§ 11 am
§ Sue Doughty (Guildford) (LD)I am grateful for the opportunity to raise this issue, which is extremely topical. In 2001, 5.2 million tonnes of hazardous waste were produced in England and Wales, of which 40 per cent. was landfilled. I know that the Minister will know an enormous amount about the changes to the regulation of hazardous waste, but for the record I should state that they will have a huge impact. This year, more waste will be classified as hazardous, and the co-disposal of hazardous and non-hazardous waste will rightly be banned. As a result, however, more businesses will need to dispose of increasing quantities of hazardous waste while the availability of waste disposal sites plummets. There will be dramatic cost increases to business. The new regime starts on Monday, and it means that small and medium-sized businesses face major changes for which they are ill prepared.
I want to explore the impact on small businesses—I should say at the outset that they are not against meeting their environmental commitments, and the purpose of this debate is not to have a barney with the Minister as to whether they should do so; I do not want the debate to become such a confrontation. There are opportunities for small businesses in finding novel ways to replace some of the more hazardous products that we use and to treat hazardous waste. They have a strong role to play. However, I am particularly interested in small businesses that produce substances, sometimes in very small quantities, that will now be classified as hazardous waste, and what they will need to do to conform to the requirements.
Yet again, there has been too little planning, information and publicity ahead of the implementation date of a major environmental directive. That leaves small businesses in particular with major problems. The difference between small businesses and medium-sized and large businesses is that larger businesses have people who make it their job to be aware of the environment and environmental measures. They have time to scour the relevant websites, and they have large industry groups. For small businesses, however, we are usually talking about the people doing the payroll in the evening, and new regulation can sometimes pass them by, no matter how hard they try to conform to it. Such businesses rely on waste contractors to tell them of changes coming down, and as the Minister knows, if contractors are not certain about what the requirements will be, problems will occur. There is, therefore, the risk of increasing costs and of non-compliance. Sadly, there is also the risk of cowboy contractors moving in on the market and fly-tipping, which none of us wants.
I have been told about a plant protection and pharmaceutical testing firm in south-west England, which disposes of approximately 10 litres of hazardous chemicals every six months at a cost of £80 plus transport costs. It relies entirely on the contractor to deal with the relevant paperwork. It files the paperwork and ensures that the waste is disposed of correctly within the law. However, last month, when I received this information, the firm had not been advised by its contractor of any future problems or increased costs associated with waste disposal. We are talking about a cost of £80. We should also bear it in mind that, in the 381WH south-east of England, the only site licensed for hazardous waste as of Monday would take only asbestos, so it will not be able to take any of the product to which I have referred.
The Federation of Small Businesses reviewed a business park in Surrey. There were 35 businesses in a broad range of sectors. It considered what the impact of the changes would be, talking with the facility manager and the waste contractor. The former did not know of the changes, and the latter was not able to help either. It was therefore not possible to do the costings, but when a small business is putting in a bid, it has to know what things will cost. There is a problem with lack of facilities in the south-east and in other places, such as Wales, but major problems will also arise from sheer lack of information.
Because contractors have not been able to tell businesses what changes there will be—they have not had the specifications—they have not been able to advise them, as they have traditionally done. Businesses need to be able to plan. If they are to meet these requirements, they need to know what they are. They have got to be able to work with contractors and trade organisations, and they must look at opportunities for co-operative working to drive down costs—and rightly so. Yet when back in April I asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many of the 100.000 special waste producers and the 750,000 future hazardous waste producers the Department had contacted to inform them of the hazardous waste requirements of the landfill directive, the Department of Trade and Industry said that the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs leads on hazardous waste and the landfill directive. It said, however, that the DTI was investing in the development of a communications strategy to raise awareness of these issues among businesses through a variety of mechanisms and media.
By the week of 19 April, therefore, business still did not know sufficiently what was required of it. With respect, that is not good enough, because business must plan. Such directives have long lead-in times, and businesses cannot suddenly get together in co-operation to dispose of waste paint, litres of chemicals, fluorescent tubes and computer monitors; that takes time and planning. Small businesses may not have the capacity for storage that would be required if they were to bulk up materials for disposal somewhere in the north of England, for example.
