Examination of Witnesses (Questions 860-879)
Joan Ruddock MP, Ian Pearson MP and Malcolm Wicks
MP
13 MAY 2008
Q860 Lord Haskel: Re-using materials
and recycling materials is an important part of the whole scheme.
We have had people say to us that using recycled materials gives
the impression that you are selling an inferior product. Do you
not think that we should make particular effort in trying to develop
new technologies to help firms to use recycled materials because
otherwise the whole scheme is not complete? To complete the circle
you really need to have the recycled materials used again.
Ian Pearson: I agree with that. One of the things
we are doing as a Government is pumping money into research that
will look specifically at some of these areas. We can always have
a debate about how much and is it enough. It is clearly a focus
of attention for us as a Government that we look at research in
this area and what potential there is to improve our understanding
and our capabilities.
Q861 Lord Haskel: You do not think
it should be more specific?
Ian Pearson: I know that there is specific research
in a number of these different areas. Obviously it is not for
me as a Minister to make detailed funding decisions on what support
should be provided through the research councils, it is very much
up to them to do that. The decisions we make as a Government are
that we think, for instance, full economic costing is good when
it comes to supporting research so that our research is sustainable
and, also, that we should be supporting research into some of
the biggest challenges facing the world and the UK today and living
with environmental changes is one of them. It is then up to the
research councils to decide what is the best research to fund
on the basis of peer review and the quality of the proposals that
they receive.
Q862 Lord Bhattacharyya: One of the
big problems of design these days is that because of light weight
and producing energy efficient products one uses the sort of materials
that cannot be recycled easily, for example, composites. In cars,
if you look at light weight materials, inevitably they end up
using more and more composites. Aircrafts nowadays are coming
in with more and more composites. Although they are being energy
efficient because they are lightweight, recycling them becomes
a huge problem. How do you cater for that?
Ian Pearson: My Lord, you will know far more
than I do about the possibilities in this area, but it is certainly
true to say that composites are becoming more pervasive in a lot
of products. Only tomorrow the next generation composite wing
project will be announced and it does bring challenges. I think
the best answer we can give is that we are aware of that as an
issue and I am sure research councils will be keen to fund research
into the recycling of composite materials. If the Committee has
suggestions to make on this matter, I am sure that is something
that the research councils would be very keen to consider.
Malcolm Wicks: The Department for Business and
the Resource Efficiency Knowledge Transfer Network have just published
a report called "Material Security: Ensuring resource availability
for the UK economy" and that is looking at the security of
supply for 69 key raw materials. The conclusion of the report
is that far more attention needs to be paid to resource efficiency,
including waste minimisation, closed loop recycling and the avoidance
of dispersion of critical materials to the environment. That seems
to be very much in line with some of the evidence that this inquiry
has heard.
Joan Ruddock: Obviously fundamental research
is very, very important but so is bringing new techniques to market,
which is something that WRAP has been very much engaged in. For
example, they have had a successful large-scale trial in recycled
PET and there is a novel process for the recycling of HDPE milk
bottles back into milk bottles. They have supported market development
with capital support on the closed loop London plant at Dagenham
which will take 35,000 tonnes per annum of mixed bottles from
the UK. One of the members of the Committee said that people often
think that these are second rate materials, but there is actually
a huge demand from manufactures and retailers for recycled material.
Whereas some people may take that view and perhaps some of it
comes from ignorance, in industry and commerce itself there is
a huge demand for recycled material. We just need to find new
ways of using it and making it acceptable both in a utilitarian
way and sometimes in a visual way as well. As regards the question
about composites, this is one of the reasons why life-cycle analysis
is so important, because there has to be a trade off. It may be
that for waste purposes we would want less use of composites for
carbon footprinting and so doing a life-cycle analysis has to
be the basis of making these decisions as to where trade-offs
lie.
Q863 Chairman: We visited Xerox earlier
in our inquiry and they drew our attention to work which they
do in Dundalk, in the south of Ireland, where they take their
very large old photocopying machines and they renovate them and
they bring them out at a reduced price as last year's model. Do
you know if any of your departments procure that sort of equipment?
