mean by that?
It is paragraph 4.
Mr Hazell: Well, I am surrounded
by two operators, but, in very broad terms, what has been taken
out of the household waste stream is what is very easy to take
out, so it has been things like paper, glass and, actually to
help local authorities with their waste targets, we have had some
green waste. As we are now looking higher up in terms of recycling
rates, you have to take from more of the mixed waste stream, unless
you go down separate collection and biowaste, but either of my
colleagues can give you operational answers, if you want.
Q159 David Taylor: It will probably
help if I complete the question by observing that you say also
in your submission that the Government missed an opportunity to
implement charging schemes reflecting the "polluter pays"
principle. I wonder what evidence there is for that, and are you
not concerned that, by implementing such schemes, you will make
the journalists and readers of The Daily Mail and The
Daily Express hypertensive?
Mr Hazell: Well, I think doing
the sort of line of work that we are in, you cannot bear to read
The Daily Mail these days! We sort of have to carry on
with those and—
|