What discussions has the Minister had with his colleagues in the Department of Trade Industry to understand the impact of the landfill directive on small business? Has he taken a view on the need to communicate the changes to business, and has he had any information from his DTI colleagues? Does he understand why small businesses are different from large businesses and need strong messages? Will he work with the DTI on a rapid roll-out of information and awareness-raising programmes specifically for small businesses? It is a question not only of whether we are going to tell them anything, but of what we are going to tell them.
The European waste catalogue defines hazardous substances, but new substances are being added all the time. Every time a new substance is added, people who 382WH use and dispose of the substance need to be told of their responsibilities. Does the Minister have any plans for a strong media programme to explain to businesses their responsibilities and how to conform? We are finding that they do not know enough about the directive. In a survey by the Federation of Small Businesses, 41 per cent. of businesses said that if they knew how to meet environmental objectives, they would try to do so. It is not the case that business does not want to know—it does.
Business wants to use a range of remedies. Businesses are not saying that they are going to continue using a product, and what the hell, if costs go up. The purpose of the directive is to encourage the use of safer substances. It encourages the phasing out of the most damaging products. It aims to avoid ticking time bombs with hazardous waste going into landfill, and some of the problems that developers are now facing because they have built on top of landfill. All sorts of damaging products and their associated risks are coming to the surface. It is quite right that we are implementing this directive, but business cannot plan for and phase out the use of the worst of these substances without clear information.
Anybody who regularly debates the environment knows that we often come back to the problem that businesses use a lot of batteries, for example. There are also salts and solutions, heavy metals and waste paint. The number of small painting and decorating businesses that use those products and that will have to find appropriate disposal facilities is enormous. There will be a huge problem of cost. If I get in the painters, they may say to me, "Next week we will cost more, because we have to pay more for the disposal of paint." However, if it is to cost them 100 per cent. more because of the increasing gate fees, which I shall come on to, and the excessive travel to dispose of paints, I as a consumer have a right to say, "Hang about, this is a bit sudden. That was not in the quote you gave me two months ago, before you were free to get on with my job." Certainty in business is important.
Hazardous waste producers will be required to register what they are doing, and 1.5 million businesses will come into the hazardous waste regime. At present, we do not know whether there will be a de minimis for registration. There is a question as to whether minimal and sporadic waste producers—a hypothetical case is those who dispose of monitors once every five years—need to conform to the requirements. If they do—I am not saying that they should or should not—what will we do to support such businesses through an incredibly difficult time?
Businesses want to comply, but the arrangements are vague and cripplingly expensive. My purpose is to express their concerns. I have no difficulty with the Government's supporting the environmental objectives of the directive, but we have the problem of too little, too late. There are risks, for example, that cowboy contractors will mix waste oils with sawdust and then just shove them into a landfill site somewhere. No one wants that to happen.
Yesterday, I attended the conference of the all-party group on sustainable waste. In fact, I was chairing the session just before the Minister kindly joined us. The representative of the Chartered Institution of Wastes Management, of which I am an honorary fellow, 383WH pointed out how much the costs will increase. The waste industry wants to be respectable, dispose of waste in the right way and drive out the cowboys. It does not want unsustainable discounts put into the costs of waste management, but it is concerned that the gate fees are bound to go up because of the limited number of sites. It is also a fact of life that there is extra cost in pretreatment.
As far as the waste management business is concerned, the directive may present good opportunities, and there is nothing wrong with their taking such opportunities. The problem is with people at the beginning of the spout, the businesses that produce the material. Their costs will escalate rapidly, and that is a considerable concern.
I would like to hear from the Minister not only his reaction to what may be an increasing problem for small businesses, which are very important, but how he will be much more proactive with the DTI on the issue and—I am sorry to return to this—how lessons learned from earlier failures will be applied. There have been problems in the past. It is considered below the belt to mention fridges, but let us not forget that tyres were also a big problem. We have had since 1999 to get our act together. The issue is not new or something that suddenly came along—whoops, we did not know. Everybody except small business has known about it, yet there will be problems.
The next time a directive comes around, will we start by engaging business, particularly small businesses, from the very beginning, and ensuring that we understand the cost implications and how the process will be managed? Without that, we cannot go forward. We may have to go through product by product, depending on the likely damage and the impact of any de minimis regulations that say that one product can be allowed but not another.
I look forward to the Minister's response. I hope that he has some good news for small businesses and at least recognises their innocence in this situation. They want to comply, but their compliance must be at a price that they can afford.