The impression we got was that the departments do not, that they
do not practice what they preach because what is good is to have
the latest, which is obviously the best and certainly the most
expensive. Do you think you could send us a note on what each
of your departments does in respect of that type of procurement
because it would be interesting as a footnote for the report that
we will be producing? Sometimes we think you talk the talk but
you do not always walk the walk. It would be helpful for us to
find out.
Malcolm Wicks: I think it would be helpful and
we could compare it with exemplars like the House of Lords!
Chairman: That is a perfectly fair point.
Q864 Baroness Sharp of Guildford:
If one is looking at the waste hierarchy then reduction comes
higher up the hierarchy than recycling. The design element is
obviously an extremely important one. What is the Government doing
to encourage collaboration between industry and academia to enable
design students to get a better understanding of the needs of
business and indeed of the whole life-cycle analysis approach?
Ian Pearson: As a result of machinery of government
changes last year responsibility for the Design Council transferred
from the Department of Culture, Media and Sport to my department,
the Department for Innovation, Universities and Skills. Certainly
the Design Council has been doing a lot to work to promote design.
Sustainability is one of the principles of good design and it
is very much promoted as such by the Design Council. Creative
& Cultural Skills is the sector skills agency responsible
for the design sector and it has launched "High-Level Skills
for Higher Value", a skills development plan to improve the
professional skills of the UK design industry. It has worked on
design modules for undergraduate courses at a university level
and it has also provided work, recommending a number of approaches
to developing design education in schools to ensure that design
is built into people's awareness at an early age before they are
making decisions on what degree courses to follow. Only in March
this year we saw the launch of a design blueprint which outlines
the actions needed to implement the Skills Development Plan. There
are also plans to set up a UK design skills alliance, which is
a partnership with industry and education to take forward the
recommendations of the plan. There is quite a lot of work going
on in this area at the moment. I really do think that the profile
of design and the importance of design and sustainable design
have really rocketed in the last few years and lessons are being
learned across Government but across industry as well.
Q865 Baroness Sharp of Guildford:
It is not just design and sustainability, it is this whole issue
of life-cycle analysis that it is important they understand. It
is the point that Lord Bhattacharyya was making about engine design:
you may use composites and you have got the trade off between
the lighter vehicle, the lighter aeroplane and its use over the
life cycle. It may be that it is going to be using a lot less
fuel because it is so much lighter and that actually the trade
off is a very positive one on these sorts of things.
Ian Pearson: That is absolutely right. One of
the things that we have learned over the last few years is how
to get better at life-cycle analysis. I think practice is spreading
amongst industry and certainly across Government as well. If you
were to ask me whether more needs to be done the answer is going
to be very obviously yes.
Q866 Earl of Selborne: As soon as
a material has to be labelled as a waste it becomes very much
harder to use it. The Environment Agency has been working on a
series of quality protocols to enable the waste label to be removed
in some cases, but it would be very much better if the Waste Framework
Directive could be redefined and we could have a better idea,
on a European basis, as to what was waste and what was a byproduct.
What are the chances of a change in this European legislation?
Am I right in thinking that the Environment Agency's protocols
are probably not recognised internationally?
Joan Ruddock: Neither the Commission, the Environment
Council nor the European Parliament has proposed a revision of
the definition of waste in the existing Waste Framework Directive,
that is not on the table for discussion. It is very unlikely that
the definitions of waste will be revised in the course of the
considerations of the Waste Framework Directive. Having said that,
what is in the Council's common position is a provision on end
of waste and that could have implications for the protocols that
the Environment Agency has been working on. If this does remain
in the final text then the European Commission would be able to
adopt end of waste criteria for specified waste streams. If that
happened then that would apply throughout the whole of the EU
and we would be bound by it in the normal way. As to the work
that the Environment Agency has done and is doing, we consider
that still to be valuable and that work should continue. If indeed
there are changes Europe-wide then this will put us in a good
position to argue what kind of changes should be brought in and
to offer the experience of the development of the protocols that
we have already done. That is the way that we think things will
go. The issue with products is that a byproduct, if it is a true
byproduct, ought not to be classified as waste in the first place.
