Waste Strategy for England 2007 - Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee Contents


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—



 
previous page contents next page

House of Commons home page Parliament home page House of Lords home page search page enquiries index

© Parliamentary copyright 2010
Prepared 19 January 2010