§ The Minister for the Environment and Agri-environment (Mr. Elliot Morley)This is a very important issue, and one that the Government take seriously. As the hon. Lady knows from the discussion yesterday in the all-party group on sustainable waste, the directive offers important benefits. I welcomed the opportunity to address that conference, and I thought it was useful in bringing together many of the key players in the waste sector. Indeed, that is part of raising awareness about the changes and what is happening.
There has been a great deal of debate on the issue since 1999, as the hon. Lady rightly states. All the regulations on landfill have now been published, and it is true that there will be a consultation on hazardous waste regulations over the summer Of course, the hazardous waste forum has been held, which involves representatives of all sectors, including the Federation of Small Businesses.
It is quite remarkable that the FSB today put out a press release that appears to say that it has no role in the situation that we are discussing. The FSB is actually 384WH involved in a forum discussing the details, and one reason for that involvement is precisely so that it and other such organisations can give information back to their members as part of the communication strategy. Yet the FSB seems to think that it has no role whatever in these issues. Although the FSB often goes on about too much government, it appears that, for the FSB, any kind of change involves hand-holding with the industry sectors that it represents.
Having said that, of course there is a role for central Government in terms of communication, and we take that seriously. I might just point out a mistake in the FSB press release. It claims that there are no waste sites in the south-east, but that is not true: there is availability there.
§ Sue DoughtyI hope that the Minister is right, because it is my understanding that the site in the south-east will take only asbestos. If he has good news about a wider range of hazardous wastes, I will be delighted to hear it.
§ Mr. MorleyI will certainly give the hon. Lady that information. There is more than one site in the south-east, as a matter of fact. It may well be that there is one that takes just asbestos, but there are others, too, and I will give her more information on that.
There has been enormous discussion of the issue. There has been a lot of press and TV coverage, and I did something on the subject on the BBC over the weekend. It is not as if the matter is not in the public domain. In fact, we know that businesses are taking note, because as the hon. Lady will have heard at the conference, there has been a 45 per cent. increase in disposal of hazardous waste. That is because companies know that the regulations are being introduced in July, so they have been advancing some of their arisings before the regulations come in. There is plenty of evidence that people are well aware of what is going on.
It is true that there are very small businesses that may produce very small quantities of materials that are regarded as hazardous waste—painters are certainly a case in point—but most small businesses get rid of their waste through commercial contractors or local authorities, both of which are well aware of what is going on. In relation to amenity sites, many local authorities have facilities for paint, batteries and asbestos, which they collect. They can collect small quantities until they have gathered a lorryload of material that it is economical to dispose of, and they provide that service for small companies. None of that will change. We do not want to overestimate the potential change. Incidentally, there will be no de minimis. We should be clear about that.
§ Sue DoughtyWith local authorities taking trade waste and, as the Minister said, bulking it up before onward disposal, there will still surely be rising costs. Where is the cost likely to fall?
§ Mr. MorleyIt is likely that there will be an increased cost, and it will vary according to circumstances. I repeat the point that the hon. Lady heard me make yesterday: the costs of disposal in this country for a range of waste, including hazardous waste, has been the lowest in Europe. The reason for that is that people have 385WH benefited for a long time from cheap, unsustainable landfill. The true costs of the environmental impact have not been borne by various sectors. That is going to change: there are no two ways about it. It is appropriate that the costs reflect the environmental impact and the costs of proper treatment and disposal by professional companies. People will have to accept that change, which is fair and equitable in terms of the environmental impact of waste handling. The increased cost is also an inducement for a range of companies to think about the waste that they produce and consider minimising, reusing and recycling it.
Yesterday, we heard from some companies that are gearing up and investing in many ways to provide reuse and recycling services. I talked to a few of their representatives afterwards. Perhaps in future various streams of waste, which are currently considered waste streams to get rid of, might have value because they can be reused and marketed. We want to encourage that, and we are putting money into bodies like the Waste and Resources Action Programme to support research and development, and into small and medium-sized enterprises to help develop the growing sector of environmental industries. That is good for the economy, the country and the environment. Part of the approach is for companies to bear the proper costs of the environmental disposal of waste, and we should not be too apologetic about that.
There is always a risk that when costs relate to disposal, there is a temptation for the cowboy element. We understand that, which is why we are talking to the Environment Agency about the work that it is doing to combat fly-tipping and crack down on illegal activity, which we take seriously. It has been doing a good job and has introduced specific campaigns in hot spots, which has been impressive. I should like to see more such action and I will be talking to it about what can be done.