If things can be properly defined as byproducts then they should
be outside this consideration.
Q867 Earl of Selborne: We have got
a situation where the Environment Agency is trying to produce
these protocols so that people know whether they have to stick
a label on the product or not. If it was done on a European basis
it would be much simpler.
Joan Ruddock: Of course.
Q868 Earl of Selborne: Do we not
need a change in the Waste Framework Directive? Why are we not
urging for it?
Joan Ruddock: As I have tried to indicate, the
debate is about end of waste criteria, which we are supporting.
I would make the distinction between redefining waste as a whole
and looking at the end of waste criteria and that is a distinction
that has been made throughout all of the discussions in Europe.
We are not acting alone in this. No one is proposing redefining
waste per se. In terms of the end of life waste definitions, we
support that. We have experience through the development of our
protocols and we think that is indeed the way forward.
Q869 Lord Crickhowell: I am also
disappointed and surprised by that answer because we received
very powerful evidence from industry early on in our inquiry that
one of the major problems was the fact that the Waste Framework
Directive was drafted before sustainability became the key issue,
it was directed at waste and pollution, and as a former Chairman
of the National Rivers Authority who had to deal with it I understand
that. In the view of a large chunk of British industry who has
given evidence to us it is a very considerable problem. The glass
industry gave some very powerful evidence on the effect that it
is having on them. It does seem to me it is no good just saying
it is not an issue in Europe. I suspect that this Committee will
have something quite strong to say on it and it may suggest that
perhaps the British Government should be taking a lead on the
issue. I do hope that when we come back to look at our report
you will consider really carefully whether it is a problem. I
am worried that you are saying the Government does not think it
is a problem and nothing is happening in Europe when the industrial
evidence we have received is that it is a problem.
Joan Ruddock: I hear what you say. All I can
tell you is that no bit of the whole of the European machinery
is engaged in a debate about redefining waste per se. The focus
is on the end of waste criteria and we believe that that is where
the focus needs to be, that this is where useful work can be done.
It has to be said that if industry as a whole is taking a different
view then clearly they have not been able to persuade either the
Commission or indeed other Member State governments. We are not
isolated in this and we are supportive of this particular way
forward and we do think that our own work in this country is useful
in that respect.
Q870 Chairman: Are you saying that
the two are mutually exclusive or are you saying that, as far
as you are concerned, you do not regard what Lord Crickhowell
and Earl of Selborne have been saying as being sufficiently relevant
to require exercising the British Government?
Joan Ruddock: No. We have not been saying that
the definition of waste is not an issue. We are saying that there
are no plans to change it by the Commission, the European Parliament
or the Council.
Q871 Chairman: Why are you not raising
it as an issue since sectors of British industry are greatly exercised
by it?
Joan Ruddock: I would have to check whether
indeed the British Government has been raising this as an issue
or not. All I can repeat is that we are not saying that it is
not an issue, but I am only able to say where we have been putting
our pressure, what we have been doing in negotiations and it is
limited to the end of waste criteria. I am very happy to produce
a note. If there is anything I am able to say about the negotiations
that have taken place or the position that the British Government
has adopted, I would be very happy to do it, but it is not something
that I myself know. I certainly have not been at the Council meetings
where this has been discussed.
Chairman: That would be very helpful because
it could assist us in sharpening one way or another any recommendation
that we might make. The evidence that we have received and the
force with which it was expressed suggested that this is a concern
of at least one of the major recycling industries. If you could
give us information it would help with our recommendation, if
the Committee decides to look at it.
Lord May of Oxford: It does look like it is
on the Defra radar screen.
Chairman: It will perhaps be our role to put
it there!
Q872 Lord Methuen: It has been proposed
that choice editing could be employed whereby retailers only stock
the most sustainable products on the market and so members of
the public are not given the opportunity to purchase the least
sustainable options. Would you support such a strategy?