§ Sue DoughtyIn the Minister's discussions with the Environment Agency, what representations has he had from it about this problem and about an increase in the risk of fly-tipping as of next Monday, because of the current shortage of capacity in the regions where waste is being produced? Will it need more resources? Are the resources adequate to deal with fly-tipping? What publicity is available to make it clear that fly-tipping is a crime and must not happen?
§ Mr. MorleyI will come to that point in a moment, and I will go through all the actions that have been taken on publicity.
Of course, I talk with the Environment Agency about issues such as resources. However, although we are not complacent about fly-tipping, we do not assume that there will be a large increase in the fly-tipping of hazardous waste post-16 July. The bulk of hazardous waste has always been contaminated soil. We know that developers understand the regulations and know about that. A lot of hazardous waste has always travelled to specialist sites, and there is nothing new about that. There will probably be a reduction in the number of sites, which will mean that waste will have to go to fewer sites. In many cases, however, there will be no change. 386WH For example, a lot of hazardous waste in Scotland has always been transported over considerable distances, so there will be no change. I am keen to see as good a geographical spread of site facilities as possible. We are beginning to see that happening, and we will certainly see it over the next 12 months.
The changes on 16 July will not automatically lead to an increase in fly-tipping, but we must not be complacent. The current level of fly-tipping is not acceptable and we need to take action on it. The Environment Agency is taking action. It has been assisted by the new "Flycatcher" initiative, about which the hon. Lady may have heard yesterday, and targeted enforcement exercises, such as those I mentioned to her, which have been successful. Letters have been sent to all hazardous waste producers, waste managers and local authorities. All categories have received individual letters to alert them to their responsibilities and their duty of care. New powers, including stop and search, have been given to local authorities to help combat fly-tipping. There are permit arrangements for the transportation of hazardous waste. The responsibility is not only on the transporter: under the duty of care, it goes back to the people who have produced the waste. If they do not ensure that it is properly disposed of with transport and proper permits, they are liable.
§ Sue DoughtyGiven that the new regulations will require more producers to register so that 1.5 million businesses will be drawn into the arrangement, does the Minister mean that letters have been sent to existing hazardous waste producers or to all the 1.5 million businesses?
§ Mr. MorleyLetters have certainly not been sent to 1.5 million businesses because, as the hon. Lady rightly says, some of the businesses are small. They have gone to the main producers of hazardous waste. However, there is information for everyone. I shall run through the type of work that is being done.
A communications manager has been appointed so that there is a full-time person working on getting over the message to stakeholders. A communications programme has been put in place. It co-ordinates the communications activities of the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, the Environment Agency and Envirowise. Activities include a new web portal, www.hazardouswaste.org.uk, specific leaflets aimed at all producers of hazardous waste, press releases, mailings to trade associations either as inserts or by email, articles in the trade and regional press, attendance at exhibitions and conferences with speakers and displays, and surveys. In addition, guidance has been issued by the Environment Agency to appropriate parties.
More work is being done in relation to dedicated communications mangers. To answer the hon. Lady's question, the co-ordinated communications strategy has been set up with the DTI, part of which is to set up a communications network throughout the country with active participation by industry and relevant trade associations. The website will reinforce that. The hazardous waste forum, which includes the Federation of Small Businesses, has been kept informed at every 387WH stage of development, which allows it to communicate such matters to its members, which I assume it has been doing.
§ Sue DoughtyThe Federation of Small Businesses, which was actively involved in the waste forum, has made recommendations that dissemination should be made through small firms, waste contractors and local authorities. Although it could do so much, it believed that not only it should make such an outreach. Not every small business is a member of the FSB.
§ Mr. MorleyI absolutely accept that. I am not for a moment suggesting that the responsibility should fall entirely on the shoulders of the Federation of Small Businesses. All I am saying is that it is part of the network of information dissemination. To pretend that it is outside the loop and that it has not received the information would be misleading. I am not accusing the federation of doing that; I merely want to emphasise that it is part of a framework of communication that is sophisticated and comprehensive.
We shall do more in the future and ensure that the message gets across so that people understand their responsibilities and how new regulations will impact on them.
§ Sitting suspended until Two o'clock.