Joan Ruddock: Yes, very much so. You may not
like the term choice editing but it is actually quite an effective
tool and it underlines and underpins a great deal of the work
that Defra is doing on products and materials. Clearly if we can
persuade manufacturers and retailers to only stock the most efficient
in whatever respect we are talking about, whether it is carbon,
waste or whatever, then it makes it much easier for the consumer
to make an appropriate purchase. There is obvious value in choice
editing. We do think that this is very important. We can achieve
this obviously by the decisions of the retailers but also through
the use of minimum performance standards for products. It is something
that we work on and something that is normally done European-wide.
The best example we can give of this, which is energy rather than
waste, is if we look at the A to G energy labels, the European
standard. That has enabled people to make appropriate choices,
ie to get closer to the A than the G, but what we now know is
it is having an even bigger effect on the retailers themselves.
In terms of their competition policies, they have ended up wanting
to present goods at the top end of that scale rather than keeping
the whole range and so now it is very unusual to find any product
below about a C rating. So it has had a major effect on retailers
and that is why we think that choice editing is a very, very good
tool.
Q873 Lord Methuen: Do you not think
you should have something like the FSA's "traffic light"
system on a product?
Joan Ruddock: There is a whole review being
undertaken, particularly on the energy saving products and that
is being done at a European level and we are feeding into that.
We are having to look now at a range of issues, not just end of
life and waste recyclability but also carbon and that is one of
the most significant. There is a debate to be had about whether
it should be something like traffic lights or whether it should
be carbon units. There is a whole debate to be had about labelling
and what would be the most appropriate. Choice editing gets us
further often than you might obtain with labelling alone.
Q874 Lord May of Oxford: Let me begin
my question with a very brief anecdote. When I first became Chief
Scientist I would sometimes go into the office early. The Office
of Science and Technology was housed in what was then the DTI.
I would find every light in the building was on as early as seven
o'clock. When I complained about this I was clearly regarded as
some sort of eccentric rat bag or some fruit cake person. I was
dismissed by being told that the cleaning staff were all contracted,
they did not speak English and who cared anyway! I had an eight-month
battle which I finally won by seeking to inject myself into the
annual appraisal process for the relevant Civil Service officials
who were in charge of greenness in the building and I had a brief
and, I suspect, very transient triumph. Government departments
are clearly in an ideal situation to lead by example in reducing
their own waste. However, the Sustainable Development Commission
reported that performance is variable, with some departments "still
not able to provide complete data for their whole estate."
The National Audit Office's report on sustainable construction
and refurbishment on the government estate said "a coherent
approach to monitoring progress and ensuring compliance"
was lacking. What is being done to ensure that government departments
meet their own targets, are able to account for their waste and
who is taking the lead in addressing these problems, particularly
for the estate management?
Malcolm Wicks: Can I reassure Lord May that
his influence may have—
Q875 Lord May of Oxford: Remember
that I will come and look at the lights!
Malcolm Wicks: Yes, but do not trip over because
it is so dark there now sometimes! My Department did extremely
well in the latest Sustainable Development Commission report;
we came in the top three with a five-star rating. We are not complacent;
we want to go for gold. In particular, carbon emissions were 14.4
per cent lower than the 1999-2000 baseline and there was a 30.7
per cent reduction in waste arising since 2004-05, making BERR
one of the top performers against its target of 55.8 per cent
of total waste recycled, et cetera, et cetera.
Q876 Lord May of Oxford: If I were
a politician I guess I could claim that as my legacy!
Malcolm Wicks: We have followed your lead on
this. The results are now clear. I cannot speak for other departments.
Q877 Chairman: Perhaps you could
share with us who were first and second?
Malcolm Wicks: I do not know whether in the
top three means we were third. I do not think I can share that
with you. We can report that to the Committee in due course.
Q878 Chairman: If you could tell
us now?
Malcolm Wicks: I do not know.
Q879 Chairman: I am sorry. This sounds
like a bit of spin doctoring.
Ian Pearson: I am concerned that there is rather
a selective quotation in the question where it says that the Sustainable
Development Commission reported that performance is variable.
Performance is always bound to be variable.
| 
